Jonger

Warmest month for where?

On 8/22/2017 at 8:05 PM, WinterWxLuvr said:

That would likely be the death of us all.

No it wouldn't.

2 years in a row with a brick wall ending.

We might not go below 5 km2 on Jaxa.

50/50 on that one.

Are we going to have a "Guess the minimum" thread/Poll?

I doubt we go below 4.25 on JAXA.

On 6/17/2017 at 3:02 PM, bluewave said:

Coolest first half of June at Utqiaġvik (Barrow) since 1974, 4.5°F (2.5°C) below the 1981-2010 normal. You know the weather patterns are really out of whack  when it's 36 on January 1st in Barrow and can only reach a high of 38 degrees during the first half of June.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AlaskaWx/status/875793934043291648/photo/1#

I haven't paid much attention to the ice this year, but I do follow a Bloomsky weather station in the Barrow area and was surprised how cold it was this deep into met summer. Now this makes sense.

Seems that the moment you moved to Ohio, LES has been way down and warmth way up.

On 11/17/2016 at 10:56 AM, stadiumwave said:

Anyone know where GlobalWarmer poster is? I figured he'd be all over this.  Kind of concerns me he's not posting. 

I believe he was previously named frivolous.

Something happened to him in his life I believe. He checked in and said he didn't have time for this anymore.

On 11/16/2016 at 11:50 AM, skierinvermont said:

You're right it doesn't exaggerate it as much as I thought. But I think it does still exaggerate it somewhat. The area of Russia is 6.6 million square miles. The area of the arctic ocean including the Kara, Barents, Hudson and the seas on either side of Greenland is 5.4 million. Probably around 4 million if looking just at the high arctic ocean.

There was an article on this recently... How distorted maps are versus reality.

The arctic is in a world of sh-t right now, but the global anomaly is still sitting around +0.5C above the 30 year moving average. That Russia cold is insane. We need that cold on top of the planet.

3 hours ago, nflwxman said:

Right.  In the near term, the record slow refreeze means very little in terms of "climate feedbacks."  The extent in May and June have much larger implications on lasting arctic warmth due to the sun pouring in at that time.  The argument can be made, however, that a record slow refreeze could potentially cause a less solvent ice pack moving into next melting season.

I wonder how much warmth is being released from lower in the water column.

1 hour ago, Sugarloaf1989 said:

Is this why Alaska is having a warm up with the 0C isotherm moving well north into the Arctic this week?

What does that have to do with my comment?

18 hours ago, bluewave said:

Here comes the annual October spike in Arctic Amplification as the refreeze releases heat back into the atmosphere under strong blocking.

Looks like Siberia will be the big winner in the warm Arctic very little cold for the continents pattern.

 

 

 

The arctic had almost no issues until the mid to late 1990's.

1 hour ago, Sugarloaf1989 said:

That may be but he had a video stating that the Barrow sea ice cam was down to hide the fact of the record freeze up which is false. The cam is working and shows open ocean.

The jaxa sea ice data doesn't show ice there, what's the conspiracy?

I thought sub 4.0 was a lock on jaxa.

The arctic pulled a Tayshaun Prince block right at the end of the melt season.

Possibly the worst possible winter pattern.... Didn't it stay pretty much crap right up until May?

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

 

Just put the CO2 back in the atmosphere... we're pretty good at that already without even trying.

The least dangerous and most logical solution is to sequester while drawing down co2 output levels. Carbon based fuels have led to the modern world, don't expect a quick solution to energy needs. We need a combo of all 3.

Reduce co2, sequester existing co2 and reverse warming in the short term with geoengineering.

1 minute ago, skierinvermont said:

I know. The most common geoengineering involves blocking the sun or sequestering CO2... both of which would have minimal impact unless done on a massive scale and sequestration is pretty reversible. 

I think the bigger issue with geoengineering is the side effects.

how?

17 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We're taking geoengineering projects. 

If we lose the icepack, I think the idea will be taken more serious. There are a number of negatives, one would be the ozone depletion and the second would be the possibility of acid rain. The fact that most industrialized nations (minus China) are reducing So2, this might be leading to more warming. 

Does stratosphere SO2 end up as acid rain or is that more related to surface release?

3 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

The whole idea speaks to the arrogance of humans. 

Weve pretty much always been guided by the notion that we can mold the earth into what we want it to be instead of adapting and living in harmony with it.  You could argue that it's that very notion that got us to this point in the first place.

It needs to be looked at seriously. Right now, we barely hear anyone talking about it. I think environmentalists think it's a get of of jail free card and deniers poo-poo it, because that would mean admitted there is an issue.

3 hours ago, Sundog said:

But can't we just "switch it off" so to speak if we see adverse effects?

Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere has already been tested, every time a volcano erupts. If we could knock current temps back to the 1980's levels, we could buy time and rebuild some of the icepack.

Looks bad.... 

My 4+ prediction, should bust.

Amazing how little we hear about geoengineering or sequestration. I have to wait years for anything interesting to come across the news. I bet it could all melt out tomorrow and not another nickel would go into either of these ventures.

I love it... Gonna give me another shot at snowmobiling this week due to blocking.

Looks like the upcoming storm will create NE winds running the full fetch of Lake Erie. Could there be some lake effect west of CLE through Sandusky? Looks like the GFS tries to get something going.

What made you choose Lakewood? I thought all snow weenies live on the NE side of town.

I want compensation for 20 years of BS, it's not enough to simply let it slide. There is a good chance that it's already too late to prevent the lion's share of climate damage. The only aspect that is preventable is the human extinction, meaning that there will be some human communities that survive in most scenarios.

 

I think we had a misunderstanding but is fine. I can live with that. I cannot live with blizzard type rants in my presence.

You could heat the globe up 20F and humans aren't going anywhere. We have people living in every climate type on earth and we are really only meant for tropics. Go outside without clothes at 40 - 45F and you will be dead by morning. That's not adaption.

Is there a summarized version of the current deal?