AvantHiatus

North America was drier 100 years ago than today...and during much of the LIA, California had horrific drought.

A nasty brew of natural and AGW influence could certainly be at work. Afterall, it is how arctic ice collapsed so quickly.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/

Global Warming does not mean wetter everywhere. What a flawed study. North America was a arid savanna during the pliocene, pretty much wall-to-wall.

We got crushed by the research about 2C above baseline being a danger limit since it massively shrinks the timewindow for mitigation efforts and the adaptation road is a dead end at least for civilization as it currently exists. No joke, this is something recent. I've only realized what path we were on since 2013.

I'd say winter 2011-2012 and Hurricane Sandy was the catalyst and the overall connecting blockiness with AGW and Arctic melt, which to the best of my knowledge this connection cannot be dis-proven. Which is why calling Sandy a 1-500 year event never made any sense and damaged our understanding of the big picture where it matters.

That particular setup may not ever occur again but there is more or less a new suite or class of storms that exist in our scenario bank that are not accounted for by past analogs and of which will occur over the next few decades for certain.

Deep down, I wish I knew what I know now 15 years ago and was capable of making policy decisions back then. On the flipside, ignorance is bliss.

Posted to reflect on the recent expansion of tropical convection inside the mid-atlantic coastal waters.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/abs/ngeo1008.html

 

 

Deep convection over tropical oceans is observed generally above a threshold for sea surface temperatures^{1, 2, 3, 4}, which falls in the vicinity of 26–28 °C. High-resolution models suggest that the related sea surface temperature threshold for tropical cyclones rises in a warming climate^5, 6. Some observations for the past few decades, however, show that tropical tropospheric warming has been nearly uniform vertically^7, 8, suggesting that the troposphere may have become less stable and casting doubts on the possibility that the sea surface temperature threshold increases substantially with global warming. Here we turn to satellite observations of rainfall for the past 30 years. We detect significant covariability between tropical mean sea surface temperatures and the convective threshold on interannual and longer timescales. In addition, we find a parallel upward trend of approximately 0.1 °C/decade over the past 30 years in both the convective threshold and tropical mean sea surface temperatures. We conclude that, in contrast with some observational indications, the tropical troposphere has warmed in a way that is consistent with moist-adiabatic adjustment, in agreement with global climate model simulations.

Safe to say the Arctic is on its last legs. Along with so many other features of the old climate system. Sh** is really going to hit the fan post-2020.

In the event you haven't realized it by now, we needed a 2014-type season in order to make it thru a post-el nino melt season with summer ice cover in the arctic. Additionally, this is not any ordinary el nino, it is a Godzilla-level heat beast superimposed on a steady AGW warming trend.

Skierinvermont is the Sherlock Holmes of Americanwx.

For christ's sake, I never said they don't do gridding. I've explained what I was intending to say several times now. You don't have to believe me, but continuing this accusatory roundabout is pointless. Let it go.

Instead of continuing this pointless back and forth, let's have a scientific discussion regarding the inhomogeneities and uncertainties in the radiosonde data. I have more than 10 peer reviewed papers that I'm ready to post and discuss, should anyone be interested.

RATPAC has already been proven to be usable and highly accurate on 30+ year baselines. The one thing I don't trust is UAH at this point until I have 10+ years of more data. Global surface datasets continue to tick up quite strongly.

Don't go there Nzucker. He hasn't done anything wrong otherwise and is entitled to his opinion. SOC is not the only one with a second account. I don't think anyone takes the TOS seriously unfortunately.

You've always been a passive-aggressive poster even after you moved into the warmer camp. You should have realized AGW was legitimate way back.

 

If you follow the progression of the conversation, I think it's unfair to consider SOC as being problematic here, or the primary instigator of this discussion. As a reader, it's become apparent that skierinvermont continues to broach the same topic over and over again, seemingly in attempt to discredit SOC's credibility (as he directly states above - "you have no credibility"). I have seen it on previous occasions (attacking SOC's credibility). In the solar thread, his most recent post is now attacking the credibility of SOC, LEK, and myself. The behavior is both unprofessional and inappropriate. It's a major deterrent to new contributors to the forum as well. In all bluntness, the attacks on other posters' credibility decreases the credibility of the accusing party. The reasons for which he does this are beyond the scope of this discussion, and irrelevant to entertain at this point. However, the bottom line is that the accusatory posting consistently occurs, and is unproductive to civil, intellectual discourse.

 

I agree Isotherm but for different reasons. Many members on Americanwx take their forum reputation/standing very seriously and looking back on SOCs history, I do not advise provoking him. It's best to assume a sense of neutrality and formal discourse for everybody regardless if they have mental instability/personal issues and/or a history of banned accounts/trolling behavior.

This may sound too liberal but it's never any good to offend anyone on a deep level as you don't want to be responsible for anything that happens in the future as a result of instigating an issue with emotional context.

On the flipside, it's challenging to filter out truthful information thru all the propaganda and agendas. Regardless, i've seen improvement in the honesty of the discussion aside from increasingly sporadic personal attacks.

This does not mean we can let lies and dishonesty prevail at the expense of individual wellness. We can still call out dishonesty in more neutral terms without rehashing of the past. Hopefully the guilty party will lose ground overtime and be scientifically untenable.

Most people are not patient enough to wait for this outcome and they destroy their credibility in the process on the long-run or deep down they know what they believe is not scientifically tenable and are presenting false information for malicious reasons.

Talk of a record calving event on Jacobsen recently. Would like to know more, obviously there is more than meets the eye in regards to the 2015 melt season.

We slowly headed down the path of this sub-forum being closed down. Let's try to create a respectful discourse for all posters new and old.

Wow.... are you finally seeing the reality of what's happening?

I've always felt/thought this way, it's just an issue of the lesser of two evils for me and after Sandy I believe AGW is a greater evil than economic downturn. Without strong action this place is doomed way sooner than otherwise due to SLR. Kind of hopefully explains why i've been so fanatical lately. I didn't even know SLR would be a serious decadal issue locally until 2012/2013.

At risk of sounding selfish. I can understand why climate denial has grown so big (albeit leveled out somewhat in recent years).

denier profile

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/opinions/sutter-climate-skeptics-woodward-oklahoma/index.html

Denying an idea for the wrong reasons is unforgivable. They should just be upfront about the situation and admit they only disagree on economic grounds. Which is a legitimate concern, albeit one that must be surmounted eventually.

This way of thinking is what we don't want. Everyone should be transparent in the 21st century.

Lol, I think WeatherGuy#s is Paul Beckwith.

Have a good one all.

The irony in this statement is hilarious.

I don't agree. The lag is longer than 15 to 30 years.

Yeah but you still get about 25% of the annual GHG forcing in a year. This is significant when so much CO2 is being released into the atmosphere.

We will truely be living in a fossil fuel bubble soon if we don't start the 6% emissions reduction per year. Of course anyone older than 50 won't see deep extinction level effects and human cost to society.

I don't consider 15 years an abrupt timeframe but it's close. That's why Jim Hansen outlined our predicament and the dire need to reduce emissions now before the inertia kicks in from 20 more years of BAU emissions later on down the road. 

BS! If we stopped CO2 emissions RIGHT NOW, it would do almost NOTHING to affect the ice within the next 15 years....are you high??

If we stopped emitting now, it might take 35 years instead of 15 to melt the ice out 100%. Yeah, that's a huge difference from the human perspective.

We are very close to tipping points already so every +1 ppm of CO2 causes forcings greater than the original input.

More BS from blizzard. Hansen has clearly documented how 60% of the CO2 forcing requires 50 years to contribute to the radiative budget. The window for ice growth exists roughly until 2016-2020.

We are already at fatal GHG levels for Arctic survival but yet we keep pumping out more CO2. Arctic collapse will happen within 15 years without strong emissions reduction.

If everyone used ignore there would be no discussion, FWIW.

Wasn't he the guy calling for an ice free arctic in 6 months? He's either an idiot or a closer denier trying to shame the science.

Sounds like you.

Paul Beckwith!

Does the model show how much the global average would increase without an AMOC slowdown?

No

In my opinion, that would not be useful for future planners because we already observe AMOC slowdown. A world without AMOC slowdown such as 4-5C warmer is probably not possible regardless of how much CO2 is dumped in our lifetimes.

At least for a very long time and Earth would need to permanently sustain GHG forcing through positive feedbacks for 1k years at least. By then, all the major ice sheets would be gone in entirety allowing the melt feedbacks to cease.

In hindsight, this reveals how broad brushed and poor the IPCC analysis really was. It's why Jim had to sit on the sidelines for the past decade or so. Nobody believed him until the recent WAIS research.