Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Archimid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: Today at 03:42:07 AM »

Catastrophists routinely ignore any evidence that contradicts with their highly improbable disaster scenarios.  They complain that "consensus scientists" ignore the threat.  Yet it's the catastrophists who ignore the science.

Sudden Arctic methane release is not "highly improbable". It is unlikely that enough methane is released so that global temperatures rise by a few degree in a few years.  It is likely that as arctic sea ice vanishes and the NH warms, more greenhouse gasses will be released, methane included. The more and faster it warms the more methane will be released, the more it will warm. It will warm really fast after the first BOE. Methane release must increase significantly, particularly local warming.

That is the simple truth. Will methane and warming spiral out of control after the first BOE? Unknown. It hasn't happened this fast anywhere on record. All scientists can do is study the fastest warming of the past, multiply it times ten and infer.

Granted their inferences are informed by the laws of physics, decades of rigorous studies, sweat and tears. One would be a fool to ignore what their models say. Sadly, there is no double blind experiment in climate science and we are dealing with the future unknown.

There is significant evidence suggesting the possibility of runaway methane emissions that would make our lives miserable. We shouldn't wait and find out. We should do everything possible to not find out if there is a methane bomb or not. We should act as if there is going to be one and avoid it at all cost.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 26, 2019, 08:24:57 PM »
I like Ken’s posts. They seem genuinely skeptic of alarmism and he often backs his skepticism with links and solid arguments. I’ve learned from him. Also he is doing a great job over at Solutions.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: June 26, 2019, 03:18:50 PM »
This is ridiculous and at the same time what is likely happening everywhere.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 26, 2019, 03:47:00 AM »
Archimid, that's the view of most of the scientists who study climate change, not just one.  That's why the UNFCCC agreed to the 2C temperature limit increase in 1992 and reaffirmed it under the Paris Treaty in 2015 and in the IPCC 2018 report.

I know. That is the consensus.  But the consensus is wrong. I know that is quite a claim, but I honestly believe it is true. I believe scientists have too many forces that stop them from laying out the true risks of climate change. I think I know the reason why I can see the truth and they can't (it is most certainly not that I'm smarter than they are), but I rather keep it to myself. It could just be madness. Time will tell.

Keep in mind that the long interglacials (thousands of years long) were caused because the axial tilt of the Earth meant much higher solar radiation in the Arctic than we are seeing now.

I don't believe that is true. What causes interglacials? Last time I checked it is unknown. M. cycles and GHG's are not enough to start them, however, M. cycles and CO2 are the main drivers of interglacials and without them, there are no interglacials.

M.cycles and GHG's reinforce each other over 10k-20k years to reach the interglacial maximum and then temperature precipitously drops, except this last interglacial.

Our interglacial differ from the ones of the past in that the peak wasn't as high ( Younger Dryas  probably caused this) and Temperatures remained high for 10k years after the peak temperatures, instead of dropping fast to match the decreased solar radiation.

So the forcing on the Arctic was much higher than the we are seeing through global forcing of greenhouse gases, even with polar amplification (which also occurred during the interglacial periods as ice melted and the albedo decreased).

 The forcing on the Arctic at Holocene Maximum was not higher than today because there was a big chunk of Laurentride ice sheet left until about 5k years ago. Even when M. cycle forcing was greater than today the Laurentide ice sheet an other remnants of the last ice age served the function to protect the cryosphere during summer, much like snow and the Greenland ice sheet protects the ASI today. It melted in the long, 15k years process.

And the Arctic did not release the methane currently sequestered in the permafrost and hydrates during those interglacials.

It certainly did release part of it. That's part of the reason we came out of the last ice age. As glacier retreated and exposed carbon and life to warmth, that life lifted carbon up in the atmosphere re-enforcing the M. cycles.

The Arctic temperature was up to 4C higher than today during the "Holocene Climate Optimum" just 5,000 to 9,000 years ago when there were no continental ice sheets.  And still the methane did not explode out of the Arctic.

 The  "today" used in your study means 2009 and the max was not 5,000 to 9,000 years ago, it was 10,000 .

There were massive ice sheets at that time that gave ASI protection.

Methane did not explode because there was plenty of ice for the higher temperatures to melt and warming took place over thousands of years, not decades.

Will it explode now? I don't care. A BOE is a much more immediate and evident threat.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 25, 2019, 10:10:06 PM »
Nutshell: there have been warm periods in the recent past, long ones – where the methane hydrates did not come out, so it’s a high bar to prove they will be forced out under current conditions.  For example, the last interglacial, known as the Eemian, about 120,000 years ago – got warm enough to raise sea levels 15 or 20 feet above todays (now, that’s a problem..) – but no “methane bomb”.

What a horrifying mistake from one of the world's leaders of climate science.

It is not the same a 10C temperature rise in the Arctic that takes ten thousand years than 10C over the arctic in just 100 years.

On top of that, unlike the modern quick thawing of the Arctic, the peak temperature during the eemian happened just as the continental ice sheets melted. This time around the natural peak temperature happened 10k years ago, most of the continental ice sheets melted and we are warming it back up in a geological instant. To draw a sense of safety from this analogy is simply wrong.

It is not even clear if the Arctic sea ice disappeared during summer at the peak of the eemian. For all we know, the Arctic has had ice on it during summers for millions of years and the NH hasn't been devoid of ice in all that time.

We do know however that warming causes more warming and warming melts permafrost and activates life, which in term causes more warming. In fact, that is the normal mechanism for global warming (coupled with M.cycles). The assumption they are making is that the CO2 and methane release will not release proportional to temperatures, instead it will release at a bit above  the geological pace even as temperatures are rising at human pace.

It may be, but there is no evidence for that and significant evidence against it.

From everything I've read a "methane bomb" that warms up the world by a few degrees in a few years is highly unlikely. A BOE with runaway warming is much more likely and makes the methane bomb much more likely.

WHat is almost a certainty tho, is that methane and CO2 will continue to be released with increased intensity in the NH at the pace of Arctic Amplification, not at the pace of global warming. Further more the more dangerous effect of methane will be concentrated in the north, doing maximum local damage. That is lost in global averages.

Arctic background / Re: Research Icebreaker Polarstern
« on: June 25, 2019, 05:01:35 AM »
You know that movie Armageddon? Well, like that, but the heroes are real.

MOSAiC-Expedition Trailer

MOSAiC Expedition Countdown Series (1)

The countdown begins - only 4 months to go...

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 25, 2019, 03:56:07 AM »
I'm not sure if this has been posted before, I just found this amazing site from NOAA's
Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division.

In it you can find wonderful resources like the attached methane measurements across latitudes and time.

Edit: From the site.

These frames show the latitude distribution (from south-to-north) of average monthly values determined from network flask measurements. Circles are average monthly values from sampling locations thought to be regionally representative; pluses are average values from locations thought to be influenced by local sources and sinks. A smooth curve is fitted to the representative measurements when sufficient data exist. Data shown in ORANGE are preliminary. All other data have undergone rigorous quality assurance and are freely available from GMD, CDIAC, and WMO WDCGG.

Policy and solutions / Re: Trains, Trams, Subways and Buses
« on: June 25, 2019, 03:41:00 AM »
The World's First Solar Powered Train

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:27:34 PM »
Fun fact: In Germany, it is required by law that every house is connected to the public grid. So, no grid free live-style available here.

The law changes according to the times, with some lag.

And yes, power outages are a very very rare thing here. Actually, i can only remember one off the top of my head. It lasted for a couple of hours. In all of Europe, the uptime is pretty good.

Expected. I imagine that hurricane speed winds, 50C heatwaves, hail and floods are very rare too.  Sadly that low disaster frequency is likely to change with the climate and with it, the reliability of the grid.

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:02:09 PM »
Germany's grid outages add up to about 12 minutes per year.

Good for them. Sadly as new and extreme weather patterns start to emerge more often their grid will be challenged more often, just like everyone else.

Grids can be very reliable.

Until they aren't. Fires, storms, floods, heatwaves are all increasing and with that increase comes increase pressure on the grid.

The idea of everyone being free of the grid and energy independent is, well, have you actually thought that through?

Yep. As I said, if achieved, it would be an era of unparalleled prosperity and security. Right now, it seems impossible because energy storage is still expensive. In terms of power production
with solar, for most latitudes solar provides all the energy needed right now. We don't need any other technology. As storage catches up to power generation, then the need for transmission and generation infrastructure will not be there.

Do you have any experience with not being grid connected? 

3 months without grid power at my home. I powered my home with a small inverter gasoline generator that mostly kept the fridge going and provided lights and wind fans to be able to sleep at night.  Not having power sucks, specially if the infrastructure is built under the assumption that there will always be power available.

Do you have any idea what it would take to replace the grid with billions of standalone systems?

Lots of batteries, lots of solar panels and a whole industry of installers and maintainers.

I've been off the grid for almost 30 years.  I'm off the grid because hooking up would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  (That's one of the things that made my land affordable.)  Most people just wouldn't want to be off the grid and have to run their own utility company.  If I could switch over to grid power I would.

Having a cable that is always* on is a great thing, while the cost of home energy sources is high. As costs lower and the limits of storage and generation increase, energy independence will be ubiquitous. I don't think the technology is there yet, but it is the inevitable end result.

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 24, 2019, 06:04:22 PM »
TBH I don’t need to be personally energy independent. I want to have power when I need it, at a competitive cost and I want it to be zero carbon.

If you want to have power when you need it, you need to be energy independent. If the grid goes down and you have no backup power, you won't have power when you need it. Given climate change, your grid will go down with increasing frequency. Thus back up power is needed.

I understand that energy independence and having back up power is not the same thing, but energy independence should be the goal. Energy independence is as close to free energy as we ever going to get. If can make it so everyone have their own source of renewable energy suited for their needs right on site and it is going to be darn close to free energy.

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 24, 2019, 05:39:52 PM »
We need all of the above. We need for anyone that can afford it to become energy independent, at the same time as the maximum amount of renewable energy sources and storage are deployed at a grid scale.

William Happer: Trump Aide Pushing Climate Denial Inside the White House

The physicist, 79, has a seat on the National Security Council – and thinks the science that proves global heating is wrong

... Happer’s position veers far to the right of the typical conservative who questions the severity of the climate crisis.

Happer is basically an Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov from the series Chernobyl. He thinks he knows so much that when reality challenges belief, reality is wrong.

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 23, 2019, 07:31:29 PM »
Archimid, this is a big oil business model. Why would you trust them?

I don't trust fossil fuel interests one bit, but this type of technology is needed, if it works.

Funded by oil companies.  I think this is a PR gimmick, so they can advertise as working on helping the environment.

 Ok but, Bill gates is backing this, his charities and speeches suggests that he is aware that climate change will cost him his fortune, lifestyle and that of his children. He got nothing to gain from covering up "carbon leaks" on this proposed technology. However he might be unaware of them.

Release CO2 to get calcium oxide, which will bind that CO2 to re-form limestone.  Net zero.  But great PR!!

That seems like a significant loophole if they don't cover it. The video does not go into details on how they sold that problem.

Net zero is never proven. They emit more CO2 than they consume for this shit, otherwise, they would brag about it.

If they could prove significant net negative emissions, would you favor it?

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM »
I know some of you may abhor this but it has to be done. We need to remove CO2, reduce emissions to 0 AND invest into protecting our infrastructure.

I know that this looks like an incentive to continue to pollute and that is a possibility, but whether we reduce emissions to zero or not, we are going to need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We need an all above strategy. The Arctic countdown clock is ticking.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 22, 2019, 11:43:19 PM »
Tesla SolarRoof Receives Building Code Approval From ICC-ES

You can have the greatest new building product in the world, but until it has been certified to meet applicable building codes, it is just a gleam in some inventor’s eye that will never see real-world acceptance. The good news is the Tesla SolarRoof has recently been certified to meet the International Building Code, the International Residential Code, the California Building Code, and the California Residential Code by ICC-ES.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 22, 2019, 10:16:42 PM »
Archimid, no it is not people like me, as I take climate change seriously.

Yeah you take very seriously making sure no one acknowledges any climate change danger. You wear rose color glasses and want everyone else to wear them too.  Your message is attractive. Ignore all dangers keep living like you do, there is no problem until 2100, if that. People love your message. You feed them the lies they want so they can ignore climate change too. And that gives you peace.

 But this is OT on this thread. We are watching our world burn while clowns like you laugh at the danger.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 22, 2019, 02:15:37 PM »
GSY. Demand was never there, other than with the Tesla cult fateful. Demand is created by each model 3 sold. The more Model 3 on the road, the more demand will be created. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 21, 2019, 06:29:20 PM »
They are producing close to 7k cars a week in the same line and with less employees than when they were producing 4K cars a week. The ASP is lower and lease accounting may have a role to play that, but the cost of manufacturing has very likely gone down.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 21, 2019, 12:29:12 PM »
Klondike Kat, and people like him, is the reason people in the US doesn't take climate change serious. The reality is that 99% have no clue what that graph said. Their opinion on that graph will be based mostly on the opinion of those surrounding them. And within those that surround them is Klondike Kat and people like him, injecting FUD in the most civil manner possible, appearing wise to anyone not aware of the danger, giving everyone the bliss that only false hope and doubt can provide.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 20, 2019, 09:23:14 PM »
There won’t be a war with Iran unless daddy Putin says so. However, the war drumming does help Trump. Plus Bolton gets to jerk off to the thought of more dead civilians. But unless Putin and his oligarchs can benefit from this, there won’t be a war. Notice I said Putin, not Russia

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 20, 2019, 08:05:22 PM »
How are leases accounted for? We should expect a significant number of sales to be leases.I’m not sure how that affect quarterly profits.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: June 20, 2019, 01:18:20 PM »
Australia’s biggest manganese metals project may go 90% renewables

The developers of what is expected to be Australia’s biggest manganese metals project are looking to source up to 90 per cent renewables for the electricity supply of its energy-intensive operations, and believe it could achieve price parity with Chinese suppliers if it does.

This is how slowly but steadily we turn even battery production to CO2 neutral.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 20, 2019, 01:17:14 PM »
Australia’s biggest manganese metals project may go 90% renewables

The developers of what is expected to be Australia’s biggest manganese metals project are looking to source up to 90 per cent renewables for the electricity supply of its energy-intensive operations, and believe it could achieve price parity with Chinese suppliers if it does.

Cross posting to the batteries thread.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 20, 2019, 12:24:56 PM »

If Tesla makes an annual profit (or if any other Musk company ever does, [currently about 0/50 ]) I will quit posting.

What? You are going to deny us the fun of telling you "we told you so"? Sad.

Thanks for the meaningless insight. I need to examine this closer.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Model projections vs observations.
« on: June 20, 2019, 04:24:48 AM »
Fascinating paper.

Out of 31 CIMP5 models they pick the 6 that best approach current trends. With it they determine 2054 as the date of the first virtual ice free. No bounds or uncertainties in the preview that I can see but judging by Michael Hauber's image according to the models best performing models the next decade (2020's) is not out of the question and down right likely if the ensemble stdev is 1 sd not 2 sd as I hope it is.

Now lets hope that CIMP5 is not underestimating like CIMP4.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:03:26 PM »
You don't need trucks to plant trees. They just grow on their own.

At the scale that trees must be planted to  make up of years of deforestation, it is simply not true that trucks aren't needed and is just a matter of planting them.

 You need to collect and plant seed, nurse them into saplings, then go to correct spots, clean the area, dig, plant them and every so often, specially in the early life of the trees they must be tended. If drought or flood happen they will need help.

This is something that must be done, we must get planting trees at a scale that puts nature to shame. But don't kid yourself. It will be a huge effort and it will require modern technology to make it feasible. Also many species will go extinct as we change habitats to whatever they are now to forests.

It doesn't matter. It needs to be done. Together with zero emissions and CO2 extractions by other methods. More direct forms of geoengineering will be needed too. Fossil fuel interests won. There is no longer time to do this the easy way.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 19, 2019, 06:13:36 PM »
b_lumenkraft I understand your concern, believe me I do. Geoengineering could make matters worse. However, I don't see a theoretical difference between planting forest using trucks to transport people and supplies or "planting" plankton with ships or even "planting" clouds with airplanes. They are all geoengineering.

They are all human attempts to control the climate using information and lots of accumulated energy. The fear is not that we fail, the fear is the unintended consequences.

That said, we are heading to terrible times. There is nothing worse than doing nothing about it. And if doing something carries risks, the risk of doing something must be weighted against doing nothing. It shouldn't be dismissed simple because it sounds risky.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 19, 2019, 05:39:04 PM »
b_lumenkraft I fear that the time when reducing emissions was a solution is over. Fossil fuel interests won. We should have listened to the warnings 30 years ago.We must have negative emissions to bring back the temperature to 20th century levels. That means that not only we must stop emitting, we must withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere.

Trees and plankton are the global champions of CO2 absorption, so the answer may be found replicating them.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: June 19, 2019, 03:00:16 PM »
Well, Siberia will get more livable:

Only while the Arctic holds and after the NH hemisphere stabilizes after an Arctic collapse ( decades?). In the time in between collapse and climate stabilization Siberia will be uninhabitable.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: June 19, 2019, 12:14:58 AM »
Brave. As long as XR can keep the resistance peaceful and growing the case will advance.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 18, 2019, 06:25:28 PM »
Sorry to interrupt such a great conversation but the Truckla is here!

And how it was made!

Please continue talking batteries.

Here, where our spotless credibility can't be questioned because of the meaningless nature of the discussion, what do you peeps think of the PIOMAS 20C graph posted over at the PIOMAS thread?

Any insight?

This one:

Go Canada! By acknowledging the threat, they can examine it with a clear mind and make the correct preparations to avoid or mitigate catastrophe.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 18, 2019, 04:51:23 AM »
Interesting fast ice destruction by what looks like river runoff on the ESS.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 18, 2019, 04:13:56 AM »
Considering that Model S and X still use 18650 batteries made in japan by Panasonic, and the ample space remaining in Giga1, I can see how Tesla could set up their own battery factory while still buying every 18650 and 2170 Panasonic can make.

But the rumors I've heard about the Maxwell acquisition have very little substance to them. I'm really not sure how it all fits in.

The bull in me says they are fusing Maxwell's technology and fusing it with their own expertise. They start fabricating the next generation battery that is cheaper, lighter and more energy dense. I would be surprised if they don't implement super capacitors into their technology to increase battery life and charge and discharge rates.

The bear in me says they will integrate Maxwell technology into Panasonic's line making it faster, thus making the batteries cheaper, with a likely increase in durability.

Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: June 18, 2019, 12:01:00 AM »
I challenge you to take an IQ test sitting in forty degree heat right under the sun at lower latitudes. Or go ahead go physically demanding work. When it is hot enough even walking under the sun is painful and challenging.

The human body is an engine that runs at an operating temperature of 37C. This temperature must be maintained or the human engine breaks down. The optimal temperature for the human engine is 20-24 for low activity and colder than that for high activity.

For the case where environmental temperatures are higher than optimal, the cooling method the human engine uses is sweating. Sweat can remove enormous amounts of heat. If you keep loading the human body with water it can withstand very high temperatures for a long time. 

However if the body is not watered, the temperatures are too high or humid, or activity level is too high, sweating may be overwhelmed and the body overheats.

Once the body exceeds safe operating temperatures it overheats and activity ceases.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:08:32 PM »
Nobody gives a shit about his background or intentions. They just want to be saved. Whatever the cost.

Yep. That's why depopulation and the dismantling of the modern world without replacement technologies is so unappealing. If not-BAU will cost people's lives (extinction) then you are going to have to peel BAU from their cold dead hands.

We have the technology to make the transition, we just need to seriously try. Socialist, capitalist, vegans and meat eaters. We are going to have to come together to survive.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 17, 2019, 06:16:53 PM »
Nah, flash droughts will dry out the thin top layer regardless of how much it rains.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:46:45 PM »
Nah. Floods have magnitude and frequency and our infrastructure is designed to withstand floods within historic magnitude and frequency. It was predicted that a warmer world will get more and worse floods and that is what we see. It is also predicted that it will get worse.

 Your comment is only trivially true, dismissive and a danger to mankind. It brings solace where there should be alarm. It doesn't matter tho. It will get increasingly worse.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:19:23 PM »
One more quote:

Planting problems mean that growers need less seed and herbicides than expected, which is bad news for salesmen like Greg McKnight of Barman Seed in Woodhull, Illinois.

McKnight, who attended the party, said farmers returned Golden Harvest corn seed, made by ChemChina’s Syngenta. They are either seeking refunds on herbicides or asking Barman to hold their chemicals in storage until next year, he said.

McKnight also sells used 18-wheeler trucks to farmers to haul grain. He thinks financial uncertainty linked to the crop problems will slice his sales in half this year.

“Since all this rain began, it’s like shutting the light switch off,” McKnight said. “My phone has quit ringing on sales.”

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:18:03 PM »
Everybody’s so down in the dumps’: Illinois farmers give up on planting after floods and throw party instead

Dozens of corn farmers and those who sell them seed, chemicals and equipment gathered on Thursday at the restaurant in Deer Grove, Illinois, after heavy rains caused unprecedented delays in planting this year and contributed to record floods across the central United States.

The storms have left millions of acres unseeded in the $51 billion U.S. corn market and put crops that were planted late at a greater risk for damage from severe weather during the growing season. Together, the problems heap more pain on a farm sector that has suffered from years of low crop prices and a U.S.-China trade war that is slowing agricultural exports.


James McCune, a farmer from Mineral, Illinois, was unable to plant 85% of his intended corn acres and wanted to commiserate with his fellow farmers by hosting the “Prevent Plant Party” at The Happy Spot. He invited them to swap stories while tucking in to fried chicken and a keg of beer in Deer Grove, a village of about 50 people located 120 miles west of Chicago.


Farmers think more cuts are likely as the late-planted crop could face damage from hot summer weather and an autumn frost.

“An early frost will turn this world upside down,” Rock Katschnig, a farmer from Prophetstown, Illinois, said at the party.

I could keep quoting, but this article should be read by anyone who likes having food.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:01:45 PM »
Some more doubts...  If the ice floes are merely spread around in the system, wouldn't that keep the overall system albedo constant, rather than raising it?  In which case the oren's argument that this is not good for the ice seems to stand to me.  And it is probable that the floes would likely melt faster if they were pushed further south because the water is warmer, with increased sunlight being of lesser importance.  If the waters are warmer then that would melt floes rapidly and lower the overall system surface albedo pretty quickly, I would think.

Yes, in fact if the floe melts faster or develops meltponds faster accumulative albedo for the season should be lowered. Down goes my theory.
Or are you thinking that south-drifting floes lower the albedo at more southerly latitudes (where angle of insolation is greater and therefore solar radiation is absorbed more efficiently by water) and that would produce a net decrease in system energy absorption? (Not to mention that more watts are received per square meter at more southerly latitudes.)   

I was thinking mostly that and even considered warmer waters. But I didn't consider melt ponding on the floe until you mention it.

Again, I think that since warmer waters are more significant in melting than insolation, one would have to go with water temperatures rather than differences in insolation.    Of course, I realize that there are other factors I am unaware of...

The cooling effect of large floes may give a bit of help to the smaller flows, but it seems to me it is too late to be significant.

Perhaps if it happened earlier in the season melt ponding would've been delayed and a significant impact obtained from increased extent. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 17, 2019, 01:51:20 PM »
this movement into previously warmed open water isn't good in any way for the ice.

I agree with you but I have my doubts.

On one hand, the ice pushed into lower latitudes is exposed to more sunlight, increasing melting.

On the other hand, that energy would have been absorbed by the oceans leading to a warmer ocean. A warmer ocean may prolong the melting season and delay the freezing season.

 Thus, it may be that temporary high albedo this close to solstice may help lower the total energy in the system by season's end.

Trees. The answer is trees. Tall, thick, 20 year old trees.  That's how you kill the heat island effect. But we better get planting because no scientist, billionaire, corporation or government in the world can make a twenty year old tree grow in one.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 15, 2019, 04:45:59 PM »
I think Bloomberg did a great job with the tracker. It was extremely interesting to see the model change over time.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 15, 2019, 04:23:42 PM »
But doing nothing versus doing our collective best may mean the difference between 4 and 6 degrees of warming.  Which, in turn, may be the difference between some continuance of human civilization and a mass extinction which takes homo sapiens with it.

4 degrees by 2100 is almost equally bad as 6. Holding warming to 4C by 2100 is not a solution to the problem.

I wish there was a good source on what is "safe warming". Such paper should examine what is a safe speed of warming and what is a safe total warming.

Only then ECS becomes useful and correct targets can be set. 4C is an entirely different world.

I just want to take this moment to thank the Arctic sea ice for keeping the north hemisphere nice and cool during summer.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 13, 2019, 08:19:35 PM »

Is warning of climate disaster counterproductive?

Wait, that's not the premise here.

The question is, do we understand the human psyche and use that to get to our goal.

As I understand the problem is two fold

1. Efficient and accurate messaging. Without a clear picture of the problem we have a very low chance to solve  it. For example if we focus on solving climate change by 2050, then we will not solve the problem by 2030, which about how long we have of climate order, could be sooner, depending on the ASI

2. message reception. This is the part Tom’s post addresses. Climate change is scary. If we tell it straight up some people will panic (ie: climate change deniers), but other people will recognize the danger and react properly with climate change action.

If we blunt the message to protect the people that are too scared to face climate change then we give up the people that will jump into action.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40