chubbs
-
Posts
3,534 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by chubbs
-
-
"Based on high precision oxygen and CO measurements" so completely independent of temperature or other measurements. Link to paper itself below:
-
Open-source paper on Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and age from 1958-2018 by Ron Kwok. Main point - Arctic has transitioned from multi-year to seasonal sea ice.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec/meta
-
16 hours ago, csnavywx said:
It's not much of a decrease. There were some recent papers on the issue, where emissions were increased and then suddenly "shut off" to zero. The result was a short dip followed by an extremely long plateau (think centuries) due to stored heat being released from the oceans, though the effect was considerably worse at RCP 4.5+ levels than RCP 2.6. CO2 concentration decreased slowly as well, due to Henry's Law, where the near-surface ocean dissolved CO2 started to come back out of solution and into the atmosphere, slowing the decline.
None of those dealt with permafrost emissions, which have the potential to throw a wrench into any long-run calculations, even at the 2.6 level.
The hidden, implicit conclusion is that NET (negative emissions technologies) and large-scale BECCS are going to be necessary to bring temperatures back down. Once you get above the ~450 level, you're more or less stuck with the temperature max you achieve for a very long time without explicitly drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.
While the "hothouse" has garnered all the attention, the following is a better learning from this paper: positive feed-backs that aren't in climate models will lead to additional slow warming over an extended period of time. We aren't going to rapidly transition to a hothouse, but its going to be very expensive to turn back the dial if we continue much more on this trajectory.
That said, non-fossil alternatives are getting more and more attractive and there is plenty of natural gas to aid in transition so there is no need for a compromised future; but, we have to be willing to face our problems more honestly.
-
Per the detailed account below, it is Mann's critics who manipulated the data.
https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, snowlover91 said:
Not cherry picking, offering other points of views. It's up to the reader to decide what they believe and you've chosen to believe in AGW no matter what other alternative theories and research is presented. As mentioned, the papers I cited are a small portion of alternative views out there that look at other possible explanations for the warming with solid reasoning for their arguments. If you had read the articles and abstracts I posted you would have seen that. You choose to call them "cherry picking" simply because they don't agree with your point of view and what you consider settled science but the fact is there are scientists and climatologists who believe the science isn't settled and are exploring the complex dynamics in search of answers.
The study you cited was cherry-picking because it used a subset of data to make an erroneous claim. I "believe" in climate science because the evidence is overwhelming. It appears to me that you also have a belief system and search out supporting material. I have found that understanding climate science is a good basis for predicting the future. I don't expect warming to slow down until the global emission trajectory changes. What is your outlook for the future?
-
2 hours ago, snowlover91 said:
No one who is skeptical of AGW denies the role of CO2 in the warming. Those who are skeptical attribute CO2 as enhancing a natural cyclical warming cycle but look at other factors which may explain the warming.
Below is some food for thought to consider from various papers and research. This is just a tiny sampling of those who are offering alternative explanations for various changes we are seeing globally.
You are not offering a credible analysis just cherry-picking. As bdgwx points out above, the evidence for CO2 and other ghg being the predominant warming factor is overwhelming and getting stronger by the decade. Per the analysis below the natural contribution since 1850 is negligible vs the increase in forcing from CO2 and other ghg.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
-
8 hours ago, snowlover91 said:
Points 1 and 2 are implied, the article mentions ecosystems being destroyed and other disastrous results. Those who are AGW alarmists commonly use arguments like drought, crop failure, polar bears disappearing, etc and I provided some points addressing that line of reasoning. Point 3 likewise follows with some of the extreme “weather events” that alarmists say will happen like increasing hurricanes, severe weather, etc.
Point 4 is also applicable because Michael Mann is mentioned (and the opinion article was based on his research). He has rightly been criticized for his extreme methods, hype, and manipulation of data (see the hockey stick graph) among many other issues he’s had.
You are repeating denier talking points in this thread not science. The role of CO2 in the current warming is well established, no natural "cycle" fits the pattern of warming. You are right some of the media coverage of this paper is over the top. To me the paper's most important point, is that nature is not going to bail us out. As we warm, most of the feedbacks are going to push us towards warmer conditions. So its up to us to address this problem. Sticking your head in the sand only makes a hothouse more likely.
-
June was cool in the arctic, NE Canada and Greenland but warm in Antarctica and Siberia. 3rd warmest June, 0.01 beyond #1 2016
-
6 hours ago, snowlover91 said:
Does that graph go into 2018? Do you have links to these sources? Would be interested in checking them out further.
I think its obvious that globally there are some changes going on in regards to the ice levels. The Arctic, Antarctic and SMB of Greenland have all showed much higher levels compared with previous years. In fact Antarctica is almost smack dab on the 1981-2010 median and the Arctic is a good bit higher than most recent years except 2014. It remains to be seen if this is just a blip or not.
A couple of comments:
1) One year in the arctic or antarctic is not very important.
2) GRACE data in graph is through 2017. See post above for papers on Greenland mass balance.
3) Regarding arctic sea ice, this year so far looks unremarkable to me. Its not a big melt year like 2012, but its not far from the long-term trendline on most metrics either. (see chart below)
4) There hasn't been any long-term trend in Antarctic sea ice so smack dab on the median is as expected. Ice shelves and ice sheets are the big concern in Antarctica, not sea ice.
-
6 hours ago, snowlover91 said:
Care to post some graphs which account for calving and discharge? No matter how you slice it it’s clear that this season’s SMB is well above average and is close to breaking levels we haven’t seen in the past 30 years.
Here is a chart from DMI which shows total mass change for Greenland by region reflecting both SMB and glacier discharge and iceberg calving. Biggest mass losses have been on the west coast which doesn't get as much precipitation as the east coast. Greenland SMB is up this year due to heavy precipitation, unusual compared to some recent big melt years, but not unexpected given natural variability.
-
Last Feb's SSW may be a factor in the benign melt so far this year.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0495.1
-
Euro-reanalysis shows another arctic amplification winter with continental cold focused in Canada+Ntier US.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, PDIII said:
This is probably not real given that noaa maybe fudging the numbers.
No point in reading, Delingpole is full of BS
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 2/14/2018 at 1:55 AM, wolfpackmet said:
Jason-3 data through January 5 released today. 60/370-day running mean has been above the linear trend for over 3 years now. With La Niña conditions fading this trend will likely continue. Acceleration imminent or happening now?
CU just published first paper to detect acceleration in satellite record.
-
1
-
-
Here is another forecast using statistical methods.
-
To kick-off 2018, below is the recently issued UK Met Office Decadal forecast. Per write-up, PDO+ and AMO+ favor warming over the 5-year outlook period after a relatively cool 2018. Green is the CMIP5 predicted range.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
-
On 8/10/2017 at 0:57 PM, bluewave said:
There may also be a higher degree of uncertainty in the PIOMAS data compared to other years. But we saw how the the PIOMAS and NSIDC extent widely diverged in 2013 compared to the 2007 season. Lower PIOMAS in 2013 vs 2007,but the cool 2013 summer resulted in a much higher higher September extent than 2007.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/03/
It was a very warm autumn and winter. Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) over the five months spanning October 2016 through February 2017 were more than 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the entire Arctic Ocean, and greater than 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over large parts of the northern Chukchi and Barents Seas. These overall warm conditions were punctuated by a series of extreme heat waves over the Arctic Ocean.
Data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 satellite indicate that this winter’s ice cover may be only slightly thinner than that observed at this time of year for the past four years. However, an ice-ocean model at the University of Washington (PIOMAS) that incorporates observed weather conditions suggests the volume of ice in the Arctic is unusually low.
This year has been cool like 2013 so the volume and extent data are not inconsistent.
-
This year's low volume/high NSIDC area status is unusual. Looks like the mild winter is having some impact but is a weaker factor than a slow start to the Arctic Ocean melt season.
-
1 hour ago, etudiant said:
I'd thought the air temperature was not as significant as the water temperature in driving the amount of melting in the Arctic. Is this a misperception?
Yes, in August most melting is from water below the ice. Of course colder air cools the water also. Last season saw strong late season melting due to storminess even though temperatures were cool.
-
Interesting chart from Wipneus on the ASIF today showing the area of various ice thicknesses on July 22. 2017 lags in the thinnest categories but leads in the thicker. Wipneus notes that 0.26 on July 22 always melts and 0.71 sometimes melts in severe late summers. So a range of outcomes is still possible this year depending on weather.
-
20 hours ago, bluewave said:
................................................................................We expect the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice to continue as global temperatures rise. There will also be further bounces, both up and down. Individual years will be ice-free sometime in the 2020s, 2030s or 2040s, depending on both future greenhouse gas emissions and these natural fluctuations.
This is a good summary. Every year is a roll of the dice but gradually the dice are being loaded. Recently winters have been the most problematic. Perhaps we will see some temporary sea ice rebound with reversion to more normal conditions this winter.
-
1 hour ago, bluewave said:
Yeah, the HadGEM1 did a great job.
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/555/2013/
Mechanisms causing reduced Arctic sea ice loss in a coupled climate modelA. E. West, A. B. Keen, and H. T. HewittMet Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UKReceived: 09 May 2012 – Discussion started: 18 Jul 2012
Revised: 04 Feb 2013 – Accepted: 18 Feb 2013 – Published: 26 Mar 2013Abstract. The fully coupled climate model HadGEM1 produces one of the most accurate simulations of the historical record of Arctic sea ice seen in the IPCC AR4 multi-model ensemble. In this study, we examine projections of sea ice decline out to 2030, produced by two ensembles of HadGEM1 with natural and anthropogenic forcings included. These ensembles project a significant slowing of the rate of ice loss to occur after 2010, with some integrations even simulating a small increase in ice area. We use an energy budget of the Arctic to examine the causes of this slowdown. A negative feedback effect by which rapid reductions in ice thickness north of Greenland reduce ice export is found to play a major role. A slight reduction in ocean-to-ice heat flux in the relevant period, caused by changes in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) and subpolar gyre in some integrations, as well as freshening of the mixed layer driven by causes other than ice melt, is also found to play a part. Finally, we assess the likelihood of a slowdown occurring in the real world due to these causes.We are running below the trendline so can't give this prediction a gold star yet..
-
5 hours ago, csnavywx said:
2012's August losses were one of a kind ridiculous. EOSDIS doesn't show the kind of weak, broken ice pack that would be susceptible to mass extent/area loss in August like 2012 (and to some extent last year). With this turbo +AO remaining in place into the extended, there's a chance we could get get above 5M for extent in Sept if that pattern doesn't break appreciably.
Just have to avoid unusually strong storms like 2012 or prolonged storminess like 2016.
-
8 hours ago, bluewave said:
June officially continues the post 2012 pattern of a more active polar vortex and cooler temps.You can see the long range ensembles continuing this general pattern right into July.
July often reverses the June 500 mb tendency in the arctic with 2009+2015 being recent high height years in July and 2010+2012 relatively low.
Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume
in Climate Change
Posted
No that article is not correct. Its full of inaccurate and misleading statements. The article chart conveniently doesn't include the past 4 years with low sea ice - see chart below. There is no long-term trend in sea ice around Antarctica. Climate models predict very slow warming near Antarctica due to the time needed to heat up the deep oceans there. So the sea ice behavior there is not surprising. Of bigger concern is the ice sheet disintegration that is starting in Antarctica, due to ocean warming at depth, but you won't read about that at "electroverse".