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 - Archimid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 03:28:51 PM »
When we talk ice KkK focuses on area/extent, a lower-dimensional measure than volume that produces a very long term prediction. That way he can avoid the truth that the volume numbers reveal.

When we talk Hurricanes KkK focuses like a laser, on ACE, which only includes wind speed and duration. He must ignore the floods, the rapid intensification, the slower paths, and the increased destructiveness.

He must pretend that average = normal AND that ACE is the only average that matters. Lucky him for being able to do that. I guess I'm just jealous of his bliss.

2
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: October 12, 2019, 11:45:39 AM »
They created a rechargeable world

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/

Quote
The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry are awarded to John Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino “for the development of lithium-ion batteries”. Through their work, they have created the right conditions for a wireless and fossil fuel-free society, and so brought the greatest benefit to humankind..




3
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 11, 2019, 05:07:55 AM »
As we near the end of the 2019 season, global cylconic activity has been near normal.  Higher Atlantic and Indian ocean storms have been counter by lower Pacific (both eastern and western) activity.

Global cyclonic activity has not been "normal". Ask anyone in the Bahamas.

 If you mean the sum of the cyclonic winds or some other cherry, then the word you are looking for is average, not normal.

There was nothing normal about the 2 cat 5s in the Atlantic, although if the world keeps warming it will be normal.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 10:20:00 PM »
I like using both the maximum and the minimum to glimpse into the future of the ice. Attached is an animation using the intersection of the trendlines of maximum volume and volume loss from 2007 to 2019.  Date of intersection estimated by sight, but it shouldn't be off by more than 1 year.

2032 has indeed been remarkably stable.

5
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 06, 2019, 05:39:45 AM »
I imagine this is how some of the bears in here will react the first time they see Smart Summon.


6
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 03, 2019, 05:24:20 AM »

Odd, as your loast post in when will the arctic be ice-free thread stated that an ice-free condition will occur around 2031 - definitely not next decade.  The evidence that this state will be catastrophic is severly lacking.

Your fear plays tricks on you. I said it was likely to happen next decade, and I said it because to the best of my understanding the most likely date is somewhere around 2031 plus or minus some years. A BOE could happen any year now, given a low enough max volume like  2016-2017 and a strong melt season like 2012, 2016 and 2019. Thus the event of an ice-free Arctic next decade is very possible.


On the destructiveness of an ice-free arctic on the NH climate, I'm so sorry that you don't get it. It is difficult to explain the obvious to someone who doesn't want to understand the obvious.

A very dry, cold, old, central and large part of the world is undergoing an extraordinarily fast change. That change propagates to the rest of the NH. Climate Change like this happened before in the history of the earth, but never as fast (except the dinosaurs) and always followed by extinction.

A change this large, this fast, has certainly not happened in the history of human civilization, much less to a modern world with 7 billion people.
 

Quote
Fearmongering will not help the situation. 

 I am not fearmongering, because the threat is as real as it gets. I'm warning whoever would listen about the threat as best as I understand it, and I have made a considerable effort in understanding the threat.

On the other hand, you are telling people to ignore the danger. Pffft. I almost feel sorry for you when you finally realize your error.

7
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 30, 2019, 05:19:36 PM »
Quote
Archimid has a separate agenda - that of exaggerated the effects in order to promote action.

Wrong. My "agenda" is to portray the risk to the best of my understanding to promote action. It is not an exaggeration to say that we may be ice free in the North Pole in September next decade. It is downright likely. The consequences of this event ( or continuum of events that already started) will be catastrophic for the North Hemisphere and the world at large. We are just at the beginning of it and insurance is already failing.

The threat is as real as it gets. Fear is 100% warranted and expected. If you do not feel fear about this, then you do not understand the danger.

As Donald Trump clearly shows fear is one of the most powerful motivators of humans at a society level. Trump exploits xenophobia to make some Americans scared shitless of brown children to such an extent that they exert cruel and unusual punishment and violate their human rights to keep them away. They love it because it appeases fear, however fake the fear is, and Trump takes full advantage of it.

Fear of climate change is completely warranted. That fear will cause action, if properly channeled that fear will produce the correct action against the real threat. Denying the danger blunts the actual fear that we should have, blunting action.

Fear of real danger is very good and a necesary response to activate human defenses.

8
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 29, 2019, 04:18:23 PM »
You are all wasting your time. KkK has shown sufficient  intellectual capacity to understand the threat we all face, thus he does not have the benefit of ignorance that we can give others. He has obviously panicked about climate change and is trying to bring other down to the pits of panic with him. Like all other deniers, he has lost contact with reality due to fear. It is really not his fault at all. It is just a function of human psychology and the magnitude and scope of climate change.

This is on topic because panicky people like KkK and Trump actively hinder logical responses to climate change making the worst consequences of climate change worse.

10
The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: September 23, 2019, 04:44:32 PM »
Everything can be perfectly predicted given enough data and processing power.

Nope. Given quantum uncertainty and the butterfly effect, predictions are doomed to fail sooner or later.

My speculation is that quantum mechanics are today's equivalent to the Ptolemaic model. The geocentric Ptolemaic model could accurate predict and describe the sky above, which was the observable universe at the time. Within its own sets of rules it was correct and extremely useful.

 Quantum mechanics are a very elaborate mathematical model that is extremely useful at making accurate predictions that are not fully understood but correct.

Our understanding of the universe is limited to our senses like sight and our perception of time. There may be a whole universe that we are missing in the same way Ptolemy couldn't see the universe we see today.

If such universe is ordered like all other physics, then QM weirdness disappears and order is restored. With it the butterfly effect disappears.

What you say is right, in theory. Real randomness occurs within our current mathematical framework. However, for the practical purposes of trying to find patterns on daily data vs monthly data there is much "noise" that is worth looking at before we get to QM, for the following reasons:

 1. The data points are limited to a few years.
 2. We don't have the time to get enough data points to make proper statistical analysis.
 3. We have a lot of well documented and well digested data for all kinds of variables that can be compared and establish patterns.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 23, 2019, 02:22:08 PM »
To me, there is no such thing as random noise. Everything can be perfectly predicted given enough data and processing power. The reality is that enough data and processing power are very often not available.

So maybe, just maybe, by keeping the "noise" of the daily data, and being aware of other variables at different time scales insight can be gained that turns noise into useful knowledge.

I like using the most granular possible element for my volume charts for this reason. The data is noisier, but the noise may reveal patterns that averaged data may hide.

However, averaged data has many important uses. The other day I was comparing ENSO and PIOMAS. Averaged data over 2 months was very useful. Daily data would have been unnecessarily noisy.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 22, 2019, 03:17:42 PM »
It seems PIOMAS reached a minimum. Here is the updates maximum vs  loses graph. The ice free prediction moves closer to 2031. Average loss updated for 2019.

13
Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: September 21, 2019, 12:25:48 AM »
Interesting posts as usual Tom.

Quote
Computers are stupid: babies know what a face is within the first few months of being alive. For a computer to know what a face is, it must learn by looking at millions of pictures of faces.

Babies are born with a brain that evolved over 500 million years. Babies come loaded with face recognition software and highly specialized hardware to process faces.  The thing about computers is that you can re use code. So once one software stack learns how to recognize faces, potentially all future AIs could be built on top of that software.

Quote
This is a demanding process. It takes place inside the data centers we call the cloud, and much of the electricity that powers the cloud is generated by burning fossil fuels

That is not necesarilly true. Energy is certainly a huge consideration when processing huge data but if they are powered by renewables, who cares?

Look at what google is doing:

https://cloud.google.com/sustainability/


As an aside, an interesting video I saw the other day:

Multi-Agent Hide and Seek

Quote
We’ve observed agents discovering progressively more complex tool use while playing a simple game of hide-and-seek. Through training in our new simulated hide-and-seek environment, agents build a series of six distinct strategies and counterstrategies, some of which we did not know our environment supported. The self-supervised emergent complexity in this simple environment further suggests that multi-agent co-adaptation may one day produce extremely complex and intelligent behavior.





14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 20, 2019, 04:37:25 PM »
if atmospheric talk of current changes with quick looks of the past and the future is off topic, might as well close the thread. 

While sark words are a bit cryptic they reflect exactly what we are seeing. Terra incognita. The unknown, the new. He follows it with actual data and animations. If it sounds scary, then you are understanding correctly. As a Daily null school checker for the last few years, his historic gifs are extremely useful for context.

Still, complaining and meta posts like this are the main pollutants of this thread this year. Real posts like killians daily predictions, freegrass and AN animations and now sark’s atmospheric posts are all on topic and real contributions.

15
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 19, 2019, 03:59:04 AM »

George Cornish, 51, Abaco’s chief councillor, said evacuating entire islands before a storm is preferable to changing the building code.
#
“From my point of view, we’ve never seen a hurricane like this in our life,” he said from the United States where he went after the storm. “I went through Hurricane Floyd that damaged docks and buildings and stuff and the damage wasn’t this. This was Category Five, maybe even a six. I don’t think the building codes needs to change. I think we have a proper building code that has stood the test of time of other hurricanes. I think they are strong but it’s just this hurricane is something we’ve never seen in our lives before. If you change the code, poor people and those in the middle class wouldn’t be able to afford to build.”

The thing is that this types of hurricane will happen more frequently, because of warmer waters an changing atmospheric patterns. This person, Mr. Cornish, who I assume to be a professional in charge of safe guarding the lives of their people is painfully unaware of it. Sadly, we are seeing these types of events more frequently and the rate and severity will keep increasing while the world warms and Earth systems change

.
Quote
Instead, Mr Cornish said massive hurricane shelters should be built in communities on all inhabited islands. Some designated shelters, like the Central Abaco Primary School, initially housed hundreds of residents before the storm but became so severely compromised that people scrambled to leave in the midst of Dorian’s passage.


Not a bad idea. For the population and size of Bahamas a "super refuge" sounds like a good idea. A properly built and well stocked building can preserve life and property. It should be built on a high place with an extremely good foundation, reinforced walls and windows and roof.

Ideally such facility should serve a purpose during the time is not used a shelter.

Also like all real security measures, the people need to be properly trained on the procedures for before, during and after the event.


16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 14, 2019, 09:49:26 PM »
I check nullchool every day, several times a day. I find these nullschool posts very insightful and  often generate insightful discussion. Aleph Null's hindcast/forecast animations are specially nice for me because I often only look at nullschool's forecast. Having the hindcast in a very quick animation right on time and often generating comments is very useful to me.

And it is right on topic. Animations of models of the current status of the melting season couldn't be more on topic.

There are advantages to linking videos instead of uploading, for example, having a broader audience, but it is more work.

This off topic. Complaints have been a common recurrence on this thread this season. Perhaps we need a "Complaints" thread where forum users can voice their dislikes and find acceptable solutions without polluting this thread?

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 14, 2019, 12:27:51 AM »
So Arctic Amplification can be ignored because it poses no threat of acceleration. The Arctic will keep warming but ice melt will not increase much more and freezing will stay about the same, for 50 years. The jetstreams will keep shape shifting into new an unusual forms increasing WAA, but that is no biggie. The oceans will keep warming. Albedo will keep decreasing not only over the Arctic Ocean, but over the hemisphere.

But the ice won't melt much faster, even the when the records are coming more frequently. During winter we'll get all the ice we need back even when peripheral oceans are showing memory.

Nah.

I'm convinced that there is a hiatus if we take a 2012 starting point. I'm also convinced that there is an accelerating trend if we take 2013 as a starting point.

This freezing season is terribly important. If we get a 2013 like recovery it means the arctic is warming slowly after the MYI phase change. If we get a 2017 like recovery or worse, we are done.  The arctic already spent cold reserves and we are heading towards collapse.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 13, 2019, 03:44:29 PM »
So a Gompertz fit for now, then “no melting since 2012”  or we can call it a hiatus or very slight melt for the next 50 years. Global warming can be safely ignored as it won’t affect the linear fit. We can bet the well being of the world that no non linearities will ocurr.


I don’t buy it.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 13, 2019, 12:10:46 AM »
The obvious is nice this day and age.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 10, 2019, 05:49:36 PM »
+1 Jim Hunt

Great talk. It's a shame if anyone misses the first 19 minutes.

I'm a bit confused by his comparison of Greenland temperatures to global temperatures(20:01), but that's a minor quibble relative to how informative this talk is. I learned a lot.

Virtual BOEs happened during the last ice age, even if there was ice above N84. Temperatures shut up significantly, the global climate abruptly changed.



21
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 10, 2019, 12:49:58 PM »
The "wondefully stupid question" was a tongue in cheek reference to the title of the thread. I made clear that I have the same question. If Tom is offended by it, then my apologies, no offense was meant.

On Ice free Arctic during the holocene, you need to read your own links, because they don't say the arctic was ice free, much less with the confidence you imply here, but I'll give you one more with more clear language:

Quote
Probably the most spectacular evidence of low-ice Arctic conditions in the early Holocene comes from Northeast Greenland (Fig. 8; Funder and Kjær, 2007; Funder et al., 2009). At this northernmost coast in the world, isostatically raised ‘staircases’ of well developed wave-generated beach ridges investigated along a total coastline stretch of several hundred kilometers document seasonally open water as far north as 83o N. Further north, ridges are short and sporadic, restricted to mouths of embayments and valleys, which suggests that permanent sea ice persisted throughout the Holocene at the northernmost stretch of the coast, near 83.5o
N.

https://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf

22
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 10, 2019, 03:48:21 AM »

Well,Archimid, that is unfortunately not true:

Gas/coal on average produce cca. 500kg-1 ton of Co2e to generate 1 MWh

So if a 1MWh battery used 2370 t of Co2e  during manufacturing, it needs to be 100% recharged with energy 2370-4740 times before the offset you mentioned starts to work. Since these are not recharged every day, you would need at the very least 20-30 years before the offset starts to work, but in reality more like 100+ years.

See:
https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-find-data-for-CO2-emissions-per-MWh-for-electricity-sources-for-example-coal-vs-nat-gas


Batteries  are very dirty actually

And you didn't even add the emissions of extracting, processing, transporting and distributing fossil fuels. You only calculated the emissions while producing power.

Fossil fuels will be our end, but we can stop using them AND have a better world. There is still time.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 10, 2019, 03:21:03 AM »
Bintho, the times and warming rates you speak of require justification, but probably not in this thread. For now I'll ignore you because your argument is OT and almost takes pages out of climate change talking points. I would need two or three posts to debunk all misunderstandings of time scales and evolution that you posted. So I yield, but only out of respect for Tom's work in this forum.

I'll try to TLDR an answer with the hope that real evidence is presented to answer Tom's question: Peripheral seas were likely seasonally ice free, the high latitudes were probably ice covered. Evidence is thin, I presented two links above.

Anyone one with better sources please chime in. I would also like the answer to this stupid question.

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 09, 2019, 11:32:22 AM »
Quote
A battery pack that can hold 1 MWh has emitted at least 2370 tonnes of CO2e in manufacturing. Consider how many 'powerwalls' and other battery storage is being constructed. It must amount to an enormous carbon footprint.

A battery pack that can hold 1MWH and is powered by solar panels will offset the emissions of fossil fuel power plants in a matter of months, specially when you take into account the emissions of extracting fuels.

Quote
Technofixes don't work I think, we have to change the way we live and overhaul our organisational systems.

We do have to change the way we live and overhaul all our organizations and we need to leverage technology to help us do that without starving people.

Quote
We use MUCH TOO MUCH ENERGY. Not sustainable imo.

We do use too much energy. What is worst is that we generate much more energy than we need because the system is extremely wasteful. Local renewable energy, including energy storage in any form reduces the waste of transmitting energy, and that is significant.

But even then, we must reduce our energy use in everything from indoor climate control, to government operations to the way we transport our goods and services to the way we manufacture batteries.

Quote
It this the by RCP8.5 required negative net emissions technology you are referring to?

No. Negative emissions in the sense that a mile km driven by an EV powered by a renewable source does not add to CO2 emissions but a mile driven by an ICE does add emissions. Thus an EV removes emissions by not being an ICE.

We are also going to need the to somehow suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, but that is OT here.

25
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 09, 2019, 11:14:58 AM »
Nanning, it is not a secret that battery manufacturing emits more CO2 than manufacturing an engine. We all know this.

 But we also know that EV's are so efficient that over the life of the vehicle the manufacturing emissions are offset by the non emissions of the vehicle even in dirty grids. In green grids the offset happens very fast and every mile after offset is net emissions reduction.

And remember this is a chicken and egg problem. The more grids are powered by renewables the lower the emissions of manufacturing the batteries.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 09, 2019, 01:00:40 AM »
Quote
but the vast majority of it comes back each winter.


But what if the ice stops coming back, like the Barents, Bering and Chukchi are suggesting?

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 08, 2019, 09:50:14 PM »
Quote
You keep making a major thing out of the difference in the rate at which a hypothetical BOE happens. I'd suspect that the faster it happens, the smaller it's actual effects (a bit like ripping that bandaid off!)

That is extreme nonsense. The faster it happens the worse the effect simply because all living species will have to adapt faster to the changes. The same with all climate change. The faster it happens the worst it is.


Now your links:

Quote
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004

We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers.162


Yes I know about this model. It makes sense to me and I hope is wrong. If it is right you are very Wrong about a BOE. However a model is not evidence.



Your second link seems to contradict you. At least the part in English. I can't read the other language.

Quote
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/35a3/d139599ff3e735a81df021ec0ba0af9a0a10.pdf

In the high Arctic (>85°N), IP25 was only present during the Holocene.

"PIP25 index values show a positive correlation with satellite-derived spring/summer sea-ice concentration."

If I'm not mistaken that means that above N84 there was ice, even during summer.

Quote
We therefore suggest that the occurrence of wave generated shores and abundant ice berg dropped boulders indicate that the Arctic Ocean was nearly free of sea ice in the summer at the time when they were formed. The beach ridges occur as isostatically raised "staircases", and C14-dated curves for relative sea level change show that they were formed in the Early Holocene.

I can go certainly believe "nearly ice free". However nearly ice free and ice free are two different things.  Ice free conditions means a large departure in surface temperature. Nearly ice free means the surface temperature is held to near the temp of the ice.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 08, 2019, 06:42:57 PM »
Really, is that the weight of the evidence? Show it. Be careful tho, the first links google throws at me are WUWT.


In the mean time, evidence for ice cover throughout the Holocene:

1. Like Today. N84 was ice covered all through the holocene.

https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/42998/

2.  Unlike 20 years ago and like today, the peripheral seas during Holocene Ice minimum were ice free during summer, but that happened over centuries, not decades.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316697626_Holocene_variability_in_sea_ice_cover_primary_production_and_Pacific-Water_inflow_and_climate_change_in_the_Chukchi_and_East_Siberian_Seas_Arctic_Ocean

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 08, 2019, 12:37:13 PM »
I hope this is what you want to see. CAB loses from the max to the end of August is lowest highest on record but by a very small amount.


30
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 06, 2019, 04:56:23 PM »
Crops under solar panels can be a win-win

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

Quote
As for the crops, there were some significant differences. As the chiltepin peppers are shade-adapted, they were considerably happier with some solar panels overhead. Growth was calculated in terms of CO2 uptake, and this was 33% higher in the combined plot. The water-use efficiency of the plants didn’t change, so they also used more soil moisture as they grew. The mass of peppers they produced, however, tripled under the solar panels.

31
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 05, 2019, 03:51:13 AM »
Quote
Using recon data & satellite center fixes, here are wind duration swaths by category for #Dorian, zoomed in on Grand Bahama and Abaco Islands.

As it stalled out, portions of the islands endured:
hurricane-force winds for over 36 hours,
cat 2 for >24 hrs,
cat 3 for 6-12 hours!

https://twitter.com/splillo/status/1169398977776803840


Very nice visualization.  Vox, thanks for posting the images of my prior posts, I would post the myself if I knew how. If you can do this one to it would be great. 

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 03, 2019, 04:25:51 PM »
let's say extent loses cease. Yay.

Where do the extra heat goes? If the sides are not melting but the sun is still shining, where all that heat goes?

33
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 03, 2019, 03:37:50 PM »
I feel sorry for the scientists that downplayed climate change. As we can start witnessing, when confronted with their crimes, climate change deniers will blame conservative scientists that predicted harm for 2100. Even if the deniers have been trying to convince us for years that things wouldn't get worse and the scientist have been warning us using disclaimers about the risks, the deniers will deny their crime, with a straight face and indignation.

The  fact that honorable scientists will admit to their error, because they are good people, will make it easier for the deniers to shift the blame.

Soon they will start claiming they were warning us all along. It is just the coward's way.

34
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 03, 2019, 02:57:44 PM »
Quote
Grand Bahama Island:

On the left a satellite image taken on Monday at 11:44aET

On the right an image from Google Maps of the same regions of Grand Bahama Island prior to #HurricaneDorian

Hard to imagine the scale of destruction.

#Dorian #hurricane Via
@ArtemisChats
https://twitter.com/Alex_Verbeek/status/1168863576406331393/photo/1

35
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 03, 2019, 02:49:01 PM »
A giant stationary tornado under 10 feet of water.

36
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 03, 2019, 02:24:30 PM »
Quote
Here is the total duration any given location has spent inside the radius of maximum wind, so far.

Portions of Grand Bahama are around 10 to 15 hours. Approaching 20 hours just offshore. And #Dorian continues to sit stationary.

https://twitter.com/splillo/status/1168730576398028803/photo/1

37
The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: September 03, 2019, 03:46:35 AM »
Honest Government Ad


38
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 02, 2019, 11:06:05 PM »
Judging by that link this is an almost annual occurrence since around the 2000's. Before that it was rare but not unheard of.

39
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 02, 2019, 04:23:53 PM »
Minister of Agriculture and Marco City MP Michael Pintard, who lives on Grand Bahama, showing some utterly frightening footage of his home during the passage of Hurricane Dorian.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TravisCC/status/1168522003009220608

40
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 02, 2019, 03:13:30 PM »
@WCKitchen has kitchens ready to go and shelters mapped out. If kitchens are destroyed, we build one and cook in big paella pans!

https://mobile.twitter.com/chefjoseandres/status/1168204488710205442

41
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 02, 2019, 02:49:27 PM »
Quote
A British Royal Navy auxiliary ship is set to arrive in the Bahamas to assist in recovery from Hurricane Dorian.

That is something. War machinery being used to cure climate change wounds. No doubt they will make a difference.

Quote
He said he feared for one shanty town area that houses about 1,500 people.

I fear the worse for them and many others. It is unlikely we will ever hear about them. National security issue. That's how cowardly government officials deal with these types of circumstances. They hide the numbers to save face.

If only we were expecting these types of events more often. But no. That's too scary to consider.

42
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 02, 2019, 01:49:50 PM »
Maria was a cat 4  that hit my place like a Cat 3. I experienced the winds and water for over 24 hours.  The constant pressure changes, vibrations and noise of destruction was almost unbearable. It was horrible. To this day it spoiled rain for me. I still feel Maria fear when it rains. I used to love rain.

Dorian is a cat 5 moving at 5 mph. These people will be under alien planet conditions for over 24 (48?) hours. I bet most of their homes are not concrete, like mine. The tide alone will wipe entire sections of the island.

Who will help them when the storm is over? I know WCK is already to go, but who else? The red cross? The US in solidarity? Rich people with homes, boats and secret bank accounts there?

43
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 01, 2019, 02:06:09 PM »
Dorian was very weird. I spent the day of Wednesday thinking nothing would happen to me because the storm was going to exit south. As the forecast changed I went to bed thinking the storm will pass right over my place. The next morning as I was cleaning the gutters and preparing the back up power I heard the hurricane entirely missed us.  I was happy.

I believe the island of Culebra suffered some damage, but the winds and water missed the big island.

Really not much to tell except that I'm very happy it missed us. It served as a warning for the rest of the season.

44
Quote
Crazy that China is starting to build aircraft carriers, although they seem to be going for the cheaper options.

Projecting power onto weaker opponents is a useful tactical advantage.

Fascinating stuff rboyd.

45
Forests are a carbon store. Burning them releases that store into the atmosphere. Allowing them to regrow pulls carbon out of the atmosphere to fill up that store. Leaving a mature forest in place doesn't change CO2 levels either way.

So the questions are:

How fast can a forest burn? 
how fast can a mature forest reform?

How to account for the extra CO2 in terms of gross quantity released, how fast it will be reduced and in terms of decreased role in the carbon cycle?

And lastly, how do you guarantee that a forest returns?

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: Basic questions about melting physics
« on: August 31, 2019, 05:37:04 PM »
Your second reply completely invalidates his conclusion with a very appropriate language and tone. Thank you for that great reply and thank you for proving me wrong.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Basic questions about melting physics
« on: August 31, 2019, 04:02:37 PM »
So basically your argument is that "there has been no warming since 1998" adapted poorly to "Sea Ice stopped melting in 2012".

For that you use a pseudo explanation, seconded by the climate change deniers and validated by  Bintho's polite argument.

Quote
The "people" to which I was referring are the posters here who claim that the current scientific thinking is too conservative and that the current warming is being masked by factor X, and once this is overcome, warming will skyrocket, causing all sorts of global catastrophes. 

This has already happened and will keep happening and getting worse. You can't see it because fear blinds you, but you will feel it soon regardless if you understand what is happening or not.

48
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: August 29, 2019, 06:30:37 PM »
Nope, my brain will create a nice illusion where I'll be fine. So would most people's brain. It's a defense mechanism. The same applies to the climate change argument at all scales.

Once the climate reality superimposes over the illusion I create, then I'll run.

49
Science / Re: A list of missing feedbacks
« on: August 28, 2019, 12:50:03 AM »
  People in buildings with operable windows are happy with a wider range of conditions.

 I wouldn't describe it as happy. More likely sweaty, stinky and uncomfortable.  When it gets hot enough it is hard to concentrate and think. During heatwaves crowded buildings without climate control are downright dangerous.

50
Science / Re: A list of missing feedbacks
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:46:39 AM »
Quote
I'm thinking about our African origins and don't understand the above stated optimal temperature range.

Look up room temperature. That is the temperature where people at rest is neither hot nor cold, just comfortable. Hotter or colder and the temperature becomes uncomfortable, meaning resources have to be used to keep the body from over or under heating.

See this experiment:

Quote
Across five studies, the authors demonstrate that warm (versus cool) temperatures deplete resources, increase System 1 processing, and influence performance on complex choice tasks. Real-world lottery data (Pilot Study) and a lab experiment (Study 1) demonstrate the effect of temperature on complex choice: individuals are less likely to make difficult gambles in warmer temperatures. Study 2 implicates resource depletion as the underlying process; warm temperatures lower cognitive performance for non-depleted individuals, but don’t affect the performance of depleted individuals. Study 3 illustrates the moderating role of task complexity to show that warm temperatures are depleting and decrease willingness to make a difficult product choice. Study 4 juxtaposes the effects of depletion and temperature to reveal that warm temperatures hamper performance on complex tasks because of the participants’ increased reliance on System 1 (heuristic) processing.


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2088973

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5