Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hefaistos

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:22:21 PM »

Very interesting. Cloud cover is not everything of course, and in the Arctic, low-lying fog is quite common and probably not counted as cloud. I wonder if anybody is qualified to claim anything about changes in fog prevalence in the Arctic?

Also it'd be interesting to see if humidity has changed (or rather, the total amount of water vapor - which I presume has increased).

Hi binntho,
here are some plots from the Reanalyzer, it's snow depth, TPW and precipitation. All year.
Snow depth is a bit down, TPW is a bit up.

If you want some specific month or range of months, you can select that.
I checked TPW for October - April also, and it's significantly up, see last attachment. So maybe gives some input to the issue of 'fogginess'.

You can also respecify what area you want to include. Their 'Arctic' goes all the way down to 60 N, but you can choose another latitude as you like.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:18:13 PM »

Here is a plot showing the opposite of what is claimed about increasing cloudiness.

That looks to be a yearly tally. What about seasonally?

I used to live in a city in BC which is ranked as one of the sunniest in Canada. But it's simultaneously one of the cloudiest - in the winter.

Here is the cloud cover for October - April.
You can select any period you want at the Reanalyzer.

Same impression, cloudiness is down.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:21:02 PM »

What are the best ways to see cloudiness in the arctic?

Here is a plot showing the opposite of what is claimed about increasing cloudiness.

This Caldwell paper is a very good find.

Based on my reading of earlier work from his team, I can see now why E3SM has the highest ECS and TCR since they have been on the cutting edge of tropical cloud constraints.   Looks like they also have better sea ice modeling.  It is a little surprising that the higher resolution didn't increase sensitivity.

Yes, the Caldwell paper gives good insights into these very advanced GCM modelling efforts.

As we have discussed ECS values here in this thread, it's interesting to note that: "Since we cannot afford to run the fully coupled HR /High Resolution/ model for the hundreds of years necessary to compute transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity,..." (quote from section 6),
and they resort to calculate the lambda coefficient instead. It allows one to compute the effective net feedback from the change in TOA radiative imbalance ΔFTOA caused by forcing global‐average surface temperature Tglob, ave to change as a constant lambda. Well, at least it's assumed to be a constant in the short run, whereas no one knows how it behaves in the long run. What they find is that "The direct effect of increasing resolution causes a slight strengthening of λ, indicating stronger resistance to temperature change and therefore weaker climate sensitivity". The more true HR model has a lower ECS than the LR one, (the latter one is used for CMIP6).

These models are incredibly complex, always run on supercomputers, and the High Resolution version is so computationally demanding that they cannot afford to run essential tests for tuning, and a run to extract ECS from the model is also "unaffordable".

The LR version of E3SM displays a rather suspicious behaviour when it comes to GSTs, as demonstrated in the attached figure. Looks like it's rigged to run cool until 1995 or so, and then it's set off on a very steep trajectory. Surely, this indicates high ECS and TCR values, but should we trust them when model behavior is so apparently wrong?

If you read the Caldwell paper you also understand that the LR version is substandard, as the HR version "is sufficient to capture the most energetic motions in the ocean, which are poorly represented in standard resolution coupled climate models."

This is perhaps the most essential aspect of GCMs: they are unable to model the most energy intense climate processes, i.e. the hydrological cycle and esp. deep convection in the tropics. From this point of view, the HR version reported in the Caldwell paper is a step forward, and it's a deep pity that model complexity makes it rather unusable due to computational costs.

See my Reply #1668 above.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 09, 2020, 03:56:27 PM »
 As for the tropics: they will have serious problems.

I strongly doubt that statement about the tropics - do you have some scientific evidence for that?
I think that deep convection handles most imbalances in the tropics. The serious problems will be in the subtropics.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 05, 2020, 02:06:08 PM »
Is there so much ice in the Arctic this year that there is no need for the freezing season stuff anymore?
Please, get back on topic.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Fast Transition
« on: January 04, 2020, 07:55:31 AM »
From the same paper as in previous post, with the "surprising" results from CERES with a negative trend of Earth Energy Imbalance as well as a negative trend of Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative :

"The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The decreasing trend in EEI is in agreement with a decreasing trend of −0.26 ± 0.06 W/m2dec in the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative (OHCTD) after 2000.
The OHCTD over the period 1960–2015 shows three different regimes, with low OHCTD prior to 1982, rising OHCTD from 1982 to 2000, and decreasing OHCTD since 2000. These OHCTD periods correspond to periods of slow/rapid/slow surface temperature rise [16,17], to periods of strong La Ninas/El Ninos/La Ninas [14,18], and to periods of increasing/decreasing/increasing aerosol loading [19,20]. "

Figure 15. Purple curve: running yearly mean EEI. Green line: linear fit to running yearly mean EEI. Blue curve: 10 year running mean OHCTD. Orange curve: piecewise linear fit to OHCTD.

There are also ocean beds that need to warm with the changing bottom ocean temps. Earth is not just ocean + air. Melting ice takes a lot of energy, providing a cooling effect. There's water in the atmosphere, upper atmosphere heat exchange etc.
To me warming the Earth is much more complex than you picture it. Maybe I misunderstand you.

I agree with your conclusion about inertia. If the ocean stratifies, there will be less ocean inertia and the atmosphere will warm faster.

Nanning, all what you say is of course correct!
I just wanted to point out the more basic relationships in terms of heat storage. 'We' tend to focus a bit too much on what's going on in the atmosphere and 'forget' about the more important role that the Ocean plays in long-term climate change.

Nearly every major aspect of the European economy is to be re-evaluated in light of the imperatives of the climate and ecological emergency, according to sweeping new plans set out by the European Commission on Wednesday.

"As well as bidding to lead the world on climate action, with a proposed target of net-zero carbon by 2050 and halving emissions by 2030, the EU will delve far more deeply into the root problems that contribute to carbon emissions and pollution. For instance, in manufacturing: in previous decades, the EU was content to set targets for recycling rates; under the European Green Deal, regulators would set specific standards on the manufacturing of goods to create a circular economy and phase out unnecessary plastic and other waste before it is created."

Ursula van der Leyen:
"Our goal is to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, slowing down global heating and mitigating its effects. This is a task for our generation and the next, but change must begin right now – and we know we can do it."

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: December 09, 2019, 05:35:10 AM »
Nice interview with Greta in Dagens Nyheter, the leading Swedish daily newspaper.
On her preparations for giving a speech at COP, there will be no more 'emotional stuff':

"Have you written the speech yet?

– No. But I know approximately what it is going to be like.

What is your line of reasoning?

– Apparently I am quite bad at giving speeches. Because what people bring up from the speech in New York is me sitting and saying: ”How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood” and that is not what I want to communicate. I want to communicate facts. And if you leave out what the rest of the speech is all about, if you only take out three sentences, then that makes me sound like an idiot.

What are you going to say?

– I don’t give speeches so that I in some magical way will talk world leaders into realizing that I am right and they are wrong. My long term goal is that the gap between what science is saying and what is actually being done is made so clear that it can no longer be ignored. So now I am not going to give them any emotional stuff. Now they will get real content. "

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 08:26:03 AM »

Thanks Kiwi, really good graph.
I looked up the paper where it is to be found

There is also a nice presentation by the author:

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 28, 2019, 04:15:19 PM »
The first derivative is the slope and the slope is upwards so the first derivative is positive. The second derivative of this curve is negative but this is the third derivative of CO2 levels.

So I am happy for you to claim the third derivative appears to be negative.

Thanks Crandles, I stand corrected!
Sorry for the confusion! I started from the polynomial and looked at 1st and 2d derivative of that.
Which is the same as the 2d and 3d derivatives of the CO2 levels.

Towards the end it is getting very close to being horizontal at which point we would have constant rate of growth

As to the slight change indicated by the 3d derivate approaching zero (horizontal in the figure), would by itself be a reason to rejoice, as the climate effect - disregarding any feedback effects - of increasing CO2 is the log(CO2).

Quote from: AbruptSLR link=topic=2205.msg238141#msg238141
The second reference is:
Henley, B. J and King, A. D. (2017) Trajectories toward the 1.5C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2017GL073480

 A transition to the positive phase of the IPO would lead to a projected exceedance of the target centered around 2026.

According to later data from the Met/Hadley, the IPO has been positive for some time already. So we should reach +1.5 in the shorter timeframe then, in only 6 years. I doubt it, but we'll see.

IPO is positive up until mid 2017 according to this report:

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: November 19, 2019, 10:47:23 AM »
"How not to get stuck in the Arctic sea ice"
Akademik Fedorov, a Russian supply vessel to Polarstern is part of Mosaic. Now playing a difficult game in the high Arctic: trying to stay in the thickening winter sea ice without getting stuck.
Long read.

If you reject the fundamental influence of market forces you always risk repeating the mistake of the Club of Rome report "Limits to growth".

Have you actually read "Limits to Growth"? If so, where exactly did you find the mistake?
As far as I know they didn't reject the fundamental influence of market forces at all, but maybe I missed it.
Even market forces cannot provide unlimited material growth on a finite planet.
Current market forces are already exceeding several planetary ecological boundaries.
The longer this overshoot lasts, the higher the risk of eventual collapse.
Only by governing market forces can we hope to still avoid this collapse, or at least make its impact less destructive.
This is how I understand the Club of Rome's warning of 1972 (updated several times since), which still seems very accurate to me.

Yes Lennart, I was kind of mezmerised by the Limits to Growth (LTG) book, and actually worked with their programming language to develop some partial models for market processes. Even met briefly with Dennis and Donella and Jay Forrester at MIT in Boston in 1983.
The basic concept of LTG is that there are limited resources, and that mankind is depleting those resources in such a way that it triggers more or less uncontrollable dynamic developments regarding environment etc.
This concept is faulty. Resources will get higher relative prices the scarcer they become. But they won't be physically depleted. That was the first big modelling mistake they made.
The second big mistake was to disregard all technical development. This is also connected with the changing relative prices: when an essential resource gets a higher price due to scarcity, it will trigger developments to either replace that resource with substitutes or find ways to improve the extraction or production of the resource. If we take the oil industry as an example, OPEC tried to impose scarcity several times, oil prices went through the roof, but eventually oil was substituted for other sources of energy, and oil extraction saw new technologies being developed, such as fracking.
The third modelling mistake was to not include counteractions by TPTB.
That said, I agree with what you say about ecological boundaries. Capitalism needs regulation.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« on: November 16, 2019, 11:49:21 PM »

... “I’ll look like a fool if I wear a mask,” said R.L. Khattar, ­a ­92-year-old resident of a nearby ­lower-income neighborhood, prompting laughter from the others. Delhi’s bad air had given him a recurring cough and feelings of breathlessness. But a mask makes Khattar feel “claustrophobic.”

Standing nearby, Prem Gupta, 52, concurred. No one in his family wears a mask, including his children. “Pollution won’t stop if you wear a mask, so what’s the point?” he asked.

... and there are some who want them but can't afford them.

Those simple masks don't help too much anyway, do they?
Yes, they take out some particles down to 2.5u (PM2.5)  or so, but none of the toxic gases. Most of smog is below 2.5u.
Maybe the help that simple masks offer is more of a psychological help.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 16, 2019, 11:24:49 PM »
Those cultural techniques need to go I'm afraid. It is driven by immoral commerce in stead of rational high morality thinking. Do we want to steer our path into the future or not?  ???

I feel so much for our new humans  :'(, I recognize the deep lifelong damage our current culture does to them. Not just the cultural techniques. Parents in thrall of these techniques and addicted to technofixes will give their toddler a screen, which is a low morality action in my view.
Like other animals young humans need a form of 'natural unbringing' in order for their brainstructure, social systems, non verbal communication skills, emotional action/reaction/understanding, discipline, morality, physical skills, touch/smell capacity etc. to develop to a complete brain and human and without faults (I don't mean natural variation).
And all of this development has to take place in the real world. A world increasingly at a distance for our young ones because the grown-ups pull them in all kinds of abstract versions.

I observe that there is not much critical thinking going on. While there are many good articles on this (as seen in The Guardian).

Thanks, nanning.
I detest consumerism, and I try to fight the attitudes of a consumerist culture that seep into our kids' minds through all those screens.
"Do we want to steer our path into the future or not?"

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 16, 2019, 11:18:41 PM »
No. It's time for parents to wake up and take the smartphones away from their kids.
Kids don't need smartphones.

Sure, if you think the internet is going away any time soon or that your kid doesn't need to learn basic cultural techniques needed to function in society, this is indeed the way to go.

I want my kids to be with real people, not virtual representations of people.
When we are together, I want my kids to relate to me, and the rest of my family, and no-one or nothing else. I don't invite virtual representations of others into our family.
So, no smartphones until the teens.

Interestingly, schools in Sweden now have various degrees of bans on smartphones. Our eldest daughter is in a Waldorf school, where the ban is total. Smartphones are collected at the school gate in the morning and handed out after school.

[Are lower latitudes warming? No, see attached, we have a negative SST trend in Antarctic seas.

Antarctic seas are at higher latitudes, not lower. Lower latitudes are closer to the equator.

Yes, my bad... when down under, up is down :)

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: November 10, 2019, 02:05:02 PM »
This seems like quite a break-through in understanding.

Study finds fungi, not plant matter, responsible for most carbon sequestration in northern forests
In their study they found that 47 percent of soil carbon found on large island samples came about due to fungi, as did a whopping 70 percent of carbon in small island soil samples. Thus far, the team is only able to guess why there are such differences in the soils, but theorize it's likely due to differences in decomposition rates.

Another very interesting and novel paper just out, with a global mapping of the location and extent of this essential symbiosis with fungi.
Paper in Nature relating ecosystem processes to the functioning of distinct types of mycorrhizas on a global scale. Open access.
"Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks"
Because our maps are based on field data, and not on a machine-learning model trained with environmental variables, they provide independent data for examining the relationships between mycorrhizal status and ecosystem functioning, without introducing a circular reasoning caused by the use of common environmental variables. ... Our maps enable quantifying relationships between mycorrhizal abundances in ecosystems as well as soil and vegetation carbon content in global-scale analyses of biogeochemical cycles. In particular, the results of our study suggest that restoration of native vegetation especially in abandoned agricultural and barren land may help alleviate anthropogenic soil carbon losses and ameliorate increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases."

In related research, it has been recently reported that CO2 levels expected by the end of the century should increase plant biomass by 12%, enabling plants and trees to store more CO2 – an amount equivalent to six years of current fossil fuel emissions. The study highlights important partnerships trees forge with mycorrhizal fungi to help them take up the extra nitrogen and phosphorus they need to balance their additional CO2 intake.

Figure byline: Percentage of aboveground plant biomass of mycorrhizal vegetation. a Arbuscular mycorrhizal plants, b ectomycorrhizal plants, c ericoid mycorrhizal plants, and d non-mycorrhizal plants. The map resolution is 10 arcmin.


Oddly, India in particular, need to stop using coal and fossil fuels not to reduce their CO2 emissions, they need to do it to vastly reduce their levels of air pollution.
This means they need to do it for local reasons that are unrelated to global CO2 levels, but rather pollution levels.
To me, this benefit is just one more reason to get rid of fossil fuels. Maybe there is motivation for change in this approach.

However, the main culprit for the extreme seasonal Indian air pollution has less to do with fossil fuel: according to government sources about half of pollution is because of subsistence farmers burning their fields.

It has been legally forbidden to burn the grass and crop leftovers, but substistence farming means that you cannot afford to pay for mechanical soil processing. So they will continue to burn their fields.

The rest / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: November 03, 2019, 11:47:48 AM »
Fascinating research reported in Scientific american.
The origins of inequality are hotly debated, but might have been hiding in plain sight—in a well-known quirk of arithmetic. This method uses agent-based models of wealth distribution , which begin with an individual transaction between two “agents” or actors, each trying to optimize his or her own financial outcome.
If you simulate a very simple transactional economy, a variant of the yard sale model, you will get a remarkable result: after a large number of transactions between, say, 1000 agents, one agent ends up as an “oligarch” holding practically all the wealth of the economy, and the other 999 end up with virtually nothing.
It does not matter how much wealth people started with. It does not matter that all the coin flips were absolutely fair. It does not matter that the poorer agent's expected outcome was positive in each transaction, whereas that of the richer agent was negative. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch—in fact, all had equal odds if they began with equal wealth. In that sense, there was equality of opportunity. But only one of them did become the oligarch, and all the others saw their average wealth decrease toward zero as they conducted more and more transactions. To add insult to injury, the lower someone's wealth ranking, the faster the decrease.

This outcome is especially surprising because it holds even if all the agents started off with identical wealth and were treated symmetrically.

While one cannot directly compare the Eocene with modern climate conditions; nevertheless, the linked reference indicates that for modern conditions that ECS is 4.2C, and that ECS increases as the Earth warms, primarily due to cloud feedback mechanisms, so who knows what the effective ECS will be by 2100:

The Early Eocene, a period of elevated atmospheric CO2 (>1000 ppmv), is considered an analog for future climate. Previous modeling attempts have been unable to reproduce major features of Eocene climate indicated by proxy data without substantial modification to the model physics. Here, we present simulations using a state-of-the-art climate model forced by proxy-estimated CO2 levels that capture the extreme surface warmth and reduced latitudinal temperature gradient of the Early Eocene and the warming of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Our simulations exhibit increasing equilibrium climate sensitivity with warming and suggest an Eocene sensitivity of more than 6.6°C, much greater than the present-day value (4.2°C). This higher climate sensitivity is mainly attributable to the shortwave cloud feedback, which is linked primarily to cloud microphysical processes. Our findings highlight the role of small-scale cloud processes in determining large-scale climate changes and suggest a potential increase in climate sensitivity with future warming

ASLR, I have no problem with the results of this paper, that ECS might be very high during Eocene conditions.
Some very brief characteristics of the Early Eocene are equable climate; >1000 ppm CO2; sea surface temperatures in the tropics as high as 35 °C and, relative to present-day values, bottom water temperatures that are 10 °C higher.
Currently, mankind has managed to warm the oceans with a trend of approximately 0.04 °C per decade for the upper 700 meters. Or, less than half a degree per century. The warming is much less than that on deeper levels of the oceans. Thus, it will take a fairly long time to reach anything like the conditions during the Early Eocene. It's on the scale of several millenia.

I'm curious, given this background, what is the relevance of your mentioning of the year 2100 in your comment?
What is your percieved timescale for Earth to develop an Early Eocene equable climate, given the amount of warming of the oceans involved?


Thus, I reject calling any of these models "the best".
I prefer to think of the scientific method as a process that is continually improving climate change models, and as an example of the next generation (of new & improved) climate change models, I provide the following link to special issues of the JGR Atmospheres publication, update September 13, 2019, focused on the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), which is one of the CMIP6 preliminarily indicating that the mean value of ECS is currently over 5C (as discussed earlier in this thread):
Title: "The Energy Exascale Earth System Model"

ASLR, thanks for providing those references to the open source project E3SMv1. I read some of the articles that disclose various details about the modelling work, and want to provide some further insights here.

Unsurprisingly, the model makers continue to have insurmountable difficulties to handle the hydrological cycle/convection issues, as evidenced in the previous generation of CMIP5 models.

It's not astonishing that this particular GCM displays a high ECS, over 5.
"E3SMv1's high climate sensitivity is solely due to its large positive cloud feedback, which causes its net feedback parameter (which quantifies how strongly the 4xCO2 forcing is radiatively damped) to be less negative than all but two CMIP5 models"

My impression is that the model makers delibaretely set this model on a trajectory that is sure to yield a high ECS, starting in around 1990, but that is rather inconsistent with GSTs from around 1960, see the attached figure.

Digging deeper, we go into the art of tweaking/tuning of the models:
"...two adjustments were made to the deep convection scheme in EAMv1. One is to reduce the number of negative buoyancy levels (capeten) that deep convection is allowed to penetrate from 5 to 1. The other is to lift the air parcel launch level (liftlevel) from the model bottom level to 2 levels above. Results showed that these two adjustments, and particularly the rise of parcel launch level, could have significant impact on high clouds and precipitation as well as their vertical structure. They typically act to suppresses deep convection over tropical oceans and enhance convection over lands.
Similar to what we saw over the TWP, these EAMv1 configurations have substantially underestimated clouds below 6 km and only show one peak in the upper troposphere. The lack of middle and low clouds over deep convection regions is an issue that needs to be addressed in the future development of EAM"

The model manipulators would like to be able to include 'more convection', but instead have to suppress convection. Convection is not allowed to be as deep in the model as it is in nature - model makers delibaretely chose to suppress convection.

 "The physical processes associated with deep convection, shallow convection along with cloud macrophysics and cloud microphysics are treated via separate parameterizations in EAMv1. In each parameterization scheme there are multiple, often dozens of, uncertain parameters that cannot be constrained by using direct measurements and so they can be tuned within a reasonable range to improve model fidelity."

What they say here is that they have a lack of data on convection, so they have to guess and tune the models with a range of free parameters.

ASLR, you prefer to think of this as a "scientific method"? Is the art of tweaking and tuning a GCM really science? The modelling magicians themselves describe their method in terms of educated guesses that necessitates physical intuition:

"...combining experience, physical understanding, and educated guesses has difficulty anticipating nonlinear relationships between parameters and model output as soon as the number of parameters exceeds a few (Hourdin et al., 2017). The procedure relies heavily on experienced climate scientists and their physical intuition, and the outcome is not always as expected.

I don't deny that GCM models can be useful to get a hunch about where climate is going, but at the end of the day they are nothing more than the educated guesses built on intuition that go into the tweaking and tuning efforts.

Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 27, 2019, 09:15:33 AM »

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
by Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang
(whole article)

Thanks Nanning, that is a cool paper!
Employing new methodology of information flow (IF) to test for causation. The issue is that the actual high correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing surface temperatures alone is insufficient to prove that the increased radiative forcing resulting from the increasing GHG atmospheric concentrations is indeed causing the warming of the earth.
IPCC maintains that ‘detection’ and ‘attribution’ are still regarded as key priorities in climate change research. Correctly so, as GCM models are explicity built on the presumption of such causation, even though they lack fundamental theories and also data on essential things like e.g. water vapor, and aerosols.

Results are unambigious: GHG emissions not only correlate with global warming, they do indeed cause them.

Another very interesting aspect is the regional distribution of the amount of causation: "When analysing the IF from the global anthropogenic forcing to the GMTA (Fig. 3), in the Northern Hemisphere, we identified several regions of significant high causality. For example, IF takes largest values in Europe, North America, and China, densely populated and industrialized areas having shown strong recent warming2. On the other hand there are also regions with high causality like Siberia, the Sahel zone and Alaska that are not that much influenced by human activities. In the Southern Hemisphere, however, this IF distribution displays a most unexpected pattern, with high values in a large swath of the southern Atlantic, South Africa, parts of the Indian Ocean and Australia. This is true for both the total anthropogenic forcing (Fig. 3A) and the radiative forcing caused by CO2 alone (Fig. 3B). Therefore, despite CO2 being a globally well-mixed gas, the IF to surface temperature is regionally very different, showing sensitive areas."

Figure 3 byline: Shown is the spatial distribution of the information flow between the total anthropogenic forcing and the gridded global mean temperature anomalies (GMTA) (A) and the spatial distribution of the information flow between the radiative forcing caused by CO2 and the gridded global mean temperature anomalies (GMTA) (B).

Consequences / Re: Pathogens and their impacts
« on: September 17, 2019, 08:48:28 AM »
Hi Sebastian,
I have been experimenting with 'new normals' in order to wash our insane civilisations' traditions from my conduct. Complete reanalysis. People in the old days hardly washed themselves and I have found that it is great for my skin and my smell gets better (I smell my poo and get information). I really don't like human artificial odors. In general I don't like most of the shit that came out of commerce and aristocracy in the past 150 years.
These days I don't wash at all, apart from my face for shaving. ...

Thanks for sharing! Most people are so indoctrinated with a daily washing habit using chemicals (soap, shampoo etc).

I grew up in simple conditions, and except for rudimentary cleansing of the intimate parts, hands and face in cold water, we washed ourselves only once a week when we went to the village sauna.

Later, I found out that it's quite unnecessary to use shampoo/detergents in your hair. Hair actually becomes more healthy if you wash it only when it starts to irritate you. Same goes for showering, no need for soap there. As you say, it's the clothes that get smelly, and need to be changed frequently.

However, I also think this is age-related. Up to around 30 yoa the skin is more thick and produces more fat. Teenagers struggle to rid themselves of skin fat. An old person has a very thin skin in comparison, a skin that struggles not to dry out, to keep humidity.
A skin that isn't dried out by unnecessary washing stays more healthy and resistant to pathogens.

The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism
« on: September 11, 2019, 04:30:14 AM »
Sidd, thanks.
The links/info in those two last posts were really good!

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: September 03, 2019, 05:55:31 AM »
We have no time, Nanning.  Growth needs to halt abruptly, and degrowth proceed rapidly and immediately..  That is the task in front of us: Utterly transforming the global economy on the fly.

Nothing of all that will happen the coming 20 years!
We're living in a BAU world, we're adding billions of new people = consumers.
The only thing we'll see is some green BAU/renewable energies.
But it's still economies built on consumption, on the Holy Growth.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: August 11, 2019, 06:05:54 PM »

No children?! The exact opposite! You can rear them to be dedicated environmentalists. It only takes two to compensate for the mortality of the parents.

Instead of creating stigmas on a personal level by abstaining from having the children you actually want to have, you should indeed have them, and raise them consciously, into non-consumerism, into environmentalism.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: July 29, 2019, 10:00:44 PM »
Fires and floods in Siberia.
Almost 3 million hectares on fire, including Arctic, with fumes having hit area larger than European Union. Worst hit is Yakutia where 1.8 million hectares are now ablaze.

The rest / Re: The Barents Observer blocked in Russia
« on: July 28, 2019, 06:58:04 PM »
The background is Russian homophobia.

There is a law in Russia that forbids spreading LGBT propaganda.
I'd call it christian policy to protect traditional family values.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: April 23, 2019, 01:46:02 PM »
The important aspect that never should be omitted when analyzing the effects of clouds on climate, is latitude. There is a great difference between how an increase in cloud cover influences the Arctic, and the effects it will have in the tropics. As the tropics receive the dominating part of solar heat, the way clouds behave there is way more important to understand.

I found this interview with a cloud researcher at Yale clarifying:

"... if you think about those low clouds that block sunlight, they are going to be much more effective in the tropics, where there’s kind of more sunlight, than there is further toward the poles, where the sun’s less intense. And climate change is predicted to alter atmospheric circulation patterns. It’s predicted to push everything poleward. "

In the paper by Wolf et al they say in the Abstract, as quoted by ASLR:

"We also find that the cloud albedo feedback causes an abrupt transition in climate for warming atmospheres that depends both on the mean surface temperature and the total solar insolation."

As the paper is paywalled I remain in the dark about what this could possibly mean. Especially interesting would be to learn at what latitudes such abrupt transition might happen.
Anyone has access to the full text?

Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: November 01, 2018, 09:05:14 AM »
This is a really important research paper with enormous policy implications. Because of the increased heat already stored in the ocean, the maximum emissions that the world can produce while still avoiding a warming of two degrees Celsius would have to be reduced by 25 percent.

“I feel like this is a triumph of Earth-system science. That we could get confirmation from atmospheric gases of ocean heat content is extraordinary,” said Joellen Russell, a professor and oceanographer at the University of Arizona. “You’ve got the A team here on this paper.”

Open access at:

The rest / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: October 16, 2018, 03:42:26 PM »
But the case against the accused has not been proven. Very far from it. Accusations are not convictions. Suspects are not culprits. ... Sergei Skripal was not only active for MI6, and not only lived in a house which was purchased by MI6 but – according to Mr Urban – he had MI5 and MI6 officers assigned to protect him, and specialist local Police officers on roster, as well as a direct line should he need to get in contact. Sergei never made that call.

Now, put yourself into the shoes of the head of the GRU, and assume for a moment that you have just been given order from your boss to kill some old coot who lives alone in Salisbury.

a) Give your two assassins fake Russian passports and make them apply for UK Visas (!)
b) Send them on a direct Moscow-to-London flight (!)
c) Give them exactly one weekend to make the hit
d) Order them to head to Salisbury by Public Transport (!)
e) Insist that they use a means of assassination that points directly to Russia (!)
f) Tell them that it isn’t necessary to confirm that the victim has been exposed to that weapon
g) But also insist that they aimlessly wander around Salisbury for several hours afterward
h) Tell them they must make the return trip to London by Public Transport (!)
I) Get them to take a direct flight home London-to-Moscow. (!)

Any one of those items would be enough to get that GRU Head Honcho cashiered, but according to Teresa May his supposed-assassins did every single thing on that list.

a) Issue brand-new, use-once fake Russian passports to the two assassins in St. Petersburg
b) Make them travel separately to Finland (which is in the Schengen zone). Residents in St. Petersburg get Schengen visa with Finland as entry point with no questions asked (border trade, tourism, etc.)
c) Get them to meet secretly with a local consular officer to
  (i) hand over their Russian passports
  (ii) be handed fake Finnish passports (but of real residents)
d) Use those new identities to travel separately to London without needing a visa. Finland has a visa free regime with the UK.
e) Spend a week in London checking to see that they aren’t under surveillance
f) Meet secretly with a local consular official who
  (i) hands them keys to a hire car
  (ii) hands them a handgun/silencer “of a type developed in Britain”
  (iii) assures them that Yulia Skripal has now returned to Moscow
g) Drive to Salisbury taking care to avoid wherever possible main roads, traffic cameras, etc
h) Knock on Skripal’s front door and shoot the old coot dead when he answers
i) Leave some nondescript paperwork with Orbis letterhead on it, then lock the door as they leave
j) Drive back to London, hand over the car keys, and then take separate flights to Helsinki
k) Hand over the fake Finnish passports and retrieve their fake Russian passports
l) Fly back to Moscow, destroy the fake Russian passports, make a cup of tea and relax.

That’s one quite possible way for professionals to do it.
Question; why on earth would GRU choose to do all those don'ts?

Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: July 22, 2018, 09:54:50 PM »
It near as dammit is a blue ocean event already Neven. I bet my left nut that anything near the periphery, extending now to a Chukchi to Barents strip right across the pole where meltponding is being reported is actually open water, and satellites being fooled by wave action.
And what I cannot stand is bullying. Which is what you supported.

As said, if there's a BOE event this year (it's already practically there according to you), I will apologize. Conversely, if there's no BOE, you'll get banned from this forum.
So already now we know for sure there will be no BOE this year :)

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: July 19, 2018, 11:19:28 PM »
Quote from: bbr2314
The Siberian smoke plume is now covering much of NW North America. If the GFS and other models are correct the first populated areas it will impact will be southern Canada and the US Northeast. By D3-4 the GFS shows the airmass centered over the Megalopolis.

Very curious to see how much smoke makes it through. It should also be noted that this will be coincidental with a cyclone turning up the frontside of the system delivering the smoke.

NASAs take:
According to Hiren Jethva, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Russia's summer fires have been more intense this year than in the past. Satellite data shows that Central Russia saw 7,200 fires during the first half of July, about four times as many fires as detected during the same period between 2013 and 2017.

needs a click

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 28, 2018, 09:47:20 AM »
Here is HYCOM Sea Surface Salinity from 2014 - 2018 (July 1st used for 2014 as nearest reference date, click to animate). The major change we see this year is the Atlantification of the Barents sea. Regardless of how melting season progresses, my opinion is that this will affect freezing season next year greatly.

In your gifs, I also noted a large area of increased salinity north of Svalbard in 2018.
This means that the branch of the Gulf Stream that passes on the northern side of Svalbard apparently has become stronger this year.

The rest / Re: US intervention in foreign lands
« on: April 23, 2018, 03:48:14 PM »
I meant lost in translation in a wider sense, talking to the locals in a refugee camp, not from the German reporter's talk.

Consequences / Places becoming more livable
« on: July 06, 2017, 10:23:00 PM »
Article about very interesting redistribution of humidity due to global warming. From dry to wet: Rainfall might abruptly increase in Africa’s Sahel . It's a region that historically has been more humid, and 'green' than todays very arid/desert.

"Climate change could turn one of Africa's driest regions into a very wet one by suddenly switching on a Monsoon circulation. For the first time, scientists find evidence in computer simulations for a possible abrupt change to heavy seasonal rainfall in the Sahel, a region that so far has been characterized by extreme dryness. They detect a self-amplifying mechanism which might kick-in beyond 1.5-2 degrees Celsius of global warming."

Research article, paywalled:

Pages: [1]