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 ... 35
Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: April 21, 2019, 04:59:10 AM »
I wonder what evolutionary changes are required for humans to be perfectly adapted to a g/3 environment. Taller humans? Shorter humans? More or less dense humans? Would the proportions of extremities change to optimize movement? In a few thousand years we will know if left to nature.

Sorry. That isn't how evolution works.

That is exactly like evolution works. Or do you think humans are not subject to evolution?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 21, 2019, 04:55:42 AM »
Maybe they don't know something?

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: April 19, 2019, 07:07:26 PM »
Hurricane Michael Was a Category 5 at Landfall, Only the Fourth in U.S. Records, National Hurricane Center Says

After analysis, the National Hurricane Center found Hurricane Michael made landfall at Cat. 5 intensity.
Michael was only the fourth Category 5 landfall on record in the U.S.
Camille in 1969 was the only other northern Gulf Coast Category 5 landfall.
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 was also upgraded to Cat. 5 landfall status after NHC post-analysis.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: April 18, 2019, 08:38:25 PM »
Thank you. Please remember, keep it peaceful but stay resolute.

If such a battery was real our emissions problems would be solved. A new era of unprecedented energy surplus that at the same time is zero emissions would be upon us. CO2 emissions would be reduced to a fraction of what it is today.

However, I would have to see it to believe such a battery is real. I'm waiting for a breakthrough like this to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest / Re: Cli Fi
« on: April 18, 2019, 04:47:34 AM »
I wouldn't call it a good movie, but Io in Netflix has very good cli-fi. Worst case scenario stuff. 

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 17, 2019, 08:27:51 PM »
Using numbers to make it objective sounds good but do they cover the whole story?

Not even close.

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

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 17, 2019, 03:35:22 PM »
REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation.

Why does the GDP must be adjusted for inflation?  Do you know this answer? If you do, then apply the same concept to disaster cost. The REAL disaster cost is the disaster cost adjusted by inflation.

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%.

You said GDP always went up, yet in the graph you posted it clearly shows many times GDP has gone down, with the 70's having many years of negative GDP growth and high inflation.

The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things)

Yes, that's what GDP growth measures. Productivity, not value.

The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Very much so, but productivity growth is not value. It represents economic growth, not the value of things within the economy.

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation)

"not costs in themselves" wow.  You want me to consider cost as proportion of the GDP and ignore the actual cost. Sorry but no. If GDP was salary and I followed that advise with items I purchased that is a sure path to bankruptcy. I'm sorry, but the actual cost matters and it is extremely important information.

The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth.

The productivity of the economy is certainly determined by GDP growth, but only after an inflation adjustment. In the same way the true cost of natural disaster (monetary value) is the cost of natural disasters after adjusting for inflation.

What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

You are so close to getting it. Let's use your analogy. Let's say GDP is like a salary and natural disaster cost are like items you might purchase.

1. The cost of the items are completely independent from your salary. If you want to know the value of an item overtime you adjust the prices for inflation and compare. Salary is completely independent of that comparison. The same is true for GDP vs inflation. Adjusting for inflation tells you the actual cost, regardless of GDP growth.

2. When making the decision to purchase an item, salary does matter. The lower the price of the item relative to the salary the less significant the price becomes. For someone with a low salary buying a bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be a significant expense. To someone with a high salary the same bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be an insignificant percent.  The cost of the bowl of rice remains unchanged.

3. Salary and cost are not the only factor when purchasing an item. For example, some people have very high salaries but also have very high debt loads or costs of living. For such high salaried people the 5 dollar bowl of rice might be out of their reach.

Do you understand the difference now?

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 17, 2019, 04:04:24 AM »
Nonetheless, you should always look at costs relative to gdp,

Not true. You should use the best tools for the job at hand. GDP can be used as a normalizer for inflation, but you must understand what the GDP really is before you use it.

since GDP grows faster than inflation,

Halt right there. GDP may grow faster, slower and even the opposite direction of inflation. GDP and inflation are different phenomena, related in some ways but independent of each other. They do not represent the same thing.

therefore the value of buildings, infrastructure, etc grows faster than inflation meaning that if the same % of them gets lost to flood/fire, etc, its real (CPI-adjusted) value always goes up.

Go ahead and revise your inference. If GDP always went up and always faster than inflation your inference have some validity ( but not in this argument)

(BTW US GDP almost trpled in REAl terms from 1980 to 2018)

BTW during the 70's inflation went up as GDP went down in the US. Not fun.

So the correct method is either nominal losses relative to nominal GDP, or real losses relative to real GDP.


The correct method to answer what question?

Have the cost of natural disasters increased?

After adjusting for inflation the answer is very clear. Yes.

If we adjust by GDP, then the answer is also yes, even in the US, who boasts the highest GDP growth in the world. In other parts of the world with high inflation and even negative GDP growth, but with about the same increase in climate disasters, the numbers must be much worse.

Has the increase in natural disasters cost had a negative impact in economic growth indicators in the US?

No. And the GDP would be the correct tool to come to that conclusion. The "negative local growth" increasing disasters cause and real non monetary impact of the disasters are a different topic.

To bring it back on topic, I reiterate my prediction.  If disaster costs (adjusted for inflation) simply stay at the 2010's level (and BAU) by 2030 the world will be much worse than we are now. We might already be past peak humanity.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 16, 2019, 12:10:21 PM »
 When people try to compare the value of things from the past to the value of things in the present an inflation adjustment has to be made. This is  a common practice used in all fields that compare events of the past with the present or future using monetary value.  The graphs I posted included that adjustment and give you the best representation of the value of the loses from the past relative to the future.

But you imply that we should ignore the inflation adjusted value and concentrate in the GDP. Why?

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:59:31 PM »
Where can I check these futures, as I suspect this will be the first place to indicate if/when AGW is reaching disaster level?

Futures are a good indicator of short term problems only. They will indeed show when disaster is reached but by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:31:46 PM »
There would be no point trying to change those deliberately posting misinformation.

I disagree, that's why I keep wasting my time replying to you.

As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?

I don't think so. My apologies for the charged language but it is necessary. This person is lying in very nefarious ways. Feel free to examine both links. Please notice that all he does is divert and confuse.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:23:20 PM »
Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.

Losses increase the GDP If and only if insurance or government pay to replace the losses. That is a simple inevitable fact.

The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.

Sigh. Losses, payout and GDP do not have a one to one to one relationship.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 08:43:36 PM »
Read more closely, they are overall losses, not just insured.

In that particular graph, yes it shows overall losses. But even when adjusted by GDP (VERY WRONG) it has an upwards trend not down as you claim. And when you ignore the BS of adjusting for GDP, the data adjusted for inflation shows a very substantial upward trend. And when you add the missing data of 2017 and the whole year of 2018 the trend goes up again. Judging by how 2019 started the trend is going to rise again.


Even if you add these losses to gdp ( a questionable practice), the metric has not changed over the time period stated. 


Once again, you cannot have a civilized discussion, without slinging insults.  What gives?

I have tried giving you respect and you repay with more lies and misdirection. Believe it or not I'm not insulting you. I'm describing your behavior scientifically. You can't correctly read a graph because you are too scared to do so.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 08:26:33 PM »

Funny that you respond in such an uncivilized manner, when presented with data that contradicts your position. 

I'm being exactly as civilized as lying/blinded people like you deserve. To give you anymore respect when you are lying your ass off is disrespectful to the truth.

There was nothing "scientific" in your attack.

But there is. Why else would you be so willingly blind about the links you post?


Perhaps this paper can help you understand, particularly Figure 3.

"Since 1990 the world has seen a decrease in overall and weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP. This trend has occurred even as disaster losses have increased in absolute terms. The primary factor driving the overall increase in disaster losses is societal, mainly growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events (IPCC, 2012 IPCC. (2012)."

Interesting edit. Another cherry pick.  Do you not have other tricks? Let me help you with the full abstract:

The Sustainable Development Goals indicator framework identifies as an indicator of progress the objective of reducing disaster losses as a proportion of global gross domestic product. This short analysis presents data on this indicator from 1990. In constant 2017 US dollars, both weather-related and non-weather related catastrophe losses have increased, with a 74% increase in the former and 182% increase in the latter since 1990. However, since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP, indicating progress with respect to the SDG indicator. Extending this trend into the future will require vigilance to exposure, vulnerability and resilience in the face of uncertainty about the future frequency and magnitude of extreme events.

The bolded statement is what you are trying to say is not happening when it is.

The italics is complete BS. Disasters that are paid for with insurance or government funds result in an increase in the GDP. But that increase in GDP is not the same as the well being of the people. It is is just a monetary abstraction.

For example the GDP of Puerto Rico grew very fast after the storm hit and disaster aid poured in. However, life was very shitty without electricity or running water. To this day the GDP of Puerto Rico is stimulated by disaster relief, but the roads are fucked up, power is tenuous and nature hasn't fully recovered. Many buildings still lie in ruins. It is unlikely it gets better, specially if another hurricane hits, but the GDP doesn't say that.

Now, the GDP growth only happens if disaster is paid for by either insurance or government. Insurance is already pulling back and government is paying with debt increasingly large disasters. 

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 08:05:03 PM »
Even normalized against GDP (huge error because disaster relief increases GDP) the trend is up. This data was gathered in January 2018, meaning that 2017 data was not complete and it completely misses 2018, both things brings the trend even higher.

And again, you are showing insured losses, not net losses. ANd they warn right there that the trend is going UP!

You contradict exactly what you link says. I'm telling you. Your cowardliness blinds you.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 07:44:55 PM »
... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 07:26:59 PM »
Not exactly.

Not exactly what? Don't be scared. Drop some knowledge.

Compare 2017 and 1994.

I gave you 1 graph, there are about 7 or 8 in the link you gave.

What are you comparing to? The one withe the BIG YELLOW WARNING saying "Longer-term trend is for More - Not Fewer - events"?

They are way off.

The link I gave you is about billion dollar events. The one you gave is about INSURED loss, 2017 is incomplete and it misses 2018 entirely.

Also, losses are falling long term

Your link says otherwise in big bold letters just in case the 6 graph above it are beyond your comprehension.

While the actual dollar amounts may be rising, the losses compared to gdp are not.

Relating GDP to disasters cost is very misleading and wrong. Disasters that are paid for actually make the GDP go up, even while there are very real material and valuable losses.

What the information presented in your link says is that insurance is losing the capacity of covering all the disasters. Government is already paying for increased disasters and decreased insurance with debt.

This is not sustainable, specially with cowardly leaders ignoring the danger, leaving everyone exposed, even the military.

If this rate continues, I foresee no chaos.

How could you foresee anything if you can't even comprehend the information you post. Not that you are not smart. You might be. It is simply that this information scares you so much that you metaphorically crap your pants and your brain literally can't comprehend the danger we are in.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 06:06:02 PM »
They represent similar data. One is about billion dollar disasters and the other about disasters in general. One ends in 2019 the other one in 2017 and is incomplete. They both make my case.

If disaster stays at the rate of the 2010's the world might just be highly eroded by 2030. That would require a hiatus in warming and a hiatus in ASI loss. 

If warming and/or ASI losses continue then disasters will further increase leading the world to chaos by 2030.

If we fight for survival head on, we can beat it and have a pretty good 2030. If we just hide our heads in the sand we lose our world. Simple.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 04:52:17 PM »
Assuming BAU:

     Best case scenario: The world enters another temperature hiatus. In that hiatus the cost of disasters stay at about the same rate as the 2010's. By 2030 civilization is eroded, wars will emerge, population will stop increasing, global GDP will plummet.

     Worst case scenario: the world resumes warming, the Arctic keep shrinking disaster cost keeps increasing. The world as we know it ends. The world population is reduced significantly. Guessing any political state would be foolishness as the world will be so different that no prediction can be made.

Assuming Not BAU:

Disaster rate remains about the same, but humanity fights and increases its adaptation rate, minimizing the loses and turning vulnerabilities into strengths. CO2 is leveled off, the Arctic is protected through geoengineering. A great future awaits as we learn to keep the climate from changing too fast and Fermi's paradox is postponed.

Attachment from :

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2019)
« on: April 15, 2019, 04:00:15 PM »
I think an exponential was the perfect fit from about 2002 to 2012. After and before that period linear fits were better. Sometime in the near future exponential fits will become the better fit again.

Startup Nikola Bets Hydrogen Will Finally Break Through With Big Rigs

The 4-year-old maker of hydrogen tractor trailers is extolling a vision as brash as the one Tesla’s founders unveiled 13 years ago with its pricey all-electric cars: Nikola will act as a catalyst to bring hydrogen to the mainstream, building tens of thousands of hydrogen-powered big rigs and a coast-to-coast hydrogen station network to fuel them. It also wants carmakers like Toyota, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai and Daimler to use those stations to expand their hydrogen fuel cell vehicle sales beyond California.

Go Nikola!

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:39:01 PM »
The technologies are already there

The technologies are already there, but they are in their infancy. They must grow and evolve (and do it extremely fast) to serve as a solution.

especially if energy demand (for superfluous material consumption/waste) is curbed

Definitely. Efficiency is the first fuel. Regrettably cutting superfluous consumption is not enough.

The current system cannot be exploited to do what you want

Of course it can. Money is to people what dog treats are to dogs. Greed can be exploited easily.

For example, a Carbon Tax. Carbon taxes makes emitting sources more expensive. Because people are maximizing profits they will switch to less carbon intensive sources to save money. 

Another example, renewables subsidies. If the government subsidizes renewables greed will attract more people to renewables accelerating the transition to a non emitting sources of energy.

Again, you can't solve global problems, while at the same time making Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates trillionaires.

Of course you can.

And this is a cultural problem, which is why I call for a cap on wealth, ie for society to determine how much a single person can own, instead of 'taxing the rich' or some such.

Inequality is certainly a problem, but it is neither the cause nor the solution to climate change. As you have said before if you cap wealth there is still a huge transition to be made by the 99% of the people who wouldn't be affected by such a cap.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:11:35 PM »
 Sarcasm is powerful and tough to defeat? Let see what I can do.

You don't get it. EVs run on the sun and wind.

That is the aspiration. Is not a reality yet, but good people everywhere ( not just Tesla) are working very hard to make it so.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

It is.

Soon there will be machines which pull CO2 out of the air and convert it to stable and USABLE energy.

That is not certain. These machines will have to be heavily subsidized because capturing CO2 consumes copious amounts of energy. If engineers and leaders work very hard AND individuals, groups and governments support the growth of these machines then yes. We could capture CO2.

Multiply that with the decision making capability of a neural network

Yes, a theoretical super intelligent AI could solve the problem faster, but we may be very far from that, if at all possible. We should be working on that but we shouldn't rest our hopes in the development of such machine.


Faith without works is dead.

Genius billionaires will soon be at the helm of tech which can solve problems that basic uncyborgized-humans don't even know are problems.

Elon has been warning us about this for years. Super intelligent AI in the wrong hands will be very dangerous. Sadly just like with climate change, people are too convinced of their own superiority to do anything about it.

Climate change will be a cake walk.

Climate change will kill us all. However, people with solar panels, batteries and electric cars have better chances of survival. As long as we don't block out the sun as we fight over the last scraps.

There is likely a benefit to warming that AI will see and utilize for us

If that is so, then great. I really DGAF about what is the temperature of the planet. I just want a happy and safe life. But for now, since there is no super intelligent AI to solve it it is better to avoid the warming.

People will very soon be able to sit back and relax (likely on Mars), and enjoy life without the tyranny of driving or traffic or thinking, and we can watch our problems be solved without even a thought or care.

Ignoring the philosophical paradoxes of your statement, that is the gist of it.

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 03:42:07 PM »
The current system can't be greenified, as appealing and appeasing an illusion as it may seem.

Ok, but how do we transition? Do we wait until the old system is defeated to develop the technologies required to transition to a sustainable world? Or do we exploit the current system to develop the technologies required for a sustainable civilization?

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 02:40:11 PM »
Putting a cap on wealth doesn't change things overnight. You could even say it's not a solution in itself, but rather a requirement for making solutions possible. Because right now the incentive is for 'more cars, more concrete buildings, more massive industry, more massive unsustainable agriculture'.

To be clear, you agree that capping wealth is not a direct solution to climate change, but it may serve as a catalysts to a more efficient civilization. 

I can certainly agree with that with the huge caveat we still have to grow  the electric car market, grow  sustainable agriculture, grow renewable penetration and grow all the technology needed for a much more efficient and sustainable world. We must grow such technologies wealth cap or not. The only way to do it is to accumulate wealth and invest in such technologies so that they grow to the point of mass adoption. It's a chicken and egg problem.

Policy and solutions / Re: What type of transportation do you use?
« on: April 14, 2019, 02:01:13 PM »
I have an 11 year old compact ICE that I barely drive. My next car ( hopefully within the next 3 years) will be a used electric car.

Walking or riding a bike are not a safe option given the roads given the narrow, broken, poorly maintained roads. Public transportation is extremely restricted and the few public transport options are  more CO2 intensive than driving my econobox.

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 12:57:57 AM »
Ok I'll bite.

Let's say a global law is enacted where a ceiling is placed on wealth. Once a person has certain net worth they are no longer allowed to own anything else. 

How does that eliminate the CO2 problem? Why would anyone else emit less just because rich people are less rich?

We will still have cars, concrete buildings, massive industry, massive unsustainable agriculture and 410+ ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm not saying accumulated wealth is not a problem. To the contrary, when a few people have much and most people have little, collapse follows. Accumulated wealth is certainly a limit of growth. I just don't see how it has a significant impact on CO2 emissions.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 12, 2019, 08:26:32 PM »
If you are interested in AI and self driving cars this is a must watch. It is a one on one interview with Elon Musk about AI in general and the specific case of Autopilot. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 12, 2019, 04:00:40 PM »
Tesla glory or failure depends on their capacity to adapt. What you see as management chaos, I see as adaptation.

There are 35k Model 3's available if you go to a Tesla store. These will be software locked SR+. This means they have inventory cars they want to sell, even if they the margins take a hit. But this won't last long. This is an amazingly great deal. These software locked batteries will likely last many decades.

This is a normal practice for all businesses to increase demand. They still have the advertisement demand lever to pull.

Well said Rob Decker. Great graph.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice edge at minimum poll
« on: April 10, 2019, 12:43:50 AM »
I like the concept of the yellow line. A minimum with ice islands surrounded by open ocean seem like a likely occurrence very soon.  This year? I don't know. In some ways the conditions seem better than 2016, so it will have to be a very strong melting season.

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

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 09, 2019, 12:59:52 PM »
We proved that we can mislead the Tesla car into the reverse lane with minor changes on the road.

You can also fool humans by changing the road. You don't even have to change the road. I've made the mistake of driving the wrong way more than once in my life, and have encountered drivers driving on the wrong side of the road many times.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 09, 2019, 02:25:37 AM »
For as long as the humans are in charge and not the other way around, a glory. :)

Of course, it would be better if the EU forced carmakers to only make clean cars, but I guess that is harder politically.

The problem is not political. ICE manufacturers can't simply snap their fingers and produce EVs. There are very real physical and informational barriers that must be solved before EVs can be produced profitably and massively. The law can't mandate the transition. Electric cars that are good, desirable and profitable can't be created by decree. Engineers and business people must pay with sweat, blood and tears to create an EV, that might or might not succeed.

However, the law can hasten the transition by doing exactly these kinds of things. Penalizing ICEs and rewarding EVs creates both negative incentives for ICEs and positive incentive for EVs.

 I understand the resistance to this. This is not fast enough, but at least it is accelerating the transition.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 07, 2019, 07:41:13 PM »
No, just much smaller.  Someone else said irrelevant.

So you think the influence of volume and thickness on the "state of the Arctic" are not so small as to be irrelevant, nice. We are getting somewhere. Volume and thickness are relevant to the "state of the Arctic". We agree on that.

How relevant? We disagree enormously.

In a snapshot, just looking at this date, the answer would be yes.

My answer would be no. This is not the worst state the Arctic has ever been. The volume of ice on the Arctic is higher than in 2017, thus more energy will be needed to melt the remaining ice than in 2017, even when the extent is lower.

I suspect this will continue, until the next force pushes the system into a new state.

Like for example, pacification of the inner Arctic basin. Ice will still form, increasing Area numbers during the cold Arctic winter but Area hides the fact that it is thin, salty, late to form and early to melt ice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 07, 2019, 06:44:36 PM »
Less is not the same as none

I could've sworn that you were implying that the impact of volume and thickness on the "state of the Arctic" was so small as to be irrelevant.

So let me ask you this. Currently the Arctic is at record low extent ( by a lot) but volume and thickness are not record low.  Is this the worst state the Arctic has ever been?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 07, 2019, 04:40:25 PM »
I have never said that thickness and volume do not matter.

That's the impression I got after reading these:

Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two.  Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater.  Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.
Smaller changes in thickness have little overall effect.
Thickness has little to no impact in these areas.

Let's reset.

and why they feel extent is the better measure.

A better measure of what? Be specific. What is the question that Area best answers?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 07, 2019, 03:49:05 PM »
KK, what are your views? They are all over the place. Do you still believe that volume and thickness don't matter?

Also do you understand the difference between thickness and volume? You seem to be using them as interchangeable.

To me it seems like you want to focus in extent because it tells the story you want to hear. To do that you must ignore thickness and volume because they tell a very different story than just area.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 06, 2019, 03:22:11 PM »
Thickness is the magnitude of 1 dimension, height.

Area is the magnitude of 2 dimensions, width and length.

Volume is the magnitude of 3 dimensions, height, width and length.

Which one is more important? 42.

ASI is not just a shapeless, massless, inert 3D object in a vacuum.

Climate change will be good for agriculture because the growing season will be lengthened... lol.

It terrifies me to know that the leaders of the world are working under the assumption that because it is getting warmer  in the North, where it is very cold, climate change won't be bad for them.

The changes in the characteristics of seasonality will be much worse than warming.

Our study confirms that the gasoline vehicle replacement with EVs, powered by 80% coal, has no effect on overall emissions.

Yet China is at 60% coal and dropping.

That last sentence seems to contradict all the findings.

As long as power is generated by coal, the vehicle replacement programme has no effect (policy scenario 1). As soon as the electricity sector is decarbonised, EVs contribute zero or a very small amount of additional CO2 emissions to the electricity sector (policy scenario2 and 3

I mean really. Up to 80% powered by coal, EV's are better. As the grid decarbonizes emissions become 0. The logical conclusion would be to adopt both EVs and renewables right now, not to ignore EVs until the grid is clean.

I have no clue how they arrived to that conclusion.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 05, 2019, 04:15:51 AM »
Do you really think that a 90% drop in thickness can even compare to a 90% drop in extent (or area)?

Do you really think you should ignore a 90% thickness reduction (whatever that means)?

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

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

The albedo effect is based on two dimensions;

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


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


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

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

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

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

Weather is unaffected by ice thickness also.

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

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

Hard to argue with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35