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 - Pragma

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 25, 2019, 05:21:23 PM »
On the matter of how impactful this incursion will be, I think simple, just look to the heat this wave brings to France tomorrow.  42C / 107.6F with their own model.

I'm more interested in the potential temperature at 1000mb.  But with records falling every day everywhere around the world, you guessed right.

This is making fools of us.

I haven't got a clue as to what it is you are trying to say.

Anyone speak gibberish?
It isn't gibberish, you are the stupid one. The heat over France is bound for the Arctic by way of the record setting block now forming over Scandinavia. Models show it lifting into the ATL front and Greenland and merging with the existing Arctic block which is now getting underway.

"you guessed right" - Who guessed right and about what?

How is this weather event making fools of us?

If this post is referring to previous posts, it is customary to include quoted text so a reader can have some context and not have to go on a hunt through the thread.

And just to be very clear, I haven't insulted anyone. I highlighted a post that made very little sense to me, and still doesn't.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 25, 2019, 04:37:42 AM »
On the matter of how impactful this incursion will be, I think simple, just look to the heat this wave brings to France tomorrow.  42C / 107.6F with their own model.

I'm more interested in the potential temperature at 1000mb.  But with records falling every day everywhere around the world, you guessed right.

This is making fools of us.

I haven't got a clue as to what it is you are trying to say.

Anyone speak gibberish?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 24, 2019, 01:45:06 AM »
A month or so ago, somewhere on the ASIF, I speculated that Nares Strait being open all winter (except for 1 month with a mostly resilient arch in the Lincoln Sea) would cause less rafting of floes in that sector of the Arctic (than is typical), as ice pushed towards this part of North America 'moved along' instead of 'piled up', so that mechanically derived multi-meter-thick ice would be relatively scarce.  Elsewhere, such as north of the central or western parts of the CAA, floes would have piled up more or less as usual.

I remember that, and it appears that your prediction is holding true. The question is, what happens if/when we get a good blow? Will the Nares carry the ice through, or will it pile up?

Secondly, although your theory seems valid, how does one separate Nares export from the general destruction of the ice in that area?

I ask this, because separating different influences and effects is an ongoing problem that is difficult, if not unsolvable.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 22, 2019, 11:10:51 PM »
It will certainly be an interesting learning experience to observe rapid in situ melt with mild air temps.

The cool thing about being new to this is learning a lot.

It's not just the air temperature, but the heat capacity of the air and the movement.

In still air, a boundary layer forms which is the same temperature as the ice, and no heat transfer happens.

If there is air movement, the boundary layer is stripped off and the new, warmer air will transfer it's heat to the ice.

The humidity will also greatly affect the heat capacity of the air.

So, an 8 deg dry atmosphere with no wind will melt far less ice than a 3 deg 30% RH air mass moving at 20 km/hr.

Thirdly, the higher the dew point, the more energy there is to be released in the form of condensation.

Temperature is just a part of the equation.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: July 19, 2019, 08:04:10 PM »
Any idea what is going on (or what is not going on) at the Global Monitoring Division at Mauna Loa? Only two out of the seven last days showed measurement results!

The website

Has been flaky, on and off for some time. There was an outage for about a week due to a bad fan, some months ago, but since then it appears to be a bookkeeping/updating problem.

The site I referenced shows a contiguous dataset, but does not include the daily averages for some reason.

Things tend to get filled in after a while.

Budget cuts?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 19, 2019, 05:23:54 PM »

As had been said many times, this is a data thread, not a discussion thread.

Dissertations do not belong here; they are clutter and just lower the signal to noise ratio.

Please move any discussion of the data to the melting season thread, (or whatever is current at the time).

Thanks for your cooperation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 17, 2019, 05:35:47 PM »
Thanks Pragma. I just recalled that the tool is based on extent, not area. But ice concentration images can be found on UH, Uni Bremen, and NSIDC websites somewhere, should Rich decide to make the research to find what changed.

No worries, I just assumed that is the one you meant. I'd like to see concentration comparison but I'm not sure how you'd do it. Perhaps a subtraction with < and > in intensity? i.e. pale to dark in red and blue?

For now, I just bring up 2 instances of Charctic, and do a visual compare.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 17, 2019, 05:20:30 PM »
But in addition, somewhere on the NSIDC website there is the comparison tool that lets you see each day's ice concentration map, and you can compare to yesterday or to 5 days before. Someone surely has the link.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 17, 2019, 03:40:44 AM »

I agree. With the usual disclaimer that anything can happen, I think that 2019 is less robust overall and compaction of 1st year ice does not make for a healthy CA.

The older ice is on the Canadian side as expected, but unlike 2012 and 2016, it is highly biased towards the Atlantic, and most of it is primed for export, with the right wind conditions.

Also, I found it curious just how little 1-2 year (blue) ice there was, and most if it will be gone before the end of the melt season.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 15, 2019, 08:31:17 PM »
Plus, because we stopped measuring, the bees are doing just fine and can handle all the toxic pesticides we can throw at them.

Did you notice that the bee research cancellation coincided with an "emergency" exemption to using a pesticide that was harmful to bees?

Although relevant,  that's just an aside. I came to this thread because I just had some insight into the whole wealth thing, especially concentrated wealth, and I think there is some misunderstanding.

People that are wealthy beyond avarice have limited ways to get a sense of acheivement. They don't get to save up for a fancy night out, or a trip to Ibiza. They don't get to buy out-of-season avocados as a treat. They have disadvantages that the rest of us don't.

They are, simply put, bored. So, they play Jenga.

However, they play Jenga in a way that befits their power, wealth and status. No plebeian alder blocks for them, no sir! They play with the real building blocks of our ecosystem.

For those not familiar with Jenga, here are the basics:

Players take turns removing one block at a time from a tower constructed of 54 blocks. Each block removed is then placed on top of the tower, creating a progressively taller and more unstable structure. The game ends when the tower falls, or if any piece falls from the tower other than the piece being knocked out to move to the top. The winner is the last person to successfully remove and place a block.

So, when the Koch brothers pay millions to deny global warming, they are not evil, they just don't want anyone to interrupt their game.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 15, 2019, 05:30:17 PM »
Albedo Warming Potential

The theoretical amount of heat that the arctic ocean can absorb, based on the latitude, time of year and ratio of ice to open water.

it does not factor in cloud cover.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 15, 2019, 01:12:50 AM »
I don't want to see too much discussion of BOE and its implications. I'm happy no one announced a BOE this year.

Is there a thread where BOE and its implications is covered?  :-X,2800.0.html

The clue is in the etymology: con+vection = with+movement. The molecules travel with the heat and vice versa.  This is also why a fan oven is called a convection oven.

Thanks Peter,

I thought of a convection oven and then realized it had a fan. A bit of Googling tells me that "Forced Convection" is indeed a thing.

It's all in the common usage. I have a forced air heating system and if I ask a serviceman to come have a look at my forced convection heater he would ask what planet I was from. :). Convection furnaces, as they were called, used to exist. They sat in the basement and key rooms in the house had gratings in the floor, with no piping. Forced air furnaces replaced them.

My definition and perception was far too limited, but I still think "Forced Convection" sounds a lot like "all natural synthetics".


The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 14, 2019, 09:29:40 PM »

But isn't homo sapiens supposed to be the conscious animal? Isn't it possible that we collectively become conscious of this and break through the vicious cycle, if only on the materialistic level?

Many animals are conscious, some perhaps more than us. We are the clever ape, not the wise ape and cleverness without true wisdom has gotten us where we are.

Something drastic happened about 300k years ago and we experienced a rapid evolution. We became aware of our own mortality and we have been scared shitless ever since. I'm not even sure it is death per se, but the future in general. The future is one big unknown and we are afraid of the unknown. Hence, we create all sorts of devices to compensate and we try to convince ourselves we are in control. We create everything from locks, to insurance, to heaven itself to tell the story that we are safe and secure.

I haven't followed Gumbercules enough to comment, but what you describe doesn't seem out of line. It also meshes with the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter.

I appreciate your distinction about wealth but I'm on the fence as to whether it is true. I don't know of any other animal that hoards to such an absurd level, but I think it is just one very visible example of all kinds of compensations. What differs with our hoarding is that it represents power. One can then show preferential treatment to their preferred group. It has been said that the definition of civilization is when they start to lock up the food.

I think the human being is maladaptive. I don't know if it's an intrinsic condition or we have acquired it, but at this point it is moot. Nowhere is this more evident than someone insisting on preserving the economy at the expense of the planet. The fact that politicians get together regularly, with the intention of negotiating with physics just blows my mind.

As you have said, WASF.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 14, 2019, 08:03:03 PM »
<snip> Obama wasn't 'left', just as Trump isn't 'right'. They serve one master only: concentrated wealth.

Absolutely correct! Every time I see the dog and pony show called the US Election, I am amazed at the trained seals, waving their signs as if there is a difference, as if they have a choice.

This is a narrative that has been created and carefully maintained. It is essential to sustaining the status quo. I could go on, but no one says it better than this:

Jonathan Pie is clever, but Carlin is genius, and that's not a word I throw around. Instead of the Pledge of Allegiance, this should be played every morning in schools, but the owners wouldn't allow it. If people really understood what Carlin was saying, there would be blood in the streets.

*edit* minor typo

Well I'm not too sure. <snip>

Quote from: Wikipedia
Heat is transferred by convection in numerous examples of naturally occurring fluid flow, such as wind, oceanic currents, and movements within the Earth's mantle.
So the author of the entry seems to agree with me, that wind and oceanic currents are examples of convection.

I see your point. Some parts of the article do exactly that.

I read the article several times, and the more I read it, the less clear it became. It could be this and it could be that but generally this means this and not that, etc, etc.

Part of the problem, IMHO is that it is poorly written. I am now thinking of one of my profs that would savage this Wiki entry.

For example it starts off:

"Convection is the heat transfer due to the bulk movement of ...."

and then two paragraph later it says:

"Thermal convection can be demonstrated..."

As opposed to what other kind of convection?

And then there is this little gem:

"Sometimes the term "convection" is used to refer specifically to "free heat convection" (natural heat convection) where bulk-flow in a fluid is due to temperature-induced differences in buoyancy, as opposed to "forced heat convection" where forces other than buoyancy (such as pump or fan) move the fluid. However, in mechanics, the correct use of the word "convection" is the more general sense, and different types of convection should be further qualified, for clarity."

I'm not sure of what context he is using the term "mechanics" but personally, I would never use a pump or fan as an example of convection. That is like saying if you put a Canada Goose in a box and ship him somewhere via an airplane, he is migrating.

I don't think I am being picky here. When one is trying to learn, this sort of vague discussion, filled with ambiguity and redundancy is a student's nightmare.

I found this from Machine Design:


When a fluid, such as air or a liquid, is heated and then travels away from the source, it carries the thermal energy along. This type of heat transfer is called convection. The fluid above a hot surface expands, becomes less dense, and rises.

At the molecular level, the molecules expand upon introduction of thermal energy. As temperature of the given fluid mass increases, the volume of the fluid must increase by same factor. This effect on the fluid causes displacement. As the immediate hot air rises, it pushes denser, colder air down. This series of events represents how convection currents are formed. The equation for convection rates is calculated as follows:

Q = hc ∙ A ∙ (Ts – Tf)

where Q = heat transferred per unit time; hc = convective heat transfer coefficient; A = heat-transfer area of the surface; Ts = temperature of the surface; and Tf = temperature of the fluid.

A space heater is a classic convection example. As the space heater heats the air surrounding it near the floor, the air will increase in temperature, expand, and rise to the top of the room. This forces down the cooler air so that it becomes heated, thus creating a convection current.

It very much aligns with what I was taught, but I don't want to get involved with duelling quotes or be accused of cherry picking.

Is there a thermodynamicist in the house?  :D

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 14, 2019, 06:22:15 PM »
With no disrespect intended toward any scientists involved, I think the IPCC is flawed and intentionally so. As I have said before, it is primarily a political document, constrained by consensus. I'm not sure we can exclude limited scope as a possibility. They continue to ignore reality, i.e. empiricism, because reality has yet to be peer reviewed.

Also, as I understand it, they specifically have not mentioned feedbacks in their reports. The rationale, such as it is, is that the feedbacks can not be adequately characterized, so they are eliminated. One can debate the merits of that approach, but a large gap exists, nonetheless.

This thread contains a wide variety of views, some scientific, some emotional, but deviating from the IPCC is far from blasphemy IMHO. 

The politics / Re: The problem of social media
« on: July 14, 2019, 05:56:53 PM »
Boycot corporate media now, never watch it again:

Posted on Youtube no less. Oh, the irony, and how telling that Youtube controls so much.

I don't watch corpororate media now, but mainly because it is so appalling. While I agree generally they should be boycotted, there is more than one way to do it.

For an interminable week, I had to use a computer that had no ad blocker or script controller and the internet was unusable.

I had no idea it was so bad. I also have no idea how people put up with it.

With the appropriate tools, I pick and choose what I watch and provide no direct revenue to them. I probably give them some metadata, but they have to work for it.

At the same time, combined with blogs and websites as pointers, I have access to a huge amount of information for free. I can then directly support the channels I find worthwhile and avoid Patreon whenever possible.

Another valuable, and painless, change is to drop Chrome etc, and move to open source, like Firefox.

This all happens while Alphabet has the significant burden of infrastructure.

I do not engage in any social media of any kind and I make no apologies to anyone. I have been expecting it to become "uncool" and collapse, but no luck so far.

Boycotting is good, but killing them by parasitism can work and is quite fitting as well.  :)


Thermal convection can work very quickly, i.e. when the water moves and mixes. But that requires kinetic energy. Vertical convection creates it's own kinetic energy (basically through gravity and density differences) but lateral convection doesn't. I.e. the heat does not convect from side to side without any external influences.

I think you need to tighten up your terminology here.

AFAIK, by definition, convection is a function of gravity, (you said it yourself) so lateral i.e. 90 degrees from the direction of gravity, convection does not exist.

Any side to side transfer of heat would be a function of radiation, conduction, currents or mixing.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: July 13, 2019, 10:00:24 PM »

I think you have produced a pretty complete laundry list. One could add on knock-on effects like crop loss, but that could go on forever, and we don't even fully understand the current climate situation, let alone what we may be facing.

In your paper, I do have a minor quibble about IPCC carbon budgets, in that any that are based in some kind of reality all involve negative carbon. So, to me the issue is moot, although I think the entire IPCC is moot.

I've been thinking about this lately, along with many other here, I'm sure. Relatively speaking, it's imminent.

As has been said, a BOE is not a magic event and the significance will vary as it happens earlier and earlier in the season. That said, I think it is already happening but we haven't changed things that much, yet. (let me explain  :) )

Although we have reduced volume significantly, we have not reduced area anywhere near as much. We are not nearly as far along as some would assume, but area will catch up very quickly IMHO.

So, what we are seeing in terms of jet stream incoherence and other effects is just a taste of what is to come.

As usual, it all comes down to how soon will it happen and how fast we will see the effects?

Everything seems to be "sooner than expected" and "faster than expected".

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 13, 2019, 09:01:56 PM »
Sure, his ex-wife sais so and he sais so, so let's just believe the pathologic liar.

You have sloppily, or dishonestly, conflated two different statements, but regardless, I wouldn't consider a jilted ex-trophy wife as the gold standard for credibility, particularly when there is zero corroboration. She would, however, probably be an excellent source for muckraking and innuendo and if her story fits into your narrative, then go ahead. The fact that she married Trump in the first place should be a red flag, but maybe that's just me.

Pragma, you're gaslighting me is trying as fuck.

I think you are using the term "gaslighting" incorrectly. Gaslighting is when someone is manipulated into questioning reality.

From where I sit, it looks like you just don't like it when someone challenges your authority or position. You can call it whatever you like, but where I come from, we refer to it as "calling bullshit".

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I refuted your assertions, with research. You accused me of putting words in your mouth. I responded by quoting your very words. Every time I reply, you don't address it, you move the goalposts.

If you don't like someone calling bullshit on what you say, the solution is trivial; don't post bullshit.

If you are getting upset at someone disagreeing with your position, I suggest you reconsider posting on a forum.

If you are annoyed because you feel your opinions and assertions are above reproach and you shouldn't have to defend them, that speaks of a much bigger issue.

The rest / Re: Archaeology/Paleontology news
« on: July 13, 2019, 08:24:15 PM »
As a curious young teenager I read Von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. It all made perfect sense, until I learned to think more scientifically and realized it was a steaming pile of BS.
I don't think pseudo-science has any value on this forum.

I am embarrassed to say I did the same thing. :-[
Critical thinking is both an art and a science that needs to be learned, and practiced daily. Our monkey brains need to be on a short leash.

That said, I will at least consider just about anything, but I will not entertain any discussion about a flat earth or perpetual motion. Curiously, both are on the rise. This tells me we are truly eff'ed

Gumbercules, I'll look up those two...I enjoy a little pseudoscience once in awhile.

Well, if you're looking for crackpottery, for free no less, try:

Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon
by Don Wilson.

Spoiler alert: 'cuz aliens

The politics / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: July 13, 2019, 07:59:40 PM »
You think YOU have it bad? I am in Israel. Politics here are the most rotten thing ever, and voters insist on voting for the vilest options.

In a rather tragic way, you have made me feel better. A saying comes to mind:

"I used to complain about my shoes until I met a man with no feet"

I am not shy about my opinions, but I avoid that topic because I don't think there is any point. I do follow it, and all I can do is shake my head in disbelief, and sincerely wish you the best of luck.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 13, 2019, 05:58:24 PM »

..., there was another "expert" a while back predicting 2016 plus/minus 3 years.

Do you remember what that was from?  I thought it was 2018 ±3 years.  I've been looking but haven't been able to find it and thought it would be interesting to read it again during this time.

I believe that this might be what you are looking for:

but perhaps you should confirm it with the "expert" icefree.  ::)

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: July 13, 2019, 05:47:46 PM »
A couple of observations, as others may have mentioned.

The rapid development of the storm/hurricane and the stalling, potentially drenching areas for days, is very reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey. Are we seeing the start of a trend?

According the the NOAA/NHC site, the path of maximum rainfall seems to be using the Mississippi river as a roadmap all the way up to Tennessee. This can not be a good sign. It will be putting the maximum amount of rainfall into the river with minimum delay or absorption.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 13, 2019, 12:27:06 AM »
Hmm. I am thinking you have a point and the language needs to be tightened up: Does Arctic Ocean include the surrounding seas?

Also is "will maintain a sea-ice cover throughout summer for most years" being used as just the opposite of "an ice-free Arctic during summer" and hence former includes partial coverage during summer or is partial coverage a separate category that isn't discussed and hence excluded from 'maintaining cover throughout summer for most years' category?

If a 3 category interpretation, then what is written seems wrong, or if seas are excluded, highly likely to be wrong before 1.5C is reached.

Just like caveats about the limitations of various measurement methods, we need to remind ourselves of the fact that IPPC documents are essentially political statements.

After the scientists have had their say, the politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats take over and nothing gets put into the final report unless there is consensus.

When you couple this with the fact that most reports are at least five years old, they are out of touch with reality, and I would say for some, intentionally so.

The result is an anodyne word salad that should be taken with a large grain of salt.

It will be, however, a good document for whatever generations come after us, about how we said a great deal and accomplished little.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:51:40 PM »
Quote from: b_lumenkraft link
Don't put words in my mouth, Pragma.

I don't need to:

Also remember, Donald Trump is a Hitler fan.


Not only were we unable to locate an original source for this quote, or evidence that Time magazine even interviewed Trump in 2002, but we see no discernible record of its existence before the meme first surfaced in April 2019. Yet it’s the kind of statement that would have been quoted ad nauseam in the press had Trump said it. No such references exist.

Nor were we able to find isolated instances of Trump praising Mein Kampf or Adolf Hitler in public statements. The cadence and grammar of the passage are Trump-like (“… but I do respect him. As a leader. Tremendous respect.”), but all indications point to it being fabricated.

A book with Nazi speeches is the only book he reads.

Now that is just silly. Reference please.

Snopes again:

Questions about what he read or didn’t read aside, we have yet to stumble upon a verifiable instance of Trump expressing respect or admiration for Adolf Hitler. What we did find is that people (including some close to him) have been insinuating that Trump has an affinity for Hitler for the better part of 30 years, which in and of itself is interesting.

"All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm"

Paul Simon, The Boxer

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:15:32 PM »
The US is escalating the concentration camps policies to the next step: Concealed concentration camps will become a thing which then become extermination camps.

This is a one to one copy of German Third Reich policies. Remember, Auschwitz is in Poland.

Also remember, Donald Trump is a Hitler fan. A book with Nazi speeches is the only book he reads. He has it on his nightstand.

Your nose is getting longer!

though we're in the time of the year of slowing losses they accelerate again on a sufficiently large scale to clearly be a paradigm shift and not just a blip?

It's a question of physics. Things don't just accelerate spontaneously, there needs to be something driving the acceleration.

What do you suggest that would be?


Many years ago, I worked with an old machinist that had a great saying:

"When you back into a chainsaw, does it really matter which tooth hits you first?"

You're going to get a little behind in your work. ::)

LOL! I knew it was only a matter of time, except I remember it as lens grinder.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 11, 2019, 06:31:09 PM »
Looking at the map, this is all way too optimistic IMHO. It still has >10% on ice in Baffin and Hudson. It sees ice near Svalbard with high confidence. IDK...
I agree. As many of us have pointed out, leaping to conclusions is dangerous.

For example, when we had the big drop yesterday, I was going to comment that Hudson was in the middle of a "poof", but forgot.

Well, it "un-poofed" today on the NSIDC extent, just to keep us on our toes. I don't know the Slater model well enough to know what all the inputs are, but things like the Hudson and it's "magic" ice have got to play hell with the statistics.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 11, 2019, 01:11:37 AM »
We have probably hit the Pinnacle of ice loss for this melt season.

you mean from now on the melt will fall behind all other years, because that would be the case if we reached the pinnacle now.

i assume that it will continue for at least another 3-4 weeks or even longer, hence i ask you, what makes you think that we reached pinnacle already.

Like the huge losses in area and extent are probably over or almost over.

Well, that certainly clears things up! ::)

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 10, 2019, 06:44:58 PM »
I think you are both missing a big piece of the puzzle.

tip: scroll down to look at the source material

What you have done is the intellectual equivalent of a drive-by.

I am well aware of the Military-Industrial complex, as I suspect B_lumencraft is. It has been a worrisome issue since Eisenhower. What are we missing?

You need to explain how your link relates to whether or not someone who voted for Trump should be allowed to discuss or explain their position on this forum.

That is what we are talking about.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 10, 2019, 04:30:40 PM »
Of all the political analyses I have seen, IMHO, this cuts to the heart of the matter.

That's not the point.

I'm opposing fascism and fascist supporting people.

This is not about political analysis, this is about fundamentals. As said above, when someone supports concentration camps, racism, anti-science, anti-regulation, etc, the analysis is worth dog shit. The motives don't matter anymore.

From your response, I have to conclude that either you did not watch it, or you did not understand it.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 10, 2019, 03:58:11 PM »
First of all, I voted for Trump. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of it, and I'd do it again in 2016, and will do it again in 2020.

Wer mit den Nazis marschiert, ist auch ein Nazi!

Nein, aber wie man in den Wald ruft, so schallt es zururck!

Of all the political analyses I have seen, IMHO, this cuts to the heart of the matter. I'm sincere when I say it is brilliant, but those that need to hear it the most will likely ignore it as the rantings of yet another "deplorable".

But either way, yeah, WASF.

Many years ago, I worked with an old machinist that had a great saying:

"When you back into a chainsaw, does it really matter which tooth hits you first?"

Shakova et al just released an update and gave more detail as well as debunked, or put into question, some of the debunking.

This is a big thermodynamics question. Is there enough energy to melt subsea permafrost and destabilize clathrates, and over what time period?

Having seen what SSTs have done in the western arctic this year, and the fact that the ESAS is so shallow is very concerning, but I don't know enough and apparently neither do the lead investigators.

There was a government talking head "scientist" on TV that did the whole "nothing to see here, folks" thing, but she was a little too glib and dismissive for my liking. She never explained why Shakova was wrong. That in itself makes me wonder if there is more to it. Sorry, but no link. I'll try to find it.

I understand that there is a build-up of warm water deep in the arctic, and I know that as the SIA drops more and more, we are putting one heck of a lot of energy into the ocean that wasn't there before.

I think that the terrestrial permafrost is a bigger concern, but I could be wrong and that would mean very bad things.

The politics / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: July 10, 2019, 05:56:17 AM »
Is there a charismatic NDP anywhere on the horizon?

During the Wilson Raybould kerfuffle the three leaders had their little press conferences with all the faux sincerity and outrage. Frankly, side by side, they all looked pathetic in their own way, and not ready for prime time. A pox on all their houses!

We have a dearth of leadership at the provincial, federal and international level and it scares the crap out of me. They are all a bunch of clowns and the situation is reminiscent of what led up to WWI. I want leadership, but right now I'd be happy with people just acting like adults.

The politics / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: July 10, 2019, 01:44:00 AM »


If "smug" was the attitude I projected let me apologize. I've found my fellow Canadians as eager to believe in the Evil Ruskies as those south of the border. We'll soon be voting and I've little doubt that the Rabid Conservatives will be back in control.
I'm embarrassed that my countrymen have such short memory spans. It was only 5 years ago that we breathed a huge sigh of relief when we swept Harper's Conservatives from power.
I'll be supporting my local Liberal MP, but the National Leadership has instigated policies, particularly foreign policies that I simply can't abide.

Ha! You think you have it bad...

I'm in Alberta

Then again, if you're in Ford country, well.. what can I say? :D


The politics / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: July 09, 2019, 11:58:35 PM »
It was enough to remind me of my own nationality, to recognize once again that America was not a safe country to live in, and to begin planning for my own return to Canada.

The memes propagated would make Goebbels blush.
Much as I agree with you, we shouldn't get too smug.

If someone is in the business of providing security (which doesn't exist IMHO), then the best way to ensure a strong budget and continued employment is to promote insecurity. Be afraid, be very afraid!! ::)

And if you can use paranoia to slip in a few choice new laws and reduce privacy, so much the better.

Many have expressed sadness or disappointment but I am a bit more resigned.

The Hegelian Dialectic is as old as the trees and it never gets stale because it works, and it will work as long as the cheese keeps voting for the rats.

*edit* typo

Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: July 09, 2019, 11:23:00 PM »
I think it's pretty much agreed that it's a racket and Elsevier is one of the worst. There are a number of user groups that consist of a data base or members that have access, and if you ask nicely, they will fetch it and/or forward it. I got a paper through a friend that was little more than a pamphlet with zero new information and it would have cost me ~$25 to find that out.

It is highway robbery, because as you say, they are selling what they get for free. When you consider what Google/Youtube downloads for free, for the hope of an ad click for microdollars, you know these bandits are making a fortune. Service charge? For a download, not a hard copy? Bullshit!

In many cases, I literally helped pay for it!!! >:(

I have heard noises that people are tired of it and things might change soon, but I won't hold my breath.

Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: July 09, 2019, 01:05:59 AM »
Thanks for the response. I would have linked to the original paper but of course it looks like it is pay-walled. Science needs to become more transparent: freely accessible papers and access to data as well. I don't know how publications make money out of that model but it is an area which needs improvement. It would create a step change in the quality of science and also force the reporting on science to up its game.  (Anyway - that's most probably enough off-topic).

Just to be clear, I wasn't complaining about you. I understand the whole paywall thing, for information we have usually already paid for.  >:( I just find so much reporting sloppy.

Maybe if the subsequent reporting was peer reviewed, they would shape up. Hmmm...that's an intriguing idea.  ;)


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 08, 2019, 05:33:25 PM »
This blows my mind that after everything that has gone on this year as well as being 7 years of warming into the future vs 2012. Seems 2012 was an absolutely exceptional event.

Only if you focus on extent and not volume.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 08, 2019, 05:33:10 AM »
Just for comparison

Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: July 08, 2019, 02:11:31 AM »
This looked wrong straight-away. Checking seems to confirm this. Looking at wikipedia (  1ppm of C02 is approx. 8Gt of CO2 (other sites have slightly different figures but doesn't make much difference).
Saying pre-industrial was 280 ppm CO2 and so increase in C02 since pre-industrial is  (410 - 280)  =130ppm which gives a figure of approx. 1040 Gt of CO2 added.  This means above quote is out by approx a factor of 3. Is this just a confusion between mass of CO2 and Carbon on it's own?  If so, where is the error introduced - is it just a typo in to above quote and it should be "pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon"?

I don't know enough in this area to comment on the process, but you raise a pet peeve of mine. Unless we refer back to actual scientific papers, it seems we are chasing moving goalposts. Even then, it can be very difficult to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

- Is it tons of carbon or tons of CO2?
- What is the baseline year for temperature increases? (deg. C or F? Arrrgh!)
- Where on the persistence curve do you select the relative power of a GHG?

And in this case, the numbers look odd but when percentages are stated, do these numbers reflect that the ocean and other processes absorb ~50% of the CO2 emitted? (NOAA)

BTW, I know I have seen numbers much much higher for ocean absorption (IIRC ~90%), which I think is confusion between CO2 and heat.

The media is doing a terrible job. Some of it I suspect is intentional, but I think most of it is sloppiness or ignorance, and often there is no way to get back to the original paper.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean salinity, temperature and waves
« on: July 07, 2019, 11:40:07 PM »
Oren, part of me wants to thank you and another part doesn't. Your post sent me to read up on this and my brain hurts.

I would like to extend the same sentiments to you  :) but I am glad I read it. There is a lot in there that is not intuitive. Thank you for the link.

So, if I understand it correctly, the IR energy is re-radiated to the atmosphere, contributing little to the water temperature and bounces between the surface and the various GHGs, with, of course, a portion making it back to space?

Unfortunately, it does not cover the issue of ice, and the heat transfer mechanism. I'm in the process of trying to figure that out.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 07, 2019, 07:21:22 PM »
Why is not one of the members here impressed by the obviously extreme downwards trend in this graph? From all the past years its obvious that there usually are no sudden upwards spikes in this data and if we are to continue the lines hypothetically into the future the result would show a massive massive loss as per this marker


If I may, I think you are asking why no one is expressing it.

I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I can only say "wow!" so many times.

IMHO, the ice is toast and has been for quite some time, so for me to be impressed, I would have to see a major and sustained uptick.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 07, 2019, 06:56:32 PM »
just a thought/question:

if all the MYI is gone and if we agree that certainly all the First-Year-Ice will be gone (<95%) that would mean we would end up with zero ice if i'm not totally mistaken, hence i don't think that all the MYI will go for good but that the littel that will remain will be 95% MYI and all the rest gone for good.

I think that there is a bit of a "gotcha" in the terminology. As long as there is ice at the end of the melting season, there will always be MYI because whatever is left becomes MYI the next year. Personally, I only think of ice 3+ years as MYI, but that's just me. So, a BOE will signal the end of MYI, but not before. (with the usual caveats about the 1M sq. km threshold)

BTW i slowly get a feeling that we could be in for very nasty surprise in about 40-50 days from now, shadowing the worst expectations based on the past 2-3 years when we dodged it.

it has been said and remains, weather is key, but it will come the day  when we shall be watching in awe at nothing (no ice) despite relatively cold weather at the end of august/early september, simply because the ever thinner ice will soon simply melt away just because it started 1m thinner than 5-10 years ago.

I think someone called this a "poof" and I agree, it will happen, just like concentration thresholds make ice "disappear".

I don't think we give enough weight to the most recent years. We focus on area or extent, which is natural, because it is just so visual. But, to me, it can be a red herring. In many terms, 2017 was a much more significant year than 2016 and yet it was ignored as an also-ran.

And then of course, there is the uncertainty of the measurements, particularly PIOMAS. I joke that we are going to end up with volume but no area, or area without volume. :)


Pages: [1] 2 3 4