etudiant

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....

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.

The subduction you explain makes perfect sense. It is the heat surfacing that is puzzling. Will not the water coming up from below still be somewhat colder than the surface water it displaces? So even if it is warmer than it was without the GHG effect, it would still continue to take up heat, only at a lesser rate. Is this a reasonable description of the expected effect?

What is 'heat burial'? I'd been under the impression that while polar waters were slightly below 0*C, deep ocean water was around 4*C, with the temperature falling as the depth increases in temperate/tropical waters. Am I off base? Is there some paper that would help lay out the process in more detail?

Thank you, bluewave, for this very useful presentation of the ice data. This kind of presentation helps clarify where things stand much better.

Think that you'd get 97% agreement on that score. Afaik, there is very broad agreement that global temperatures are up about 1 degree K since the 1880s. However, that warming has been in fits and starts, warm in the 1920s, colder in the early 1970s. Obviously, the issue is to untangle the natural from the human impact, no easy task. Given emissions, major changes in land use and population growth, even the details of the human impact are hard to decipher. That agreed, I do think that Snowlover91 has a good point, it is disconcerting to have above average ice growth in face of higher than normal air and ocean temperatures. Clearly there is something we do not understand about the process. It may be important or it may be trivial, but it should be investigated.

Thank you for this, a lot of work and thought went into it and it is much appreciated. Any chance of a follow on, maybe towards the end of August?

Is this not also near the spot where the Franklin expedition became entombed? These are pretty ideal places for ice to accumulate, no big gyres or currents to flush the multi year ice towards warmer waters.