etudiant

That is a stunning change. Is there a reference which you could point me to? I've seen some reports, but nothing that suggests global loss of alkalinity on that scale.

It is not obvious that human style intelligence is a common feature anywhere, afawk it has evolved just once in the several hundred million years that multi cellular life has existed on this earth. Actually the constraint is even stricter, industrial technology is only a few hundred years old, so about a millionth of the multi cellular life span. That suggests intelligent life as we know it is a very fleeting apparition, even if we assume that it has longevity once achieved. However, as noted, the lack of wisdom which humans are showing in their dealing with their own biosphere strongly suggests longevity may be limited for our technological society.

Thank you for this more complete explanation, although it is really over my head. For a novice such as me, TCHP and MPI are not familiar terms, so there are gaps in my understanding of the process. But I gather the hurricane formation is much more chaotically competitive than I'd thought, so that very small vortices sometimes play a pivotal role. Is that correct?

Rare is a better term. I mentioned some others above: Pam, Patricia, Wilma, Gilbert and Allen all had similar structures. There have been a number of others that developed a super intense >5nm micro-vortex eyewall within a much larger banded concentric envelope. Still, it's not something we see with regards to such extreme sub 890 hpa estimated intensities on a yearly basis. Think perhaps once every 5-10 years globally within the satellite era. Thank you, a very informative summary. Has there been any explanation or modeling that would shed light on how this comes about? Why and how would a micro vortex spin up within the eye?

Don't think I've ever seen something like this before. Is it usual in cyclones?

Thank you, that is a well documented piece of work.

I'd thought that the primary objection was not denial of the current evidence, but rather claims that similar or warmer conditions were in effect in prior recorded history, for instance during the Norse settlements of Greenland.. That then translates into a claim that there is a natural warm cold cycle, which the current models fail to capture. The Norse settlement was not small, it was big enough to be allocated its own bishop and they were able to sustain cattle and sheep. Presumably there could be some isotope measurements possible in stalactites or glacier ice which provides some guidance on this issue, but I've not seen anything that really digs into the question.

I suspect we all underestimate the potential for reform. If people want change, they will get it. With effectively unlimited power from nuclear, even extreme efforts such as carbon capture are feasible. What is required is a broad recognition that there really is a problem. That has not been achieved, imho partly because the early AGW researchers desperately oversold the immediacy of their findings. The subsequent pause after 1998 put them into the 'boy who cried wolf' category and that has impeded any further consensus action. Sadly I believe it will now take a climate catastrophe to spur any concerted action. A collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet might force a recognition of the problem, but failing that, business as usual remains the most likely outcome. The best hope for progress is from the renewable energy sector. If it can continue to deliver increasingly economical power, we might buy some additional decades to find a solution to the problem.

The discussion was about the difficulty of mobilizing the public to tackle climate change as an imminent danger. I was simply pointing out that the actions by the most powerful leaders in the debate undermine the narrative for the broader public.

An other problem imho is the dissonance between the rhetoric and the actions of the leading AGW politicians. The public sees that both Al Gore as well as Barack Obama bought large oceanfront estates shortly after leaving office. Presumably these well informed individuals would not buy such homes if they anticipated losing them shortly to rising seas. John Q Public takes comfort from this evidence that there is no imminent danger.

Don't think this is a helpful cartoon. It is deeply anti scientific, an appeal to mass authority. In response to a book 'A hundred authors against relativity'. Einstein said: 'Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.' Einstein said 'Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.'

Not a regular here, but this really needs organization to provide help. I'm thinking of 10,000 or so households that have lost everything and that are remote from any helping entity. Is there a shuttle ferry or something similar (airport was under water afaik) to deliver basic supplies? All we can do here is to send money, but who is a trustworthy recipient? Do any of the regulars here know?

It would be so very helpful if the media presentation of this issue were better guided by the science. Instead we have a high school kid sailing to the UN to tell the world what to do. Not sure that is a good basis for policy.

That redundancy costs a lot of money. Overall, one pays for 2 complete power systems. That makes everyone so much poorer. I'd much rather see the money spent on low emission nuclear, because it is 24/7 available, so it folds seamlessly into the grid. The associated pollution issues are less imho than the massive problems generated by rare earth extraction for wind power generators or area coverage with solar collectors.

The challenge however is not only cost per kWhr, it is for reliable power. The lower cost of the solar is no help on a cold winter night, unless there is reliable backup, whether fossil fueled, nuclear or battery or some other technology. Those costs must be considered in any realistic evaluation. The attraction of the fossil and nuclear generators is that they work reliably 24/7. Getting the infrastructure and the people to accept something more erratic will not be easy or cheap. The recent UK blackout is an illustration of the problem. Note that in theory, a globally connected very high power grid might be the answer, but politics do not seem to favor this supranational option.

Good on you!

What 'more authentic/reliable indicators' do you have in mind?? If there were any, I suspect that they would be greatly studied and analyzed. Sadly, we have not found any thus far, afaik.

The arctic is literally on FIRE with 2,3000,0000 hectares burning and counting. Almost ALL of greenland is forecasted to go above freezing. Ice thickness plummeting. Near record low extent. The environment is flashing red alarm bells and we still argue if global warming is happening. Absolutely mind boggling. This post would be more persuasive if SN_Lover took the time to proofread his own posts and perhaps to relate the current data to the historical record. As is, it comes across as overwrought at best, if not trolling.

Sadly there is no reliable skill demonstrated by any of the longer term forecasting models, at least afaik. The ludicrous month to month temperature switch for the DJF period recently shown by the JAMSTEC underscores the total lack of any such credible forecasts. JAMSTEC is a decent model and the people driving it are not beholden to the prevailing fads, but the reality remains that their long term forecasts are subject to massive change from month to month. That makes them useless operationally imho.

Simultaneously, this indication of thick ice north of Svalbard. http://maritimebulletin.net/2019/07/19/icebreaker-turned-back-encountering-heavy-ice-in-ice-free-arctic/ So the ice conditions are quite variable. That however does not preclude a record low this season.

Perhaps the difference reflects definitional parameters? One is Arctic Basin only, the other possibly the AMSR2 total area? Hard to discuss when the data is inconsistent. Just seems that Arctic ice is a topic where every detail has to be agreed, is it area, is it extent, is it volume, what coverage percent is included, are the land masks constant etc etc.

Prepare to be disappointed. Very few really dedicated suppliers have survived the wave of cheaper imports. I don't know whom I would trust to deliver a reliable system today.

Have to say that the data strongly suggests a declining trend for arctic ice. Possibly this is a cyclical phenomenon, which will reverse at some future date. Historical records from the 1920s suggest a similar warm cycle has been seen before. Nevertheless, absent any identifiable mechanism to reverse the current warming, it seems reasonable to expect the 2012 lows will be broken, possibly this year. Forkyfork makes a very strong argument that the recent increase in extent reflects fragmentation of previously solid ice pack, which sets the stage for enhanced melting of the shattered ice. With the maximum melt still more than 2 months away, the odds are shifting towards a new record low imho.

South East Arizona would bring it all back for you. In fact, there is a whole astronomy community near the Chiricahuas, along the road to Portal, with many homes built around observatories. No lights, no clouds, just you and the stars in the desert.

Au contraire! A consensus prediction is pretty worthless, we make progress when things go different from what everyone expects and we reappraise. Of course it is always easier to burn the deniers at a stake....