• Member Statistics

    16,281
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    luongvandan38
    Newest Member
    luongvandan38
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
donsutherland1

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, etudiant said:

I have no expertise on the topic, but the uncertainties are indeed massive. Consequently it is questionable whether the researcher quoted in The Guardian can credibly assert that the oceans cannot absorb the needed amount of CO2. Of course, this also reinforces your other point, about the known and unknown risks inherent in any geoengineering effort.

 

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

Agree 100%, but of course the concern is that humans are already geoengineering the globe, with massive distortions in soil, water and air management due to agriculture, industry and settlement. So the threshold for intervention is correspondingly much lower, even though the uncertainties are as large as ever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The high temperatures at Yakutat, Alaska for the past three days and for today (preliminary value) were:

December 13: 56° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 14: 58° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 15: 61° (old record: 48°, 2005)
December 16: 57° (old record: 50°, 2005)

All four days exceeded the previous December record high temperature of 52°, which had been set on December 8, 1960. The 61° temperature yesterday broke the meteorological winter record of 58°, which was set on January 19, 1930 and tied on December 14, 2019 and was also above the November monthly record of 59°, which was set on November 1, 1947. Prior to yesterday, the latest 60° temperature on record occurred on October 13, 1969 when the temperature reached 60°. Daily records go back to May 1, 1917.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 7:26 AM, etudiant said:

Agree 100%, but of course the concern is that humans are already geoengineering the globe, with massive distortions in soil, water and air management due to agriculture, industry and settlement. So the threshold for intervention is correspondingly much lower, even though the uncertainties are as large as ever.

what happened to the climate shifts thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 9:30 PM, etudiant said:

I have no expertise on the topic, but the uncertainties are indeed massive. Consequently it is questionable whether the researcher quoted in The Guardian can credibly assert that the oceans cannot absorb the needed amount of CO2. Of course, this also reinforces your other point, about the known and unknown risks inherent in any geoengineering effort.

 

at some point humanity will need to attempt climate regulation.  There is no way around it.  In every other science (except for astronomy of course, since we cant reach the stars yet), we are more than just observers, we are experimenters.  Climatology is no different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 5:10 PM, etudiant said:

Transitions are not so easy. Just ask the Federal Reserve, trying to unblow the current zero interest bubble. That said, I think you overestimate the difficulties.

I think that populations are already under control in the industrialized world, with Europe, China, Japan and the US all under replacement fertility, leaving immigration to offset the decline.

Only Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia still have high birth rates, largely driven by poverty. That can be cured within a generation, as China demonstrated.

Separately, I do not think CO2 capture is a serious problem. The experiments in seeding the southern oceans with iron sulfate were hugely successful and underscore the late John Martins claim 'give me a half tanker of iron sulfate and I'll give you an ice age'.

Population "stability" isn't enough, the earth is already overpopulated with humans.  They're destroying essential tropical rain forests, polluting and crapping on the environment and driving the mass extinctions of other species.  Add to that bad land usage with chemical fertilizers and pesticides and animal farming and you have a crisis on your hands.

As John Kerry and Arnold said, climate change isn't a strong enough argument to convince most people- they dont care what's going on in the Arctic and dont care about sea level rises unless they live near a coastline.  You need to use the pollution argument- look at how polluted the air in Delhi, India is (as an example.)  There is a strong pollution argument to be made for why to stop using fossil fuels.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 2:19 PM, donsutherland1 said:

In 1987, humanity was confronted with a growing ozone hole over the Southern Hemisphere and the implication of an inevitable and dramatic rise in skin cancer cases. The world's leaders at that time, even while taking on an existential Cold War struggle, came together in Montreal to adopt a solution to address the problem. A binding commitment to completely phase out the use of CFCs and halons was agreed. That treaty was universally ratified. Since then, much progress has been made.

NASA recently revealed:

Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

Then, science carried the day. Political leaders made the kind of decisions that fall with responsible leadership. They made no excuses. They did not embrace defeatist conclusions that acting would be economically harmful, much less that nothing could be done. They did not descend into "denialism" or conspiracy theories aimed at alleviating accountability from their shoulders. They acted with conviction. They put the world on a better path.

Just three decades later, when confronted by another global challenge--that of anthropogenic climate change--the world's leaders abdicated their responsibility in Madrid. They proved unable to summon the courage, foresight, and leadership to tackle the global challenge of the contemporary era. They chose timidity at a time when no great struggle comparable to the Cold War is raging.

Put simply, they failed the test of leadership. They demonstrated that although they hold positions of authority, they lack the capacity and qualities necessary to lead. Instead, they chose to remain passive bystanders to history.

They failed as leaders. They failed as people.

In their enormous failure to lead, they have substantially magnified the burden they have already left to today's youth and future generations to come. In doing so, they have defined their generation as arguably the most short-sighted one in modern history.

They chose to leave the world a worse place than they inherited. Given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and range of tools available to launch a credible effort to curb then reverse greenhouse gas emissions, their fateful choice is a deliberate one. Ignorance is not a valid defense. At the same time, they have unequivocally made clear to today's youth that the concerns and futures of those youth are to be sacrificed for the preservation of the short-sighted status quo.

Given the urgency and gravity of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, this is a most sad outcome. Urgent problems aren't punted to the future year after year. Great problems are not routinely ignored, much less cloaked in the packaging of brave words disconnected from concrete and credible measures to evade responsibility.

Fortunately, as time passes, those who occupy today's positions of leadership will gradually depart those positions. In their wake, future generations will be left with a tremendous mess.

The passage of time will determine whether leadership capacity on the global stage merely skipped today's generation of global leaders or whether the absence of leadership capacity is a new and persistent problem. Considering that human nature has changed remarkably little since the emergence of Homo Sapiens, the odds are still high that the contemporary leadership deficit is merely a temporary phenomenon.

you need an effective world government that usurps the authorities of ignorant leaders like the "president" of Brazil. Economic sanctions can be used as a way to make them be more sustainable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 5:12 PM, Vice-Regent said:

By the time populations stabilize the damage will already be inflicted and there will be a mass die-off. That would be a failure to transition.

Dangerous mentality. Climate change will save us from capitalism. it's the consumption per person that is killing us right now. I only want to reduce it so we can keep our current standard of living without adverse effects. It's not enough to stabilize where we are and we are far from that holding steady on population.

The population will infact never stabilize. It will rapidly collapse. It will look like a bell-curve on population charts. So i'm not sure if it matters at this point what we do in first-world nations.

actually population collapse would be a good thing and I too believe that will happen in the future.  I dont mean that in a cataclysmic sort of way, but more in the sense that fertility rates will drop (they are dropping already.)

The earth's human population needs to stabilize around 1 billion, not tens of billions.  That's for the health of humanity as well as the rest of our environment.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 8:28 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I'm not as pessimistic, though I have worries given how impotent and unwilling today's generation of leaders (political and business) are in addressing the challenge of anthropogenic climate change.

Addressing climate change should not require "phasing out civilization." It does entail some significant changes. Among those changes are a transition to cleaner fuels, increased energy efficiency, a carbon tax/elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, etc. In my view, were the same leaders involved in tackling the problem of anthropogenic climate change today, credible, binding, and concrete commitments would have been undertaken. They understood what today's leaders don't, namely that today's choices have consequences for tomorrow. Consequently, they were not paralyzed by the suffocating short-term thinking that defines today's leaders.

Don, it's not about phasing out civilization but living in a much more sustainable way.  I look at the native americans and how they lived much more in sync with the environment and did not drive other species to extinction the way the white man did.  They were far more civilized.

An example is all the toxic chemicals being used on our farms that are now polluting the waters of the GOM and our oceans and killing off sea life by depleting oxygen levels.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 10:50 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

The neophyte hoarder begins by filling all the invisible places available. Drawers, closets, cellar, attic, garage. When all the spaces fill the invisible becomes visible and the twisted taffy of rationalization takes over. Everything is indispensable. The hoarder needs it all and cannot live without any of it. Eventually as the hoarder moves within  the created canyons of indispensability, one column may collapse or an errant spark may take hold. The hoarder is gone and the space occupied is forever changed. As always .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Don, it's not about phasing out civilization but living in a much more sustainable way.  I look at the native americans and how they lived much more in sync with the environment and did not drive other species to extinction the way the white man did.  They were far more civilized.

An example is all the toxic chemicals being used on our farms that are now polluting the waters of the GOM and our oceans and killing off sea life by depleting oxygen levels.

 

 

I believe I was quoting Vice Regent. We agree about living in a more sustainable way. The former almost certainly won't be broadly supported. The latter could and should be.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

you need an effective world government that usurps the authorities of ignorant leaders like the "president" of Brazil. Economic sanctions can be used as a way to make them be more sustainable.

 

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 4:21 PM, donsutherland1 said:

The high temperatures at Yakutat, Alaska for the past three days and for today (preliminary value) were:

December 13: 56° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 14: 58° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 15: 61° (old record: 48°, 2005)
December 16: 57° (old record: 50°, 2005)

All four days exceeded the previous December record high temperature of 52°, which had been set on December 8, 1960. The 61° temperature yesterday broke the meteorological winter record of 58°, which was set on January 19, 1930 and tied on December 14, 2019 and was also above the November monthly record of 59°, which was set on November 1, 1947. Prior to yesterday, the latest 60° temperature on record occurred on October 13, 1969 when the temperature reached 60°. Daily records go back to May 1, 1917.

 

Hi Don,

 I respect you immensely and therefore feel the need to tell you that it looks like there’s a major problem with the Yakutat temperature sensor. Please check out this link to hourlies for the last few days:

https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/PAYA.html

 


a
t
e
Time
(akst)
Wind
(mph)
Vis.
(mi.)
Weather Sky Cond. Temperature (ºF) Relative
Humidity
Wind
Chill
(°F)
Heat
Index
(°F)
Pressure Precipitation (in.)
Air Dwpt 6 hour altimeter
(in)
sea level
(mb)
1 hr 3 hr 6 hr
Max. Min.
17 17:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast BKN037 OVC055 36 29     76% 32 NA 29.33 993.3      
17 16:53 NE 7 10.00 A Few Clouds FEW029 35 28     76% 29 NA 29.34 993.6      
17 15:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy SCT030 SCT040 BKN050 36 30     79% NA NA 29.35 993.8      
17 14:53 E 9 10.00 Overcast OVC036 36 30     79% 29 NA 29.36 994.2      
17 13:53 E 8 10.00 Light Rain OVC040 36 30     79% 30 NA 29.37 994.6      
17 12:53 E 6 10.00 Light Rain FEW027 BKN040 OVC055 35 32     89% 30 NA 29.37 994.5      
17 11:53 Calm 10.00 Light Rain BKN038 OVC045 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.36 994.4      
17 10:53 Calm 10.00 Mostly Cloudy SCT046 BKN055 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.35 994.1      
17 09:53 NE 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN050 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.35 994.1      
17 08:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT085 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.33 993.4      
17 07:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT120 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.33 993.4      
17 06:53 Calm 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN110 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.34 993.7      
17 05:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT110 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.36 994.4      
17 04:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT100 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.38 995.1      
17 03:53 NE 5 10.00 A Few Clouds FEW038 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.41 996.1      
17 02:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN044 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.44 997.1     0.01
17 01:53 NE 5 10.00 Overcast SCT034 OVC042 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.47 998.1      
17 00:53 E 5 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN028 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.50 999.1      
16 23:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast BKN026 OVC033 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.54 1000.5 0.01 0.01  
16 22:53 NE 8 10.00 Overcast BKN023 BKN036 OVC044 NA NA     NA -14 NA 29.57 1001.5      
16 21:53 E 9 10.00 Overcast OVC021 NA NA     NA -15 NA 29.58 1001.8      
16 20:53 E 8 10.00 Overcast BKN020 BKN025 OVC033 NA NA     NA -14 NA 29.60 1002.5     0.07
16 19:53 NE 7 10.00 Mostly Cloudy FEW018 SCT025 BKN120 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.61 1002.9      
16 18:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast FEW021 BKN055 OVC110 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.62 1003.2      
16 17:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast SCT018 OVC120 NA NA     NA -12 NA 29.64 1003.9 0.01 0.07  
16 16:53 Calm 5.00 Light Rain BKN017 OVC023 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.65 1004.2 0.04    
16 15:53 E 7 10.00 Overcast OVC011 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.66 1004.6 0.02    
16 14:53 E 5 4.00 Rain BKN009 OVC013 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.67 1004.9 0.08   0.24
16 13:53 E 10 8.00 Light Rain OVC008 NA NA     NA -16 NA 29.66 1004.6      
16 12:53 E 8 10.00 Overcast OVC006 NA NA     NA -14 NA 29.66 1004.6 0.07    
16 11:53 E 9 3.00 Light Rain FEW008 BKN013 OVC023 48 38     68% 44 NA 29.64 1003.7 0.06 0.09  
16 10:53 E 9 3.00 Light Rain OVC012 52 37     57% NA NA 29.63 1003.3 0.03    
16 09:53 E 8 3.00 Light Rain Fog/Mist OVC016 37 36     96% 31 NA 29.61 1002.7      
16 08:53 E 10 10.00 Light Rain OVC033 37 35 57 37 93% 30 NA 29.59 1002.1 0.04   0.13
16 07:53 E 8 9.00 Light Rain OVC027 37 35     93% 31 NA 29.58 1001.8 0.04    
16 06:53 E 5 10.00 Light Rain OVC026 48 35     61% 46 NA 29.58 1001.8 0.02    
16 05:53 SE 3 10.00 Light Rain OVC030 51 33     50% NA NA 29.58 1001.5 0.01 0.03  
16 04:53 SE 7 10.00 Light Rain OVC034 55 32     42% NA NA 29.57 1001.3 0.01    
16 03:53 SE 7 10.00 Light Rain OVC034 55 34     45% NA NA 29.55 1000.7 0.01    
16 02:53 E 9 10.00 Light Rain OVC048 56 33 61 42 42% NA NA 29.52 999.8      
16 01:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC046 50 28     43% 48 NA 29.53 1000.0      
16 00:53 NE 6 10.00 Light Rain OVC050 55 27     34% NA NA 29.53 1000.0      
15 23:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC050 53 27     37% NA NA 29.54 1000.4      
15 22:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast OVC060 53 25     34% NA NA 29.55 1000.7      
15 21:53 E 7 10.00 Overcast OVC060 49 25     39% 46 NA 29.56 1001.0      
15 20:53 NE 12 10.00 Overcast BKN070 OVC090 51 24 60 36 35% NA NA 29.58 1001.6      
15 19:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW055 BKN070 OVC100 58 26     29% NA NA 29.61 1002.8      
15 18:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast OVC055 51 27     39% NA NA 29.64 1003.6      
15 17:53 E 5 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN055 49 28     44% 47 NA 29.65 1004.2      
15 16:53 SE 5 10.00 Overcast OVC055 54 29     38% NA NA 29.68 1005.0      
15 15:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy FEW050 BKN060 BKN075 37 30     76% NA NA 29.70 1005.9      
15 14:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT046 40 29 56 40 65% NA NA 29.73 1006.7      
15 13:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW049 OVC065 49 30     48% 46 NA 29.76 1007.8      
15 12:53 NE 8 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN035 BKN046 43 30     60% 38 NA 29.78 1008.5      
15 11:53 NE 8 10.00 Overcast SCT033 BKN040 OVC047 52 31     45% NA NA 29.81 1009.4      
15 10:53 E 9 10.00 Overcast BKN040 OVC048 56 29     36% NA NA 29.83 1010.0      
15 09:53 E 6 10.00 Light Rain OVC041 54 29     38% NA NA 29.84 1010.4      
15 08:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW033 BKN046 OVC060 51 30 54 41 45% NA NA 29.84 1010.4      
15 07:53 E 6 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN048 BKN065 51 30     45% NA NA 29.84 1010.6      
15 06:53 NE 8 10.00 Overcast OVC048 46 30     54% 42 NA 29.86 1011.0      
15 05:53 NE 9 10.00 Overcast OVC046 47 31     54% 43 NA 29.87 1011.6      
15 04:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast OVC044 47 31     54% 44 NA 29.89 1012.1      
15 03:53 NE 6 10.00 Overcast OVC043 47 31     54% 44 NA 29.90 1012.5      
15 02:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast OVC046 49 31 51 38 50% 46 NA 29.91 1012.7      
15 01:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC048 43 31     63% 40 NA 29.92 1013.3      
15 00:53 NE 6 10.00 Overcast OVC048 46 31     56% 43 NA 29.93 1013.6      
14 23:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC047 46 32     58% 44 NA 29.94 1013.7      
14 22:53 E 3 10.00 Overcast FEW024 BKN039 OVC049 46 32     58% NA NA 29.94 1013.7      
14 21:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW026 SCT037 OVC047 50 32     50% 48 NA 29.94 1013.7      
14 20:53 E 3 10.00 Overcast OVC034 50 32 55 39 50% NA NA 29.94 1013.9      
14 19:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN120 55 32     42% NA NA 29.94 1014.0      
14 18:53 NE 6 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN038 46 34     63% 43 NA 29.95 1014.3      
D
a
t
e
Time
(akst)
Wind
(mph)
Vis.
(mi.)
Weather Sky Cond. Air Dwpt Max. Min. Relative
Humidity
Wind
Chill
(°F)
Heat
Index
(°F)
altimeter
(in

Don, here are just 2 examples of hourlies that look bogus:

1. 16:53 on 12/15 is at 54 F, a rise of a whopping 17 in one hour from the 37 the previous hour while overcast?? That can’t be. And the winds didn’t change much. Light E to light SE. So, no major warm front/airmass change it would appear.

 

2. At 9:53 on Dec 16th it was 37 and it then rose a whopping 15 in one hour under light rain to 52 with continued light E winds.

 

 I may post more later about the problems with this station when time permits.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

actually population collapse would be a good thing and I too believe that will happen in the future.  I dont mean that in a cataclysmic sort of way, but more in the sense that fertility rates will drop (they are dropping already.)

The earth's human population needs to stabilize around 1 billion, not tens of billions.  That's for the health of humanity as well as the rest of our environment.

 

 

 

Collapse or grow is where we are now and going forward. You're not understanding that climate change will kill at least 6-7x more people than the holocaust and world wars combined.

We are not the "good guys".

Not saying there was ever a cohort of good guys. Just various factions looking out for their self-interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

Such a world setup would of been a reality if either Nazi Germany or the USSR conquered all of Europe. I am with you on this one in that it's non-functional in the long-run.

The system of exploitation is inherently tainted. Whatever you wish to call it. Capitalism is a piece of it.

Try putting China in charge of the world and see how far you get. You may even collapse faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Hi Don,

 I respect you immensely and therefore feel the need to tell you that it looks like there’s a major problem with the Yakutat temperature sensor. Please check out this link to hourlies for the last few days:

https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/PAYA.html

 


a
t
e
Time
(akst)
Wind
(mph)
Vis.
(mi.)
Weather Sky Cond. Temperature (ºF) Relative
Humidity
Wind
Chill
(°F)
Heat
Index
(°F)
Pressure Precipitation (in.)
Air Dwpt 6 hour altimeter
(in)
sea level
(mb)
1 hr 3 hr 6 hr
Max. Min.
17 17:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast BKN037 OVC055 36 29     76% 32 NA 29.33 993.3      
17 16:53 NE 7 10.00 A Few Clouds FEW029 35 28     76% 29 NA 29.34 993.6      
17 15:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy SCT030 SCT040 BKN050 36 30     79% NA NA 29.35 993.8      
17 14:53 E 9 10.00 Overcast OVC036 36 30     79% 29 NA 29.36 994.2      
17 13:53 E 8 10.00 Light Rain OVC040 36 30     79% 30 NA 29.37 994.6      
17 12:53 E 6 10.00 Light Rain FEW027 BKN040 OVC055 35 32     89% 30 NA 29.37 994.5      
17 11:53 Calm 10.00 Light Rain BKN038 OVC045 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.36 994.4      
17 10:53 Calm 10.00 Mostly Cloudy SCT046 BKN055 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.35 994.1      
17 09:53 NE 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN050 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.35 994.1      
17 08:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT085 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.33 993.4      
17 07:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT120 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.33 993.4      
17 06:53 Calm 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN110 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.34 993.7      
17 05:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT110 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.36 994.4      
17 04:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT100 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.38 995.1      
17 03:53 NE 5 10.00 A Few Clouds FEW038 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.41 996.1      
17 02:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN044 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.44 997.1     0.01
17 01:53 NE 5 10.00 Overcast SCT034 OVC042 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.47 998.1      
17 00:53 E 5 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN028 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.50 999.1      
16 23:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast BKN026 OVC033 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.54 1000.5 0.01 0.01  
16 22:53 NE 8 10.00 Overcast BKN023 BKN036 OVC044 NA NA     NA -14 NA 29.57 1001.5      
16 21:53 E 9 10.00 Overcast OVC021 NA NA     NA -15 NA 29.58 1001.8      
16 20:53 E 8 10.00 Overcast BKN020 BKN025 OVC033 NA NA     NA -14 NA 29.60 1002.5     0.07
16 19:53 NE 7 10.00 Mostly Cloudy FEW018 SCT025 BKN120 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.61 1002.9      
16 18:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast FEW021 BKN055 OVC110 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.62 1003.2      
16 17:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast SCT018 OVC120 NA NA     NA -12 NA 29.64 1003.9 0.01 0.07  
16 16:53 Calm 5.00 Light Rain BKN017 OVC023 NA NA     NA NA NA 29.65 1004.2 0.04    
16 15:53 E 7 10.00 Overcast OVC011 NA NA     NA -13 NA 29.66 1004.6 0.02    
16 14:53 E 5 4.00 Rain BKN009 OVC013 NA NA     NA -11 NA 29.67 1004.9 0.08   0.24
16 13:53 E 10 8.00 Light Rain OVC008 NA NA     NA -16 NA 29.66 1004.6      
16 12:53 E 8 10.00 Overcast OVC006 NA NA     NA -14 NA 29.66 1004.6 0.07    
16 11:53 E 9 3.00 Light Rain FEW008 BKN013 OVC023 48 38     68% 44 NA 29.64 1003.7 0.06 0.09  
16 10:53 E 9 3.00 Light Rain OVC012 52 37     57% NA NA 29.63 1003.3 0.03    
16 09:53 E 8 3.00 Light Rain Fog/Mist OVC016 37 36     96% 31 NA 29.61 1002.7      
16 08:53 E 10 10.00 Light Rain OVC033 37 35 57 37 93% 30 NA 29.59 1002.1 0.04   0.13
16 07:53 E 8 9.00 Light Rain OVC027 37 35     93% 31 NA 29.58 1001.8 0.04    
16 06:53 E 5 10.00 Light Rain OVC026 48 35     61% 46 NA 29.58 1001.8 0.02    
16 05:53 SE 3 10.00 Light Rain OVC030 51 33     50% NA NA 29.58 1001.5 0.01 0.03  
16 04:53 SE 7 10.00 Light Rain OVC034 55 32     42% NA NA 29.57 1001.3 0.01    
16 03:53 SE 7 10.00 Light Rain OVC034 55 34     45% NA NA 29.55 1000.7 0.01    
16 02:53 E 9 10.00 Light Rain OVC048 56 33 61 42 42% NA NA 29.52 999.8      
16 01:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC046 50 28     43% 48 NA 29.53 1000.0      
16 00:53 NE 6 10.00 Light Rain OVC050 55 27     34% NA NA 29.53 1000.0      
15 23:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC050 53 27     37% NA NA 29.54 1000.4      
15 22:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast OVC060 53 25     34% NA NA 29.55 1000.7      
15 21:53 E 7 10.00 Overcast OVC060 49 25     39% 46 NA 29.56 1001.0      
15 20:53 NE 12 10.00 Overcast BKN070 OVC090 51 24 60 36 35% NA NA 29.58 1001.6      
15 19:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW055 BKN070 OVC100 58 26     29% NA NA 29.61 1002.8      
15 18:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast OVC055 51 27     39% NA NA 29.64 1003.6      
15 17:53 E 5 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN055 49 28     44% 47 NA 29.65 1004.2      
15 16:53 SE 5 10.00 Overcast OVC055 54 29     38% NA NA 29.68 1005.0      
15 15:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy FEW050 BKN060 BKN075 37 30     76% NA NA 29.70 1005.9      
15 14:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT046 40 29 56 40 65% NA NA 29.73 1006.7      
15 13:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW049 OVC065 49 30     48% 46 NA 29.76 1007.8      
15 12:53 NE 8 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN035 BKN046 43 30     60% 38 NA 29.78 1008.5      
15 11:53 NE 8 10.00 Overcast SCT033 BKN040 OVC047 52 31     45% NA NA 29.81 1009.4      
15 10:53 E 9 10.00 Overcast BKN040 OVC048 56 29     36% NA NA 29.83 1010.0      
15 09:53 E 6 10.00 Light Rain OVC041 54 29     38% NA NA 29.84 1010.4      
15 08:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW033 BKN046 OVC060 51 30 54 41 45% NA NA 29.84 1010.4      
15 07:53 E 6 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN048 BKN065 51 30     45% NA NA 29.84 1010.6      
15 06:53 NE 8 10.00 Overcast OVC048 46 30     54% 42 NA 29.86 1011.0      
15 05:53 NE 9 10.00 Overcast OVC046 47 31     54% 43 NA 29.87 1011.6      
15 04:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast OVC044 47 31     54% 44 NA 29.89 1012.1      
15 03:53 NE 6 10.00 Overcast OVC043 47 31     54% 44 NA 29.90 1012.5      
15 02:53 NE 7 10.00 Overcast OVC046 49 31 51 38 50% 46 NA 29.91 1012.7      
15 01:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC048 43 31     63% 40 NA 29.92 1013.3      
15 00:53 NE 6 10.00 Overcast OVC048 46 31     56% 43 NA 29.93 1013.6      
14 23:53 E 5 10.00 Overcast OVC047 46 32     58% 44 NA 29.94 1013.7      
14 22:53 E 3 10.00 Overcast FEW024 BKN039 OVC049 46 32     58% NA NA 29.94 1013.7      
14 21:53 E 6 10.00 Overcast FEW026 SCT037 OVC047 50 32     50% 48 NA 29.94 1013.7      
14 20:53 E 3 10.00 Overcast OVC034 50 32 55 39 50% NA NA 29.94 1013.9      
14 19:53 E 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN120 55 32     42% NA NA 29.94 1014.0      
14 18:53 NE 6 10.00 Mostly Cloudy BKN038 46 34     63% 43 NA 29.95 1014.3      
D
a
t
e
Time
(akst)
Wind
(mph)
Vis.
(mi.)
Weather Sky Cond. Air Dwpt Max. Min. Relative
Humidity
Wind
Chill
(°F)
Heat
Index
(°F)
altimeter
(in

Don, here are just 2 examples of hourlies that look bogus:

1. 16:53 on 12/15 is at 54 F, a rise of a whopping 17 in one hour from the 37 the previous hour while overcast?? That can’t be. And the winds didn’t change much. Light E to light SE. So, no major warm front/airmass change it would appear.

 

2. At 9:53 on Dec 16th it was 37 and it then rose a whopping 15 in one hour under light rain to 52 with continued light E winds.

 

 I may post more later about the problems with this station when time permits.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this information. The 12/13-16 data has now been pulled and replaced by "M."  Given the temperatures at Sitka, I suspect based on what you found and the lower temperatures there than a few days ago, the sensor was, in fact, malfunctioning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Such a world setup would of been a reality if either Nazi Germany or the USSR conquered all of Europe. I am with you on this one in that it's non-functional in the long-run.

The system of exploitation is inherently tainted. Whatever you wish to call it. Capitalism is a piece of it.

Try putting China in charge of the world and see how far you get. You may even collapse faster.

It's a difficult situation. Externalities e.g., the cost of carbon emissions and their consequences, aren't captured in the pricing mechanism of fossil fuels. That's part of the reason at least some economists favor a carbon tax. In addition, certain governments have little or no meaningful commitment to addressing the great challenge of climate change (or even recognition of the science). Yet, the time left to avoid making what amounts to an almost irrevocable commitment via emissions to temperature increases above 2.0 degrees C or 1.5 degrees C is shrinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

It's a difficult situation. Externalities e.g., the cost of carbon emissions and their consequences, aren't captured in the pricing mechanism of fossil fuels. That's part of the reason at least some economists favor a carbon tax. In addition, certain governments have little or no meaningful commitment to addressing the great challenge of climate change (or even recognition of the science). Yet, the time left to avoid making what amounts to an almost irrevocable commitment via emissions to temperature increases above 2.0 degrees C or 1.5 degrees C is shrinking.

So true. We live in dire times that demand extreme measures but if you know that global warming will eliminate everything but sub-lethal carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 then there's reason to be complacent. Yes it's a less than ideal situation but we will take what we can get.

Geoengineering is the only thing that scares me to be honest. I think Dane Wigington is right on the "money". The difference between me and Dane is that I don't believe there is an active aerosol injection program ongoing. All current aerosol emissions are unintentional. (a byproduct of global industrial civilization)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

So true. We live in dire times that demand extreme measures but if you know that global warming will eliminate everything but sub-lethal carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 then there's reason to be complacent. Yes it's a less than ideal situation but we will take what we can get.

Geoengineering is the only thing that scares me to be honest. I think Dane Wigington is right on the "money". The difference between me and Dane is that I don't believe there is an active aerosol injection program ongoing. All current aerosol emissions are unintentional. (a byproduct of global industrial civilization)

Perhaps it would be easier if we accept that humans are in fact geoengineering right now. That may help put the risk of deliberate geoengineering into perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, etudiant said:

Perhaps it would be easier if we accept that humans are in fact geoengineering right now. That may help put the risk of deliberate geoengineering into perspective.

Exactly but I don't quite see it in the same light. It's a convincing argument but as it stands now humans are not separate from the natural processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Exactly but I don't quite see it in the same light. It's a convincing argument but as it stands now humans are not separate from the natural processes.

I think we're basically in violent agreement, but really all you need to do is to fly over the western US.

The landscape is blighted as far as the eye can see from 35000 feet by 1000 foot diameter irrigated fields, cooling the atmosphere and draining the aquifers to produce crops no one wants.

I cannot see that as a natural process, no matter how hard I try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, etudiant said:

I think we're basically in violent agreement, but really all you need to do is to fly over the western US.

The landscape is blighted as far as the eye can see from 35000 feet by 1000 foot diameter irrigated fields, cooling the atmosphere and draining the aquifers to produce crops no one wants.

I cannot see that as a natural process, no matter how hard I try.

Nature is rife with examples of self-destruction. As distasteful as it may be it is only ephemeral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 10:16 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

yes and the president of Brazil letting the Amazon burn for more farmland.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 10:41 PM, Vice-Regent said:

Collapse or grow is where we are now and going forward. You're not understanding that climate change will kill at least 6-7x more people than the holocaust and world wars combined.

We are not the "good guys".

Not saying there was ever a cohort of good guys. Just various factions looking out for their self-interest.

People always think the population problem is overblown and yet......

NOAA scientists said that overpopulation is the major reason why we face a climate change crisis and the best way to reduce your carbon footprint has been listed as having one less child.  It's also a great way to lower pollution (as an example, Delhi was recently enveloped in so much smog that people couldn't breathe.)

This is a pretty progressive point, as it's also been mentioned in the NY Times and Wa Po.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about

 

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

By Sid PerkinsJul. 11, 2017 , 4:30 PM

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, etudiant said:

I think we're basically in violent agreement, but really all you need to do is to fly over the western US.

The landscape is blighted as far as the eye can see from 35000 feet by 1000 foot diameter irrigated fields, cooling the atmosphere and draining the aquifers to produce crops no one wants.

I cannot see that as a natural process, no matter how hard I try.

Not to mention all the toxic chemicals from the farms being drained into large bodies of waters and causing a massive die off.  FYI these are also toxic to humans and are now being found in local lakes and aquifers where we get our drinking water from.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 10:08 AM, Vice-Regent said:

Exactly but I don't quite see it in the same light. It's a convincing argument but as it stands now humans are not separate from the natural processes.

thats correct, but there are lots of natural processes that are highly destructive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 11:11 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Thanks for this information. The 12/13-16 data has now been pulled and replaced by "M."  Given the temperatures at Sitka, I suspect based on what you found and the lower temperatures there than a few days ago, the sensor was, in fact, malfunctioning.

Don, in place of Yatutat you can use Verhoyansk or Omjakon.  Those three locations are often cited as the three coldest locations in the Northern Hemisphere and they are in the same geographical area.

Also, I heard that Australia beat its hottest temp ever recorded (beating the record from last year), is this true and what is the new record?  Is it 120 recorded at Forrest?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Don, in place of Yatutat you can use Verhoyansk or Omjakon.  Those three locations are often cited as the three coldest locations in the Northern Hemisphere and they are in the same geographical area.

Also, I heard that Australia beat its hottest temp ever recorded (beating the record from last year), is this true and what is the new record?  Is it 120 recorded at Forrest?

 

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology reported regarding yesterday:

Based on preliminary analysis, yesterday, Australia recorded its hottest day on record. The nationally-averaged maximum daytime temp was 41.9 °C exceeding the record set on Tuesday, 40.9 ºC.

40.9°C is 105.6°F.
41.9°C is 107.4°F.

The highest temperature anywhere in Australia yesterday was 47.7°C (117.9° F) at Birdsville Airport. The national December record is 49.5°C (121.1°F), which was set on December 24, 1972 at Birdsville Police Station.

Australia's hottest temperature on record is 50.7°C (123.3°F), which was set on January 2, 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article below provides a good summary of how recent energy trends are impacting IPCC emission scenarios. While I am even more pessimistic about the science of climate than I was a decade ago, I have become much more optimistic about non-fossil energy technology and natural gas vs coal. Limited policy and luck has improved the "worst-case" considerably vs CMIP5 IPCC scenarios. Unfortunately though, we haven't made any progress on the "best" case due to inaction/denial. Recent experience shows that improved climate policy and support for renewable energy technology could have enormous long-term pay-back.

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, chubbs said:

The article below provides a good summary of how recent energy trends are impacting IPCC emission scenarios. While I am even more pessimistic about the science of climate than I was a decade ago, I have become much more optimistic about non-fossil energy technology and natural gas vs coal. Limited policy and luck has improved the "worst-case" considerably vs CMIP5 IPCC scenarios. Unfortunately though, we haven't made any progress on the "best" case due to inaction/denial. Recent experience shows that improved climate policy and support for renewable energy technology could have enormous long-term pay-back.

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world

What do you think of this new commercial being put out by the industry about greenhouse gas emissions being half of what they were a generation ago?

I oppose natural gas (it's really methane) because of fracking and pipelines, thankfully we have placed a moratorium on them here in NY and are going with wind, solar and hydro.

I'd rather have nuclear, but we also had a lot of problems with the Shoreham plant on Long Island, and the power company was eventually charged with racketeering.  The rates got extremely high when LILCO was trying to build that plant.  The Indian Point power plant was also shut down recently because of issues.  These plants shouldn't be near big cities or near fault lines, as Fukushima demonstrated.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.