This is D-Penquin's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following D-Penquin's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
A brilliant summary. I would like to see this summary posted to serious newspaper and news channels AND THEY SHOULD PAY YOU ! In the UK, Sky News is doing an excellent series of 'Reviews' on climate change following on from their very successful series on 'Plastic Waste'. Events are at last moving in the area of public awareness. In my opinion the necessary changes will only happen if there is an overwhelming tide of public opinion driving the 'decision makers'. The better informed that the public are the better the chances that the necessary actions will be taken. Hence, my opening comment relating to news outlets.
Toggle Commented Jun 30, 2019 on June 2019, one hell of a month at Arctic Sea Ice
Now I can log in to ASIF.
I cannot log in at ASIF. Forgot Password and read link sent to my e-mail address to rest password but I never receive a message in my e-mail account. Can I sign in to ASIF with Yahoo like I do here. Any help much appreciated.
William Crump | October 11, 2018 at 02:58 Thank you for your comments related to my posting October 10, 2018 at 03:15 However, I do feel the need to correct your interpretation of my comments. I did not say we needed to find "technical solutions", just "solutions". Solutions in the context of technical, political, financial, industrial and commercial systems. I also referred to the recent admission of the scientific community, that the avoidance of catastrophic events will necessitate the removal and sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. Again, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that "we already have the technical solutions". Yes, we have some ideas and concepts but very little in the way of tested prototypes backed by political planning, financial commitment, industrial up-scaling with commitment from the commercial sectors. The potential 'technical' solutions have a long, long way to go before these could be rolled out on a 'global scale' to guarantee successful deployment and results; much development work and modification would be required before we could say that we have 'the technical solutions'. Notwithstanding my comments above, your posting articulates perfectly the true nature of the problem. Posted by: Jim Williams | October 11, 2018 at 13:58 Posted by: wndchaser | October 11, 2018 at 22:33 Both of the above posting references underline the nature of the problem. And so to your final paragraph: "How do you propose that we find the means to obtain the political consensus to implement technical solutions?" I wrote: "If more time and effort were now committed to discussion and finding solutions to mitigate the consequences of catastrophic global warming, would this not be more constructive than naval gazing about 'why', 'how' and 'when'?". My question is exactly the same as your question. Where is the debate? Would it be possible to organise all the Blog sites to co-ordinate and manage mass individual postings:- 1. To target individual Politicians. 2. To target Political Campaign Managers 3. In the UK a petition of 100,000 requires a parliamentary debate and official government response to the petition. 4. To target specific News Channels in different countries. 5. To target National Newspapers in different countries. 6. To target individual and groups of scientists to encourage them to individually and collectively join in with the mass postings. 7. To collectively encourage and support scientists to seek political office. 8. To target Donald Trump's Twitter account? Any marketing experts out there? I truly believe that only mass and continuous public agitation will stand a chance of mitigating the most catastrophic events of AGW.
Posted by: William Crump | October 09, 2018 at 01:22 "Is this due to weather or climate?" It has been a long time since I last posted and although I read the postings of others every day my thoughts have been that in so many ways the postings have lost a sense of 'purpose' and 'direction'. Yes, it is very interesting to read about everybodies technical explanations based on the latest peer reviewed papers and private theories based on endless hours of reading and work to develop new ideas but I have to ask myself 'to what purpose?' The answer is usually along the lines of 'to better understand what is happening' and 'so that we might be better prepared'. Two days ago, on Monday the 8th May at 10.00pm I heard for the first time, at peak viewing time in UK on Sky News, the truth about AGW being publicly announced to the nation, 'The planet has 12 years to avoid catastrophic climate change'. Even the newsreader looked somewhat incredulous as he read out the lead topic of the evening news. The news source quoted the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: - Sky News quotes from a leaked copy of the preliminary Report to be submitted for ratification in November 2018. "Warns that the goal set in Paris three years ago is fast slipping out of our reach". "The report was prepared by more than 90 scientists and review editors from 40 countries". "It includes more than 6,000 scientific references, 133 contributing authors and more than 42,000 expert and government review comments". "To even start to try and reach this goal, the world would need rapid and far-reaching changes in how we use energy and land; and how we design our cities and transport systems, the report adds". "To have even a 50-50 chance of staying under 1.5C, the world has to be carbon neutral by 2050, with emissions of carbon dioxide falling sharply from 2020. But that is a big ask, considering we released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere last year than ever before". For the first time the consensus of scientific opinion concedes that the removal of CO2 and sequestration will be required to achieve any of the targets set by the IPCC. I am mindful of a quote from Neven in a radio interview, "It is like watching a train crash in slow motion". So, as the train has now reached the station at high speed and about to crash into the buffers, should the question not be, 'Are the first responders in position having been forewarned?', 'Do they have all the necessary equipment?' and 'Can the supporting infrastructure cope with the aftermath?'. 'No' is the answer to each question. William's conclusion is correct that it is the trend of events over a period of time and not single events that are important, hence his question. However, the conclusion is incomplete because it ignores the point of impact of the crash, to continue with the analogue of monitoring the runaway train journey. We know that the crash will happen. Do we have to continue to analysis the journey and reasons behind the failures that set the train on is runaway destructive path. If more time and effort were now committed to discuss and find solutions to mitigate the consequences of catastrophic global warming, would this not be more constructive than naval gazing about 'why', 'how' and 'when'. I know, there is a place for this type of posting at the ASIF...political correctness I suppose, perhaps that is just one of the reasons we are in such a mess.
AnotherJourneybyTrain It is not correct to say the IPCC 'just' reports the numbers; it sets the criteria for acceptance of scientific papers and thereby drives the AGW agenda. The objective of the IPCC is to deliver global guidance on the avoidance of dangerous temperature rises through global cooperation based on best scientific research. The methodology employed has been to select various pathways of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that will produce a pre-determined temperature over a given timeframe. The IPCC presents the pathways as a solution to limit dangerous or acheive managable temperature rises through a process of reduction in carbon emissions. Without incorporating feedback scenarios into the methodology the IPCC presentations are, in current parlance, 'false news'.
Toggle Commented Apr 23, 2018 on PIOMAS April 2018 at Arctic Sea Ice
James Cobben The IPCC makes its 'pathway' and 'certainty' predictions based on science and rejects hypothesis because these are unproven. This is the logic of the lunatic asylum. Consequently, the consensus of opinion is that cessation of anthropometric carbon will lead to temperature stabalisation and eventually lower temperatures. This premise is misleading and dangerous. This is why there is so little debate about future 'feedbacks'. Science cannot prove a future event! I have found no significant references on ASIF or in scientific papers relating to the question that you have posted. The start of the debate is long overdue.
Toggle Commented Apr 21, 2018 on PIOMAS April 2018 at Arctic Sea Ice
Al Rodger I do not presume the release of clathrates in my assessment of future CO2 and CO2e atmospheric concentrations if all emissions from fossil fuels, cement and land usage ceased immediately. 1. Forest wild fires increase in size and frequency, the arboreal forest retreats, the savannah changes to scrub land that in turn reverts to desert. 2. The oceans are warming and the water/surface air flux changes, moving in a negative to positive direction. 1. and 2. These changes are happening now with the current greenhouse gas level and adversely affecting the Carbon Cycle. There are many more current factors adding to the increase of greenhouse gases and reducing uptake. In addition, the significant loss of global ice cover reduces the albedo effect. The result is increasing global temperatures. The global heat balance has already 'locked in' a CO2 level of 450 ppm and there can be no greater illustration of the heat balance change than the graphic at the top right of this Blog! In a radio interview Neven gave the analogy of Arctic sea ice loss as 'watching a train crash in slow motion'. The prediction of deaths and injuries would be impossible to calculate before the event. The analogy holds for AGW and I think our children and grandchildren will say 'you could see it was going to happen and you did not do enough to stop it just because your scientists could not prove it, where was your commonsense and humanity?' For the reasons above, it seems commonsense to me that, cessation of carbon emissions is critical but alone will not be sufficient. Sequestration and carbon storage will be an essential component of reducing and stabalising the CO2 and CO2e levels of our atmosphere until once again the Carbon Cycle can cope with the impact of humankind. It is not all doom whilst we can do something about it. Vigorous and informed debate is required beyond the cessation of carbon emissions. It is now time for technology and engineering to move into the void left by science and the IPCC.
Toggle Commented Apr 19, 2018 on PIOMAS April 2018 at Arctic Sea Ice
Robert S Sorry, your answer to my question is in your posting BUT concrete production still adding to greenhouse gases. We must think about an alternative to concrete for housing the billions still without suitable and sanitary accommodation.
Toggle Commented Apr 16, 2018 on PIOMAS April 2018 at Arctic Sea Ice
Robert S Any idea between the balance of cement production and uptake? Concrete over all deserts and paint with light reflective paint to replace the lost albedo of melted polar ice AND sequestration of CO2 as a bonus. QED
Toggle Commented Apr 16, 2018 on PIOMAS April 2018 at Arctic Sea Ice
Al Rodgers Are you suggesting that greenhouse gas emissions are solely of anthropometric origin? CO2 and CO2e will continue to enter the atmosphere after the cessation of anthropometric emissions adding to the total of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and temperatures will continue to rise. The Carbon Cycle may or may not stabalise the global carbon content over the millenia but in the meantime what stops the globlem heat/energy budget increasing along with global temperatures? Is global warming that affects ice condions in the polar regions 'off topic'? If so, we are limited to comments on 'effects' and 'causes' are off limits. I know, the other site is available for 'wider' debate but I like this blog better. Of course if Neven decides this is too far of topic I will refrain from further comment.
Toggle Commented Apr 16, 2018 on PIOMAS April 2018 at Arctic Sea Ice
It does not seem so many years ago that the scientific community were quoting 380 ppm of CO2 as the level at which the natural Carbon Cycle might be capable of re-establishing a natural equilibrium level if carbon emissions were quickly and significantly reduced. Carbon emissions continued to rise and 400 ppm was then held to be the 'point of no return'. After a three year levelling out period, 2017 saw another rise in atmospheric CO2 and CO2e levels. In November 2015 the CO2 level was 400 ppm, it has been above this level ever since and on the 10 April 2018 it was 409.56 ppm. CO2 and CO2e remain in the atmosphere in various forms, acting as greenhouse gases, for more than a thousand years. I beleived the scientists then and I beleive them now. 400 ppm was the point of no return unless carbon sequestration is deployed on a global scale to mitigate or defer global warming and avoid dangerous climate change.
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2018 on PIOMAS April 2018 at Arctic Sea Ice
Aksel Gasbjerg The August 2017 figure for atmospheric CO2 is 405.07ppm and this compares with the August 2016 figure of 402.45ppm. From 2012 to the present time emissions have been on a slightly downward trend but CO2 levels continue to rise at an increasing rate. It is stating the obvious saying that CO2 emissions should be reduced as quickly as possible but on the evidence to-date it appears that reduced CO2 emissions do not lead to reduced atmospheric CO2ppm. As commented by D_C_S...much debate on this issue and not everyone agreed.
Toggle Commented Oct 5, 2017 on Excellent melting season summary at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin is now following QSI Automation Injection Mold Design
Aug 30, 2017
Events in the Antarctic appear to be running somewhat contrary to those in the Artic at the present time, in particular the melt days in Greenland are well below the levels of recent years.
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2017 on PIOMAS July 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Off topic but may be of interest to some contributors. "A one trillion tonne iceberg – one of the biggest ever recorded - has calved away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica...The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68, weighs more than a trillion tonnes. Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes." All the details at:-
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2017 on PIOMAS July 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Bill Fothergill Did you mean fossil fuel emissions of ~ 10 GT pa and ~ 40 Gt of CO2? In which case the rough calculation should be:- 1,000 Gt of CO2 at emission rate of 40 Gt pa = 25 yrs before an ice free September ...I think not. 100 Gt of fossil fuel emissions at emission rate of 10 Gt pa = 10 yrs before an ice free September ...more realistic but still optimistic.
Toggle Commented Feb 14, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
RE: CO2 growth The science is out of kilter with reality, unless there is a printing error in the article. viz 1,000 Gt at emission rate of 10 Gt pa = 100 yrs before an ice free September ...I think not. 100 Gt at emission rate of 10 Gt pa = 10 yrs before an ice free September ...more realistic but still optimistic. Bill Fothergill writes:- "At present emission rates of around 10 gigatonnes of carbon each year, that equates to about September 2043." ...the maths seems awry here.
Toggle Commented Feb 14, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob Dekker | January 26, 2017 at 08:50 Paris Agreement - Countries agreed to reduce FF emissions on a voluntary basis and in that sense, this was, the 'first step' towards implementation of a policy; not per se the Paris meeting. Whereas, Kyoto was very much about procedural agreement. RGP and AGM errors - You are correct, my typo errors. The reason why I did not volunteer a preference was because it was not relevant in responding to the comment made by Navegante. I was simply explaining why I thought that there was 'hope'.
Toggle Commented Jan 27, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
navegante | January 25, 2017 at 07:31 Navegante, there IS hope. The Paris Agreement was the first step only. I beleive that step by step the Agreement will move towards implimentation of the correct IPCC RGP in time to achieve a successful outcome to AGM; ordinary men and women will also act as a catalysts to ensure the appropriate political responses are put into practice. IPCC new emphasis into research into SR 1.5degC following submission of independent report:- (copy and paste) The timetable for submissions is very, very tight but the scientists have said they will 'rise to the challenge' (good luck to them). Also important in the changed format of working and presentation is the integration of socio-economic assessment factors, previously a sequential process. This is also an important area of study for Neven. I am sure that he will be pleased about this development although his interest, I beleive, relates more to a Global System of Fairness and new Financial Structures. It is my hope that the Global co-operation to combat AGM will also require a new system of Global values to emerge. All the latest IPCC Reports that I have read now refer to removal of atmospheric C02 direct from the atmosphere to acheive RCP targets aided by reforestaion, afforestation, land management and related issues. And, yes, control of the global Energy balance affected by Solar Insolation. The most comprehensive and detailed Report that I have read to date is:- 6.5 (through to Acknowledgements) Potential Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal Methods and Solar Radiation Management on the Carbon Cycle I beleive that a successful resolution of the AGW threat will require tolerant and informed debate between scientists, politicians and the ordinary men and women of the world. If we are all successfull our children and grandchildren will inherit a better place with greater understanding between all peoples of the world.
Toggle Commented Jan 25, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob Dekker | January 24, 2017 at 05:21 Rob Dekker | January 24, 2017 at 05:41 Rob Oh dear, the ultimate insult, to be compared to a climate science denier. Of course, as you would expect, I deny the denial charge. Regarding the climate science; I have not yet read a peer reviewed paper or cited article with which I disagree. So, unless I am a 'spoiler' or 'stupid' our differeces of opinion must be on the 'interpretation' of what we read. I am looking for your help here in trying to understand your position, because I hope that you are right. Please correct me if I am wrong but I beleive our respective positions differ on:- 1. If the reduction in Fossil Fuel emissions are achieved then atmosperic CO2 will reduce to an acceptable level over a reasonable period of time (say 100 years?) because of the Ocean Sink. 2. The part played by the Intermediate/Deep Ocean Sink in the future reduction of atmospheric CO2. If we could at least agree on where we disagree perhaps that would be a good starting point. Perhaps it would also help with communication if points could be numbered as above with the response being AGREE or DISAGREE. Obviously if the response is DISAGREE then an explanation of our respective thinking on that point would help to progress the debate.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob Dekker | January 23, 2017 at 06:35 "How is your model better than the Bern carbon cycle model ?" I do not think that my Model is better than the Bern Cycle Model. Why should I? Do you see this as some sort of competition?
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob Dekker | January 23, 2017 at 06:21 Rob Dekker "No D-Penquin, your model does not include ANY carbon feedbacks, so it's not dynamic. In fact, your model excludes the largest carbon storage tank on this planet : the deep ocean. So your model is bunk." I can only repeat:- Your link: Page 10 - Section: Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric CO2 "...BUT IT OMITS CLIMATE CARBON, E.G., ASSUMING STATIC GLOBAL CLIMATE AND OCEAN CIRCULATION." This is a direct quote from the scientific paper YOU referred to; not my opinion, not my interpretation. I appears that your reading of comments posted is, with respect, very selective. This debate is about CLIMATE CARBON. I point out the parameters used in the Bern Carbon Cycle Model and you simply ignore the reference and its implications. The omission in the paper is not an error, it is deliberate and perfectly acceptable to isolate the 'dynamic' variables related to the Climate and Ocean circulation paths within the Global Climate Carbon Cycle, to determine the effect of CO2 added to the atmosphere that follows the RCPs. Again, you omit any reference to the relevant part of my comment that explained why my Simple Atmospheric/Ocean/CO2 Interchange Model omitted the parameters you referred to. And again,I repeat, it was constructed this way at the request of Zebra to explain the Atmospheric/Oceanic CO2 flux to which Henrys Law would apply at the surface ocean excluding all other parameters, on the absorption and emission of CO2 at the surface ocean; in particular, how the flux changes from -ve to 0 to +ve and then back to 0. That is why I referred to my Model as 'dynamic', because it DID refer to CO2 ABSORBTION and EMISSION at the surface ocean, when these two parameters (dynamics) are purposely omitted by the authors of the Paper in the use of the Bern equation. I did not try to dis-credit a perfectly sound Scientific Paper you linked to but I did challenge the conclusion that you took from the Paper.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
SimonF | January 22, 2017 at 19:26 SimonF What is the difference to the link I posted, on three or four different occassions, apart from decadel reference "Atmospheric CO2 would decrease at about 2ppm initially" What part of Chapter 6 please?
Toggle Commented Jan 22, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
michael sweet | January 22, 2017 at 14:42 Michael Before you start telling me what I should do, why do you not practice what you preach? Read the posting properly before you comment. Stop trying to teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs, it is very presumptuous of you.
Toggle Commented Jan 22, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice