Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: World of 2030  (Read 10355 times)

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4409
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 844
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #100 on: May 07, 2019, 10:51:03 PM »
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #101 on: May 07, 2019, 10:55:11 PM »
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.
Indeed we have! So I will not continue with refuting your points as I have in the past. We shall see what happens come 2030.  :)

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3936
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #102 on: May 07, 2019, 10:56:55 PM »
Well we may not have a reglaciation of the NH but we certainly have had a blizzard of glaciation posts here.

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3936
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #103 on: May 07, 2019, 10:59:46 PM »
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.
Indeed we have! So I will not continue with refuting your points as I have in the past. We shall see what happens come 2030.  :)

I have yet to see you refute any substantive posts from the more informed commenters here when this inane topic about the impending reglaciation of the NH rears its ugly head.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #104 on: May 07, 2019, 11:22:59 PM »
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.
Indeed we have! So I will not continue with refuting your points as I have in the past. We shall see what happens come 2030.  :)

I have yet to see you refute any substantive posts from the more informed commenters here when this inane topic about the impending reglaciation of the NH rears its ugly head.
If the Torngat Mountains retain snowcover through August this year as they did last, what more refutation would you need? How many years of growing snowcover are necessary for the definition of re-glaciation to be met? I would classify one full year of snowcover as "annual" snowcover, and two full years as re-glaciation. We can check back in come September 1st and see what happened over the summer, but my hunch says we will retain snowcover over the mountains this August.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 11:30:44 PM by bbr2314 »

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #105 on: May 08, 2019, 12:22:33 AM »
almost regretting the post i didn't submit in the melting season thread on the topic of predictions.

glad to see that if i refrain that things don't remain unspoken LOL

my proposal to deal with certain kind of predictions was to max 3 times moderate and then ban because it disrupts almost any useful discussion by means of persistence and lack of empathy.

this topic has been brought up, discussed and can now be dropped for a few years or until either it happened or palm trees are growing instead of an ice-shield. ;)

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #106 on: May 08, 2019, 01:42:07 AM »
First time poster.

I think people are underestimating Sea Level Rise. From 2011-2015, sea levels rose 8mm / year before we ran into the big El Nino of 2016 where oceans contracted due to heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere. I think there is good reason to believe that 8mm / yr is the new baseline and we'll see more acceleration on top of that.

By 2030, our ability to predict sea level rise is going to improve dramatically. I think we'll easily get 3-4" globally (75-100mm) between now and 2030. That's not going to fundamentally alter people's ability to live, but the writing is going to be on the wall.

Financial markets and asset valuations are based upon projected cash flows. The expected useful life of coastal real estate assets is going to shrink. Flood insurance is going to increase in price or be withdrawn entirely. Mortgage availability is going to diminish. Real estate prices will contract....municipal borrowing costs will increase as the property tax base declines and mitigation and adaptation expenses increase. Municipal bankruptcies will follow. A state like Florida will require federal assistance to stay afloat.

A problem we have with galvanizing public support for climate change is that individual events impact only a small portion of the population at a time. The financial market chaos of the early 2030's is a default setting for getting everyone on the same page. Something else could happen sooner, but that's my projection.

Orbital cycles which govern tides revolve everyone 18.6 years. They peak next in 2034-35. By they, we'll have at least 5-6" in sea level rise on top of peak kind tide flooding and whatever storms are thrown in on top of that.

Since 2016, we've had 17 storms with sustained winds >= 150 MPH + Harvey + Florence. The water is coming in folks.


bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #107 on: May 08, 2019, 03:45:17 AM »
Here is last 3 yrs March-April vs. 2010-2011-12. I don't think it is hard to imagine a doubling of extremes on both sides of the spectrum in another seven years, and 11 years out? It's more than plausible. March-April is likely to be substantially colder than today across most of inhabited North America, but in Eurasia, the line between winter and summer is likely to become increasingly abrupt and early. This is perfectly compatible with rising average global temps.

If we are going to consider specifics of 2030's climate and sensible weather based on recent trends since our nearest-BOE, we can begin to ascertain that April is possibly going to become a winter month across much of the Grain Belt of North America by 2025, with early May following by 2030. At that point, March and April's average temperatures could be another 3-5C lower than today, with May and June probably following suit as the snow lingers longer + falls harder and more often up north, and the patterns become more stuck.

On the flip side, the dry steppes of Central Asia will bake under record-early heatwaves, sending multiple plumes of 85-90F temperatures into the ESS and Chukchi by mid-April. By this point, the Bering's icecover will be sporadic at best, while the Chukchi will be transitioning to mostly ice-free, with ice days at Barrow down 50% compared to 2019's levels.

I think pinning down predictions by seasonal impacts is probably more important than annual as the differences become much more relevant when broken down month by month (IMO).

Also: one final note, as snowcover extends deeper into spring, anomalies vs. normal are likely to deepen substantially (32F vs. 50F norm in April is only -18F, 32F vs 60F norm in May is -28F). This may result in temps skewing severely colder than current levels in the last weeks of April and much of May across the core of the negative anomalies in North America.

The previously-mentioned values of 3-5C below current temps have much more room to spiral off the deep end as winter extends longer into what would normally be spring (i.e. April and May for many, June for some, July and eventually year-round for the Inuit).

With the proposed / probable scope of impending temperatures changes concordant with what we have recently observed (IMO), this also means that most high latitude forests are going to burn within the next decade. There are going to be worsening annual plumes of forest and peat fires until there is nothing left to burn or temperatures drop sufficiently for year-round snowcover to return due to the other feedbacks at play (albedo and meltwater). It is going to be particularly terrible for Siberia, evidently, but the worsening cold in much of North America is likely to imminently be equally as damaging for vegetation. We have already seen early examples of this in California last year.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 03:57:18 AM by bbr2314 »

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #108 on: May 08, 2019, 04:07:19 AM »
Also, here is the last year (365 days ending 4/30) versus eleven years ago. It may be an arbitrary comparison but 365 days is a decent enough sample size. The only question is whether we are +/- these numbers in 2030, or the numbers vs. 2012 (IMO). I would hedge on the accelerated +/- distribution we have seen evolve since 2012.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #109 on: May 08, 2019, 02:58:49 PM »
First time poster.

I think people are underestimating Sea Level Rise. From 2011-2015, sea levels rose 8mm / year before we ran into the big El Nino of 2016 where oceans contracted due to heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere. I think there is good reason to believe that 8mm / yr is the new baseline and we'll see more acceleration on top of that.

By 2030, our ability to predict sea level rise is going to improve dramatically. I think we'll easily get 3-4" globally (75-100mm) between now and 2030. That's not going to fundamentally alter people's ability to live, but the writing is going to be on the wall.

Financial markets and asset valuations are based upon projected cash flows. The expected useful life of coastal real estate assets is going to shrink. Flood insurance is going to increase in price or be withdrawn entirely. Mortgage availability is going to diminish. Real estate prices will contract....municipal borrowing costs will increase as the property tax base declines and mitigation and adaptation expenses increase. Municipal bankruptcies will follow. A state like Florida will require federal assistance to stay afloat.

A problem we have with galvanizing public support for climate change is that individual events impact only a small portion of the population at a time. The financial market chaos of the early 2030's is a default setting for getting everyone on the same page. Something else could happen sooner, but that's my projection.

Orbital cycles which govern tides revolve everyone 18.6 years. They peak next in 2034-35. By they, we'll have at least 5-6" in sea level rise on top of peak kind tide flooding and whatever storms are thrown in on top of that.

Since 2016, we've had 17 storms with sustained winds >= 150 MPH + Harvey + Florence. The water is coming in folks.

Rich,
Sorry, but you are cherry-picking.  Selectively choosing the highest rate over the past decades does no one any good.  Conversely, someone could choose the last three years, when sea level rise has slowed to 1.5 mm/year, and say that the water is slowing.  Neither describes the situation accurately. 

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #110 on: May 08, 2019, 04:12:48 PM »
Welcome to the ASIF, Rich.

KK's "cherry pick" comment may well be true, but he is cherry picking, too, as he only commented on one aspect of your post, and apparently swept everything else in it.  And he should have welcomed you, first.  Manners!  :o

I don't think your, "I think people are underestimating Sea Level Rise," could qualify as cherry picking (!), but are you part of the 'people' who are doing the underestimating, or did you mean 'some people', or did you mean 'denialists and the folks who listen to them' or did you mean 'scientists who study it'?  (I have a friend who thinks Miami will have 5 or 6 meters of SLR by 2100; I suspect it will be around 2 m, while some project 1m; are we all underestimating?)

I agree scientists will be better at predicting local sea level rise in the future, and I'm sure some of your financial market comments are accurate.  My pension comes from Florida: will the feds bail 'me' out? 

Interesting comment about orbital cycles.  Could you post a reference on a more-relevant thread? (maybe reactivate the Sea Level Rise Projections and Maps thread?)

Anyway, welcome!

Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #111 on: May 08, 2019, 04:59:38 PM »
Sorry, I should have welcomed Rich first.  My fault.  While I commented on one aspect only, that aspect influenced the rest of his post.  Yes, scientists may be better be able to predict sea level rise in the future.  However, sea level rise has been relatively steady during the satellite era, accounting for EL Nino/La Nina years. 

You say that you expect 2m by 2100.  That would mean an average rise of 25mm/year for the next 80 years.  I do not feel that is underestimating at all.  Rather, I feel it is an overestimate.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #112 on: May 08, 2019, 05:30:51 PM »
My projection, based on other's, is for Miami (which, besides SLR, is sinking due to groundwater removal, I understand).  Also, SLR is accelerating, so I don't expect "25mm/year" before 2030 (and I've not graphed a curve to find out when it would).
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 05:47:21 PM by Tor Bejnar »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #113 on: May 08, 2019, 07:32:16 PM »


Rich,
Sorry, but you are cherry-picking.  Selectively choosing the highest rate over the past decades does no one any good.  Conversely, someone could choose the last three years, when sea level rise has slowed to 1.5 mm/year, and say that the water is slowing.  Neither describes the situation accurately.

I'm happy to pick up the topic of "cherry picking" and peel back the layer on that claim.

If you look at the chart of sea level rise in the satellite era, you will sea a relatively steady rise in the graph with 3 significant downward spikes in 1998, 2011 and 2016. There are no dramatic upward "spikes."

The downward spikes are associated with El Nino's ('98 and '16) and an unusual precipitation event which transferred massive amounts of water from ocean to land ('11).

As far as I know, there is no theory which supports any exogenous processes causing short-term spikes in global sea level rise. Only the chronic processes of thermal expansion and loss of land ice are material factors in GMSL increase.

If we peer closely at the curve, we see the pause for the 2016 El Nino and the resumption of the 8mm year increase in 2017. Another pause follows and the resumption of the accelerated increase from April to October 2018.

You can jump to the assumption of "cherry picking", but I'll challenge you to offer a cogent theory as to what might be causing a short-term increase in the slope of the curve that wouldn't be sustained.

The signal is there that SLR is accelerating and it's corroborated by all of the reports that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at accelerating rates. Will their continue to be periodic downward adjustments for events like El Nino's and other anomalies like the 2011 precipitation event? Absolutely!

What I'm saying is that we've entered a new normal for the chronic processes of thermal expansion and land ice loss which will only increase in pace in the coming decades.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 07:42:48 PM by Rich »

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #114 on: May 08, 2019, 07:50:10 PM »
First 'like' well earned Rich. Welcome to the forum.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #115 on: May 08, 2019, 07:54:08 PM »
First 'like' well earned Rich. Welcome to the forum.

LOL, not kidding, just wanted to write the same, hence

+1 = 2
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 08:46:17 PM by magnamentis »

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #116 on: May 08, 2019, 08:02:43 PM »
The downward spikes are associated with El Nino's ('98 and '16) and an unusual precipitation event

Do you have a source or graph handy Rich?

+1

German saying: Zwei Seelen, ein Gedanke. (two souls, one thought)

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #117 on: May 08, 2019, 08:43:16 PM »
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

As far as I know, the above NASA chart is the standard for GMSL. The 8mm / year increase can be seen from 2011-15, 2017 and April-Oct, 2018.

If you're interested in the 18.6 year tidal cycle, you can google it or "nodal precession".

For what it's worth, I'm interested in climate activism and the inflection points which will govern societal transformation around the challenge. After a lot of investigation, I've arrived at the hypothesis that we can't get past the early 2030's without running into a major financial meltdown. Could the global punch in the face come earlier? Sure.

Hopefully, we wake up before then. Telling people that disaster in coming in 2100 is not very effective in my experience. Sadly, not enough people are motivated by the plight of young people and future generations.


b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #118 on: May 08, 2019, 08:46:50 PM »
Thanks Rich.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #119 on: May 08, 2019, 08:55:28 PM »
. Could the global punch in the face come earlier? Sure.

Hopefully, we wake up before then.

way before 2030 ;)

perhaps it's worth to add something that many are not aware off, is that our monetary system is doomed on day one of its implementation (i.e. currency reforms etc.)

this is due to interest on interest on interest ....... everyone can start with one €/$ and add 5% average per year and see what well happen, mostly sooner than later due to additional mistakes made.

however, coming a bit back on topic, the very same interest on interest etc......  is in big parts respononsible for "forced growth" and inflation and i'm not only talking about hyperinflation like it happend with FFR, turkish lira, germany before WW2  as well as italy over and over again.
the "normal" inflation is enough to drive the punch that ultimately is knocking the system out on cost of the environment and the middle class, the people in the middle who are not supported by the system and not rich/independent enough to opt out to a certain degree.

they pay tax from profits and loose everything when they fail (or get divorced LOL)

could go on for long here, hence end it, sure you know that but i know many are not aware of the significance of the above mentioned and other human and systemic flaws.

Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 795
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #120 on: May 08, 2019, 08:55:51 PM »
Anyone plotting the doubling time period for sea level rise?

The first few doublings don't matter much but further into the 'doublings' things get a bit crazy!

If we are now less than 8 years for 'melt' doubling occurring I'm worried!

I know we passed 'thermal expansion' a few years back so we must be , by now, eating into 'doubling rates'?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 526
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #121 on: May 08, 2019, 09:01:31 PM »
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #122 on: May 08, 2019, 09:27:50 PM »
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I agree.  He originally stated 8 mm/yr from 2011-2015, which are the trough and peak on the graph.  Which is why I called him on it.  We are not seeing a doubling of sea level rise at the moment.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #123 on: May 08, 2019, 09:32:13 PM »
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I'm trying to help people understand how to look at the chart and differentiate between chronic processes (thermal expansion and land ice loss) and event driven processes like El Nino's which drive the average down.

Any layperson can look at the chart and see something fundamentally different in the chart before and after 2010. The slope of the curve is clearly steeper after 2010, especially if we understand the events of 2011 and 2016 which caused things to go in another direction.






Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #124 on: May 08, 2019, 09:47:58 PM »
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I agree.  He originally stated 8 mm/yr from 2011-2015, which are the trough and peak on the graph.  Which is why I called him on it.  We are not seeing a doubling of sea level rise at the moment.

I also offered 2017 as an example of the 8 mm/ yr increase and invited you to offer an explanation of what the root causes of the 8 mm/ yr slope are.

It's clear that we had a strong El Nino in 2016 and consequent thermal contraction of the ocean as heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere with these events. We are presently also in a borderline El Nino situation as well.

You haven't presented anything which contradicts the assertion that 8mm / year intervals are occurring and what might possibly be driving them other than increases in chronic processes.

I'm not arguing that the new average is 8 mm / year. I'm arguing that this is the new baseline in the absence of event driven processes which bring the average down. The El Nino's will continue to occur.




Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3936
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #125 on: May 08, 2019, 10:04:43 PM »
Here is last 3 yrs March-April vs. 2010-2011-12. I don't think it is hard to imagine a doubling of extremes on both sides of the spectrum in another seven years, and 11 years out? It's more than plausible. March-April is likely to be substantially colder than today across most of inhabited North America, but in Eurasia, the line between winter and summer is likely to become increasingly abrupt and early. This is perfectly compatible with rising average global temps.

If we are going to consider specifics of 2030's climate and sensible weather based on recent trends since our nearest-BOE, we can begin to ascertain that April is possibly going to become a winter month across much of the Grain Belt of North America by 2025, with early May following by 2030. At that point, March and April's average temperatures could be another 3-5C lower than today, with May and June probably following suit as the snow lingers longer + falls harder and more often up north, and the patterns become more stuck.

On the flip side, the dry steppes of Central Asia will bake under record-early heatwaves, sending multiple plumes of 85-90F temperatures into the ESS and Chukchi by mid-April. By this point, the Bering's icecover will be sporadic at best, while the Chukchi will be transitioning to mostly ice-free, with ice days at Barrow down 50% compared to 2019's levels.

I think pinning down predictions by seasonal impacts is probably more important than annual as the differences become much more relevant when broken down month by month (IMO).

Also: one final note, as snowcover extends deeper into spring, anomalies vs. normal are likely to deepen substantially (32F vs. 50F norm in April is only -18F, 32F vs 60F norm in May is -28F). This may result in temps skewing severely colder than current levels in the last weeks of April and much of May across the core of the negative anomalies in North America.

The previously-mentioned values of 3-5C below current temps have much more room to spiral off the deep end as winter extends longer into what would normally be spring (i.e. April and May for many, June for some, July and eventually year-round for the Inuit).

With the proposed / probable scope of impending temperatures changes concordant with what we have recently observed (IMO), this also means that most high latitude forests are going to burn within the next decade. There are going to be worsening annual plumes of forest and peat fires until there is nothing left to burn or temperatures drop sufficiently for year-round snowcover to return due to the other feedbacks at play (albedo and meltwater). It is going to be particularly terrible for Siberia, evidently, but the worsening cold in much of North America is likely to imminently be equally as damaging for vegetation. We have already seen early examples of this in California last year.

Sorry about quoting such a long post. You tell nice stories without a shred of evidence.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #126 on: May 08, 2019, 10:16:48 PM »
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I'm trying to help people understand how to look at the chart and differentiate between chronic processes (thermal expansion and land ice loss) and event driven processes like El Nino's which drive the average down.

Any layperson can look at the chart and see something fundamentally different in the chart before and after 2010. The slope of the curve is clearly steeper after 2010, especially if we understand the events of 2011 and 2016 which caused things to go in another direction.

Any layperson can see difference that are not real also.  According to NASA, sea level rise has increased 33% over the past quarter century.  They anticipate a continuance, but admit that could change pending changes in the large ice sheets.  At that rate, sea level rise will not hit 8mm/year until next century.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #127 on: May 08, 2019, 10:55:06 PM »
  At that rate, sea level rise will not hit 8mm/year until next century.



SLR has already hit 8mm / yr for a 4 year interval. It's just a question of the length of the interval that is relevant to you.

15k years ago, SLR averaged 30mm / yr for ~ 500 years.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #128 on: May 08, 2019, 11:19:06 PM »
  At that rate, sea level rise will not hit 8mm/year until next century.



SLR has already hit 8mm / yr for a 4 year interval. It's just a question of the length of the interval that is relevant to you.

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #129 on: May 08, 2019, 11:44:10 PM »

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #130 on: May 09, 2019, 12:09:13 AM »

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.

I am not convinced that it is possible at this time.  It may just be noise over the short term.  If we start to observe these trends over more that one ENSO cycle, then I will consider your theory.  However, since it was not observed during previous cycles, I have mr reservations.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #131 on: May 09, 2019, 01:34:24 AM »

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.

I am not convinced that it is possible at this time.  It may just be noise over the short term.  If we start to observe these trends over more that one ENSO cycle, then I will consider your theory.  However, since it was not observed during previous cycles, I have mr reservations.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. We had a 4 year interval of 8mm/ yr from 2011-2015. I'm asking how that was possible.

Are you saying that you believe the NASA satellite measurements are incorrect? These are averages over thousands of locations. The margin of error in these measurements is a fraction of a millimeter.

According to NASA, from April 2011 to October 2015, SLR rose 36mm. Are you saying that NASA is wrong? What is the "noise" that you speak of? Is that a scientific term?

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4409
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 844
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #132 on: May 09, 2019, 02:32:25 AM »
Thanks Rich.
Looking at the chart, adding my unscientific trendline, I can say I definitely see a change at some point in the past few years.
I could see how thermal expansion during the run-up to an El-Nino would be compensated by a slowdown afterwards. But the net trend in the past tended to revert to the previous trendline. This time it didn't.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #133 on: May 09, 2019, 02:53:52 AM »

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.

I am not convinced that it is possible at this time.  It may just be noise over the short term.  If we start to observe these trends over more that one ENSO cycle, then I will consider your theory.  However, since it was not observed during previous cycles, I have mr reservations.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. We had a 4 year interval of 8mm/ yr from 2011-2015. I'm asking how that was possible.

Are you saying that you believe the NASA satellite measurements are incorrect? These are averages over thousands of locations. The margin of error in these measurements is a fraction of a millimeter.

According to NASA, from April 2011 to October 2015, SLR rose 36mm. Are you saying that NASA is wrong? What is the "noise" that you speak of? Is that a scientific term?

Yes, noise is a scientific term.  It is random variations in the data.  It is present in every dataset.  It concerns me that you are unfamiliar with its usage.  The satellite data showed a much slower rate of rise since 2015.  Additionally NASA has used different satellites to measure sea level, such that the merging of the datasets may not match exactly.  More noise.  NASA is not wrong, just those that misinterpret their data.

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1500
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #134 on: May 09, 2019, 03:03:43 AM »
A fact is described as a statement that can be verified or proved to be true. Opinion is an expression of judgment or belief about something. Fact relies on observation or research while opinion is based on assumption. The fact is an objective reality whereas opinion is a subjective statement.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2019, 02:10:30 AM by vox_mundi »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #135 on: May 09, 2019, 03:39:56 AM »
So true.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #136 on: May 09, 2019, 04:18:08 AM »

Yes, noise is a scientific term.  It is random variations in the data.

There is nothing random in the variation of the data.

The reported result varies either because the actual data (GMSL) is changing or because (as you point out) the regime for measuring the actual data is imprecise. If you want to hang your hat on NASA's data being wrong, suit yourself.

From 2011 to the present, the general rule has been that SLR has either been within an interval of 8mm / yr growth OR it has been responding to an El Nino in 2016. The exception to the general rule is a few months in 2018.

If you look at the chart, the major El Nino's of 1998/2016 are accompanied by a significant drop in SLR which conforms to our understanding of how they work. We also saw surface temperature records in those years as heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere is a signature element of an El Nino.

We also have more than abundant reporting about the significant acceleration of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica in recent years. I've lurked on this site enough to know that most people here get this and know that this is contributing to accelerating SLR. There's no place else for the ice to go and the ramp up in SLR is exactly what people should be expecting.


Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #137 on: May 09, 2019, 05:06:41 AM »
Anybody who claims wiggles on graphs of measurements made of natural phenomena are not random, will have to prove it mathematically.  Tamino has a blog where he regularly shows data to be significant or not with relation to a 'visual first guess'. (You'll have to search his posts for 'significance' or such terms to see his work on this sort of thing.) 

Climate scientists have a rule of thumb that trends that are less then about 30 years may not be statistically significant.  Trends (or changed trends) spanning less than a decade are seldom significant.  See for example, Tamino's numerous posts on the 'global warming pause' following 1998 el nino (e.g. here).

Rich, there are other aspects of your faith in NASA data that are misplaced, there being very many known and unknown (think of Cheney's various categories, all relevant) influences on accuracy and precision of measurements, what is being measured, and how those measurements are interpreted. 
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #138 on: May 09, 2019, 06:11:29 AM »
Anybody who claims wiggles on graphs of measurements made of natural phenomena are not random, will have to prove it mathematically.  Tamino has a blog where he regularly shows data to be significant or not with relation to a 'visual first guess'. (You'll have to search his posts for 'significance' or such terms to see his work on this sort of thing.) 

Climate scientists have a rule of thumb that trends that are less then about 30 years may not be statistically significant.  Trends (or changed trends) spanning less than a decade are seldom significant.  See for example, Tamino's numerous posts on the 'global warming pause' following 1998 el nino (e.g. here).

Rich, there are other aspects of your faith in NASA data that are misplaced, there being very many known and unknown (think of Cheney's various categories, all relevant) influences on accuracy and precision of measurements, what is being measured, and how those measurements are interpreted.

There is  difference between saying that there is some randomness in the underlying natural phenomena (which I agree with) and saying that the resulting data is random.

The random element in nature plays a part in determining the true result of GMSL. There is only one true GMSL at a given point in time. The data that NASA provides is a function of the true GMSL and the accuracy of the measurement. Period.

Is the NASA data perfect? No. They provide a margin of error on their measurement of 0.80mm. Is there a better source? Not to my knowledge.

In the absence of any specific reason to doubt the NASA data and in the presence of lots of other data points which cogently fit the picture of accelerating SLR, I'm going to accept that the data paints a materially accurate picture of SLR. I'm going to use it to help me understand what is going in the world and try to help highlight a potential evolving risk for others.

If we wait until until we have 100% proof that the SLR is fundamentally accelerating in order to take action, we lose time to prepare. If we prepare for something that doesn't ultimately materialize, we waste resources. There is a risk / reward profile associated with waiting as well as with making projections. In the absence of a crystal ball, what do we do?

My choice is to try and add value and get people to think critically about the data that is out there. I'm highlighting something different than other people are highlighting for a reason and I'm encouraging people to kick the tires.

SLR during most of the 20th century averaged 1.5mm / yr. From the satellite era until 2010, the average was 3 mm / yr. Since 2010, things certainly seem to have picked up. The intervals such as 2011-2015 are not yet statistically proven to be indicative of what will happen going forward. That proof of what will happen in the future can only come with more time. But at the same time, we can ask ourselves if we have any experience with intervals like these. The answer is no.

The only parallels we can look at is the paleo-record and we have lost ice a lost faster than 8 mm / year in relatively recent geologic times.

Are we in the early stages of hockey stick type progression of SLR? I can't say for sure. If we were in the early stages of a hockey stick type progression, what would the curve look like? I think it might look a lot like the data that NASA is presenting.

My personal process of trial and error is to try and eliminate the possibility that 8mm / year represents a new baseline in the absence of specific negative SLR events such as El Nino. The data doesn't let me do it.

The 8mm / year was reported by NASA from 2011 to 2015, paused for the 2016 El Nino and resumed for all of 2017 and half of 2018 so far. I'm actually quite interested in someone explaining a system that produces that result and then reverts back to a lower baseline. No one has been able to do that so far.

In the absence of anyone being able to provide a cogent alternative argument for the emerging slope of the SLR curve, I think people should take the possibility of an emerging hockey stick seriously.






oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4409
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 844
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #139 on: May 09, 2019, 06:32:39 AM »
The 8mm / year was reported by NASA from 2011 to 2015, paused for the 2016 El Nino and resumed for all of 2017 and half of 2018 so far. I'm actually quite interested in someone explaining a system that produces that result and then reverts back to a lower baseline. No one has been able to do that so far.
2011 was a sharp low point in the data, which partially explains the higher rate from 2011 onward.
2015-2016 thermal expansion in the run-up to the monster El Nino.
A bit of noise.
Despite these points, as posted earlier I can see a new trendline emerging. However, it is about 5 mm/year and certainly not 8 mm/y at this stage.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #140 on: May 09, 2019, 06:47:02 AM »
Rich,
Quote
the resulting data is random
I sure hope you didn't think I said the resulting NASA data was random!
Quote
There is only one true GMSL at a given point in time.
The concept of "only one true xxx" may be true in philosophy, mathematics or pure science, but it is not ever true in physical science.  At one level, it is all statistics.
Quote
proof that the SLR is fundamentally accelerating
SLR is accelerating (on average - in places it is statistically significantly decelerating [i.e., SL is dropping] - see this SLR thread).  See Tamino's thread, for examples of the maths.  But don't ever use only a few years of data to demonstrate it, unless you have a specific physical explanation for the change. (Even then it is not likely to be statistically significant, but would be grounds for a theory to watch.) In different places the SLR rate is different; we know some of the reasons (gravity, currents, winds).

I've gotta go to bed, but much else of what you wrote was fine.


Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #141 on: May 09, 2019, 06:53:39 AM »

2011 was a sharp low point in the data, which partially explains the higher rate from 2011 onward.
2015-2016 thermal expansion in the run-up to the monster El Nino.
A bit of noise.
Despite these points, as posted earlier I can see a new trendline emerging. However, it is about 5 mm/year and certainly not 8 mm/y at this stage.

My understanding is that the 2011 dip was due to a rare and massive precipitation event which transferred water from the ocean to land. If you can demonstrate a time frame for the redistribution of the water from the 2011 event and above average SLR in the following years, please do or otherwise indicate that you're just guessing.

https://skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html

As far as the pattern of any El Nino, can you please explain how an El Nino causes thermal expansion? My understanding is that an El Nino results in a thermal contraction in the ocean as indicated in the NASA SLR charts of the major El Nino's of 1998 and 2016. Heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting in record atmospheric temps in those years as well.

Where is the source of the extra heat coming into the ocean that would cause an expansion?? My understanding is that the heat is already in the ocean and being vented to the atmosphere as part of the El Nino process.

fwiw - I think your 5 mm / year is a reasonable guesstimate of the current net run rate. We can't really guess how often an El Nino is going to come along and reset things.

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #142 on: May 09, 2019, 07:14:44 AM »
Assuming no massive disruptive events:

2030 population: Approx 8.5 billion people
Annual population growth: Approx 70 million people per year.

(These population figures are assuming that total births would be the same as today at 140m / year, and that deaths would have risen gradually to about 70m / year due to the population ageing).

Global temperature: About 0.1 to 0.2 degrees celsius warmer than today (taking e.g. a five year average to smooth out annual or subannual variations like El Nino etc).

Arctic sea ice extent: about 2m to 3m square km at minimum and 13m to 14m at max.

Sea level: Approx 5cm higher than today

Human behavioural changes: Renewables making up the majority of new power plant construction, but the bulk of power production still being done with old non-renewable plants. Similarly, the majority of new car sales, especially in high income countries, being either electric or hybrid, but the bulk of cars on the world's roads being older ICE cars. Global oil demand still trending upwards, but slower than before, at about 110m barrels of crude oil a day.

Food prices: trending upwards. Number of people going hungry also trending slowly upwards again, reversing improvements in the first half of the century.

Am I an optimist or a pessimist?  Not sure.

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2019, 07:31:42 AM »
Re: sea level budget

doi:10.17882/54854

GIA and TWS are important sources of uncertainty.

"The main uncertainty in the GIA contribution to ocean mass change estimates, apart from the general uncertainty in ice history and Earth mechanical properties, originates from the importance of changes in the orientation of the Earth’s rotation axis (Chambers et al., 2010; Tamisiea, 2011). Different choices in implementing the so-called “rotational feedback” lead to significant changes in the resulting GIA contribution to GRACE estimates. The issue of properly accounting for rotational effects has not been settled yet (Mitrovica et al., 2005; Peltier and Luthcke, 2009; Mitrovica and Wahr, 2011; Martinec and Hagedoorn, 2014)."

"However, when looking at the sea-level budget over the GRACE time span and using the GRACE-based TWS, we find a rather large positive residual trend (> 0.5 mm yr −1 ) that needs to be explained. Since GRACE-based ocean mass is supposed to represent all mass terms, one may want to attribute this residual trend to an additional contribution of the deep ocean to the abyssal contribution already taken into account here, but possibly underestimated because of incomplete monitoring by current observing sys- tems. If such a large positive contribution from the deep ocean (meaning ocean warming) is real (which is unlikely, given the high implied heat storage), this has to be confirmed by independent approaches ..."

Nice paper. Cazenave et al have been doing this forawhile. Open access, chekitout.

I attach fig 5 from Gutknecht et al. at EGU 2018 which may be found at

https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2018-9983_presentation.pdf

sidd

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #144 on: May 09, 2019, 10:02:39 AM »
Hi all long time lurker who thought he could finally add some value.

Tamino has done a few posts on sea level.
in this one he gives the present rate as about 4.8mm a year.
 https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/sea-level-acceleration-2/
His  post also discuses a paper were the researchers estimated, and removed, the influence of ENSO/PDO as well as the major volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.
Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
R. S. Nerem Et al.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022
Their result was 4.3 mm/y accelerating at 0.084 mm/y2.

2030?
0.3C warmer 0.2C from CO2 induced AGW  0.1C due to a reduction of aerosols in china .
BOE  in the arctic has happened at lest once .
Grounding line retreat in one of the major antarctic glaciers has made the world really start to take notice  of accelerating sea level rise.
The USA has been hit by a historic cat five storm.
We  only just start to see the keeling curve stop accelerating.
The Gt barrier reef is for all intents dead and the resulting collapse of  marine ecology's is showing though out the Western Pacific.
Periodic Food shortages due to weather extremes have caused the collapse of at lest one nation in both Africa and the middle east.
More country's fall to the far right in a reaction to social economic pressures.
We are still arguing about if AGW is real with a faction of deniers on line.
The loud political talk about addressing emissions  is still not resulting in sufficient action towards net Zero CO2.


 

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1442
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2019, 01:06:33 PM »
Paddy said:
 Global oil demand still trending upwards, but slower than before, at about 110m barrels of crude oil a day.

I am not so sure about this. It might be my old PO background, but I doubt shale fracking + oil sands can continue rising to that point, and I understand conventional has already peaked.
Also, I would be pleasantly surprised if the temperature rise held down to a tenth to a fifth of a degree Celsius.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #146 on: May 09, 2019, 01:50:25 PM »
can we in general agree that even if measurements sometimes need improvement and/or at a later point are proven not that perfect, that as long as a method of measurement remains unaltered we can compare the data to make out a trend and an very close to factual scale ?

examples for this would be snow hight, ice-thickness, ice volume, and sea-levels.


Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #147 on: May 09, 2019, 02:37:12 PM »

2011 was a sharp low point in the data, which partially explains the higher rate from 2011 onward.
2015-2016 thermal expansion in the run-up to the monster El Nino.
A bit of noise.
Despite these points, as posted earlier I can see a new trendline emerging. However, it is about 5 mm/year and certainly not 8 mm/y at this stage.

My understanding is that the 2011 dip was due to a rare and massive precipitation event which transferred water from the ocean to land. If you can demonstrate a time frame for the redistribution of the water from the 2011 event and above average SLR in the following years, please do or otherwise indicate that you're just guessing.

https://skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html

As far as the pattern of any El Nino, can you please explain how an El Nino causes thermal expansion? My understanding is that an El Nino results in a thermal contraction in the ocean as indicated in the NASA SLR charts of the major El Nino's of 1998 and 2016. Heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting in record atmospheric temps in those years as well.

Where is the source of the extra heat coming into the ocean that would cause an expansion?? My understanding is that the heat is already in the ocean and being vented to the atmosphere as part of the El Nino process.

fwiw - I think your 5 mm / year is a reasonable guesstimate of the current net run rate. We can't really guess how often an El Nino is going to come along and reset things.

If your understanding of the year 2011 event is correct, and the event is rare, that is even more reason not to use that as your starting point in calculating trends.  That would be akin to calculating an Arctic sea ice trend starting with the 2012 minimum.  While the trend would be accurate, based on the data, it would not be representative of the system, as a whole.  Would you accept someone's calculation that the minimum sea ice has been increasing at 67k sq. km annually, based on the last seven years of data, even though the calculation is correct?  By the way, since October, 2015, NASA data has shown that sea level has risen 6.4mm, which calculates to 2.1mm / year.  Does this mean that sea level rise is slowing?  All this does is show the folly of using short-term data, in lieu of longer trends.

NASA has stated that the current sea level rise is 3.3mm / year, which is an increase from 3.2 from their trend in 2012, and 3.0 back in 2005.  This does show an increase, but nowhere near 8mm / year (or even 5).

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #148 on: May 09, 2019, 03:11:55 PM »
Paddy said:
 Global oil demand still trending upwards, but slower than before, at about 110m barrels of crude oil a day.

I am not so sure about this. It might be my old PO background, but I doubt shale fracking + oil sands can continue rising to that point, and I understand conventional has already peaked.
Also, I would be pleasantly surprised if the temperature rise held down to a tenth to a fifth of a degree Celsius.

Good point on oil production. Even without a total inability to meet demand, high prices could indeed choke demand in the coming years.

And yes, my assumption of near term temperature rise does assume a fairly gradual acceleration from the recent rate. I hope that I'm right, but I'm not certain.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #149 on: May 09, 2019, 03:26:13 PM »

If your understanding of the year 2011 event is correct, and the event is rare, that is even more reason not to use that as your starting point in calculating trends.

I don't use the 2011 event as part of the 8 mm / year calculation. The 8 mm / year interval of 4.5 years begins after the 2011 event ends.

That would be akin to calculating an Arctic sea ice trend starting with the 2012 minimum.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Arctic Sea Ice is an annual ebb and flow depending upon highly volatile weather variables. Change is GMSL is an incremental process and largely a function of change in ocean temperature which is the primary driver of both thermal expansion and polar ice loss.

 
By the way, since October, 2015, NASA data has shown that sea level has risen 6.4mm, which calculates to 2.1mm / year. 

I've only pointed out about 10 times that the reason for the low average in the last few years is the 2016 El Nino and that this is expected.

I'm making an argument for a run rate with and without an El Nino. You're inability or unwillingness to speak to that nuance is suggesting that you're not interacting in good faith. Let's agree to disagree and move on.


NASA has stated that the current sea level rise is 3.3mm / year, which is an increase from 3.2 from their trend in 2012, and 3.0 back in 2005.  This does show an increase, but nowhere near 8mm / year (or even 5).

How about we make a bet?

I'll bet you that the next time we have a 12 month interval with ENSO cycle which is neutral or negative (not leaning toward El Nino), that GMSL increases by > 6mm in that 12 month period. I'll offer you even money.