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 

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..

 

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.

13 hours ago, Silver Meteor said:

Good morning. Long time lurker here, one who prefers listening over talking but do of course appreciate the talkers without whom there would be no thread to begin with.

Science has always been "in my blood." It started with my grade school years (1950s) in Maryland with a fascination in the shape of continents which suggested they surely must have moved over time. This idea was proved to be true years later when I was in high school. Also in high school we were taught the "Big Bang Theory" and the "Theory of Global Warming" neither of which were controversial at the time (I'd never heard of such a thing as "creationism", and it would be many years before AGW became politicized.)

Over the ensuing decades I continued learning about and keeping up with science at my own pace, first from books then from the internet as it developed. Watching in real time the continuous fine tuning in a variety of subjects as these many years have passed has helped keep my interest alive and healthy. So, what about climate? Oh dear, where does one begin...

To avoid dragging this out I'll just say I remain comfortable with my paradigms, none of which are "catastrophic." The best empirical evidence I see for AGW is clearly that which is occurring in the Arctic. Meanwhile, down here in the Mid-Atlantic U.S. the only change of note over the last 60+ years has been our tremendous population growth with its accompanying water pollution and its greatly expanded road networks and heat islands. Overall, I accept AGW but to suggest this is our greatest problem for the future, is, in my opinion, utter nonsense; this reeks of political expedience for the financial gain of a few without regard to the many serious non-climate problems lying in wait, problems our media is loathe to discuss. Moreover it implies technology will not progress, a ludicrous proposition.

The good, the bad, and the ugly...

The good will be technological improvements with power generation; I see little reason to doubt fusion power plants will be up and running before mid-century. The bad is an historical analysis of currencies that suggests our fiat dollar will not survive to mid-Century (perhaps or even probably not even to 2040.) And the ugly is multicultural demographics which will lead to a Balkanization of the U.S., also before mid-Century (likely to coincide with the economic earthquake of currency collapse.) All of this I'm sure appears fanciful to those who don't study such subjects and believe "tomorrow will always be like yesterday and today", but for them history always provides the rudest of awakenings.

However much climate change we see before the widespread use of fusion power will pale in comparison to the socio-political changes that will have staggering effects in the coming decades. I won't be around to see it but eventually the dust will settle and mankind will march forward, wiser and safer into a bright 22nd Century (where technology will be fantastically more advanced than it is today.) What I will do is all I can do, and that is to continue watching, learning, and enjoying science as I always have. To the rest of you, good luck and keep up the good work!

 

 

I think your overall point has some validity. There are a lot of pressing problems facing humanity today. There could be even more in the future, regardless of climate change. But I would suggest reading some more scientific sources about the effects of climate change. Increases in flooding, drought, and sea level will have huge costs to humanity. It affects the entire planet and the problem is not temporary. 

14 hours ago, Joe Vanni said:

I don't think we are going to get anywhere debating this when we are at the end of the global warming period, so you get the see the warm results of the past 36 years. I'm not debating that we have had great warmth, but I question the validity of saying the warmth is fastest on record. We are going to have to wait a few years when people actually see the cooling begin and that it has lasting power. We've been spoiled with this warmth but that's coming to an end. 

I've been listening to people like you say the cooling is coming for over 10 years. In fact, I had a radio show in college 10 years ago where I actually said we could see some cooling and AGW might be greatly exaggerated. Mostly I was overreacting to learning that some news articles, Al Gore, and even some science was skewed towards AGW and I went off too far in the other direction. I learned from my mistakes. Some never do.

We've already been through one very weak solar cycle for 10 years now. The earth didn't cool down. It didn't even stop warming.. it warmed a lot the last 10 years. This is where you introduce some magical lag period you read about on some internet blog that doesn't make any logical or physical sense. Let me tell you a secret.. these magical "lag" people were the same ones saying cooling was imminent 10-15 years ago. Then they invented the lag, because instead of the warming reversing or stopping, if anything it actually accelerated.

15 hours ago, Eskimo Joe said:

When, if ever, do you think we will have an ice free summer in the arctic?

With our current very low volume we could get an ice free summer if we got a summer weather pattern similar to or worse than 2007 or 2012. (if you use the commonly used convention that 'ice free' = <1,000,000 km2). 

If we don't see a rebound in volume, ice free could occur any year in the next 10 years with bad enough summer weather.

On the other hand, we might not see an extreme summer weather pattern in the next 10 years. By the 2030s even a modestly bad summer weather pattern would likely put us over the edge. 

To get really statistical about it I'd put the odds like below. I think my odds are pretty consistent with CaWx's estimate above (maybe bumped back 5 years). A lot depends on weather and trends but it will probably be somewhere between 2020-2035.

<1,000,000km2

15% chance before 2020

35% chance before 2025

55% chance before 2030

80% chance before 2040.

If you define it more strictly as <200,000km2 (basically a few icebergs and bays that got filled with ice by the wind) I think the odds drop. Because of currents and winds, there's always a pretty good area of thick ice blown near Ellesmere and Greenland and you'd have to melt pretty much all of that (other than some that gets blown into bays) to get below 200,000km2

5% chance before 2020

20% chance before 2025

35% chance before 2030

60% chance before 2040

These odds factor in the reality that the earth will very likely warm significantly over the next 25 years (very likely 0.45C+/-0.2C). The arctic will likely warm 1C+/-1C. 

It looks to me like most of the ice is thicker than last year. It's just the ice north of Greenland and Ellesmere that is much thinner but that ice never melts out anyways. The only important area that looks thinner is the Laptev which looks a little thinner. That could get things going early there.

But the Chuchki, Beaufort, Barents, Kara and East Siberian all look thicker overall. Especially the northern Beaufort and northern Chuchki which look much thicker. And those two areas are critical in August/September.

On 3/7/2017 at 5:46 AM, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

the extent analog from 2006 looks similar to what's currently going on. 

the doom mongerers need to stay on pause for now.  

Yeah except the ice is barely half as thick. Be quiet until you learn something. Some of us have been following this thread for a decade. We've seen arrogant newbies like you come and go. A few stay and learn something. But nobody that's been around the block would say something as foolish as what you've just said.

The "back to 1870" project that the author of that blog post references hoping they will show less ice 1920-1940 than the early 2000s was completed recently. It did not live up to the author's expectations. It did increase the variability somewhat, but the lowest years of the 1930s is similar to the 1980s.

The study produced was titled " A database for depicting Arctic sea icevariations back to 1850. " and was published earlier this year in the journal Geogrpahical Review.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Walsh-et-al.-2016-Fig8.png

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/reconstructing-arctic-history