This is EconDemocracySV's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following EconDemocracySV's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Tor, I right-clicked on the image, chose "view image" on firefox, and then saved to my desktop; the size is 2.7MB for me, not 256MB. Just tried a direct right-click-to-save in case anything strange, got same 2.7 MB size. Is there a larger size elsewhere? If so, just use this 2.7MB instead, and then you can slow down the whole thing I suspect. (Btw how do you ask for email notifications of replies to comments here?) @Tor
Here's how to slow down the image, use the tool at I find the image already striking, almost scary..but I agree with the earlier comment that the years fly by so thought I'd share this gif speed changing tool so others can use. -EconDemocracy
Notice worse-than-linear downtrend is visible even in the * also debunks a line I found in NON-denialist press, mainstream, that Arctic has "recovered" since 2006...which is sadly very false, as these averages show...
Toggle Commented Sep 25, 2015 on Minimum and MYI at Arctic Sea Ice
John C, I guess we do have a funny coincidence then! Here is the full quote about AREA in this June 2015 estimate for this month (Sept 2015) saying: "We estimate a monthly mean September sea-ice extent of 5.67 ± 0.40 million km2" Here's the url: Can you provide the exact url (and/or step by step directions) for those of us who haven't done it, for the data you posted for actual (not estimated back in June) volume (not area) being 5.67 km^3 (as opposed to area 5.67 km^2) so the rest of us can take a look? Thanks.. "Funny" numerical coincidences, even if what's happening in the Arctic is the opposite of funny... EXPANDED WITH EXTRA YEAR you gave data for, we have, in 1000's km^3 PIOMAS: 1980s average: 14.68 1990s average: 12.84 2000s average: 9.27 This decade so far: 2010-2015: 5.08 WHICH WITH ASTERIX GRAPHICS ARE: *********************************************************** (1980s) VERSUS: *************************************************** (1990s) VERSUS: ************************************* (2000s) And finally, first 6 years of 2010's: ******************** <-- 2010's average to date I encourage folks to post either the text or star version above on comment boards, in their own words with their own comments. Will it convince all deniers? Not even close. But I've seen it jolt and wake up some folks, so one more powerful tool for waking people up in text-only Comment sections where URLs and images aren't allowed, adding one more impactful way to summarize and awaken folks, can't hurt!
Toggle Commented Sep 25, 2015 on Minimum and MYI at Arctic Sea Ice
Andy, "Few graphs and charts have as much impact as this video I produce every year" I am in fact familiar with your video, have seen it before, and think it's GREAT. Not sure if you saw part of my post saying, my aim is to "arm" (or "equip" to use less violent language) anyone who participates on any website or blog comment section that does not allow videos ,and does not allow URLs (or censors urls often)...that is a significant part of the internet, and in my experience, while it's not the only powerful text-only message, the one I'm suggesting based on PIOMAS 10-year and recent averages, qualifies for the text-only version of "few have more impact than" least that's my aim and so far it's gone well...When I can give url, I definitely mention SkS, Neven1, and among vids, yours indeed is among best :-) Jim Hunt - I'm glad to rub shoulders with others like you are working in parallel..I must add the qualifier however that I am not trying to get "my" message but a general one about AGW, and not for my own use, but the opposite: I'm doing my part to add more tools that ANYONE can use...By tools, I mean format in which to present info, only two new ones, and modest perhaps, but I would argue powerful ones, that's been my experience using them so far. I'll look at your blog. Cheers!
Toggle Commented Sep 25, 2015 on Minimum and MYI at Arctic Sea Ice
Thank you P-maker, D_C_S and John C. John C do you have a link for that 2015 number? When I googled I found pages saying "We estimate a monthly mean September sea-ice extent of 5.67" which is km^2 not volume which I'm looking for. Maybe there is a huge coincidence and the extent in km^2 is equal to the volume in km^3?? (If so, although I realize PIOMAS for 2015 might be revised later as done in the past, might as well compute 2010-2015 right? 5-YEAR AVERAGE (2010-2014) IS: 4.96--->5-yr total = 5*4.96 = 24.8--->adding 5.67--->then divide by 6-->rounds to 5.08 for 2010-2016 **IF** it really is 5.67 for VOLUME..?) Given the numbers for each year's volume min for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015, "5.67" would not be a crazy number for 2015, but matching the "area" number to nearest 0.01 makes me wonder.. Neven's post "PIOMAS September 2015" does not cite 5.67 directly but trying to decipher "2015 has increased the difference with 2014 from 971 to 1245 km3, and further closed the gap with 2013, from 809 to 401 km3. Depending on what happens this month" but that doesn't seem to suggest a final Volume number for Sept 2015 low is yet out? While I await replies, let's see if Version 2 works as well as Version 1.. 1980: 16.1 1981: 12.6 1982: 13.4 1983: 15.1 1984: 14.5 1985: 14.5 1986: 15.9 1987: 15.2 1988: 14.9 1989: 14.6 Using **** = 1.0 and * = 0.25 (For example, 1987's 15.2 is rounded to 15.25) then the 1980s are: **************************************************************** ************************************************** ****************************************************** ************************************************************ ********************************************************** ********************************************************** **************************************************************** ************************************************************* ************************************************************ ********************************************************** 1990: 13.7 1991: 13.5 1992: 14.9 1993: 12.2 1994: 13.6 1995: 11.2 1996: 13.7 1997: 13.2 1998: 11.5 1999: 10.9 ******************************************************* ****************************************************** ************************************************************ ************************************************* ****************************************************** ********************************************* ******************************************************* ***************************************************** ********************************************** ******************************************** 2000: 11.0 2001: 12.2 2002: 10.8 2003: 10.2 2004: 9.9 2005: 9.2 2006: 9.0 2007: 6.5 2008: 7.1 2009: 6.8 ******************************************** ************************************************* ******************************************* ***************************************** **************************************** ************************************* ************************************ ************************** **************************** *************************** 2010: 4.6 2011: 4.3 2012: 3.7 2013: 5.4 2014: 6.8 ****************** ***************** *************** ********************** *************************** --------RECAP ALL TOGETHER:------------- (this part can be used to post with "does this look like 'nothing bad is happening' or 'Arctic has recovered since 2006' to you?" type comments on discussion boards and comment sections which do not allow images and do not allow, or those that often censor, URLs...) Here: **************************************************************** ************************************************** ****************************************************** ************************************************************ ********************************************************** ********************************************************** **************************************************************** ************************************************************* ************************************************************ ********************************************************** ******************************************************* ****************************************************** ************************************************************ ************************************************* ****************************************************** ********************************************* ******************************************************* ***************************************************** ********************************************** ******************************************** ******************************************** ************************************************* ******************************************* ***************************************** **************************************** ************************************* ************************************ ************************** **************************** *************************** ****************** ***************** *************** ********************** *************************** FINALLY, THE AVERAGES (I will definitely think about the comments/suggestions about other units, or other rounding, but this is what I have for now) 1980s average: 14.68 1990s average: 12.84 2000s average: 9.27 5-YEAR AVERAGE (2010-2014) IS: 4.96 WHICH WITH ASTERIX GRAPHICS ARE: *********************************************************** (1980s) VERSUS: *************************************************** (1990s) VERSUS: ************************************* (2000s) For 2010-2014, the last half decade? ******************** <-- half-decade
Toggle Commented Sep 22, 2015 on Minimum and MYI at Arctic Sea Ice
Hello! I'm a long time lurker here (even longer-time follower of climate change, and internet activist since late 1980s) but first time poster..I hope to interest and even "enlist" some of your regulars in a 'small' project...the problem? Climate deniers everywhere. The more specific problem? Needing powerful, short, punchy, "data speaks for itself" ways to post on comments and discussion all over the internet. Other problem? Most powerful things are often graphics BUT neither images nor url's are often allowed..both are often forbidden outright or crazy as this (might, initially) here's the little project: use PIOMASS data in text form that's concise and powerful (Quick disclaimer: I've been in contact with Neven by email since 2013 and he's corrected some of the numbers that needed updating, but all errors are MY responsibility if you see any) Version 1 is just the text. Version 2 is "text-only 'Graphics'" with lines of * symbols. It needs to be short and punchy so the short version is: Volume data hand-averaged to give decade averages. I simply used the POIMAS data (those Green colored L Hamilton bar graphs for minimum volume) and transcribed year by year numbers, then averaged the decade numbers. After updates from Neven for 2014, I have what I think are correct numbers for year-by-year which I can post separately (so this post isn't too long) and include the decade-based averages below. It's a "small" victory but on one right-wing UK (I think) newspaper with lots and lots of Deniers, when I posted this data it had the highest ratio of upvote to downvote on the page of comments I was on, when it came to any pro-science posts.. Below is versions 1..which I had posted with an ironic comment about "so, nothing to worry about, just move along and all is well in the Arctic, is what we're told? Does that look right to you?" or something to that effect, then: Minimum Arctic sea ice volume, in thousands of km^3 (cubic kilometers) From Larry Hamilton with PIOMAS data 1980s average: 14.68 1990s average: 12.84 2000s average: 9.27 5-YEAR AVERAGE (2010-2014) IS: 4.96 I have not yet tried "version 2" with the graphics on Comment sections of newspapers and blogs, to see how they format..they will not format right everywhere, I realize that...but as I said even version 1 with just the numbers typed in, is something I'd like to "arm" others with so please pass it on. But if Version 2 doesn't format, that's ok. Just the numbers are powerful, especially when so many still claim "no GW in 20 years!" and even non-reactionary, neutral websites, I've seen those claim that the Arctic has "recovered since 2006" which the data for volume show is false. If you have any suggestions, including when the new data for 2015 comes out, whether to replace "5-YEAR AVERAGE (2010-2014) IS: 4.96" with 2011-2015 or keep those 5 years, and then add a separate line for 2015, or anything else. And I hope some of you will kindly pass on these for copy and paste use - obviously, so we are not accused of spammingthis should be only part of a fuller comment expressed in each person's own personal words and with their own thoughts...just the data, just the 10-year averages and last 5-year average, I hope to "arm" or better maybe, to Equip people with...I know it seems like a losing battle but it's not, and if we give up, it will only become even more biased in favor of anti-science climate deniers, and Ice Volume data for the arctic, I think is one of our most potent tools for waking people up. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, suggestions, and help spreading the word! Harel
Toggle Commented Sep 21, 2015 on Minimum and MYI at Arctic Sea Ice
EconDemocracySV is now following The Typepad Team
Sep 20, 2015