etudiant

That leaves it up to nature to balance the equation, which she is quite capable of doing, but I doubt we would like the process. It seems a counsel of despair, that we cannot manage ourselves, which also is quite wrong by the evidence of collapsing birth rates in Asia, Europe and the Americas. Only Africa still has rapid population growth, but that will adjust as the continent becomes more urbanized and civilized.

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.

I don't think action is easily compelled, even less so when there is little leadership and few clear examples of the way forward. Germany is a case in point, vocally green and yet more dependent on coal and energy imports than before. If Japan could be mobilized, that would be a persuasive step, but there is no sign of such. Meanwhile, the evidence of a real ecosystems breakdown is all around us, evidenced by the recent report on declining bird numbers (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-birds-idUSKBN1W42NA) That is a disaster arising from habitat destruction, bad land use and indiscriminate use of pesticides, all problems that can be fixed, at a price. Who pays the price is the sticking point, even though long term we all share the hurt that is being inflicted.

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.

Not persuaded, it postulates 2 unverified developments, first an accelerating sea level rise and second a pattern of intensifying TCs. Afaik, there is very little evidence for either at present. So this seems more a 'sky is falling' paper than an evidence based document.

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....

LOL indeed. Only a forum of weather compulsives could come up with even the concept of 'slant sticking'. There is probably some crusty naval term which applies to optimistic wind measurements, but I don't know it. Maybe someone here can help.

I don't understand this. The two graphs for actual temperature look pretty similar, but the anomaly graphs are very different. Can someone please help me understand how that happens?

Situation seems similar to that after the 2004 earthquake, first reports are of only a few casualties, because the worst hit sites have lost communications entirely. Looks to be very ugly.

Well, if a 1936 + 0.15C rerun is going to happen, summer will be toasty.