chubbs

Thank you!!!!!!!!

Rapidly receding Arctic Canada glaciers revealing landscapes continuously ice-covered for more than 40,000 years Here we show that pre-Holocene radiocarbon dates on plants collected at the margins of 30 ice caps in Arctic Canada suggest those locations were continuously ice covered for > 40 kyr, but are now ice-free. We use in situ 14C inventories in rocks from nine locations to explore the possibility of brief exposure during the warm early Holocene. Modeling the evolution of in situ 14C confirms that Holocene exposure is unlikely at all but one of the sites. Viewed in the context of temperature records from Greenland ice cores, our results suggest that summer warmth of the past century exceeds now any century in ~115,000 years. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08307-w

Exactly. Who is funding the Heritage , Heartland Foundations and other DC think tanks that come up with denier meme's? Wealthy petrodollars. So this particular meme is pure hypocrisy. The reality is that climate scientists could be making much more money on Wall Street or in myriad other careers. While Koch is stuck in the oil business.

With government shutdown, only Berkeley Earth is available for 2018. Clear where we are headed. More details on 2018 at link below. http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/

Your "side" comments are just an old denier talking point. The goal is to make climate denial seem like an honest difference of opinion or mere political difference. Nothing could be further from the truth. The science is very clear. Its not new science either, the basics have been known for 150 years, and the accumulation of evidence is overwhelming. The denier meme's that you are so fond of were ginned up 30 years ago in conservative think tanks. Why do we keep hearing the same memes. Because they are effective in misinforming. Just like the ancient quotes that you copied and pasted from some denier site. Go back and look at board discussions from 10-15 years ago - the same meme's - only now the world is much warmer. Guessing we will be still be hearing the same 10 years from now - while temperatures continue to climb.

I see snowlover has given us another tour of the denialsphere. The irony is climate change is very amenable to a conservative market-based solution. Too bad Breitbart isn't interested. Wonder why?

Here is an article summarizing the Deconto presentation, flagged above, and others at the recent AGU session on ice sheet stability. Sounds like relatively good news, I guess. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/sea-level-rise-may-not-become-catastrophic-until-after-2100/579478/

UK met 2019 forecast. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/2019-global-temperature-forecast

November Antarctic sea ice. Blutarsky.

Nino lifting global SST. Bottomed out well above the 2011/12 nina levels.

Not the whole story, but the other man-made and natural factors tend to cancel out.

There was one NASA study a couple of years ago with that result, but all the other studies have concluded the opposite. Even the NASA study, indicated that the vulnerable W Antarctic ice sheet was starting to go. Below is a chart from the best current reference, a comprehensive review published earlier this year. You are right, the climate record is clear, we are headed for abrupt changes, that is exactly what the thread article is describing. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

Yea the science isn't new. The basics were worked out in the 19'th century and it is not very complex. Funny, greenhouse warming was generally accepted in the 1980s, by republicans and democrats. At that time a number of climate modeling forecasts were made that turned out to be accurate and the theoretical and observational evidence for greenhouse warming is now overwhelming. Yet, in the US there is much more skepticism now than in the 1980s. The media coverage of this report has been horrible. Focusing on the political polarization and not the science.

As someone with fair skin, its a little like skin cancer. Very slow. No day-to-day changes. Easy to ignore, pretend its not there. Finally you get tired of your wife bugging you to see the doctor. Funny though there is a sense of relief after the diagnosis is finally taken onboard and the treatment begun. Wonder if that will be the case with climate change.

Ocean heat content is a big deal because it is a measure of the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. 0.7 W/m2 in the ocean, plus the energy used to heat the atmosphere and melt ice, indicates that the current heat imbalance is around 0.8 w/m2. That is roughly 20% of a CO2 doubling. CO2 has increased almost 50% from 280 to 410 ppm, but it hasn't been fully felt yet, because it takes a long time to heat up the ocean. Due to the ocean lag are still in a <350 ppm climate world, close to Hanson's safe level, still in the outer edge of the Holocene. In the next 20-30 years though, we will be in a 400 ppm world, through the Eemian, and into Pliocene conditions.

A linear trend through the ARGO float data gives 1.05e22 j per year increase for the 0 to 2000m layer. Deeper waters below 2000m add another 10%. So there is good agreement, albeit with large scatter in the corrected Resplandy et. al. estimate.

A couple of points: 1) Rainfall is only expected to increase by a percent or two per degree of warming on a global basis with some areas becoming drier (mainly dry areas) and others wetter (mainly wet areas) . So difficulty in finding trends in mean precipitation is not surprising. 2) The heaviest precipitation events are expected to increase 7% per degree of warming in line with the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture. Observations bear this out. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3110

Below is the best discussion of the available data for the past 1500 years. The current warming is unprecedented. Year-to-year variation in sea ice is expected. We get the sea ice is recovering story periodically in this forum: 2008/9, 2013/14, etc. Sea ice is not crashing and its not recovering, just a steady long-term decline with large year-to-year variability. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10581

Below is the daily sea ice anomaly and a one-year running average. Autumn, winter and spring have been leading the way down recently.

Go back an re-read what I posted earlier. 1) Sea ice is lower now than anytime in past 2000 years. Sure sea ice was lower in the early Holocene >5000 years ago. Summer sun in the northern hemisphere was stronger then. Summer sun is much weaker now; but, sea ice is decreasing rapidly. Why? CO2 of course, different type of forcing same result. All consistent with consensus science. 2) Per your chart, sea ice in the northern Barents Sea has been stable throughout most of the Holocene. Satellite data shows sea ice is crashing now. Why the difference? The recent crash doesn't appear on your chart; because, the method, used to study past climates, doesn't have the time resolution to pick-up the crash. Nothing wrong with the chart; just bad and misleading analysis by Electroverse.

Why? Whats the point? You ignored the material I posted. Scientific studies are not going to change your viewpoint. All I get from the interaction are insults.

yawn.....too much time spent on denier websites

No your charts don't show that at all. First of all your article is advocacy, designed to mislead and not inform. Second not one of your charts show sea ice extent across the arctic or antarctic. Instead they are proxy measurements at a single site, which are designed to study historic climate not the present. I checked one of them, the Barents Sea proxy from Koseoglu. The measurements of marker compounds in a sediment core have a resolution of roughly once every 200 years, and the most recent measurement is deemed representative of the 1980-2010 average, so the data can not be used to compare current conditions, with reduced ice, to those in the past. Another paper states that the site experienced seasonal ice throughout the Holocene. Near the winter ice edge early in the early Holocene but with trend to more sustained ice coverage during the Holocene that has been partially reversed in the past 150 years. During the 1980-2010 period, typically the site was only ice free in August and September, but currently the site and the entire Barents Sea is still ice free. The ice edge in Spring/Winter has retreated close to the site in recent years, so conditions currently may be approaching those of the early Holocene. In any case your bolded statement is false for this one site.

Here is your bolded text " there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years. ". The chart I posted shows that sea ice is lower than any time in the past 2000 years. So your bolded text is clearly incorrect. You are talking about the early Holocene 10,000 years ago when the summer sun was much stronger in the northern hemisphere. Yes, sea ice was also low then when the sun was stronger, but I don't find it comforting given our current rapid downward trend. I