Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,116
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SCseminole
    Newest Member
    SCseminole
    Joined

Exceptional Arctic Warmth


blizzard1024
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BillT said:

NOTHING?    i posted correctly about the precision in measurements we do not have the ability to assign one global temperature to accuracy within hundredths of a degree that is "something".......i have posted correctly that co2 is a tiny player in an equation with countless factors and assigning the power to control or drive temperatures is simply silly.....i have posted saying carbon is harming the earth is utter nonsense.....

Do you have credible, peer-reviewed research to back any of that up?  No, you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, pazzo83 said:

Do you have credible, peer-reviewed research to back any of that up?  No, you don't.

wow, you need peer reviewed stuff to know that co2 is NOT a powerful force when compared to say the SUN????? you actually think something that is 4 parts per thousand controls the global temperature???? you need peer reviewed stuff to accept that carbon doesnt harm carbon based life forms????? and there is NO link from you showing we have the precision claimed in making the basic measurements(clue the constant altering of those measurements alone confirms my POINT).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BillT said:

wow, you need peer reviewed stuff to know that co2 is NOT a powerful force when compared to say the SUN????? you actually think something that is 4 parts per thousand controls the global temperature???? you need peer reviewed stuff to accept that carbon doesnt harm carbon based life forms????? and there is NO link from you showing we have the precision claimed in making the basic measurements(clue the constant altering of those measurements alone confirms my POINT).

Yes - you can either post the peer-reviewed research informing your positions here or you can STFU.  This is a science board - not a "random pontifications of BillT" board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BillT said:

NOTHING?    i posted correctly about the precision in measurements we do not have the ability to assign one global temperature to accuracy within hundredths of a degree that is "something".......i have posted correctly that co2 is a tiny player in an equation with countless factors and assigning the power to control or drive temperatures is simply silly.....i have posted saying carbon is harming the earth is utter nonsense.....

 

Stop mucking up this thread with alt-science.

 

CO2 definitely has a large role in climate....doubling CO2 produces a 3.7 watts per meter squared energy increase, which when converted to temperature, is about 1.1-1.2 degrees C. This is a mathematical certainty...physics. It's not arguable. In order to claim that doubling CO2 has either a lower or higher effect on temperature than this, you have to prove that the feedbacks are either negative or positive.

 

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) = F2x ΔT/(ΔF – ΔQ)

F2x = 3.7 watts per meter squared as mentioned above

We know what delta T is roughly since we can measure temperature relatively accurately, even if not perfect.

The unknown factors are delta F and delta Q. Delta F (total forcing...not just CO2 alone) is strongly influenced by aerosol forcing which we don't have a great handle on yet. Delta Q is ocean heat uptake which we aren't exact on yet either, but probably have a bit better handle than aerosols, assuming ocean heat uptake doesn't change too much (a potentially dicey assumption). So in order to claim CO2 is a small impact, you have to have a large delta F...considerably larger than F2x. If you can't do this, then stop making these claims and mucking up a thread like this. Most literature provides very compelling evidence that feedbacks are positive which is why most ECS estimates are higher than just 1.1C.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

Stop mucking up this thread with alt-science.

 

CO2 definitely has a large role in climate....doubling CO2 produces a 3.7 watts per meter squared energy increase, which when converted to temperature, is about 1.1-1.2 degrees C. This is a mathematical certainty...physics. It's not arguable. In order to claim that doubling CO2 has either a lower or higher effect on temperature than this, you have to prove that the feedbacks are either negative or positive.

 

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) = F2x ΔT/(ΔF – ΔQ)

F2x = 3.7 watts per meter squared as mentioned above

We know what delta T is roughly since we can measure temperature relatively accurately, even if not perfect.

The unknown factors are delta F and delta Q. Delta F (total forcing...not just CO2 alone) is strongly influenced by aerosol forcing which we don't have a great handle on yet. Delta Q is ocean heat uptake which we aren't exact on yet either, but probably have a bit better handle than aerosols, assuming ocean heat uptake doesn't change too much (a potentially dicey assumption). So in order to claim CO2 is a small impact, you have to have a large delta F...considerably larger than F2x. If you can't do this, then stop making these claims and mucking up a thread like this. Most literature provides very compelling evidence that feedbacks are positive which is why most ECS estimates are higher than just 1.1C.

 

 

i dont want to cause any problems on this board.......so i will accept your comment and stop posting in this thread......sadly though you even agree with me about the precision of the measuring ability and that is my basic point here the claims made about hottest years are based on hundredths of a degree something that REQUIRES near "perfect" ability to measure and certainly requires 100% consistency among ALL data points being considered.....again i accept your telling me to stop posting in the thread, no problem.......and please note i have been 100% civil in this entire exchange. ......i attempted to send this in private but the system wont allow it.......thank you for the use of the forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BillT said:

i dont want to cause any problems on this board.......so i will accept your comment and stop posting in this thread......sadly though you even agree with me about the precision of the measuring ability and that is my basic point here the claims made about hottest years are based on hundredths of a degree something that REQUIRES near "perfect" ability to measure and certainly requires 100% consistency among ALL data points being considered.....again i accept your telling me to stop posting in the thread, no problem.......and please note i have been 100% civil in this entire exchange. ......i attempted to send this in private but the system wont allow it.......thank you for the use of the forum

That's what you gleaned from his post?  Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

Stop mucking up this thread with alt-science.

 

CO2 definitely has a large role in climate....doubling CO2 produces a 3.7 watts per meter squared energy increase, which when converted to temperature, is about 1.1-1.2 degrees C. This is a mathematical certainty...physics. It's not arguable. In order to claim that doubling CO2 has either a lower or higher effect on temperature than this, you have to prove that the feedbacks are either negative or positive.

 

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) = F2x ΔT/(ΔF – ΔQ)

F2x = 3.7 watts per meter squared as mentioned above

We know what delta T is roughly since we can measure temperature relatively accurately, even if not perfect.

The unknown factors are delta F and delta Q. Delta F (total forcing...not just CO2 alone) is strongly influenced by aerosol forcing which we don't have a great handle on yet. Delta Q is ocean heat uptake which we aren't exact on yet either, but probably have a bit better handle than aerosols, assuming ocean heat uptake doesn't change too much (a potentially dicey assumption). So in order to claim CO2 is a small impact, you have to have a large delta F...considerably larger than F2x. If you can't do this, then stop making these claims and mucking up a thread like this. Most literature provides very compelling evidence that feedbacks are positive which is why most ECS estimates are higher than just 1.1C.

 

 

ECS is the overall change in global temps, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

ECS is the overall change in global temps, then?

Yes...but specifically defined. It's the change in global temperature due to doubling of CO2 once all the feedbacks are taken into account and the atmosphere is back in equilibrium.

 

So one scenario of millions of possible hypotheticals...to keep relevant to this thread, we'll do a scenario with huge arctic contribution:

-Warming of arctic causes slow release of methane and additional carbon from melting permafrost and sea floor of arctic ocean, creating additional GHGs in the atmosphere long after the doubling of CO2. Lost sea ice and exposed open water in the arctic produces extra water vapor into the atmosphere which is a huge greenhouse gas.

-This takes another 100-200 years to finally balance out once these additional gases cause more warming.

-So the net warming is say, 3C, instead of the 1.2C just from CO2 alone...

(there's more to feedbacks than just the arctic, but you get the point)

 

So that is what the ECS tries to measure. The total equilibrium sensitivity. The uncertainty in measuring total forcing is what prevents us from calculating ECS more accurately. So there is still a pretty wide range of plausible results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yes...but specifically defined. It's the change in global temperature due to doubling of CO2 once all the feedbacks are taken into account and the atmosphere is back in equilibrium.

 

So one scenario of millions of possible hypotheticals...to keep relevant to this thread, we'll do a scenario with huge arctic contribution:

-Warming of arctic causes slow release of methane and additional carbon from melting permafrost and sea floor of arctic ocean, creating additional GHGs in the atmosphere long after the doubling of CO2. Lost sea ice and exposed open water in the arctic produces extra water vapor into the atmosphere which is a huge greenhouse gas.

-This takes another 100-200 years to finally balance out once these additional gases cause more warming.

-So the net warming is say, 3C, instead of the 1.2C just from CO2 alone...

(there's more to feedbacks than just the arctic, but you get the point)

 

So that is what the ECS tries to measure. The total equilibrium sensitivity. The uncertainty in measuring total forcing is what prevents us from calculating ECS more accurately. So there is still a pretty wide range of plausible results.

Got it - that equation is basically stripping out the effects from other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

Got it - that equation is basically stripping out the effects from other factors.

Nope it takes into account all forcing. I.E., if natural forcing was high...say for example solar forcing increased a ton between 1900 and present....then the delta F in the denominator would be much higher and that makes the overall ECS value lower. Likewise, if aerosol forcing was very high (keep in mind aerosol forcing is negative as it cools), then the delta F value becomes lower in the denominator and thus, that increases the ECS value. That's why a lot of climate models that are super sensitive to aerosols are the ones with the highest ECS.

 

*internal variability in things like ocean oscillations are not taken into account, but choosing a long timeline should wash this out...at least theoretically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spatial warming pattern is important to CS as well. Specifically the interaction of ocean surface waters with the intermediate layer. Faster uptake of ocean heat lowers CS and vice versa. The (very) strong trade wind pattern in the Pacific that dominated the start of this century helped bury some of that excess heat. Of course, that isn't always present and there's no guarantee that the IPO/PDO will behave in any real long-term predictive manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

 The Arctic and whole NH are still torching....The NH is as warm now as it was during the later stages of the very strong El Nino 2016. wow. 

 

NHemi will cool down next week as ridging blocks marine flow onto continents but arctic looks to stay relatively warm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The DMI product is showing that today's mean temperature in the Arctic north of 80°N reached a figure that is more typical of early April than mid-January. It exceeds anything seen last winter-early spring in the Arctic.

Arctic01172017.jpg

FDD201617freezingseason.png

 

Rocket-shipping into oblivion.....

 

Aggregate 2016 anomaly was -1750, so assuming the spring temperatures are matched this year, we should be able to hit that number. Warmer temps not out of the question, of course, but we're totally on track to at least blow last year's weak refreeze season start totally out of the water.

In fact, since it's already January, I'm going to say -2000 is not totally out of reach here -- which is perilously close to the number needed for ice-free conditions on a top 3 summer. Once new seasonal growth falls under the 1.6-1.7m mark, not much further warming is needed to trigger ice-free conditions, as further FDD reductions result in increasingly steep thickness growth loss per unit.

For comparison's sake, an additional -650 over last year's value results in about an additional 20cm packwide thinning over the already weak start we had last year, virtually assuring a new record if the weather did a rather benign copy-cat of last summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, csnavywx said:

FDD201617freezingseason.png

 

Rocket-shipping into oblivion.....

 

Aggregate 2016 anomaly was -1750, so assuming the spring temperatures are matched this year, we should be able to hit that number. Warmer temps not out of the question, of course, but we're totally on track to at least blow last year's weak refreeze season start totally out of the water.

In fact, since it's already January, I'm going to say -2000 is not totally out of reach here -- which is perilously close to the number needed for ice-free conditions on a top 3 summer. Once new seasonal growth falls under the 1.6-1.7m mark, not much further warming is needed to trigger ice-free conditions, as further FDD reductions result in increasingly steep thickness growth loss per unit.

For comparison's sake, an additional -650 over last year's value results in about an additional 20cm packwide thinning over the already weak start we had last year, virtually assuring a new record if the weather did a rather benign copy-cat of last summer.

That's an amazing chart. I hope things improve in coming weeks, but so far I don't see any real evidence that the Arctic pattern will be changing very much. Record low December volume offers an ominous hint of what may lie ahead this summer if Arctic conditions don't improve very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the sun is to blame for global warming. It's how the earth gets its energy. But to say that a dumpster fire doused in gasoline (co2) wasn't the cause of the explosion in the alley because it was the matches fault is overlooking the catalyst that caused the EXTENT of the problem  some people feel that CO2 isnt the cause of the problem. Good for you. Go to school, get a degree, then write your paper and submit it for review. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Touchet said:

Of course the sun is to blame for global warming. It's how the earth gets its energy. But to say that a dumpster fire doused in gasoline (co2) wasn't the cause of the explosion in the alley because it was the matches fault is overlooking the catalyst that caused the EXTENT of the problem  some people feel that CO2 isnt the cause of the problem. Good for you. Go to school, get a degree, then write your paper and submit it for review. 

A good piece on the role of climate change: http://www.climateprediction.net/heat-wave-in-the-arctic/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...