This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Sadly I'm not with ljgeoff. Sorry. I believe that we need a short sharp shock to the system to get the politicians moving. Democracy is not working in this instance because there are too many who are voting like a 3 year old. Deny me what I want and I will throw a tantrum and punish you. We not only need people to see that there are deep and dangerous changes coming, but for the politicians to see that they will be held responsible for doing what the voters voted them into office to do, namely keep their toys and keep them fed and happy. In other words politicians need to see that the consequences of buying votes by inaction on climate change will be severe when the mob realise what it truly means. My nirvana is a sudden drop which uncovers the area around the North pole for 2 weeks, with both sea routes open. Followed by a rebound which keeps things cooler for 5 years. Enough to drive policy without a critical shift to an ice free arctic in summer which will continue to build and build to an ice free arctic some time in the autumn and spring. Sadly I think that it will all move too slowly and then impetus will have built so much that when the the Arctic does go ice free in summer, it will continue despite our best efforts. Unless the entire planet were to move to a war footing. To fight a war against climate change. This, I believe is why so many would like to see a sudden shift now. Something which closes the false debate and starts action immediately. I believe more time in a false sense of security is the last thing we need.
Toggle Commented Jul 8, 2014 on PIOMAS July 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Indeed Neven, I'm sort of a city kid but of a family of electricians on one side and engineers on the other with a strong streak of military service. Although I now work in computing I do most of my own DIY, except the really heavy stuff. I know the pain of sockets, etc, wires and knives don't really know when to stop.... :-)
Toggle Commented May 6, 2014 on Getting ready at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks for the input Neven. Yes Solar Cells are a lot of work. But then my goal was to build small and scale up, taking over more of the home power circuits as I go. I have a 15M workshop to work in with a lot of woodworking tools, so it's not that much of an issue for me if I can have the free time.... My home has modular circuits which can be relayed to take solar, so I can grow my power farm and distribute it round the home with failover relays to the grid if required. During the last major power outage I came home, bought a 6kw Generator and created a simple switched power circuit to run all the fridges and freezers plus some of the home power. During my searches for inverters I found a quite innovative square wave inverter (US design spec), which, after much research and brain beating, I was able to find the parts to up the power to 15kw. Cost of components? About £200. The main issues I have with it are the 240v DC input which I'm not keen on working with and the fact that it can only be used for pumps, dumb motors and heating elements, as it will trash any fragile AC computing equipment. Square wave power supplies are very expensive and hard to come by. Surprise surprise...
Toggle Commented May 5, 2014 on Getting ready at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Neven, looks really good. Can I ask a question about the solar array. Is that on both sides or is the 5kwh only on the sun facing side? Just to get an idea of area covered. I've been looking into Solar for years. If my wife ever catches on I'll finally be able to get the panels made. She thinks my time is better utilised in different things. Pre manufactured is waayy too expensive for me here compared to home build. What I did have to spend a huge amount of time trying to work out was the Inverter. My house feed is 12kw. Trying to find a 12kw inverter is extremely difficult if you want to really remove all grid input and you don't want to be bothered with certifications of grid tie. My initial investigations showed that the inverter was likely to be the biggest cost. 2/3kw was OK, ish. 4/6kw was sort of OK ish but getting pricey. But pure sine wave inverters for 10kw and up were astronomical, coming in at higher than the cost of the entire array. Grid, tie, of course is much cheaper as it's what most are going for. Eventually I found a source which ships from China in the £2,000 category for a 48v input. Other searching tells me that you need copper wound or the thing will fail in short order. By weight, the unit seems to be copper. I was wondering if you had thought about that?
Toggle Commented May 4, 2014 on Getting ready at Arctic Sea Ice
Merry Christmas Neven and all. A picture speaks a thousand words as they say. The $64k question is how many million words it will take to "wake up" the common herd???
Toggle Commented Dec 25, 2013 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
The published rationale behind the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was that the Japanese mentality of the time was to fight to the last life and the last inch of ground. To change that mentality required a game changer and the bombs were that. It undoubtedly saved millions of lives. What the private and political goals of these bombs were I leave to the imagination. Nobody needed to drop them to test them, they had already been tested. Now, on the other hand, CO2 and AGW are estimated to cost bilions of lives. The public rationale is: Convenience Cost No Change No Effort Votes. Now, if you would ask me, the lowest ebb of humanity is yet to come, but we are well on our way and the vast majority of the people with the ability to effect a change are quite happy with the status quo. That vast majority need to wake up and look around. Any language which is able to do that is, in my opinion, justified. For those of us who lived through the shadow of impending nuclear annihilation, this measure has some "in your face" effect. This is about communication of scientific fact to non scientists. On another topic, it's interesting to see how low 2013 has remained on the volume chart. It will be more interesting to see how the winter plays out.
Toggle Commented Dec 5, 2013 on PIOMAS December 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I note that CT SIA is now tracking 2011. I'm wondering if PIOMAS volume will begin to do the same. It would be an interesting end to a very interesting season.
Toggle Commented Nov 19, 2013 on PIOMAS November 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I haven't heard about this one, but I believe the process is something like this Where the shelves are lost and the glaciers which have no natural barrier start to discharge at massive rates. PIG is slightly different here as there is, quite literally, a small mountain range between the grounded glacier at the seaboard end and the up range glacier. Scientists are interested in what may happen if/when, the sea finally manages to melt back to the mountain range and melts out the blocking ice, floating the glacier on a small lake. Interesting thoughts.
Toggle Commented Nov 18, 2013 on PIOMAS November 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I recall the first large "shock" event with PIG. The we were told "Well it's a 10 year event, nothing to worry about really". I'll take a look, I usually look a few times each season. I've been waiting for the breakup down the sides of the Glacier to finally start breaking off the main glacier itself. Not before time. I'm wondering how the Wilkins is doing at the moment. It seems to come in waves down there.
Toggle Commented Nov 13, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
@Lars, I did read the post, but I also know that 2005 - 2008 were normal, not low. It was 2008 to 2010 which was exceptionally low. I think we're saying the same thing, I'm just saying that there is an impact, no matter how small and also that those who watch the sun believe they have a reason for believing that solar impact is greater than it actually is.
Toggle Commented Nov 13, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
@jdallen I was very careful to say that the sun was not a cause but a contributor. The sun is just about the _only_ heat budget the planet has. If you only have one heat input, any change to it is significant in one way or another. It is the significance compared to the heat retention of CO2 which is the issue. CO2 is worth many, many w/sqm. However that does not mean solar variance has no impact. It may be lost in the noise but it is there and contributing. @larsboelen The solar cycle is not at minimum, it's at maximum right now. Granted it's about half cycle23 maximum, but not low. The end of cycle23 came at the end of 2007. It was pretty much a normaly (if very strong and high), cycle till the end of 2007. Then it fell off a cliff. The longest period of 0 sunspots for 100 years. At the beginning of 2010 the new cycle sputtered into life and started growing. So you can see they have a reason to believe the sun worshipers. 2008/9 are a significant positive anomaly in an otherwise rapidly diminishing trend. When the cycle kicks off again, one year after the cycle peak to date, we see a devastating destruction of the Arctic ice in 2012. You know it's not just about the sun. I know it's not just about the sun. But try telling them that!!
Toggle Commented Nov 12, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
@Jim Whilst NJSnowfan is incorrect that it's _all_ solar, you have to look at the figures. In the last month solar flux increased by 60 - 90% and sunspots increased as much as 200%. Whilst this will not cause a one month blip (solar is a slow forcing over time), I paraphrase Hansen et al. It is not whether or not a 60% increase in solar flux does impact weather and climate on Earth, it is "How can it not". The questions is not whether it impacted a one, two or three month trend; it almost certainly did not. It is more a case of what contributory effect did it have to other things which were already going on? Case in point, AO as pointed out by Neven, Methane as already said and also sequestered heat which was trapped with rapid ice onset. Solar flux and sunspot activity is still below 2012 but is higher than most of 2011. However to put it in context, it is certainly much higher than all years from 2004 to 2010. I continue to watch. I'm looking for a 2006 re-run. If we get it, then I will look to 2014 with keen anticipation. Whatever happens it's unlikely to be boring. Even if it is all bad news and more drastic melting.
Toggle Commented Nov 12, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
I'll be _very_ interested to see both October and November data. Cryosphere today trend for area has almost levelled at 2011 levels. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I was talking about 2006 and the Day300 onwards move into 2007. How the very low ice levels out of 2006 kicked the ball off for the 2007 melt season. Also I note: 2012 CO2 growth was exactly the same as 2005 2005 was a _shock_ melt year 2006 was a slow year Followed by 2007. I'm just wondering if events will repeat themselves again. Although I expect the CO2 growth in 2013 to greatly exceed that of 2006 which was, decadally speaking, below average.
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
As Solar is one of my tracking series for my interests in the heat balance of the planet and the impact on AGW, I have a few points to make. When we hit the cycle 23/4 minimum and cycle 24 looked like it was either going to drop into a Maunder type minimum or be a very slow start, Hansen and some others sat down and worked out what it would mean. They came up with a figure. 8%. That would be the impact in s/sqm hitting the surface of the planet for the next 100 years if the sun continued at minimum instead of moving to a normal cycle. Then they worked out the impact of CO2 from AGW. I believe that they calculated that the CO2 signature would overwhelm the reduced solar output long before 2050. In fact I believe it was <2030 but I just don't remember. So, given that cycle 24 did restart and is running at about 50% of cycle 23, then it is very little surprise that we have seen years like 2012 in the Arctic. The most joined up thinking I have seen to date, links Solar output, CO2 Levels, ENSO state and volcanic activity. When they are all put together, I believe, the current Arctic situation is easier to understand. What I also believe is that the solar output will rise again and the CO2 continues to rise. There can only be ONE result of that.
John, I wasn't thinking quite so much about right now, although there appear to be stalls in the growth for a few days at a time. Look at 2006 compared to 2005 and around day 300 timeline. I'm wondering if we are going to see similar. 2006, much like 2013, started low and melted fast. Then just stopped for so long that it could never catch up. Sound familiar? Yet when winter 2006 came on, it started to rise like every other and then, just stopped, for such a long time, that 2007 was set up for it's epic run. I'm just wondering if the cycles really do run that way or if 2006 was a one off.
Toggle Commented Sep 30, 2013 on Pinpointing the minimum at Arctic Sea Ice
Also If I read my NOAA recent global monthly mean CO2 charts correctly, peak to peak, 2012 to 2013, was a 3ppm growth. I don't know they actually do the calculation but even the 2013 low is looking like being higher than the 2011 high. It would have to drop more than 2ppm and I haven't seen that before at this stage in the chart. Interesting to see what that impact will be. The last time we saw this much rise in CO2 was 1998 which was driven by 1997 events.
Toggle Commented Sep 27, 2013 on Pinpointing the minimum at Arctic Sea Ice
I guess my question is: Now that we have the minimum, when do we start plotting the Maximum. No, not the Maximum SIA or SIE, but the Maximum anomaly for 2013 on the CT plot. It's growing rapidly as the ice area and extent stalls. As the ice does not regrow quickly. I'm wondering if we will, yet, as we did in 2006, have another interesting statistic in this most interesting of all ice years?
Toggle Commented Sep 27, 2013 on Pinpointing the minimum at Arctic Sea Ice
It is. Anything else is just music to the ears of republican oil magnates and people like David Rose...
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice
In my experience, renewable is being sold as a cheap option and the net cost, after infrastructure investment, is very low. Reality of renewable is that the horrible cost is in the setup. The horrible cost in carbon technologies is the ongoing cost. But, to put my point again. Whether we need to tax carbon or not, nobody and I do mean nobody, has advocated using the carbon revenues to transition to low carbon technologies. What we've told them equates to taxing them into the 19th century. Honestly, that doesn't play well.... In the long run do you trust a government, who can't see far enough to invest in renewables long term, with the revenues of a carbon tax? David Cameron is on record as wanting to give the tax revenues to families....
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice
I'd just like to make a comment here which is "sort of" off topic, but I believe it is firmly in the land of "messaging" on the topic of Climate Change. For years now I've been arguing that trying to tax carbon to fix an energy use problem was stupid and also political suicide. When I took Joe Romm to task over this, he overrode me by saying that it was the only action the Republicans were willing to deal on. Erm, yes, of course they would. They LOVE socialists to talk about taxing the people. They LOVE the Greens to talk about reducing energy use. They LOVE people to tell us we can't have a modern lifestyle. Because it is their main stance at the next election that they will tear down these "undemocratic" laws and "restore power to the people". Australia electing the unelectable. Big issue? Carbon tax. You cannot fix an infrastructural problem by taxation. Unless you are going to take every penny of that money and use it to generate clean energy from renewable methods which remove the need for people to burn fossil fuels. Just look at it from the consumers perspective. They have NO CHOICE but to use fossil fuel energy. Because governments have not Given Them A Choice, by creating the infrastructure for them to use less carbon. So, in the end, people are left with two stark choices. Vote in a government who is going to do nothing about climate change but is not going to punish them for something they can't change. OR. Vote in a government who is going to punish them for something they can't change and won't use the money to give them an alternative to paying the taxes. Sorry for all my shouting but it is the WRONG MESSAGE. Is it any wonder that people are keen to jump on articles by David Rose or by idiots like Watts? We give them no choice. We bind them into a stark reality and then punish them for the sins of their ancestors without giving them a path to redemption. Every time I read stuff like Rose's idiocy, I am taken back to the fundamentals. How can people believe we are serious when our governments are not doing the first and most basic things to resolve the issue. It begins, continues and ends with clean energy. I don't mean a few windmills. I mean a root and branch fundamental change to the way we produce power. Because, after all, if we produce clean power, then what does it matter how much you consume? Why would there be a reason for highly polluting CFL lights if the power we produce does not produce CO2. How can we even consider a hydrogen economy when hydrogen is produced with electricity from fossil fuel? Whilst fighting the good fight on idiotic articles from the likes of Rose, we also need to fight another fight. One of credibility. People can count. People can reason. People see that governments are not serious about fighting this. In the end, all they see is more taxation for Zero gain....
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice
@Jim, I can assure you that when I was a host that comment would not have been removed. It breaches none of the rules as I was given to understand them at the time. However, as the "new look" of the site was designed to use the popularity of the boards to boost the visibility of the news comments and drive up revenue (in my opinion as a result of my research), I can understand why this kind of comment would be removed. It would not have been removed by me and I would have had words to say if it was removed when I was "on the inside". Just another side of the decline of the newsworthiness of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice
He's on a roll. Judith Curry, who disowned her own study on temperature records because it didn't produce the results she wanted, makes rich pickings for "reporters" like Rose. Even when the report comes out, I doubt it will bear any resemblance to the figures Rose has reported. Also, as far as I knew, the IPCC reported the rise in temperature, on average, since 1900. Not 1951 which sounds like a cherry picked figure which I've never heard of before. Interesting that the graph only shows from 1980....
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice
Classic... "NSIDC is closed today because of severe weather and flooding. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you."
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice
@Linda You clearly have not seen the archive of hand drawn Arctic Sea Ice maps from the 1930's?? These hand drawn images were created from ship sightings and research reports. None of them show Arctic conditions lower than the beginning of the 1979 satellite record for ice. Every time this is brought up, a simple link to the actual archive refutes it. Even if it did show a rapid retreat from even greater extent and area, this is only more evidence proving Global Warming. Human driven global warming through CO2 is not 3 decades old. It is 200 years old (industrialised) and ongoing climate impacts are to be expected. Also you fail to note that since David Rose's article, the Actic ice has continued to fall. Not rise. That fall, at this time of year, pushes the Extent, Area and Volume figures lower and lower against the other years which had already stopped by now. David Rose is an opportunist who has jumped on a specific point in time to try and sell a bill of goods which, quite frankly, stinks. Trying to support him in such an effort marks you as one of the ilk who inhabit Wattsupwiththat. Those who believe anything which is against the evidence of human driven global warming, even if it conflicts or directly contradicts their own strong belief of why it's not happening. It's a faith site. It is certainly not a science site. Perhaps you have faith. I wish you well with it but it has no place in science, as has been proven throughout history.
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice
@Jim, looks good for a start. Now the facebook and twitter are set up, they can be used an promoted to push the reality against the DM Rose article. Looking at todays Bremen image, the ice continues to melt, even on September 12th. It would also be useful to find the articles about the WOW OMG sudden loss of ice in 2005. Then compare it to 2013. Just to set the press reality factor.
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2013 on IPCC crisis meeting at Arctic Sea Ice