Bhs1975

The arctic can go ice free all year? Based on what evidence?
 
but but… Al gore said it would be ice free in 2008. Why isn’t it ice free now?
 
how gut hooked do you have to be to believe the arctic can be open water all year?

if anything the IPCC predictions have been way too conservative
 

We're supposed to be carbon neutral by 2050 but we are heading in the wrong direction fast. At this point I rather have nuclear war to reset everything.

The net zero should have been done decades ago so the sooner the better as we are already getting our ass kicked by AGW.

Yes the rains this week were impressive, humidity/moisture could be a better local indicator of summer climate change than temperature

Just imagine before the end of this century .... winters will mirror this discussion, in the sense that as the winter's age onward the discussion will be - proportionally - how much ice formed before the perennial total ice out.

Happy meteorological fall on the GFS. 0C 850s into northern Maine.

Why do you think that is the case?
India is much hotter than the expected median global temperature after the most extreme Global Warming, yet seems civilized to me.
I've no argument that things will not get very messy, but find the 'we'll all collapse' scenario deeply implausible.
 

Think that is over the top, extinction is not in the cards even with the outlier scenarios.
Huge losses and major disruptions though are pretty much baked in the cake.
We could help keep the damage to a minimum, but would need to convince China and India that climate change has greater risks than dire poverty.
Thus far, that has been a ' no sale'.
Ideally, there would to be an alternative, ideally a cheap and reliable nuclear power design, fusion, fission or whatever. so no greenhouse emissions and the capacity to power an electric surface transportation system. Nothing has materialized as yet though.

The trade press is reporting surging Asian coal shipments and notes parenthetically that China is building more coal power plants than currently exist in the rest of the world outside of the US and India.
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/asia-coal-demand-surge-in-stark-contrast-with-u-n-climate-warning/
I guess they are skeptical about the seriousness of climate change.

A few of us are saying out loud what many people are already thinking.  There's going to be a lot of bad for pretty much all of humanity because this was put off for so many decades.  The pandemic is going to be looked on fondly as the good old days, by the time 2030 gets here, if not before.  Mark my words..... as sure as the sun rises and sets, this will happen.
 

Definitely along the coast too.  Higher mins and some blunting of extremes of highs, but still warmer than normal overall.  The added moisture makes it more difficult to achieve higher maximums but does raise the floor with the higher mins.
I noticed the added moisture in the West.  One thing we need to remember is that added moisture in the air does not necessarily equate to more rainfall (it does in the East but maybe not in the West.)

Quick glance at the 0z Euro and GFS and both are showing a max temperature in Washington state next week of 120 or above. The state record is 118.

The new norm baby.

If there were any question that the book’s author is profoundly out of touch with contemporary climate science understanding, this interview should erase all reasonable questions:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/physicist-tells-tucker-carlson-climate-change-is-fiction-of-the-media.amp

Yeah he's a tool.

This is not just another perspective on climate change. It is factually incorrect in the same way claims of table top cold fusion and n-rays are incorrect. This is egregious enough that it rises to the level of disinformation.

Let me correct some factually incorrect information I heard in this video. Note that this may not be an exhaustive list, but I did my best to spot each misleading, misinformation, or disinformation (most of it) tidbit.

** Disinformation: Nature has produced 97% of the 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Fact: Humans pumped nearly 330 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of this 330 ppm pumped into the atmosphere nature buffered about 195 ppm for us in the land and ocean leaving 135 ppm in the atmosphere. Humans are responsible for 32% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere and 100% of the rise from 280 to 415 ppm. And if Mother Nature hadn't lent a helping hand we'd actually be responsible for almost 55% of the 610 ppm that would have occurred had 195 ppm not been buffered. The mistake the commentator in the video makes is that they conflate carbon emission in units of ppm/yr or GtC/yr (4% human, 96% natural) with carbon mass ppm or GtC (without the /yr part). A ~4% increase in inflow flux to the atmosphere with only a ~2% increase in outflow flux over many years will add up rather quickly.  

Sources: Global Carbon Project - Friedlingstein 2020 

** Disinformation: Sea level is not rising by more than 1 mm/yr.

Fact: Sea level is rising by about 3.5 mm/yr now and it has accelerated in recent decades. 

Sources: Dangendorf 2019, and NASA Vital Signs Page, and IPCC SROCC

** Disinformation: Solar activity explains the warming observed today.

Fact: Solar activity peaked in 1958 and has been flat to even declining ever since. This happened during a period when the warming became most acute. Furthermore like all main sequence stars the Sun brightens with age yet the Earth has cooled and even entered into the on-going Quaternary Ice Age since the Eocene Climate Optimum 55 MYA.

Sources: SORCE - Kopp 2011 and NASA Vital Signs Page, and Berkeley Earth, and Gough 1981, and various sources.

** Disinformation: Scientists concluded that CO2 has no warming potential.

Fact: CO2's warming potential was convincingly demonstrated in the 1800's. The first climate models appeared in the 1800's and even CO2's climate sensitivity was first estimated prior to 1900. Even Arrhenius' 1908 calculation (which is said to be quite laborious) of 4C at 2xCO2 is considered be a reasonable prediction even today.

Sources: Tyndall 1861, Arrhenius 1896, Chamberlin 1897, Chamberlin 1899, Arrhenius 1908, Pekeris 1929, Callendar 1938, Callendar 1949, Plass 1956 (a, b, and c), Callendar 1961, Manabe 1961, Manabe 1967, Budyko 1969, Sellers 1969, Charney 1979, Ramanathan 1985, Hansen 1988, Myhre 1998, Schmidt 2010, IPCC AR5 WG1 Sherwood 2020, and the list goes on and on and on. I haven't even scratched the surface on all of the lines of evidence confirming over and over again that CO2 puts a positive radiative force on the planet.

** Misinformation: A Sun driven cooling period is imminent.

Fact: Not even a solar grand minimum will reverse global warming. The current Earth Energy Imbalance is +0.8 W/m^2. A solar grand minimum might put about -0.3 W/m^2 of force on the planet. Cumulative CO2 forcing alone is +2.0 W/m^2 with another +1.7 W/m^2 expected if concentrations hit 560 ppm. There have been a few sun driven cooling prediction in the last few decades. Obviously none of them panned out. 

Source:  Schuckmann 2020, and Myhre 1998, and Owens 2017, and Anet 2013, and SORCE - Kopp 2011

** Misleading: CO2 levels have been this high in the past.

Fact: Yeah, like more than a million years ago. And note that high CO2 levels in the past were required to offset the lower solar luminosity. 600 MYA the solar forcing was -12 W/m^2 relative to today. CO2 levels would have had to been around 4,000 ppm just to maintain an offset of +12 W/m^2 to balance the lower solar flux. CO2 is an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem, the PETM, other hyperthermal events, magnitude of the glacial cycles, etc.

Source: GEOCARB III - Berner 2001 and Gough 1981, and NASA Vital Signs Page

 

 

Over the long haul as the sun heats up we will need to lower GHG levels to keep Earth habitable but eventually in a billion years or so even 0 GHG levels won't be enough. The Earth completely froze over in the past at least twice because it needed several thousand ppm CO2 to keep that from happening but now with a much hotter Sun that's not the case anymore.

No it did not.  The original earth was way too toxic for life, it was vastly different than the planet we have today.  It took 2 billion years for the first unicellular life to develop (the planet is 4.6 billion years old) and those were methanogens (cyanobacteria also known as blue-green algae) and those were needed before anything else could evolve because they are the ones who set the changes into motion that we needed to get more complex life.  We didn't even have multicellular life for billions of years after that, let alone intelligent life.

https://lco.global/spacebook/astrobiology/when-did-life-develop-and-what-were-conditions-early-earth/#:~:text=Some scientists claim life developed,recycled into the Earth's crust.

 

The first irrefutable examples of life on Earth arose around 2.7 billion years ago. Some scientists claim life developed as long ago as 3.5 billion years. This is difficult to study and even more difficult to prove or disprove because rocks on Earth are weathered and recycled into the Earth’s crust. Rocks from so long ago are very difficult to find and only a few have been discovered.

 

The early Earth’s atmosphere had a very low concentration of oxygen compared to today. 2.4 billion years ago, the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was less than one part per billion and the iron concentration in the ocean was much higher than today. Starting 3 billion years ago and lasting for at least a billion years, soluble iron (Fe²⁺) in the ocean collected any freely available oxygen, and formed ferric iron (Fe³⁺) which is a solid, also known as rust. Eventually most of the iron in the oceans was depleted and the oxygen level in the atmosphere and in the water began to slowly increase. After about a billion years, the oxygen level had reached a few percent of the total atmospheric pressure.

Then about 500 million years ago, there was a relatively rapid increase in the atmospheric oxygen content. This began when an ancient relative of cyanobacteria evolved the ability to use sunlight and water for photosynthesis, creating oxygen as a by-product. Over the next few hundred million years, the oxygen content in the atmosphere rose to nearly its current value of 18%.

Until this development, all life on Earth must have existed either under at least several centimeters of water or underground. The ozone layer, which blocks most of the damaging ultraviolet light from the Sun, did not exist, so any organism on the surface of the Earth would have been killed by the ultraviolet light. As the oxygen content of the atmosphere increased, the ozone layer formed and began to shield the surface of the Earth from the harmful ultraviolet light. This allowed life forms to evolve to survive on the surface of the oceans and on land, and also allowed organisms who metabolize oxygen (like us!) to develop.

I'm willing to bet this scenario plays out all over the universe and we are being visited and our DNA tinkered with by aliens millions of years ahead of us.

Between the oceanic heat burial and the aerosols this is how a disaster can sneak up on a civilization. At it's core civilization is fundamentally unsustainable anyway.

We need to get much better at drawing CO2 down than we are now at raising it up.

I guess you could say 2020 Trumps 2005 lol.

Frame this and put it in the "Weather Forum Posts That Aged Horribly" Hall of Fame right alongside the one he made about September 2017 being quiet.

 

Speaking of ldub, he hasn't popped into this thread in awhile...

Yeah he got pwned.

Starting to get some mid-level core alignment under nice convection. Perhaps even an LLC reformation has occurred. Might have downplayed potential impacts in Cuba too swiftly.

Yeah the ssts are still very warm.

Those small eyes are tricky.

Weaksauce

There’s a lot of warm water in the Bahamas that’s untouched.

It's complicated. First understand that this is not entirely unexpected. In fact, the IPCC AR5 WG1 prediction for SH sea ice, although significantly more uncertain than predictions for the NH, shows a slight preference for increases through about 2030 with the possibility of record highs persisting even through 2060 before things turn south (pun intended) down there too. I must caveat that by saying the uncertainty envelope does include the possibility of the secular decline starting around 2020 as well. The unfortunate state of affairs with SH sea ice is that our understanding of its behavior in a warming world is still quite nebulous compared to our understanding of NH sea ice behavior. Second understand that the see-sawing of temperatures and sea ice between hemisphere has been shown to occur during previous significant climatic change events so it is not unprecedented nor is it inconsistent with climatic shifts.

Anyway here are some things to consider...

• The NH is characterized by ocean surrounded by land whereas the SH is land surrounded by ocean. This trivial fact accounts for the bulk of the differences between NH and SH sea ice behavior. The consequences of this can be quite dramatic and contradictory between the NH vs. SH.
• A positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is associated with increasing SH sea ice. Global warming tips the SAM toward a positive phase.
• ENSO negative/positive phases reinforce positive/negative SAM phases.
• The Montreal Protocol through its ban of CFCs, repair of stratospheric ozone, associated cooling tendencies and other effects on weather patterns has been linked to SH sea ice increases.
• Increasing GHGs actually have a cooling effect on the Antarctica continent itself especially during the SH winter when the upper atmosphere is often warmer than the surface. Remember, GHGs act like a thermal barrier preventing IR radiation from passing through. This causes the warm/cool side of the barrier to warm/cool further. Positive/negative lapse rates get more positive/negative. Antarctica often has a negative lapse rate during the winter so GHGs cause cooling at the surface and warming in the upper atmosphere. This effect (among others) suppresses polar amplification in the SH.

Disclaimer...I'm not well informed regarding SH sea ice so hopefully others who know more about the behavior down there can chime in on points I've missed or mischaracterized.

The main take away here is that sea ice is mainly a NH issue right now. Most scientists do not expect NH-style declines in sea ice down in the SH anytime soon. And the fact that the SH responds differently than the NH is probably more the rule than the exception. 

The Greenland ice sheet was the last to form so

It will be first to go. The Antarctic ice sheets where the first to form so will be last to go.