skierinvermont

1 hour ago, BillT said:

and climate change is not the cause of any of those things, the same things causing those changes are the CAUSE of the climate change....the effect does NOT come before the cause.....simple fact climate change again has no power and has never caused anything related to weather, the change comes BEFORE the change in the climate stats......

You're mincing words (and doing a poor job of it) to avoid the fact that increased CO2 levels have increased the amount of heat in the atmospheres and the oceans so much that the water in the oceans has expanded (and continues to expand) and that this heat, while it is not the sole cause of any individual heat wave, drought or fire, is the primary cause for the significantly increased frequency of heatwaves, droughts, and fires.

You've been making little word mincing posts like this for years now without ever substantively engaging with anybody or anything. Either read the science, or just stop posting about something your refuse to educate yourself on.

4 hours ago, Sarthak Tiwary 1 said:

Such a weather pattern has been witnessed before, the runway below is exactly 1km^2

This is one picture. It means nothing to me. I’d want to see a controlled experiment.

My guess is you’d need something 100 times that size and also some interspersed water features to have a slightly perceptible effect. A hill would probably be more effective. I’ve seen hills not much wider than a km and considerably shorter than a km that effect weather.

On 8/10/2020 at 1:27 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Researchers have narrowed the range of climate sensitivity from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately, all of the narrowing occurred at the bottom end of the range. As a result, the range was changed from 1.5C - 4.5C to 2.3C - 4.5C.

The full paper can be found here:

https://climateextremes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/WCRP_ECS_Final_manuscript_2019RG000678R_FINAL_200720.pdf

 

Wasn’t the previous range based on numerous independent sources of evidence and studies? Is this a meta analysis? Will have to read in the morning.

edit: just opened it and from the title it looks like a meta analysis! Makes sense now

On 8/10/2020 at 11:38 AM, LibertyBell said:

I like the droughts more, as the higher dew points result in breathing difficulties and more pollution.  

Do you think it will be possible to invent a global dehumidifier to suck out all this excess humidity?  After all, water vapor is a GHG.

 I wouldn't mind if humankind found a way to lower sea levels by reclaiming some of the land lost to the oceans (70% oceans is a little too much, it should be more like 50% ocean 50% land.)

Anything that happens can also be geoengineered away.  It's high time humanity started tinkering with the environment to fix it rather than just let it all go downhill.  Looks like we will be doing the same on Mars within the next few decades, as NASA just sent a rover there that converts CO2 to O2.

 

 

Any biologist will tell you these are terrible ideas. Nature is far too complex to tinker with and not further contribute to our current mass extinction event.

1 hour ago, nycwinter said:

i'm sure sea level rise  is a issue for colorado not....

I pay taxes the feds spend billions on disaster relief.

On 7/11/2020 at 7:20 AM, nycwinter said:

we will long be dead before we have to worry about anything related to ice melt..

Maybe you, not me. Sea level rise already costs a lot of money in terms of worse erosion and amplifying storm surge. The foot that sea levels have risen so far could have been the difference between the levies breaking in Katrina and not breaking. I’m not saying it was, but you get the idea. Storm surge costs billions every year and if sea level rise has added 20% that is a lot of money. 
 

typical bad surge is 10 feet but most of the costs are associated with the last few feet. So by having 10 feet above historical sea level instead of 9 feet above, you may increase damage by 20 or 30%. If it’s just enough to break a levy, it could be 10000%

these costs are rising every year as sea level keeps rising and accelerating 

How about frequency of 100F days in Chicago? Or 102F? Whatever the threshold for "extreme" is. You've made the threshold so extreme (one in 20, 50, 100 yr events) you've made it difficult to verify. There are also lots of events that are clearly 1 in 1000 year events that happened only 10 or 20 years ago. To expect them to recur in 10 or 20 years is unrealistic. 

We could test the frequency of 20" or 24" snowstorms in NYC. (Rather than using the record snowfall of ~30" or whatever it might be). We could test the frequency of 3" rainfalls in 24 hour periods in Kansas City.

1 hour ago, BillT said:

amazing you admit there is a point of saturation,but dont seem to grasp what that means, doubling co2 will NOT have  HUGE IMPACT in the real world the only place it does is in computer models which pre assign a power to co2 that is doe NOT have.....you even say after saturation other factors will still cause warming and still blame co2 for the other factors because of some computer generated positive feedback.......if some such positive feedback happens solely because of co2 the earth would have been a cinder long before humans were here.......the next poster goes on with thefeedback stuff after the admission it was warmer long ago before humans.......climate change is natural and the climate is nothing but a set of statistics, the climate is not a force has no power and causes NO weather events.

How about we leave physics to physicists? 

As was already pointed out, the absorption spectrum of CO2 is not all or nothing. There are portions of the absorption spectrum that are only partially saturated. This can be seen in the image below.

Second, if you go high enough in the atmosphere concentrations of CO2 are low enough that not all of the IR light is absorbed, thus allowing some light to be emitted to space. As concentrations increase at these higher altitudes, IR light less easily escapes to space.

These two facts have been studied, tested and modeled endlessly by physicists. If you think you have unearthed some secret flaw in physicists understanding of the CO2 effect, you're just uninformed.

37 minutes ago, BillT said:

studies show the DATA, they make no "conclusions"   people make the conclusions........

People write their conclusions into studies so that other people can read and debate whether the data in the study supports the conclusions of the study. Otherwise there would be no means of communicating and debating conclusions through the written word.

Almost all peer-reviewed studies will be formatted with Intro, Method, Data, and then Conclusion/Discussion sections or something similar. Formats similar to this for scientific work are taught at a young age to middle school school and high school students (I was a middle school science teacher for a couple of years, I also paid attention in middle school and high school).

20 hours ago, Glenn M said:

Would you mind showing me where I said we should go ahead and trash the planet? Thats right - I didn't.  The problem with people bringing politics and nonsense into a discussion is they make up crap to push their agenda. 

The simple fact is that Earth *will* be fine. The stuff she's been through in her history has been phenomenal and amazing. For human's, it boils down to habitability for humans (which is where your sole focus appears to be). *MY* point is there is a 100% chance that sooner or later Earth will either slip back into the ice phase of the current ice age we're in, or it will fully leave the ice age and get very hot here, much much hotter than the people who focus on anthropological climate change have even imagined. 

In the former - large swaths of land will become covered in ice and become uninhabitable. In the later, with a 75F average global temp - we will see extreme high temps in excess of 120F, well above the capability of humans to cope, again making much of Earth uninhabitable. For 98% of Earth's history - she is either in full ice age or full heat mode. She cares not one iota if humans can live here or not. 

Human's only chance at avoiding the above would be to figure out a way to control climate on a massive planet wide basis to maintain our current Goldilocks zone that we've been in for the past 12,000 years. A zone that, again, is maybe about 2% of the total time of Earth's history. I haven't done the math on that percent so it might even be much smaller, like less than .05%. The point being - the current climate humans are enjoying is not the norm and is not going to last much longer without massive scientific break throughs in controlling climate (which I doubt we'll achieve). 

Should we be cleaner in our energy use? Yes. Not because of climate change but simply because it gives us cleaner air and water and healthier lives. But if we think its going to stop the climate from changing to a more normal state for Earth, we're delusional. 

 

No the earth won't be *fine* unless your only standard for *fine* is that some form of life persists until the sun explodes. What total nonsense. Fatalistic nihilistic nonsense. The earth already isn't *fine*.

Also humans absolutely have the power to control the climate and prevent ice ages by emitting CO2. Likewise we could cause cooling by capturing CO2 which would be more expensive but feasible. We've already drastically altered the planet in almost every way imaginable including the climate. The idea that we don't have the power to affect climate is un-scientific garbage.

On 8/25/2018 at 8:47 PM, WinterWxLuvr said:

Pretty sure the planet will be ok.  Maybe not humans, but the planet will roll right on.

On 8/26/2018 at 4:29 AM, Glenn M said:

While I support her recommendation for farming, I dont believe it will ultimately help change the course of Earth's climate. Earth will either re-enter the ice phase of the current ice age we're in (we're in the interglacial period now), or it will fully exit the ice age and return to its natural normal Earth average hot temps of around 75F - 17F higher than todays Earth average.  Whether that happens within the next 100 years, or 5,000 years remains to be seen but either one will occur with a 100% guarantee.  Unless humans can figure out how to force Earth to stay in interglacial conditions - something Earth probably only spends about 1% to 2% of her time in. 

On 8/26/2018 at 4:31 AM, Glenn M said:

^^^ This.  100% true. The only thing that will kill the Earth will be when the Sun expands and swallows it - in about 1 billion years.  Until then she'll recover from anything thrown her way given enough time. 

 

Humans on the other hand will likely be long gone as we cant handle all the extremes that Earth will go through.

This is just taking a stupid fatalistic view to justify trashing the planet today. I for one don't want to live or have my children live on a planet with all the ecological stress and loss of biodiversity that took 100s of millions of years to evolve. Which is what climate change is already doing to the planet today. I enjoy skiing and the new england lobster industry which also supports a lot of families economically. Just two tiny examples of the many many things threatened by climate change.

You know what? Let's just pave over it and turn the whole planet into a parking lot, full of traffic and landfills and smog. The bugs will survive so when we inevitably die off, they can repopulate the planet. Sounds great.

On 6/30/2018 at 8:46 PM, raindancewx said:

The idea that civilization can be redesigned because people care about the environment or the Earth's temperature seems kind of ridiculous to me. Liberals are supposedly the people who care about the environment, but they live in densely populated, highly urbanized areas, not just in the US but globally. I live in the West, with people who are small farmers and ranchers, where we have clean water, clean air, and can see thousands of stars every night and we kind of laugh at the idea that somehow the right is the problem. There is literally nothing stopping the Democrats from changing civilization to adapt to global warming in areas that are urban and by the ocean - that is how you know it won't happen. Los Angeles alone probably produces more smog and warming than 30+ US states if traffic is as bad as I remember.

People in cities produce less carbon dioxide per person than in the country. There's just infinitely more people in cities. As someone who has lived in both rural and urban places, I didn't just stop using resources when I moved to a city because there were so many other people around me that our collective actions are actually visible (smog) whereas in some rural areas smog is not a problem. You still have a collective action problem in rural places and cities. People still need to get to to work etc.

5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

 

We live in a deeply troubled society. Anyone debating that aspect of our life should get the cold shoulder. However I am concerned when such valid points are presented behind a facade of malicious intent or for lack of a better term - trolling. I'm not sure if such methods are effectual in changing the status quo. If nothing else - counter-productive.

Until proven otherwise. Best to stay true to the purpose of this forum. Give us the proof. I have layed our why the Arctic is behaving in this manner - seemingly to shield itself from the onslaught of the heat flux over Siberia and North America. Sadly it just cements our demise even more as people become more complacent and the climate system has a instantaneous state change resulting in multi-meter decadal sea level rise.

I don't understand most of what you are trying to say here but the odds of multi-meter sea level rise in a decade is near-zero.

On 6/28/2018 at 7:30 AM, DaculaWeather said:

Makes you wonder what they ARE doing to it and why. 

Don't know how Will is so patient with comments like above. But take a look at the company you keep... scientists have a conspiracy to pretend the ice is gone (easily disproven by satellite picture, airplane and boat traffic) .... and prescription drugs make people more sick... there you have it people... the paranoid American far-right

19 hours ago, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

 

lol @ anybody that doesn't think things are rigged these days.

their goal is to keep you stupid.  And give BS responses that sound smart but are just to keep people stupid.

the same way people in medical school are trained....that practically no diseases are curable these days, without BS prescriptions that make people more sick.

sports as well...many games are rigged.

our economy runs on stupid.  did I forget to mention the stock market?  

you get the drift.

wake up..

 

13 hours ago, PDIII said:

This is probably not real given that noaa maybe fudging the numbers.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

 

Maybe read up a bit more from some scientific sources that discuss and explain the contents of that article in detail before posting misinformation

3 hours ago, Wxdood said:

I know, there's still ice. Wasn't it supposed to be ice free in '08?

No, the 2007 IPCC report (the definitive scientific consensus on climate change at the time) predicted that near ice free conditions would not occur until the end of the 21st century. The projection was largely based on a modeling study by Zhang and Walsh who are two of the top sea ice researchers (you see their names a lot). That projection has since been moved up to the 2030s in some recent studies based on the unexpectedly fast rate of sea ice volume losses from 2007-2012.

Maybe some bloggers and people on this forum predicted sooner, but it is generally better to form one's opinions from peer-reviewed scientific and journalistic sources.

7 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Where did you go? You were absent from the forum for months now you come to trash post about a valid point?

Ranting about how the Russians are punishing us with cold weather is a valid point?

Maybe ban this guy too.

Can someone ban this guy? Unreadable.

I know it's nitpicky but that last bar is no where near the line of best fit for that period (07-17). To get a flat trend like that you'd have to go from '10-'17.

13 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Yes, this one: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?board=3.0

I had seen csnavywx post there, so I figured there was at least some legitimacy. But there's definitely an unnecessary amount of doom and gloom.

Yeah there's a lot of good info and analysis (and some bad analysis too)... you just have to take the predictions with a grain of salt and make your own inferences based on the information.

1 hour ago, WidreMann said:

It's funny y'all are saying this, because on the Arctic sea ice forums, they seem to be convinced that we're going to have some ridiculously low year because the ice is in an unprecedented poor state. And yet the AMSR data does look considerably better than 2012, no doubt. I think the concern comes from PIOMAS being near or below 2012 and potentially overstated. We'll see. I'm moving into the camp that we won't beat 2012, but it won't exactly be pretty either.

How long you have been following the arctic sea ice forum? I assume you mean Neven's site?

In my experience his site (and probably other similar sites) are way too pessimistic (or optimistic if you notice how giddy some of them get). 

I haven't really followed that site in a few years, but back around 2012-2014 they were off the charts with their wild predictions. 

Yeah the ice is "bad" and they do a great job showing pictures of how "bad" it is... but without a lot of aggregate empirical data or sound logic to back up predictions.

When you include 2016, the years after 2007 look to have a slightly bigger area drop after June 30th than the years before 2007. Not sure if it's significant though.

On 6/25/2017 at 6:30 AM, Joe Vanni said:

Well it seems they rushed it. The research and forecasters I've found to be most accurate at long ranges have stayed with the same story. But that's like me saying how some on the AGW side was claiming ice free Arctic in 2012, 2013, 2014 and so on. It's not going to happen anytime soon; and yes I know how's it's trended since 1979, the beginning of the global warming period. Or how the Atlantic hurricanes were only going to get worse after 2005's record season. They misjudged, but they have misjudged more than just the reason for melting ice and hurricanes.

I think the peak will happen during solar cycle 26/27 but it'll become much more obvious as we approach 25 that something has switched.  I can see why you would point out how we have warmed despite s super weak cycle. But there is actually a legit lag and a point needed to cross to see the real effects on a longer-term. But as I said before, debating this will get us nowhere. People are going to have to start seeing effects at their own house before they realize something is up. 

Again, you are making the same mistake I made 10 years ago. Mainstream consensus science has never predicted a "likely" ice free Arctic before the 2020s at earliest. I believe the modeling continues to suggest a most likely timeframe of late 2020s or 2030s or later. There were a few fringe guys who did not publish peer-reviewed papers that predicted ice free in the years following 2012. Few were fooled by them other than AGW-hype bloggers and AGW-deniers looking for strawmen (like yourself). I spend a significant amount of time the last 5 years arguing against these AGW-alarmist types on this forum. Why? Because I follow legitimate peer-reviewed science not internet bloggers. If you pay attention, there is a core group that has studied and published on the arctic for decades. This group was never on board with an ice-free arctic before 2020. At best, a few might have suggested it was possible with bad enough weather (which actually was possible considering how close we got in 2012). 

Likewise, the mainstream prediction regarding tropical activity has actually always been a low confidence prediction for a net decrease in the # of cyclones and a slight increase in average intensity. It's right there in the IPCC reports. 

So the examples of a few fringe AGW guys without any real credentials or publishing history making fringe predictions that turn out to be wrong is a lot more akin to the fringe bloggers you are following on the internet. They're both wrong.

Likewise I'd like to see a response to Snow Misers clear explanation of why a solar lag cannot exist. When you turn off the stove (the sun) a pot of water will immediately begin to cool (the earth). There is no lag. It doesn't cool down completely immediately. But it begins to cool immediately. In reality, the earth has not started cooling, it has not stopped warming, it hasn't even slowed down its warming. If anything, the data suggests the warming has accelerated.

17 hours ago, Snow_Miser said:

There are no energy accumulation lags. Zero. It is like saying that a pot on a stove will continue to gain energy, even after the burner has been turned off. It makes no physical sense. So the continued upper ocean heat accumulation is totally inconsistent with reduced solar activity. It is just not causing current climate change. 

 

An excellent and concise explanation of the problem with "solar lag" bloggers.