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 - GoSouthYoungins

Pages: [1] 2
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 15, 2019, 05:18:03 AM »
(Maybe someone can make a gif? I don't know how to do that yet)

Download the set of images you want, then go here: https://ezgif.com/maker . It's literally "EZ".
Thanks PETM! EZ indeed...  :)
Here's my first GIF. It shows the high sea temperature north of Laptev, lasting for a few days where there's supposed to be ice keeping the temperature down.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 15, 2019, 04:38:33 AM »
SST's north of laptev are turning orange.
I think its probably spurious

I'm not so sure. I've been watching the SSTs most days, and I've seen this before often, it seems to me, preceding or during strong melting. E.g. The Chukchi did it just before a strong melt a month or so ago. There's some similar patterns in the Beaufort too. Possibly where the ice has been reduced to just foam, the melting is no longer sufficient to suppress rising temps? Not sure.

3
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 06:18:53 AM »
You have no idea what you're talking about and you're just spewing nonsense and embarrassing yourself

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 03:12:42 AM »
Oren, if you knew people will read, edit  or censure what you write, would you write the same way? No. Impossible. Censuring your own writing for fear of censorship is probably the quickest way to kill creativity. Elon still enjoys the right to free speech and this tweet did not move the markets in any way.

This tweet was not material information, was after market hours and clarification was offered before  market open. I think he SEC is significantly over reaching. The courts will decide.

Non-public production numbers are material information. The original tweet was made at 7:15PM ET which is 45 minutes before the After-hours market closes.

I understand you like to cheerlead for Tesla. I recommend that you cheerlead by not posting information that is factually incorrect.

5
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 23, 2019, 04:30:00 AM »
At first you were willing to take anything Tesla and the NHTSA said at face value.
Not true.
Quote
And now, a 13% sample of the data is not good enough to draw any reasonable conclusions? What hell is that? I didn't know you were such an expert in vehicle collision safety. Can you please explain to the class why 5,700 vehicles is not good enough for you? Especially considering it's the only data we can go by?
Table 2 in the report will easily explain why the NHTSA methodology was wrong, but also why the opposite conclusion is not true as well, and why the discarded data shows that the kept data is problematic as well.
Fig.1 is the kept data, that is supposedly totally accurate. It has 0.76 deployments/million miles before auto-steer, and 1.21 dep/mil after auto-steer, so supposedly an increase in deployments after auto-steer.
Figs. 2,3,4 contain the discarded data, where the NHTSA did not assign proper mileage to the before category, and in parts of the data also to the after category. However, it is easy to see that the rates of deployment for the after category are in the range of 0.6-0.8 dep/mil, thereby showing that the result of the kept subset wherein the after rate was 1.21 dep/mil is out of line, and probably suffers from data errors/biases as well, errors that the report failed to consider in its assumptions.
The best conclusion from the partial and faulty data is that the airbag deployment rate was and still remained ~0.7-0.8 deployments/million miles before and after auto-steer.
Note: I do get the feeling that the report writer was happy not to stress this conclusion clearly, as the resulting headlines would have been much less juicy.
Note 2: I believe Tesla is releasing uninformative safety data, while making various statistical safety claims based on said data. Without access to the underlying detailed data it is impossible to verify Tesla's claims, and I suspect Tesla's claims are based on conveniently faulty analysis. (To be clear, this also was my thinking before this report came along).

Okay I see. So, because incomplete data doesn't match the complete data. Then any conclusions based on the complete data is FUD. cool. got it.

According to you, if I'm a car manufacturer and I want to give myself a nice safety rating I just have to follow these easy steps:

1) Gather crash and mileage data. Ooops. Looks like our crash rate is higher than the national average. So let's provide only a small set of complete data. So proceed to step 2
2) Create another set of data that may be incomplete, but has crash rates in line with national averages.
3) Success! If somebody asks why our complete data has a higher crash rates than average, take your finger and press it against their mouth, and say shhhhhhhh. "but look at the incomplete data, it's good. and therefore, you can't draw any conclusions. Other than we're likely to be good. Cause this stuff is good, and the bad stuff, just ignore that stuff"

6
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 23, 2019, 03:55:27 AM »
Tesla Model 3 deliveries in China are starting earlier than expected
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-deliveries-china-begin-early/

—-
Tesla sold more pure EVs globally than any other brand in 2018 — including Chinese companies.  And the Model 3 was the best selling BEV in the world.



RE: "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."

I agree. I am not standing in the way. So .....

1) Buy your first Tesla 3 yourself - put your $ where your mouth is and your Refs are - Do it.
2) Buy more TSLA shares now while the price is deflated despite all the "good news" - Do it.
3) Check your bank and see if you can't get a loan on your Home to buy even more Shares. Do it.

Now only $295 / share after being as low as $291 yesterday. Quick the price is going up.

Yes, do it!

A bit of silly humour for an otherwise tedious very repetitive thread about a Brand Name :)

Me, I prefer LA Ice Cola, what about you?

Better still what does the Scientific and Sales Data have to say about different Cola brands?

Don't they all have too much Sugar for Safe Human Consumption?

Are not all Brands a Common Bad which represent Over-Consumption of a Societal Ill?

I'll be back later, have to run buy a stack of LA ICE Cola Shares to make a killing on the stock market. ;)

My high quality refs of why that's a great thing to do!

Facing Slumping Sales, Coke Hopes To Catch A Wave Of Fans With New Flavors
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/01/23/580004834/facing-slumping-sales-coke-hopes-to-catch-a-wave-of-fans-with-new-flavors

The main reason for the drink's popularity is that it is cheaper than some of its rivals, costing as little as $1 for 2 litres.
https://www.revolvy.com/page/LA-Ice-Cola

Highly credible source - The Guardian
Yet some analysts still insist that Coca-Cola is finally going flat. In early 2016, UK volume sales were down 5%, while the lower-calorie Coca-Cola Life has flopped and in 2018 the sugar tax comes in. After years of stuttering growth globally, in which Coca-Cola has arguably failed to adjust to a new healthier era, could it face years of slow decline?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/14/cola-taste-test-best-and-worst-alternatives-coca-cola

See any similarities there to tesla commentaries and refs? (smile)

7
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 20, 2019, 04:54:53 AM »
Quote
In other news:

-new estimates of Tesla US inventory have grown to over 10,000.

-it has become known that AutoPilot is actually more dangerous than no AutoPilot
I have no knowledge of the other info you posted, but these two pieces are from FUD sources as far as I am aware, certainly the second one.

What's the point of the Tesla Glory/Failure thread if nobody actually bothers to read any the negative Tesla articles
You actually replied directly to the post I linked the autopilot report:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-tesla-autopilot-cut-crashes-40-that-was-bogus/


Quote
In 2017, the feds said Tesla Autopilot cut crashes 40%—that was bogus


Quote
But now NHTSA's raw data set is available, and, if anything, it appears to contradict Musk's claims. The majority of the vehicles in the Tesla data set suffered from missing data or other problems that made it impossible to say whether the activation of Autosteer increased or decreased the crash rate. But when QCS focused on 5,714 vehicles whose data didn't suffer from these problems, it found that the activation of Autosteer actually increased crash rates by 59 percent.

arstechnica is definitely not what I would classify as FUD. And if you can explain to me how this report:
http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/NHTSA_Autosteer_Safety_Claim.pdf
is FUD.  I'll offer the same wager to Rob to you.  $50 dollars to an org of your choice. Prove to me how this report can be classified as fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Give me some evidence. We are on a science-based forum after all.

Or maybe I don't understand your definition of FUD. Is FUD simply anything that casts Musk and Tesla in a negative light, even if it exposes lies and dishonesty? Any criticism, no matter the implications nor the quality of evidence, is simply cast aside as FUD. Why don't we just take it a step further and have Neven moderate any negative Musk discussion. Sticky this thread and let sigmetnow post in peace.

I just don't understand your obsession with Tesla, Oren. You're clearly a smart person, and have your head on straight about climate change. But your brain just switches off when anything Tesla/Musk related comes up .

I think you're missing the point zizek. There are hundreds of forum members who'd agree with you overall and who ignore this thread for good reasons. I did a scientific experiment by "testing the waters" to see what might show up only to find it poisoned beyond recovery. A waste of time iow.

All the facts data in the world will not make any difference to those who chose to argue the point with you. They don't care anyway and don't really think telsa will put a dint in agw/cc either nor make any real difference to anything else.   They just like to argue about issues that have nothing to do with telsa or evs. Sig seems to be stuck in the 2000s when reports about technical feasibility were more effective. Lost in the past iow. It used to be a barrier and now it's been swept away more or less leaving the really big important barriers more exposed. Rather than move on and address those unfortunately some here prefer to live in the past and keep up with old habits. Ever heard of big fish little pond? :)


Yeah, you're right.  Lately, I've been blocking this forum in my browser because every time I come here I just get frustrated and lose focus from my other work. But, I always find myself scratching the itch to see if anybody has learned any lessons. Nope.  Maybe I have to find a way to block myself from coming here for good. It will do me a lot of good.

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 20, 2019, 04:50:05 AM »
Quote
In other news:
-it has become known that AutoPilot is actually more dangerous than no AutoPilot
I have no knowledge of the other info you posted, but these two pieces are from FUD sources as far as I am aware, certainly the second one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-tesla-autopilot-cut-crashes-40-that-was-bogus/
Quote
In 2017, the feds said Tesla Autopilot cut crashes 40%—that was bogus
Quote
But now NHTSA's raw data set is available, and, if anything, it appears to contradict Musk's claims. The majority of the vehicles in the Tesla data set suffered from missing data or other problems that made it impossible to say whether the activation of Autosteer increased or decreased the crash rate. But when QCS focused on 5,714 vehicles whose data didn't suffer from these problems, it found that the activation of Autosteer actually increased crash rates by 59 percent.

arstechnica is definitely not what I would classify as FUD. And if you can explain to me how this report:
http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/NHTSA_Autosteer_Safety_Claim.pdf
is FUD.  I'll offer the same wager to Rob to you.  $50 dollars to an org of your choice. Prove to me how this report can be classified as fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Give me some evidence. We are on a science-based forum after all.
The report seems to follow scientific methodology though I have some criticism of it: for the claim quoted in arstechnica it takes only a 13% subset of the original data, and in the process discards quite a lot of useful though incomplete data. Checking this incomplete data as summarized in the report, shows that the 13% "complete" data is flawed as well, and that crash rates have not increased.
The report does prove that the NHTSA methodology was flawed, and that the conclusion that 2016 auto-steer reduced airbag deployment by 40% was wrong. It does not prove however that the crash rate increased. The data is simply not sufficient to conclude one way or the other.
The headlines reporting on the report have focused on a few lines from the report, not digging deeper, as headlines do. And selective reading of headlines did the rest. Your bolded conclusion above is plain wrong, not supported by the report.
Another detail that seems to have been forgotten, is that all the data is based on an old version of Auto-pilot, released in 2016 based on older hardware and much older software than is being released today with Tesla vehicles. Again, details, boring details. Does the current AP reduce crash rates? Who knows?
I haven't seen supporting data for Tesla's claim that AP reduces crash rates, as Tesla's recently released data is highly insufficient for that conclusion. However, the reverse conclusion is also not supported. So summarizing the situation with your bolded statement above, is, to me, FUD.
Stop your bullshit. Stop moving the goal posts. At first you were willing to take anything Tesla and the NHTSA said at face value. And now, a 13% sample of the data is not good enough to draw any reasonable conclusions? What hell is that? I didn't know you were such an expert in vehicle collision safety. Can you please explain to the class why 5,700 vehicles is not good enough for you? Especially considering it's the only data we can go by?

And your excuse that the technology is old doesn't hold up. Because Tesla stood behind the report, and did everything they could do to make sure the raw data was never released. So if things got better, why don't they just release another report based off of their new technology? Give us the data? Although, considering how much they lie, I wouldn't doubt it if the data would be fudged.

Here's the page from the report that Oren likes to call FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD. Since you monkeys here don't actually like to read any links:


Quote
Once we received the data,20 we attempted to replicate NHTSA’s summaries21 of airbag deployments as well as mileage exposure before and after Autosteer in- stallation. We expected that the “Miles before Autosteer” exposure measure cal- culated by NHTSA would be equal to “Previous Mileage before Autosteer In- stall” reported by Tesla when mileage had been accumulated before Autosteer was installed. It was also our expectation that exposure “Miles after Autosteer” calculated by NHTSA would be equal to “The mileage of the vehicle at the last data retrieval” minus “Next Mileage after Autosteer Install” reported by Tesla when these data were not unknown, unreported, or otherwise missing for all of the vehicles studied.

In those cases where the “Previous Mileage before Autosteer Install” exactly equals “Next Mileage after Autosteer Install,” it can be inferred that Autosteer was actually installed at the reported mileage in each of these two fields. Figure 1 illustrates the calculation of exposure mileage in the cohort of vehicles where the odometer data at the time of installation is known, based on this inference. (Note that the mileage of the vehicle at the last data retrieval must also have been reported for the vehicles in Figure 1.) This method of calculation of exposure mileage was applicable only to 5,714 vehicles of the total 43,781 vehicles studied, 13 percent.22

Based on the data for crash rate numerators and denominators shown in Figure 1, the resulting calculations reveal a 59 percent increase in the airbag deployment crash rate from 0.76 per million miles of travel to 1.21 per million miles of travel following the installation of Autosteer. As explained below, this result is particu- larly important because it is the only vehicle cohort in the study with complete information for both before and after Autosteer crash rate calculations. Before and after comparisons of the resulting crash rates are unbiased by missing data for exposure mileage because there are no missing data in this subset of the data. This finding is the just the opposite of that claimed by NHTSA for the larger set of vehicles they studied.

We used logistic regression to measure the practical and statistical significance of Autosteer to this apparent difference in crash rates. Because the data do not re- cord the mileage at which an airbag deployed, we employed a method that trans- formed the dataset of 5,714 vehicles into two equal sized segments, “before” and “after” Autosteer. (In the transformed dataset of 11,428 observations, 3 cases have missing data where the last mileage retrieved is reported to equal the “Next mileage after Autosteer installation”). Each observation in the new dataset can be understood as a segment of exposure miles that either did or did not result in
 
an airbag deployment crash. Each observation contained the independent vari- ables, total “Exposure mileage” for the segment, “Autosteer installed” (equals 1 if so, zero otherwise), as well as the dependent variable of “Airbag deployed.”

The model estimated from these specific data helps to answer the question con- cerning NHTSA’s safety claim about Autosteer, “Is the installation of Autosteer associated with a decreased risk of an airbag deployment crash, controlling for exposure mileage?” The answer is “No.”

Table 1 demonstrates that Autosteer is actually associated with an increase in the odds ratio of airbag deployment by more than a factor of 2.4 (95% Confidence Interval: 1.57 - 3.8), when exposure mileage is taken into account. See Table 1.


9
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 20, 2019, 04:36:18 AM »
Quote
In other news:

-new estimates of Tesla US inventory have grown to over 10,000.

-it has become known that AutoPilot is actually more dangerous than no AutoPilot
I have no knowledge of the other info you posted, but these two pieces are from FUD sources as far as I am aware, certainly the second one.

What's the point of the Tesla Glory/Failure thread if nobody actually bothers to read any the negative Tesla articles
You actually replied directly to the post I linked the autopilot report:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-tesla-autopilot-cut-crashes-40-that-was-bogus/


Quote
In 2017, the feds said Tesla Autopilot cut crashes 40%—that was bogus


Quote
But now NHTSA's raw data set is available, and, if anything, it appears to contradict Musk's claims. The majority of the vehicles in the Tesla data set suffered from missing data or other problems that made it impossible to say whether the activation of Autosteer increased or decreased the crash rate. But when QCS focused on 5,714 vehicles whose data didn't suffer from these problems, it found that the activation of Autosteer actually increased crash rates by 59 percent.

arstechnica is definitely not what I would classify as FUD. And if you can explain to me how this report:
http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/NHTSA_Autosteer_Safety_Claim.pdf
is FUD.  I'll offer the same wager to Rob to you.  $50 dollars to an org of your choice. Prove to me how this report can be classified as fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Give me some evidence. We are on a science-based forum after all.

Or maybe I don't understand your definition of FUD. Is FUD simply anything that casts Musk and Tesla in a negative light, even if it exposes lies and dishonesty? Any criticism, no matter the implications nor the quality of evidence, is simply cast aside as FUD. Why don't we just take it a step further and have Neven moderate any negative Musk discussion. Sticky this thread and let sigmetnow post in peace.

I just don't understand your obsession with Tesla, Oren. You're clearly a smart person, and have your head on straight about climate change. But your brain just switches off when anything Tesla/Musk related comes up .

I think you're missing the point zizek. There are hundreds of forum members who'd agree with you overall and who ignore this thread for good reasons. I did a scientific experiment by "testing the waters" to see what might show up only to find it poisoned beyond recovery. A waste of time iow.

All the facts data in the world will not make any difference to those who chose to argue the point with you. They don't care anyway and don't really think telsa will put a dint in agw/cc either nor make any real difference to anything else.   They just like to argue about issues that have nothing to do with telsa or evs. Sig seems to be stuck in the 2000s when reports about technical feasibility were more effective. Lost in the past iow. It used to be a barrier and now it's been swept away more or less leaving the really big important barriers more exposed. Rather than move on and address those unfortunately some here prefer to live in the past and keep up with old habits. Ever heard of big fish little pond? :)

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 04, 2019, 09:19:07 AM »
That's great GoSouthYoungins. Well done. :D

11
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.

12
Policy and solutions / Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
« on: December 19, 2018, 08:50:41 PM »
Zero was not an option?


We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?
Terry

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 08, 2018, 07:59:27 AM »
Since the Beaufort, CAB, ESS, Laptev is pretty much ice covered now, here is amsr2-uhh for the current freezing season, sep24-nov6
I expect the Laptev closing will mean the recent gallop of century+ extent increases will drop off, and 2018 may start pushing against the previous lows for date again.  The Kara refreeze may make up for some of that, but after that, the Chukchi and Barents between them have an awful lot of heat to dissipate.
Don't forget Hudson's impending rapid ice up. But Chukchi, Barents, and Bering are going to result in a veryyyyy long stall afterwards, IMO. Baffin and Kara will be the only areas gaining.

Also: tonight's 00z EURO opens a black hole in Baffin. Wonder how this looks come verification / imagine it is substantially less progressive.



And it is not coincidental it is corresponding with what's unfolding over Quebec........ 2018 vs. 2017. Last year was phenomenal. And this year.... WTF!





14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 19, 2018, 07:38:32 PM »
Couldn't resist comparing SMOS and 0m salinity.

15
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: October 16, 2018, 08:48:46 PM »
Tesla is NEVER going to compete on “the cheap end” for cars.

NEVER is a very long day.  I'm sure that Ford was NEVER going to have any kind of luxury car, sports car or anything other than a mainstream workhorse....

16
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 15, 2018, 11:13:41 PM »

Finally, the doctor asks: "So why did you come here?"

"Here…I CAN complain!" "

http://chaimsteinmetz.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-didnt-get-here-by-complaining.html

sidd

sorry but that most certainly was a female patient, 90% chance ROFL......

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 14, 2018, 02:51:06 PM »
So I do not buy the WACCy theory, because I see the exact opposites: the warmer the arctic, the warmer the continents

The continents are only cold in comparison, not colder.  They are not warming as fast as the Arctic Ocean.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 14, 2018, 11:55:03 AM »
Looks like extent gains are finally beginning to get going in the CAB

Oct 13th - Oct 11th

19
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: October 14, 2018, 12:35:49 AM »
Every industry pollutes a ton but big oil/gas companies produce a ton of money directly tied to that pollution. And when they use that money to fund politicians who prevent proper accounting for pollution, and to fund fake research casting doubt on the damage of said pollution, it does become a battle of evil against humanity.

There is no such thing as "Big Oil". The amount of overlap energy companies have with the rest of our economic system essentially makes the C-level executives immune from climate change crisis. They don't care about "EV disruption" nearly as much as you think. Especially considering how tied energy is with finance, and just how profitable green energy is becoming.

When was the last time you've heard of an oil company threaten their banks to divest from their green investments? And how many directors, vice-presidents, board members have worked with both fossil fuel companies and the bank's energy capital markets (both renewable and fossil fuels)? Go find out for yourself and look at the leadership for any large banks.

It's hard to find evil when the big players - finance & wall street - are playing for both sides.

Oil men will always be profitable. If Fossil fuels prices tanks due to climate change, they'll do what they have always done: bankrupt, leave anybody under the executive level to eat dirt, and take their millions and billions elsewhere. They aren't scared of green disruption. Amazon plug-ins. Electric cars. Wind turbines. Solar panels. They're scared of wealth re-distribution and the guillotine. 


Here's a bonus graphic to illustrate how murky global capitalism has become. you can't fight big oil without fighting an entire system.
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-largest-u-s-companies-board-members/

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 13, 2018, 08:08:15 PM »
Well, the $7,500 that rich people received to help them pay for their luxury Teslas will be gone before it dribbles down to help the merely well off pay for their promised, but not delivered $35,000 Model 3s.
Buyers need their reservations in by the 15th, and take delivery by the end of the year. Those that handed over their $1,000 based on promises of a $35,000 Tesla, then added another $2,500 to 'keep their place in line", have found that the line handing out $7,500 closed before they had a chance to reach the winners circle.


Bait and Switch used to have negative connotations.
Ronnie's Trickle down Economics was characterized as pissing on the little guy.
Taking poor peoples thousand$ to build rich peoples discounted cars. What a guy!


Dispersing all of a companies rebates to the wealthiest customers, without even offering anything but vaporware, at a $1,000 a pop, to whatever is left of the American middle class is a betrayal of epic proportions.
Terry

21
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 11, 2018, 11:03:02 PM »
Tesla needs a little over $115M per month over the next 13 months to pay off it's outstanding debt.

They shut down the once lauded SolarCity operations in Utah in an apparent attempt at saving money, but how that plays into an evaluation of Tesla's now wholly owned, but hemorrhaging SolarCity subsidiary can only be guessed at.

Back in the 3Q of 2015 SolarCity expected to have 4k employees working out of their $15M facilities in Utah, and the State promised tax breaks of $24.44M, with bonuses if the workforce swelled to 4,500.
https://edcutah.org/recent-wins/solar-city

Alas, this didn't happen, and the former employees will have to move, then re-apply with Tesla if they wan't to retain any connections with their former employer.

Some of the debt that needs to be cleared up over the next 13 months originated with SolarCity, and at the time of the buyout Musk apparently owned (slightly) more of SolarCity than he did of Tesla. In bailing out SolarCity Musk was to some extent bailing himself out using Tesla's stock. As I understand it more than one lawyer has become involved.

I don't think Tesla needs to show that they made a profit in the 3d quarter. I think they need to show large profits every quarter for the next year+.
Terry

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 11, 2018, 08:28:27 PM »
More open water would lose more heat to the atmosphere during the dark months if clear skies allowed radiational cooling. So far, that has not been the case. Moreover, warm water has been pouring into the Arctic from the Pacific like we have never seen before while ice and fresh water are being pushed out through the Fram and the CAA at a higher than normal rate.

All in all, this looks like the Arctic is being "Atlantified" and "Pacified". This bodes ill for sea ice.

23
Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: October 11, 2018, 05:10:15 PM »
The "study" that the NY Times piece is inspired by is Ethan's PhD dissertation, which can be downloaded here:

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D88358JX

It's about the toxic interaction between heat and humidity in low to mid latitudes under likely global warming conditions. 

It's not about the Arctic, and that's OK.  Not everything in the climate is controlled by Arctic sea ice!  Ethan is a smart kid and he spent years working on this for his PhD, please do not "sigh" at it.  Thanks. 

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 06, 2018, 09:34:18 PM »
DMI SST anomaly October 3 2017 vs 2018:

edit: I just saw I have Oct 2 2016 in my archive as well...

25
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 04, 2018, 11:04:52 PM »
Somebody please take away this man's twitter account.

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 04, 2018, 04:15:47 PM »
Think the 5k/wk rate refers only to model 3. 53,329 is nicely in the 50-55K guidance. If they were only doing around 3k/wk in first 4 or 5 weeks of the quarter then it seems like they have averaged 4.5k/wk in the last couple of months. Am I concerned about 4.5k vs 5k in last couple of months? Not really, what matters more is whether they can consistently get above 6k without a lot more capital expenditure in the near future.

What matters is the margin. Specifically the net margin at a specific price point. Demand for a 60-65k car is going to be limited and even at this price, they need to be doing north of 20% gross to have a chance of breaking even. Cutting that 60-65k car to 35k to tap into the main market and remain in the green is going to be a colossal challenge.

There are other issues as well (including EPA rule shenanigans wrt ZEV credits in the future), but that's one of the biggest.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 04, 2018, 03:36:21 PM »
I think the lower the minimum the faster the refreeze, but also the later the minimum the faster the refreeze.

28
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 02, 2018, 01:31:54 AM »
Imagine yourself in forty years. We've passed the point of no return. We couldn't stop climate change. All is hopeless. Everyone is scared, angry, and confused. How could this happen? Everyone cries.

The Sigmetnows and Archimids of the world answer:

"Well, we tried our gosh darn hardest. You see, there's this guy from South Africa who got his fortune from apartheid gem mining. He bought nice cars like McLaren and rode on a private jet. One day he bought a electric car company and was going to build one for every person in the world. That's how he was going to save the world. He didn't like public transport so he was going to make a super special underground vacuum tube where you could drive your own car in. Very cool. very innovative. what a genius. too bad the oil companies and shorts got in his way. what a shame. everything would be fine now. OH! and he wanted us to go to mars! how cool! "

29
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 17, 2018, 10:03:29 PM »
Okay, you have point. I take it back. Negative stuff about Musk can go in here as well, as it seems to affect stock prices.  ;D

30
Policy and solutions / Re: Energy Efficiency: The “First Fuel”
« on: September 15, 2018, 04:26:04 AM »
What we desire and what we will settle for are of course two different things. When you can't keep living the life you've lived because resources have dried up and most of the alternatives will leave you cold and hungry you still have to make a choice. Welcome to life . Maybe we are just running out of resources ?
Genocide would imply someone planned
 such a thing.
A population crash isn't usually planned , not for humans or any other living thing, but it will happen when resources dry up.


What the world needs is good examples of how to live with diminishing resources and a changing climate. Successful examples might not include the comforts we think we are entitled to but desire and what we will settle for are two different things.

It would seem the comment I was responding to has already been deleted. Cool




31
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 13, 2018, 09:27:38 PM »
On topic (telsa-thread):  11 of the 23 executives named by Teslarati 4 months ago have now left the company (most recently VP of global finance).  there are widespread and wide ranging issues with model 3 deliveries and quality control.  bond yields continue to rise.  production appears to have slowed to between 3k-4k/wk.  the backlog appears to be largely exhausted, and there is significant surplus of certain variants that are not correlated to any current demand.  IMO, 90% chance Tesla is bankrupt by 4/1/2019 (less than a year after Musk pranked about it for April Fools). "Global shortage of red flags being attributed to Tesla."

assuming that they're doing their best to hide all bad things, i consider the visible/obvious problems the tip of the iceberg and that's the REAL REASON why i believe and say what i'm saying which is more or less what you are saying.

deep underneath the facade it must be boiling because i'd never quit a well paid job in a soaring startup/business as long as the outlook is intact and business ethics are observed. there must be a reason why the "non-rats" escape the (sinking?) ship while some jump once they see the torpedos coming.

only reason that i can imagine other than the above would be if i have serious issues with the boss on a personal level which i have to admit is a possibility as well, perhaps all are true, who knows.

32
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 05, 2018, 12:00:49 PM »
TESLA & Elon Musk.

I was hoping Musk would be made to pull in his horns. It seems he has "Trump Twitter Disease" and is as likely as Trump to change.

If I was on the Board of Tesla I would now have to vote for him to be replaced ASAP. TESLA needs someone who "sticks to his last" - getting TESLA through the transition to become a major auto manufacturer. Negative publicity is the last thing the company needs at the moment. He is now a liability. It is a pity but life generally sucks.

The reason - see below.
_____________________________________________________
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/04/elon-musk-claims-diver-in-thai-cave-rescue-is-child-rapist-without-evidence

Elon Musk calls Thailand diver 'child rapist' in latest baseless attack
Quote
On Tuesday, however, BuzzFeed published two new emails from Musk, in which he called a journalist who has written about the dispute a “fucking asshole” and he launched new extraordinary claims against Unsworth, without providing documentation to support the allegations.

Musk called Unsworth a “single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years”, alleging that he had moved to Chiang Rai “for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time”. He asserted that the city was “renowned for child sex-trafficking”.......
.....Unsworth, who said he was considering legal action after the original insults on Twitter, is now moving forward with a lawsuit, his lawyer said in an email to the Guardian on Tuesday: “Elon Musk’s campaign of publishing vile and false accusations against Mr Unsworth is inexcusable. Musk hopes to be sued and he deserves to be sued. He will be.”

Musk’s email to BuzzFeed, which was a response to Unsworth’s latest legal threats, said: “I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole … As for this alleged threat of a lawsuit, which magically appeared when I raised the issue (nothing was sent or raised beforehand), I fucking hope he sues me.”

BuzzFeed said it could not locate any UK criminal records for Unsworth, 63, and also spoke with his girlfriend, who said she was 40 and had been with him for seven years.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 05, 2018, 02:02:37 AM »
If anyone doesn't like the title of the thread

I thought it was very well done, but I've come to expect content titles to be useful instead of extremely accurate. 

You go from a study title of "Warming of the interior Arctic Ocean linked to sea ice
losses at the basin margins"

to a science mag title of "'Archived' heat has reached deep into the Arctic interior, researchers say"

and nobody shows any interest in any of that, and the discussions never begin, and scientists remain safely silo'd and strictly literal, and 20 years goes by and scientists are blaming themselves for not properly communicating the accelerating demise of global habitability

maybe it's not the job of scientists to communicate climate change science into mitigation & adaptation policy

I'd like to apologize to any scientists who would risk their career by sharing space with someone who talks loose about arctic sea ice, and I thank you for teaching.  I'm not here to argue my darling theories.  I am not married to my suspicions..  I just don't know how to expect the arctic to refreeze after a few BOE in late summer.  How do you propose the cold upper halocline layer of the Arctic will be maintained, after weeks and months of no ice cover?

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 03, 2018, 02:45:42 AM »
Quote
Please tell me why humans today could not live similar lives today?

Because for most of that time the Earth population in the low hundreds of millions. Now we are 7 billion. All the good spots are taken.

Quote
The difference is that we could do it so so so much better. We can forecast the weather. We can communicate globally and have access to all the information every compiled (imagine how useful that would have been to our ancestors).

We can't have any of that without cheap and reliable transportation.

Quote
And we don't have to totally abandon all manufacturing and all transportation. We just need to reduce by 90-99%. Durable goods, grains, and occasionally humans should still travel significant distances occasionally.

You say that without proposing a path forward to do that. Healthcare, education, water they all requiere energy and lots of it. You speak as if can have an information age without transportation and manufacturing.

Until you can set in motion a plan that makes people automatically gravitate towards homesteading and away from cities your proposal is nothing but childish dreams. Forcing people will only end up in a Venezuela like situation, but for the whole globe.

Quote
Most interestingly, this would allow people to live much more in line with our evolution, and the depression and chronic disease that come with our current modern society would be largely alleviated.

The information age is part of human evolution. It may be our undoing or our salvation. Either way is natural.

Quote
You claim to be a fan of extreme and rapid changes, but you vehemently support Tesla.

So now you are claiming that Tesla does not represent rapid change? Pffft.

Quote
(Btw, calling them heroic is childish and borderline comical.) 

Heroes are real.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: August 31, 2018, 10:36:53 PM »
OK, first off, there has always been enough heat in the Arctic ocean to melt the ice, and keep it of, even during winter.  What saves the ices is the fact the heat is isolated below thermoclines and haloclines.

What I consider the real take-away of the paper is that it confirms my sense of how the system is changing, and how a BOE will eventually take place.

That enthalpy has doubled does not instantly mean the event is imminent.  This process is more like something out of Poe's "Pit and the Pendulum".

Our swinging blade - "pendulum" is the annual swing in insolation and heat transported into the Arctic.  Each swing varies slightly from the last, but falls predictably within a given envelope which encompasses the observed range annual heat uptake; heat uptake which is reflected in a combination of SST's and ice coverage.  Some years are 2012.  Others are 2013.   But, each year the heat is enough to melt between 16,000 and 20,000+ KM3 of ice.  (it used to be ~15-18, but over the last 20 or so Arctic Amplification has pushed the number up - see Jim Pettit's graphs).

Like Poe's "Pendulum" that swing cuts a little more deeply each swing because of increased available heat, but even with that the process of it finally whittling down the Arctic pack to a BOE will be very slow - like centuries - unless it gets help.

So our heat in the water is the wildcard that will accelerate that.  Unlike Poe's "pit", where the table our victim - the ice - is strapped to is fixed to the floor, the Arctic's is "moveable".  Namely this - that increasing enthalpy effectively raises the surface under the blade, making increasing areas of ice vulnerable to full melt out.  The practical way it performs this is by limiting how much ice can form, and how fast, rather than melting the ice directly.

So far we've seen this play out in the Barents and Greenland seas, neither of which typically fully melted out in the past, but now do.

I think this will become more apparent in the Chukchi and the Bering, and to a lesser degree the Kara.  Eventually it will be apparent in the Laptev, Beaufort and lagging behind those, the ESS.

I think reduced ice creation over time in these seas will eventually, over a much shorter timescale make the entire arctic vulnerable to a BOE happening through completely mundane seasonal variation in captured heat.

I will start expecting it imminently when the winter max volume drops under 20,000KM3.  When we hit that threshold, I think we will have a 1 in 10 chance that year of a BOE with relatively normal melt.  When the max drops below 19,000KM3, I think it will rise to a 1 in 4 chance.  At 18,000KM3 I think it will be 1 in 2.

So that's what I'll be watching for - decreasing end of freeze season volume.

As a last comment, I'll add that increasing ocean heat has a strong self-reinforcing feedback attached to it.  As we lose ice off of the peripheral seas, we will greatly increase heat uptake because of decreased albedo.  There are other factors here which are self-reinforcing, but the key take away is the warmer the water gets, the greater potential exists for increased heat capture.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: August 31, 2018, 01:56:15 PM »

Quote
In the coming years, however, excess BG halocline heat will give rise to enhanced upward heat fluxes year-round, creating compound effects on the system by slowing winter sea ice growth.

So even before the current layered structure of the Arctic has undergone the expected 'fundamental change,' the effects of this heat will be felt very soon, not decades or centuries, but in 'coming years.'

Am I misinterpreting something here?

What proportion of folks thinks this is new and/or only in 'coming years' as opposed to thinking this has contributed to upward heat flux over the last few years (or decades) and therefore already included in the trend of observations?

Just because this is being talked about in this way for the first time doesn't mean it hasn't been there in the observations.

It is absolutely already coming into play. It is not as if there is an on/off switch. This is a process of transitioning from the stable Arctic we knew to something completely different.

There is more open water, soaking up sunlight.
There is more ocean heat at depth.
There are increasingly stormy open seas with waves as high as 6 meters, mixing surface waters.

(Feel free to add your own items to this list.)

All of this is already eating at the ice, slowing freeze and accelerating melt. We have been watching a fascinating event unfold north of Greenland this year. Could ocean heat at depth, upwelling along the CAA and coast of Greenland, be contributing to this?

37
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 30, 2018, 11:45:23 PM »

Laugh while you can, truckers!  The trucking companies’ accountants love what electric trucks will do for their bottom line — like $200,000+ fuel savings on each diesel truck replaced. The average trucker knows nothing about the Tesla Semi specs and is in complete denial about their benefits, because how can anything possibly beat a diesel truck? ::)  But as diesel truckers are struggling up steep grades, or trying to merge into highway traffic, or are stuck in the runaway truck emergency stop pit, and see Tesla Semi trucks literally passing them left and right (where legal ;) ), then they’ll begin to understand.

I'm laughing. NOBODY knows anything about Tesla Semi specs, hahaha. It's all in Musk's head. And lest we should forget, he regularly lies about important stuff (more recently it has been more often...I'll spare every the examples).

Tesla will SOON be raising capital. What will they put up as collateral: Gigafactory? Supercharging network?   And how much will their already junk bonds get downgraded.

EDIT: Do you actually think that Tesla Semis, a revolutionary model, will be more reliable at any time in the next decade than diesel trucks??? THAT IS NOT HOW SHIT WORKS!

Yesterday, news broke that two more top execs (head of HR and head of PR) have left.

Looks like Tesla has been running behind on production numbers, deliveries have been very unreliable, warranties have been further delayed, and their is a maniac at the helm. It would be good for everyone if Apple buys Tesla and sends Musk off on a rocket.  But why would they waste the money at these valuations when they will be able to gobble up the pieces for pennies on the dollar in a year or two?

something along that line i'm predicting since long but remember to see and mention the merrits of both, tesla as what it did and does and the one at the helm as well.

it often takes maniacs to make things happen, only thing is that maniacs mostly are not able to step down in time.

since you mention apple, SJ was a similar kind of maniac and he was ousted when apple was almost run aground and then after a bit of a learning curve, another great idea and a bit more of respect for the work of others that are needed as well, they finally made it and still apple will topple over their old patterns one day. people will not be willing to pay double for half and let others decide what's good for them without given a workaround. talking about iphones only. i'm an apple user since mac+ times but refuse to use an iphone after the first model, i want to own my device and make it run the way i want and not to be dependent on whether someone thinks i'm allowed to do or use certain things which is why i only use rooted android phones with custom software, very custom at that LOL

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 29, 2018, 04:09:10 AM »
I think 2C in a few days is fairly rapid.

if we want to know if it's rapid we have to define to what we compare.

since the recent drop is more or less parallel to the average curve but still significantly above that curve i consider the recent drop as normal and no matter if that is rapid or not, even if it is rapid, it's normally rapid but higher, hence not worth a mention that makes the impression that something out of the ordinary is happening.

looking at the attached image i'd say it's very very warm in the arctic and way above average in general, everything else is noise IMO.

39
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 17, 2018, 04:04:36 PM »
H2 profitability odds just went from 2% to ZERO.
So if Tesla's H2 IS profitable by some twist of fate, will you quit calling people who have opinions different from you fanboys? Or will you continue your endless attacks regardless of any facts just to "wake up the fanboys"?
This entire thread from beginning till end has been tesla drones deflecting any criticism of musk and tesla as fud, lies, oil & gas lobbyist.  The critics have been attacked relentlessly. And now that everything is unraveling, and everything we've said is true, we still have to give musk and tesla the benifit of the doubt?
Defending musk is no longer about facts and data. It's grown into an unhealthy obsession. Everyone with some common sense needs to give it up.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 17, 2018, 02:13:28 AM »
a nice thought but since when does one thing exclude the other ?

As an individual person, I'm sure that some of us can be active fighting anthropogenic global warming. But as a group belonging to a Forum, I don't see that we are promoting activism. The Forum is design to share information, not to make social movements.

So, I wonder what would happen on this Forum, if suddenly all the satellites stop working and we become blind. And the true is that, with the knowledge we have, we can be socially active on several subjects. So, -as a group- do you believe that: "We already know what's happening, easily see the effects and might finally have time to GO DO something about it!"?

Anyway, this belong to another topic, if someone is looking to open it (maybe on "Policy and Solutions"). Let's return to the Arctic sea ice area and extent.

41
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 13, 2018, 10:42:52 PM »
Yeah! I've posted about this a few times before, and I'm glad it's finally come up. I was wondering when we'll overtly accept fascist genocidal states behavior in the name of climate change. And I didn't expect it so soon!

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 10, 2018, 10:10:06 PM »
Smoke bomb making beeline for High Arctic / Laptev as models converge on a LP event beginning ~D3. Whether it gets down to the high 970s or lower remains to be seen (as we approach events this year I have noticed pressures tend to lower on models once lows are "locked in").

The amount of smoke is an indicator that the incoming airmass is very warm. I expect sustained century losses for the foreseeable future through D10. This will be the time that 2018 puts distance between itself and all other years except 2012.

Didn’t you say a week ago we were meant to see “sustained century drops for ten days” and that we were meant to catch up to 2012 already?  Only for that not to happen? Instead we got one century break, and the rest of it was dead on average for this year.

Just to add: I agree with you this time only because Neven does.

It seems the heat is on.

43
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 10, 2018, 08:11:57 PM »
Apparently shorts are back in style at Tesla.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/investment-ideas/article-tesla-short-sellers-back-in-force-as-shares-remain-shaky/

Tesla is still America's most shorted stock & shorts are up now as compared to last Monday, prior to Musk's short busting tweets.

BTW, why isn't everyone who believes Elon to be honest not buying his stock at these prices. As I understand it he's promised a buyout at $420. Shouldn't all believers be mortgaging their homes, cashing out their IRA's, and investing the kid's college fund in this can't lose investment?

Terry

44
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 09, 2018, 06:24:52 PM »
GSY, thanks for the frank response.
Archimid - I realize it may be a good synergy but the price wasn't right, and as Tesla danced a long dance with the possibility of running out of cash, I believe was unjustified in terms of risk management. Hopefully that dance is over though.

45
Gerontocrat
I really like your message. It is spot om.

Palaeontology is not the answer.
Paleontology and the models reinforce one another. Both together in context are more skillful than either alone.

The models all want continuous change, the evidence is that change has been discontinuous.  Until you offer a model that both seems to handle Historical data and the sudden changes which seem to have happened I am disinterested in them -- and I only really ask that they have some demonstrated skill (which they do not).   But absent predictions of sudden changes, I think the models can be completely ignored.

46

Lets assume that trend is linear.


But perhaps let us not ?

47
The rest / Re: Wildlife
« on: August 07, 2018, 10:49:34 PM »
Killing the soil:

This is something i have many times seen up close and personal. There is no life in the soil with conventional agriculture in the USA. Last year I went thru Indiana, Illinois, Iowa southern Minnesota, some of the richest soil of the midwest. I frequently found myself pausing by fields (almost exclusively corn/soy rotations) and a more than a  few times I reached down and picked up a handful  of earth. Dead, dead, dead. Solitudinem faciunt, agrum appelant.

"Thus is it concluded that cascading soil fauna depletion occurs when woodland is cleared for pasture, when pasture is cultivated for crops, when synthetic fertilizers replaced organics, especially after WW1, and when excessive toxic and systemic biocides are introduced, especially after WW2, followed by the onslaught of alien/invasive species and diseases. Continued catastrophic trajectory for earthworms—the builders of fertile topsoils and humic SOM, upon which most life on Earth ultimately depends—seems as serious as for insects and most other organisms. Demonstrated solutions to restore biotic abundance and curtail loss of biodiversity are to readopt or to re-invest in more natural farming by recycling organic fertilizers and avoiding both waste and chemical poisons. Concomitant with a shift by farmers and consumers, governments may need to reallocate funding from agri-chemistry that continues to seek stop-gap solutions to problems often caused by chemical toxins themselves, and to raise support for practical, applied agro-ecology and sustainable Permaculture for efficient and flexible natural designs."

Open access.Read the whole thing.

http://www.mdpi.com/2571-8789/2/2/33

sidd

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 07, 2018, 10:45:03 AM »
I took this image from Nat Geographic edition Jan this year.

Ive seen many projections like this showing the likely last areas to retain summer ice. But given the recent lift off from Cape Morris-Jessup, the lack of ice off Eastern Greenland and northern advancement of warm salty Atlantic water, I wonder have the models got it all wrong and the last preserve of ice will be a lot further west than northern Greenland.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 07, 2018, 09:45:24 AM »
JAXA DATA - Extent as at 6 Aug 2018 =   22,854,878  km2, now 0.349 million km2 above 2017 and 2nd(?) lowest in the satellite record

A mixture of variable gains and losses have kept an unchanged picture. Extent and a likely maximum of around 25 million are well below historical averages for a third year. Three years in a row at least suggest the beginning of a significant change.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 07, 2018, 05:12:59 AM »
Excellent.  I learned something today.  2012 minimum arctic sea ice extent was 3.41M km².  The main mass of icepack polygon comes in at 3.23km².

So the number does include the CAA and other sea ice outside of the main pack.  Here's what 2012 looks like compared to Greenbelt's guesstimate:

Pages: [1] 2