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
Policy and solutions / Re: Energy Efficiency: The “First Fuel”
« on: April 24, 2019, 01:17:06 PM »
Tesla just increase the efficiency of the Model S and X mostly by switching the front motor of the car.  Same battery pack. 10% more range. But more efficiency means more than just range. The Model S becomes cheaper to operate. Better yet, in the increasingly smaller cases where the cars get their electricity from emission heavy energy sources, emissions have been further reduced.

Efficiency truly is the first fuel.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: April 22, 2019, 08:45:11 PM »

Yes, clouds tend to be a climate moderator; warming in the coldest times and cooling during the warmest.  Hence, the overall effect in the Arctic would be warming (being one of the coldest regions), with the increased wintertime effect more than cancelling out the decreased summer effect.  The effect would be the opposite in more equatorial regions.  The linked NASA article claims that clouds have a net global cooling effect of 5C (compared to blue sky), is that the characterization you believe is wrong?

I believe you got it mostly right this time, although your simplification is misleading. At least you are not claiming "The bigger, faster negative feedback is clouds. " for the Arctic anymore.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 18, 2019, 04:19:58 PM »
Is it so bad that a Model 3 has a carbon footprint comparable to the most efficient hybrids?

That is the conclusion he reaches only after picking cherries. A Model 3 (or any EV) powered by sunlight /wind has zero emissions. A model 3 powered by gas has about the emission of one of the most efficient ICE vehicles in the market, but only if one ignores the emissions of producing new oil with fracking and ignores the initial CO2 expenditure of the Camry as that liar did.

As the Grid greens with the most cost effective new energy (solar/wind) The average efficiency of EVs will increase while the average efficiency of Camry will decrease. So even in the worst of cases the Model 3's emission will decrease while the Camry's emissions will increase.

These shorts will destroy the world if it earns them a few pennies.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 18, 2019, 01:57:45 PM »
Does it matter to you that most of that electricity generated gets rejected and is a total waste?

Does it matter to you that only a sliver of that electricity is in the form that can be used to manufacture things (like cars)?

Does it matter to you that countries that have added significant solar capacity have not significantly decreased their fossil fuel consumption?

Yes, yes, and yes, but none of it takes away from Tesla's glory.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 17, 2019, 03:52:10 PM »
Definitely a glory

Tornados. What a nice cherry. Is that all you do KkK? Pick cherries and deal uncertainties.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 05, 2019, 12:56:40 PM »
There are two parts to the Arctic.  One part where there is too much heat during the year for ice to survive the melting season, and another part where there is not enough heat during the year to melt the ice. 


Extent is the best measure of the shrinking of the zone in which ice can survive,

Sorry but no. Extent is binary. Is there ice or is there no ice. That's it. It contains no information on the survival of ice without encoding geographic or temperature data. If you do the same thing to volume and thickness they will show  all the data extent does and then some.

and best measure of the long term trend in reducing the ice, and best predictor of when we will go ice free.  Those who were extrapolating volume/thickness loss around 10 years ago were predicting ice free by about now.  Those who were extrapolating extent predicted that we wouldn't be.  Looks to me like the predictions based on extent were better.

BIG TIME NO! At the same time people were extrapolating no ice by now with volume, other people were extrapolating no ice by 2070 and beyond based mostly on extent. Most of them now admit they were wrong and the estimates have been changed to earlier dates.

If we get a time machine and go to the year if the first BOE, then we can determine who was "more right" or "more wrong".

Thickness remembers recent conditions, and encodes information on how warm that part of the Arctic is.  If thickness is very low, that suggests recent temperatures have been warmer, and it is more likely that the ice won't last this specific season.  Thickness is the most important measure for predicting short term changes in ice extent and whether ice will survive the coming melt season.

Thickness is indeed a very important. Just like volume and extent. Those diminishing the importance of the higher dimensions of the arctic are wrong.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 04, 2019, 11:44:58 PM »
This should come as no surprise to those who have followed my posts.

I have followed your posts. You seem to have most things backwards.

The albedo effect is based on two dimensions;

Not true for sea ice, but likely true for ocean water. 


Sea ice has a much higher albedo compared to other earth surfaces, such as the surrounding ocean. A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. The sea ice absorbs less solar energy and keeps the surface cooler.


Snow has an even higher albedo than sea ice, and so thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90 percent of the incoming solar radiation. This serves to insulate the sea ice, maintaining cold temperatures and delaying ice melt in the summer. After the snow does begin to melt, and because shallow melt ponds have an albedo of approximately 0.2 to 0.4, the surface albedo drops to about 0.75. As melt ponds grow and deepen, the surface albedo can drop to 0.15

Albedo can vary wildly depending on the characteristics of the ice. Thick, snow covered ice, extremely high albedo. Thin, melt pond areas have almost the Albedo of open ocean. Both snow and melt ponds are extremely relevant to volume.

adding thickness will only change the albedo marginally when the ice is extremely thin, while the difference between any ice and open water is huge. 

Again thick snow covered ice, .9 Albedo. Thin, melt ponded ice, .2-.4 Albedo. Huge difference.

Weather is unaffected by ice thickness also.

Maybe. The big differences (humidity, albedo, temperature) between Melt Ponds and snow might have a slight effect on weather, but the conduction difference between 2 meter ice and 5 meter ice may be negligible. However, the difference between .5 meter ice and 5 meter ice is significant

This effectively changes the Arctic from an ocean system to a desert.  Extent has a much greater effect on wildlife than thickness.

Hard to argue with that.

The ice forms an effective barrier between the air and water, and the size of the barrier is largely immaterial. 

The thickness of the barrier determines the transfer of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere. It the ocean temperatures and surface air temperature are the same, the thinner ice will melt faster and will grow faster, depending on the temperatures.

Animals above cannot feed on those below, and mammals below cannot surface.

Sure. I'm sure you are generalizing but it seems like a good assumption. 

Given the topic at hand, the differences between open water and an ice-covered surface is significantly greater than the difference in ice thickness.

If the topic is the melting season, then extent, volume and thickness are about equally important. Each as a simple scalar tells us vital information about a generalized view of the arctic, but nothing specific nor sufficient for most informed analysis. All three together gives us the best picture.

Interestingly, when extent or area are presented as a point on an arctic map, volume and thickness are completely lost. However, when presenting volume/thickness in the same manner we get area for free.


That is absolutely not true, as it depends on the average mpg of the ICE cars in the market and the amount of coal in the electricity supply. The Union of Concerned Scientists shows this below for the different US states. China has an over 60% share of coal in its electricity supply (plus some natural gas and oil) and an average mpg for its new cars of 37.4mpg in 2017.

You are wrong. And everyday that goes by you become even more wrong.

That’s the conclusion of research by BloombergNEF, which found carbon dioxide emissions from battery-powered vehicles were about 40 percent lower than for internal combustion engines last year. The difference was biggest in Britain and the U.K., which have large renewables industries. It still held in China, which is more reliant on coal to make electricity.

Even in China with its coal thirsty grid EVs emit less. The efficiency of EVs is just too high for ICEs to compete

So at best, a marginal emissions benefit for new EV's.

a 20% reduction in emissions reduction in one of the worst grids, China, is not marginal. It is significant. At 40% globally, and reduced with every renewable added to the grid, we have a real solution in our hands.

With EV emissions front-loaded (i.e. in manufacturing), emissions could get worse in the short-term. A short-term that could last quite a long time if EV volumes keep growing fast

The front loading of emissions in batteries is being reduced with every solar lithium farm, every solar panel on top of battery factories, every e-truck that enters the logistics chain of battery manufacturing.

Once batteries are cheap enough manufacturing can become 100% emissions free.

Right now the dirty machine is building the green machine with the hope that when adoption of renewable reaches critical mass green machines will be building green machines.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 03, 2019, 03:59:24 AM »
The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater.  Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.

Processes controlling surface, bottom and lateral melt of Arctic sea ice in a state of the art sea ice model

Relevant graph from the article attached.

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: March 30, 2019, 03:37:38 PM »
Midwest flooding threatens water safety in 1 million wells

Record flooding in the Midwest is now threatening the safety of more than a million private water wells. The National Ground Water Association estimates that people living in more than 300 counties across 10 states have their groundwater threatened from bacterial and industrial contamination carried by flood waters. CNN's Scott McLean takes a closer look.

Video in the link.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: March 30, 2019, 12:35:24 PM »
Early melting season cliffs are scary. Hopefully things get better after this event is over.

Attached, Bering sea ASI volume from 2000 to latest release.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: March 28, 2019, 03:22:34 AM »
10,000 hot meals served by our #ChefsForMozambique team across 4 camps & shelters today! Proud of @WCKitchen leading the way, but wouldn’t be possible without incredible local much need here after cyclone—soon we will be serving 50k+ per day...

These meals go farther than just the calories they provide. Warm food when all there is chaos around you is a great psychological and physiological relief for both rescue workers and people.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: March 26, 2019, 03:26:14 PM »
That's right. Record level lows are now the new normal, until we hit the next threshold.

Fact: Money is to people what dog treats are to dogs.
Fact: Greed is part of human nature. Greed has always existed and will always exist.

 We should take advantage of those facts where we can and minimize the evil of those facts where we can.

Policy and solutions / Re: Water Resource Management
« on: March 24, 2019, 02:52:43 PM »
The ultimate survival tool. Water out of thin air:

How Zero Mass is using solar panels to pull drinkable water directly from the air

Because that’s what Zero Mass does: harvest drinking water out of thin air, using a combination of materials science, solar power, and predictive data. The goal is to use this technology to go from a position of “water scarcity to water abundance,” said founder and chief executive Cody Friesen, regardless of whether you’re in an area where access to clean water is a serious problem, or living in a place where bottled water is often half-drunk and discarded.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: March 18, 2019, 02:16:33 AM »
Many frackers behave like farmers, except that the “crop cycle” appears to be longer, perhaps two years. These firms will borrow or sell equity one year and then drill for sixteen to twenty-four months. Production will surge two years later and then, as many authorities have noted, fall off rapidly.

I've always seen fracking as a temporary measure. Fracking is not sustainable in any way. It is not profitable in the long term, there isn't enough of it and the more we frack the more we will poison our own water and turn our rock foundation to sand. Fracking will not lead to global economic prosperity, even if it didn't cause climate change.

Fracking is fundamentally flawed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: March 10, 2019, 12:35:14 AM »
Why aren't people considering the ice to be more like a wedge as the minimum is approached with the thickest parts nearest Greenland/CAA? And there are, in any year, always some bits going below that critical thickness?

Reviving an old A-Team image. This is what extent hides:

The images above are the September minimum with ice <1.5m removed from 1978-2016. 

The thick ice is not just melting, it is being exported through the garlic press and fram (Now replaced by the kill zone north of Svalbard). That thick ice is barely being replaced.

Is there any reason for thinking that a lot of area will suddenly go below some critical threshold whether between 10 and 20cm or some other particular thickness?

Thinner ice melts faster, but usually by the time most of the thin ice is gone is August or September and the sun works in our favor. A weak freezing season with a low max volume ( like 2017, 20.782 maximum volume) coupled with a strong melting season (like 2012, 19,692 volume loss) is already enough to get us to an ice free state (20.782-19,692= 1,091, virtually ice free). No threshold needed, only bad climate luck.

Is it just because that doesn't fit with personal beliefs that when the end comes it will happen suddenly?

In my case is because nature likes abrupt change. Systems are stable until they are sufficiently modified and then they can change to completely different states. The Arctic seems an awful lot like the kind of system that will abruptly change once sufficiently disturbed, the same for the atmospheric and oceanic currents affected by the presence of ice.

Can you see how this sounds like, I want this fast end collapse conclusion and therefore I am going to believe in this sudden collapse once it goes under a certain threshold rather than working with what we would expect to ultimately arrive at a conclusion?

Can you see the other way tho? Can you acknowledge the implication of a fast Arctic collapse on the world that we live? Can you acknowledge how difficult it would be for scientists to claim that the world might end in just a few decades? They can't. If they do they will be called crazy. Are you familiar with double blind experiments? DO you know why they do it? Do you realize that climate science there is no double blind experimentation because the science directly affects the scientist?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 09, 2019, 12:24:47 PM »
Fast charging EVs compared:

The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: February 27, 2019, 02:37:08 AM »
SpaceX Falcon 9 booster (B1048.3) return and recovery operations

Thanks for that video.  My climate knowledge leveled up after watching the first half of that lecture. Any links to the slides? They seem to contain very valuable information and they are not easily readable in the video. Now back to finish it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: January 27, 2019, 08:05:06 PM »
DMI N80 hit the mean line in winter for the first time since 2015.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 26, 2019, 12:50:48 PM »
1. Demand in the US for the high end model is still there and international markets add to the demand

2. They are reducing labor costs to increase margins to support the Black Model 3

Tesla Inc said on Wednesday that it would raise capital from Asian debt markets to fund the construction of its third “Gigafactory,” which will be located in Shanghai and cost an approximate $2 billion

Don't ya'll get tired of being wrong?

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 24, 2019, 02:12:12 AM »
Colorado's largest Tesla Powerpack

I thought this was a very insightful interview.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 22, 2019, 11:57:10 AM »
Ancient wisdom says "Test all things. Hold fast to what is good". Examine everything, keep the good. Reddit, wikipedia, a library, books, even very strict academic journals must be questioned. In all of them good can be found. They will all have bad. The ratio of good to bad is the metric to watch out for.

I love this visualization. The temperatures and distribution over time and Earth jives correct to me. The way the usually useless background gives context is novel to me. The way the animation adds multiple layers of information is always very nice to see.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 21, 2019, 03:22:19 PM »
A little off topic or pedantic prehaps, but ...

You are correct. Thanks for the clarification. It is important to have clearly defined language but I admit I get confused by the names. I'm going to try and make it clear using images.

Image 1:

Complex life started around 500 million years ago when the planet was much warmer. For the first 497 million years was mostly warmer, with a period of around 50 million years identified in this image as the permian glaciation that was at about the same temperature as today. Probably similar temperatures to modern earth but with a different surface configuration. CO2 levels win the atmosphere were much higher than even today. There were no warm blooded mammals during the warm periods.

Image 2:

The previous graph is the last 500k years. An ice age relative to most of life's history. Within that ice age there are glacial periods and inter glacial periods.

This is the time of the humans. A few thousand humans inhabited the planet for all this time. The human species flourished during the last inter glacial period.

At the scales of time of Image 2  M. cycles have their greatest influence. Specially in the NH in July:

Image 3:

At the scales of time of Image 2  M. cycles have their greatest influence. Specially in the NH in July. Total global irradiance is less influential than NH M. cycle irradiance.

Image 4:

  It wasn't until the last 10k years that human species really got the hang of things and started burning forests and agriculture. Notice from Image 3 that M. cycles are going down. We should have been entering an ice age. Instead the earth remain at a very nice constant temperature for 10k years, then the industrial revolution happened. At a time when Earth should be descending into the next ice age the Earth is warming.

Now to bring it back on topic.

What does this has to do with methane? The Younger Dryas. It is marked YD in Image 1 but it can be seen at all time scales. The Younger Dryas , probably caused by a meteorite impact, cooled the earth for a few thousand years almost at peak Milankovitch cycle. This fortuitous hit kept the Earth from hitting peak warmth like in the eemian and other interglacials, instead prolonging climate stability at exactly the same time most of the planet was inhabitable for a perfectly adapted human species.

It also kept a whole bunch of methane locked in that could should have been vented out on a warmer planet.  We are now resuming that warming, 10x as fast as nature would have. More and more methane will become accessible. It will be released at pace the planet warms, not at the pace of old release.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:50:12 AM »
The IPCC is not perfect, but they are not being dismissive of anything and to act like you know something they don't is downright laughable.

 You can laugh if you want. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science that the consensus is wrong.

 I want to make clear that I have great respect for everyone who have dedicated their lives to understand the climate and how humans fit in it. They are true experts and their strict knowledge is a extremely valuable asset of mankind.  Their work is great and if we can save ourselves from climate change it will be in large part for the work people like the ones at the IPCC have done warning us about climate change. Even then, they are wrong about the risks of climate change.

 I don't think the IPCC is wrong because they are lying or because their data is faulty. They are wrong because they are not framing the problem correctly. For example humanity. The IPCC takes human population for granted, yet the data says we are a fluke. What we have seems permanent but it is unique and new. The kind of climate change we have unleashed is also new and unique, because as far as I know, this much CO2 has never been emitted this fast.

 Another example, methane. I don't think methane will be our killer. The complete loss of ASI during summer will be.

 If the reaction to the loss of ASI is more warming then GHG's will be released from all available sources at rates proportional to the additional warming. That's on top of human induced warming. However, at that point warming will be the least of our problems. Weather chaos caused by the destabilization of the oceanic and atmospheric currents will end humanity as we know it, specially with leadership with blinders on. Plenty of people will survive this. My bet is more than the average human population over the last ten thousand years, probably even a billion in places with good governance and climate luck.

 If the reaction to the loss of ASI is cooling (a very possible event) then I just hope there is enough time to evacuate the north hemisphere. It will be buried by snow for the rest of our existence. Methane will be safe and sound for 130k years during the next glacial period (give or take a few millennia) until the next interglacial. It will eventually become a fossil fuel. Hopefully the next species that learns how to use it learns about our mistakes before it is too late for them.

 Or maybe the reaction is both. Very hot during summer in the North Hemisphere, periodically unlivable. Very snowy after equinox and after the summer heat is dissipated into space, the ocean
 the permafrost and snow.

The 2015-2018 global heat spike gave us just a preview of what happens as the Arctic melts. The hurricanes, the fires, the floods, the droughts, the heat waves were not coincidence.

There is no way to overstate the risks. What risk we face? We risk losing everything. The likelihood of such event? Given the known unknowns, way too high. Given the historical human population way too high. Given the association of warming with mass extinction events, way too high. Given the association of recent warming and natural disasters, way too high. Given the resistance to do something about climate change, way too high.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 17, 2019, 03:06:17 AM »
 Ken Feldman thanks for the links and for trying to bring relevant peer reviewed science into the conversation. However, none of those links invalidate the very credible and possible danger positive carbon loops may create. 

 Carbon release is exactly the natural mechanism the Earth uses to go from glacial period to warm. We are warming the Earth abnormally fast. We should expect a proportional response from the climate. Instead, it seems that the basic assumption is that because the climate changed slowly in the past it will also change slowly from human induced warming.  That assumption may cost us our world, yet is the most natural. Natural because we have no data on fast climate change. Even the PETM was too slow relative to modern warming.

 The possible sources of positive carbon feedback loops are not just methane from the deep sea and pingos. It is GHGs from frozen ground, under river, under lakes and from burning forests and peat. That's on top of human emissions.  The Earth is reacting as it always does when it warms, it warms more until carbon is depleted or Milankovitch cycles are not favorable to warming.

It really worries me that the IPCC reads almost dismissive of the argument as if it was some far fetched scenario, when it should be the expected scenario. I blame that on the fact that scientist in climate science don't have the luxury of double blind experimentation. They are part of the experiment.

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: December 22, 2018, 02:58:41 AM »
If we are going to try to get to zero emissions then we have to figure out how to produce food without burning fossil fuels.

  We know how to produce food without burning fossil fuels. If the world was powered by 100% renewables then all the infrastructure required to grow food on a massive scale would be emissions free, by definition. That reduces a very significant amount of agricultural emissions.

  The problem that remains is actually growing the food. I'm not entirely clear what is the net atmospheric CO2 change of the global average crop. If growing the world's food supply is carbon negative then we must grow more food. If growing the world's food supply is significantly Carbon positive then the problem must be examined further.

The consensus seems to be that meat is significantly carbon positive. I can see that being true. Animals are more energetic beings than plants. But there are ways to reduce animal emissions. The low hanging fruit would be to feed animals only emissions negative food. If that can be done, then the emissions from the animals will be at least partially offset.

We know how to do it. We just got to do it.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 21, 2018, 02:23:33 AM »
If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 17, 2018, 11:11:49 PM »
The magic of editing.

With regards to why Robyn Denholm, the new chairman of the board, has not tightened control over Musk’s impulsive conduct, he noted that he hand-picked her and that it would be “not realistic” for her to control the board: “I am the largest shareholder in the company. And I can just call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that I want,” he said.

His view stands in stark contrast to the law, which views him, as both CEO and controlling shareholder, as a fiduciary to the remainder of the shareholders, under longstanding Delaware law, the state where Tesla is incorporated.

The CBS interview edited out the statement that invalidates the legal concern of the expert who supposedly wants Tesla to succeed. Here is the full quote that CBS edited.

“I am the largest shareholder in the company. And I can just call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that I want I mean that’s not realistic because I am the largest shareholder in the company and a very high percentage of the shareholders support me and the company. So essentially I could just call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that I want provided I could get support of at least a 1/3 of the other shareholders, which is likely. At the end of the day the shareholders control the company.”

Elon is the leader of Tesla and got Tesla to where it is today. He has done such an excellent job that not only Tesla is growing at breakneck speed and its profitable, but it is actually accomplishing its primary mission of accelerating the advent of sustainable Energy.

If Elon leaves Tesla then Tesla will be swallowed by corporate interests and be more profitable than ever, but it won't grow and more importantly it will stop the acceleration of renewable energy.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: December 16, 2018, 02:44:27 PM »
Another outstanding video by Two Bit da Vinci on you tube. As a bonus, they include the spreadsheet used for their calculation.

Is Driving a Tesla Actually Worse for the Environment?

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: December 02, 2018, 04:04:04 PM »
Why battery-powered vehicles stack up better than hydrogen

Based on a wide scan of studies globally, we found that battery electric vehicles have significantly lower energy losses compared to other vehicle technologies. Interestingly, however, the well-to-wheel losses of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were found to be almost as high as fossil fuel vehicles.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 25, 2018, 09:00:16 PM »
Electrolysis is not the only inefficiency loss in a fuel cell setup. There are also loses during hydrogen storage and during electricity use. There is also higher maintenance and complexity. When you add all the inefficiencies from power to final load, batteries are the more efficient form of electricity storage.

However I think fuel cell might be worth it for stationary storage as most of the inefficiencies can be reduced by scaling.

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: November 20, 2018, 01:49:39 PM »
A great loss for ASIF.  Besides this transcendental thread, AbruptSLR has gems like his El niño watch, and conservative scientists debunking thread.

AbruptSLR elevated ASIF considerably. His posts revealed a great mind. AbruptSLR will be missed. 

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:43:00 PM »
There is no proof only if you keep your head deeply buried in the sand. That won’t prevent burning your ass but at least it keeps you sane while disasters approaches.

If only there was a way to make sure that the cowards remember their cowardice when it is their turn to deal with climate change. Regrettably, expert cowards that ignore the danger now have the perfect mindset to forgive themselves and pretend they bear no responsibility when disaster hits them.


The fingerprint is the particular pressure pattern in the Arctic summer in high loss years and the weather patterns that connect it to particular temperature variations in the Pacific. The same pattern is seen in the control run, and the historically forced runs and the data. 

To be clear, FTA:

The mechanisms of this teleconnection appear to be similar in observations and models, but the specific source areas and path of wave activity underlying the establishment of the high pressure in the Arctic are displaced in the model.

That important caveat, combined with the failure of most of the model runs to account for the Arctic loses tell me that

The internal variability isn't the difference between the historical data and the ensemble mean, its the spread of the ensemble. Look at the band of grey lines in 1e. The internal variability is the difference between the top of that band and the bottom of that band.

To me this says that if the Models are sufficiently accurate representations of the system, then the variability is given by the spread of the models. The problem is that the models have significant difference with observations. They are not sufficiently good representations of the system. I think the paper does a fantastic job illustrating the big differences between the models and the observations. Fig. 4 is particularly interesting.

There's not enough historic data to pull the variability from it alone. That's one of the key points from this paper. In 30 years time it might be possible to assess the variability from the historic data, but the record is still too short to properly characterize the climate.

I agree with that. There is statistical uncertainty due to the short record. Luckily, mathematical statistics are not the only tool we have to inform our decision making process. We have physics that dictate that the warming will continue and will increase. There is every reason to believe that "internal variability" will vary as the climate changes.

It is incredibly distressing to me to see the author use "arctic sea ice" and "arctic sea ice area" interchangeably. Arctic sea ice area or extent are terribly important measures, but they DO NOT measure the ice in the arctic, only the surface area the ice occupies. Sea ice is frozen sea water, a 3 dimensional object.

When the author says 50% of the current losses are due to "internal variability", how does he determined if internal variability changed due to climate change?

Does this mean he expects a 50% recovery soon? When does this "natural cycle ends"?

Also, what's up with figure 1.E? Why are the models way below observations during the earlier decades and then match observations in the recent decades?

I think the intentions of the author are very good, and I wouldn't dare to challenge the math, but I also think that some necesary assumptions for this analysis are wrong, in particular using sea ice area as proxy for sea ice and calling random variability "natural" when the variability itself probably changed and will change more as the climate changes.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 01, 2018, 02:24:54 AM »
I'm a product of the laws of thermodynamics and incredible luck.

Enough luck to have a star system of the right chemical composition.

With a planet at the perfect orbit.

With another planet that smashed into it.

And a nice moon that shapes the planet.

And a nice tilt that forces seasonality.

With the right chemical soup to eventually produce replicating order, local entropy.

Order that lived in balance and became part of the energy balance between the sun and the planet.

Order that was not interrupted for 500 million years.

500 million years of incredible, entropy defying luck to make just the perfect planet for bipedal mammals with big heads to thrive.

Then we started playing with fire. The end.

Humanity will act to the threat like any other animal would, unaware and unprepared. We had the advantage of science and economics and could have mounted a much more human response, but fear got the best of us, so we will default to animal reactions like building walls when we should building and reinforcing our bridges.

Science / Re: ECS is 2.5
« on: October 19, 2018, 11:30:57 AM »
Has anyone done an estimate for ECS based on hemisphere, not the globe? What is the ECS of the Northern Hemisphere?

It seems to me that because the SH is mostly covered with water with the south pole covered with land, and the NH has much larger land surface area with a north pole covered in water, their ECS might be significantly different. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 12, 2018, 12:20:32 AM »
I think more heat is indeed being transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere, but:

1. There is more heat and energy available from in the open oceans.
2. Extra heat is imported into the arctic from the surrounding warmer oceans.
3. The humid cloudy Arctic is interfering with radiation back to space.

Once all this extra heat gets irradiated out to space refreeze will begin with strength.

I'm very curious about the Chukchi and the Bering this year.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 08, 2018, 03:40:46 PM »
Speaking of useless extrapolations...

The first attachment uses maximum volume and the complete data set of the melting season volume loss to estimate the first ice free arctic.

The second attachment shows the maximum volume to volume loss ratio. There is a very good evidence that after 2007 there was a step change in the Arctic. This is supported by significant increase of the average losses. 

The third attachment uses the losses only from 2007-2018 with the justification that the system changed.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: October 08, 2018, 12:06:12 PM »
But something did happened. Acceptance at the highest level. Acceptance is the first step.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 05, 2018, 03:29:25 AM »
Everyone thinks they are not going to be climate migrants. When the Arctic collapses most people will be climate migrants.

I honestly think that Trump's wall will be used in reverse.  The summer heat in the inner north american continent will be deadly.  The winters will bury people with snow. At least for a few years after a BOE the tropics will be safer, or maybe the mid southern hemisphere.

Policy and solutions / Re: Trump Science
« on: September 29, 2018, 03:58:08 PM »
Yeah they have been priming people for this for a while. Climate change is real, is going to be bad, but we can't do shit about it. Let evolution run its course.

The fools have completely convinced themselves that evolution will favor them.  They convinced themselves that the poor and brown will die and they will survive. They are probably dreaming up perfect homogeneous societies post collapse.

They are already priming for the culling sowing fear about immigrants. People are cheering for concentration camps.

Then I go to ASIF and read the cryosphere forum and am reminded that no puny human can possibly prepare for the coming changes.

Our only shot is to cooperate in a world wide effort that dwarfs WW2 or the apollo program to stop climate change.

 But people have chosen fear and comfortable lies. Wrong move.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: September 27, 2018, 09:36:34 PM »
Frigging outstanding video to end the season.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: September 25, 2018, 03:25:52 AM »
I think the first BOE will be the year the freezing season ends with less than 18 (1000km3).

I think the hiatus in the September minimum is now obvious, but there is no such hiatus in the maximum yet. Will the maximum experience a hiatus like the minimum?

I do believe that the hiatus in the minimum is mostly due to the what Oren mentions:

The hardest ice to melt also has  the earliest probable refreeze date.

If there is no hiatus, then a year like 2016 or 2012 but with very low volume at the end of the freezing season is the end.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 24, 2018, 03:22:30 AM »
Tesla Model 3 Supercharging from 0 to 100% (3 min 23 sec) (Charge compressed to a 3 min 23 sec video)

The graphs in this video shows what the charging behavior for Model 3 batteries looks like very clearly.

Pages: [1] 2