Liked

1

The politics / Re: The Collapse Of America

« on: February 16, 2021, 09:01:08 PM »

my brother too .. I remember early efforts being made to train him otherwise . It didn't make him gauche enough or sinister enough to mistake or believe Fox a news outlet that deals in facts .

While Tucker Carlson definitely presents his story with a right-wing slant, the facts presented appear to be solid. 

The five deaths appear to have happened as stated; Roseanne Boyland was crushed by the mob, Kevin Greeson did die of a heart attack, Benjamin Phillips did die from a stroke, Ashli Babbitt was shot by an unnamed Capitol Hill lieutenant, and the cause of death of Brian Sicknick is still in question (although the fire extinguisher blunt trauma theory appears to have been debunked).  The quotes and references are real also; Chuck Schumer did call it a day that "will live in infamy,"  CNN's Anderson Cooper did compare the Capitol riot to the Rwandan genocide, AOC did state that she had a "very close encountered, where I thought I was going to die," and "there were white supremist members of Congress who I know would disclose my location," Marwayen Mullin did state that the officer that shot Babbitt did not have a choice, and David Cicilline did say that "the president literally incited an armed attack."  Carlson seems to take issue with the "armed" verbiage, claiming that no one has been shown to have brandished a weapon.  This is largely immaterial, because even if true, mobs do not need weapons to be violent. 

Of course these facts are not the gist of the issue.  Even if no one died or was injured, the issue of a president inciting a riot is still relevant and a grievous offense. 

1 Like

2

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: February 02, 2021, 01:59:44 AM »

Actually that is just a lot of denialism veiled in lots of words.

Whatever we choose to call, I think we can agree that recent years (timeframe is somewhat dependent on the dataset chosen) have differed from the immediately preceding ones in that the rate of decline as diminished.

This is a longwinded way of saying hey i see a hiatus.

Behind the statistics there is also a changing physical world. The arctic now is quite unlike the arctic 10 years ago.

The key metric is volume and ice grows from ice. Prolonged open water is what will allow mixing up heat from below at some point. You can go by spreadsheets or think about the physical processes going on.

I see now.  You either do not understand or do not wish to understand.  Hence, you call it denialism and hiatus.  There is no hiatus.  Hiatus is temporary.  The arctic ice is not. 

You contradict yourself in your last paragraph.  If open water is the so important, then the two-dimension metric is the key, as it is the better measure of open water.  That is the physical process occurring.  Volume is only important in how it may affect the extent of open water.

Yes, it is different today than ten years.  Just as it was different then from ten years prior.  During that period, conditions were ripe for a large decline in sea ice.  Now that regime is finished.  Many scientists and posters here recognize that.  There is no need to cling to antiquated theories.

<I am getting tired of reading the same arguments. "Now that regime is finished", you would do well to use less certainty in your terminology, else I will start editing/removing. Or you could simply let the thread breathe little until new information comes in. O>

1 Like

3

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: February 01, 2021, 06:52:19 PM »

No one is arguing that the system has been unchanged for 40 years.  Every piece of data points to declining sea ice.  The question is whether Tamino’s graph of two relatively stable system with a sharp intermediate decline is supported.  Your data suggests that it is.  What he did is not cherry picking.  Rather, he is showing that the data supports a two-tiered system better than a straight line decline.  Basic statistics.  Whether this holds in the future is uncertain (due to the relatively short time frame), but denying the trend exists in the data is poor science.

     I did not interpret your earlier post to say that the system has been unchanged for 40 years.  What I did hear you saying is that current evidence indicates that for now at least the ASI appears to be in a period of equilibrium.

     My point in repeating oren's data (not mine, I just updated the re-post of oren's chart to give proper attribution) was to show that the recent number of record low days does NOT support the idea of a system in even a temporary state of equilibrium.  Oren just made that same point in a post today.

     I think you are misinterpreting the great Tamino (long may he live).  He did not say that the slower rate of decline in annual ASI minima after a period of accelerated decline indicated a new stable state.

     I agree with you that "Whether this holds in the future is uncertain (due to the relatively short time frame),".  I disagree with your inaccurate representation of what I said, or that what I said was an example "poor science".  (I also do not appreciate the personal attack, but I'm not interested in one of those tedious ASIF dogfights, so let's stick to the data and interpretations and leave personal attributes out of it). 

     If you meant that I was denying the appearance of a new trend of stability since the end of the 2003-2007 acceleration, you are correct.  I deny that the data since 2007 indicate a period of stability in the ASI.  And so did Tamino.  In fact, that was the whole point of his analysis at https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/arctic-sea-ice-more-than-just-the-minimum/

    Tamino (in October 2018):
   "We have data for each day over nearly 40 years, we have annual averages for 39 years, and both yearly maxima and minima for 40 years. But for some reason, some people (as in, most climate deniers) only want to talk about 12 minima. Why do you think that is?"

    "Since 2000, the situation didn’t get better.  It got worse.  Yet climate deniers only like to talk about the minimum values since 2007, and they love to declare a “recovery!” "

    "There’s definitely no improvement since 2000."

     "Here are the yearly average values:   (Tamino chart shown below)
     "Again, no improvement, no recovery. The two lowest values are in the last two years, the three lowest values in the last three years. It’s not better than it would have been if it had followed the pre-existing trend; it’s worse."

      I wish I could agree with you the ASI data suggests a possible stabilization.  But that isn't how it looks to me.  And it didn't look that way to Tamino in October 2018.  And oren's histogram of low record days per year does not show evidence of stabilization. 

      My interpretation of oren's chart is that the number of new record low Extent values is higher in 2016-2020 than in 2004-2015.  And that the rate of decline (as measured categorically by the number of days with new record and near-record lows) has been fairly stable since 2016.  Saying that the rate of new record lows being acquired is stable is not the same as saying that the ASI is in a state of stable equilibrium.

First off, let me apologize for what was taken as a "personal attack."  It was not intended as such.  Sorry.

Secondly, it appears that such terms as "stable" and "equilibrium" have drawn the ire of some posters here.  I never said that it was in a state of equilibrium, rather that perhaps we are approaching such a state.  Crandles plots do indicate that is occurring, although neither of us are convinced of that.  Perhaps simply a new "system" or "regime" would suffice.  Whatever we choose to call, I think we can agree that recent years (timeframe is somewhat dependent on the dataset chosen) have differed from the immediately preceding ones in that the rate of decline as diminished. 

I will make one last statement concerning oren's graph in an attempt to illustrated my point.  The graph of daily new lows supports either a system in decline or a system in equilibrium [after a steady decline].  Any year prior to the last year of decline is much less likely to reach as many daily new lows, simply due to the declining nature of the system.  That is precisely why the last five years have more new lows than the preceding years.  Additionally, the data would support a system in decline better if the highest number of daily new lows was in the most recent year (2020) and not the earliest year (2016).  The data supports either, but as I mentioned previously, the timeframe is too short to make any definitive claims (to which you agreed). 

I have never stated that the situation has "improved."  Arctic sea ice is not increasing.  However, the situation is not as dire as it was a few years ago.  Looking at gerontocrat's data over on the sea ice threads, both area and extent were only 10th lowest at the end of January, and higher than the average over the past decade.  Of course it is lower than the preceding decade, but that was the decade of largest decline.  Perhaps you prefer the term "decelerating."  All of this is just an exercise in semantics.  Regardless, it took three decades of rapid sea ice loss for the minimum extent to decline from 7 M sq. km to 4.  The current rate of decline is less than that, so I suspect that the time required to decline a similar 3 M sq km (the threshold definition for ice-free) would be longer. 

All the graphs of arctic sea ice point to a period of relative stability (or flatness) following by accelerated ice sea, and now a deceleration in that loss.  The data supports, and I agree, that the ice loss is not a linear function.  Gerontocrat's most recent graphs point that out.  His volume graph (and extent and area are not much different) shows that the first years fall far below the linear trend.  For the ensuing 20 years, all but one year falls above the trend line.  This is indicative of a system with accelerating losses.  The inflection point appears to be around 2007, as the next period shows eight years without a single point above the trend line.  The last eight years are fairly evenly distributed.  This again supports a Tamino-line two-tiered system of losses.

1 Like

4

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures

« on: January 23, 2021, 01:49:54 PM »

No, I disagree with the bolded statement, it's not 'statistical noise'. Simply because we know that a lot of the temperature variability is caused by the ENSO. That is not to be defined as noise.

ENSO is most certainly statistical noise. Just because there is a causality involved doesn't mean that the underlying cause at the bottom of the causality chain is not chaotic randomness. And all data points towards ENSO being exactly that, due to how difficult it is to forecast years into the future, like weather itself.

You are both right.  ENSO, in and of itself, is not statistical noise.  ENSO is a real deviation around the average temperature.  It is not noise in the same way that sinusoidal deviations around the central point are not noise.  However, when viewed over the long term, ENSO could be considered noise in that it does not affect the overall trend.  Either way, ENSO will affect statistical measurements over both the short- and medium- terms.  Starting or ending with a strong El Niño or La Niña will affect the numbers.

1 Like

5

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures

« on: January 20, 2021, 08:16:46 PM »

Claims to be not a denier.
Cherry picks one outlaying data set.
Only UHA gives 0.14.
All the others give 0.19C a decade or more.
https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Still claims we can have a hiatus in warming by looking at  noise.
It is the trend stupid .
Global warming  is the long term trend not the yearly weather fluctuations.

Funny how you criticize someone for choosing one dataset, when you are doing the same.  From your link are the following:

HadCRUT:  0.173 C / decade
NOAA:        0.168 C / decade
RSSv4.0      0.174 C / decade

The only temperature trend in your region was GISTEMPv4 at 0.189 C / decade (rounded to 0.19, but definitely not over).  UAH was actually 0.132 C / decade.  I though a denier was someone who actually denied that warming was occurring, not nitpicking a few tenth of a degree.

1 Like

6

Consequences / Re: Global recession, supply issues and other COVID-19 consequences

« on: January 14, 2021, 04:41:22 PM »

Another example of why we need to end the lockdown a.s.a.p.

1 Like

7

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero

« on: January 11, 2021, 08:38:19 PM »

Is there not research indicating that the key is energy imbalance, and even if Global warming stopped how long before the energy imbalance returned to zero?
Is there not also a question of unhelpful changes to land and ocean carbon sinks, including some sinks becoming carbon emitters?

And anyway, if they are right we will just have to rely on all the other stuff humankind does to continue to successfully trash the planet.

Yes, the key is energy imbalance.  It is not as simple has just atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but we can use a simplistic case for our argument.  Namely, neglecting all other factors, the temperature will increase in response to an increase in CO2.  Simple physics.  The temperature will rise until it reaches a new equilibrium, but not instantaneously.  Instead it will increase based on the rate of change.  Much has been written on how long this would take.

If CO2 were to somehow be held constant, a new equilibrium will be established with a new average temperature.  This is not zero emissions.  Rather it is an emission rate equal to the carbon sinks. 

If net emissions were to drop to zero, atmospheric concentration would begin to fall, until a new equilibrium is reached.  The temperature change would be a summation of the previous increase and the new decrease.  There would likely be a continued rise, but not for long, until the new energy imbalance forces a temperature decrease.  The authors of this paper (Michael Mann, et. al.) suggest that this time frame would be rather short, compared to previous claims.

1 Like

8

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: January 09, 2021, 02:34:12 PM »

Ktb, are you implying that some lives do not matter as much as others?

1 Like

9

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: January 08, 2021, 08:44:04 PM »

There is video proof that police removed the barricades and allowed terrorists to approach the Capitol. There is video proof of police and terrorists taking selfies in the Capitol building. There is video proof of police holding a woman's hand gingerly as he walks with her down the steps of the Capitol building.

When white supremacy is so entrenched in an institution that reform is not possible, the only remaining action is dismantling of that institution.

Where is the outrage over four protesters dying?  Could it be because they were right wingers that the press is not printing outcries against them and demanding defunding the capitol police? 

1 Like

10

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: December 11, 2020, 05:24:54 PM »

Raw Story is not your best source for news.

This from media bias fact check.


"Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false, and unproven claims, as well as the promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/raw-story/

1 Like

11

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: December 10, 2020, 04:50:31 PM »

You know something, I seem to have been wrong in my expectations. I thought a Biden win would result in massive violence by the far Right. But that doesn’t seem to have happened yet. Was I wrong? Or is the far Right still in denial, maybe hoping that the SCOTUS will rule for the Texas case?

Here's to hoping that you were wrong.

1 Like

12

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020

« on: December 05, 2020, 03:27:50 AM »

Since much of the season saw Arctic Ice in position #1 or #2, could this have been influenced by the open areas of water?

Hard to say if there was any influence at all.  With regards to hurricane intensity (ace), this year finished 11th.  The top 10 were not particularly noteworthy in arctic sea ice.  The top 5 are 1933, 2005, 1893, 1926, and 1995.

1 Like

13

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD

« on: December 03, 2020, 05:03:42 PM »

OBTW, the grain chart was increasing at a linear rate; population increases exponentially.

That was the same mistake Paul Ehrlich made half a century ago.  The population was increasing much faster then, so it is likely to be more wrong today. 

The Amazon and Indonesian rain forests contribute little to global grain production.  The claim that the increases shown by El CID are a result of rainforest decline is strictly misinformation and does not belong on this site.  We do not want to be associated with those who spread such.

1 Like

14

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: November 17, 2020, 05:29:33 PM »

As Glen showed in his post previously, the dip below the trendline started around 2005 and has continued to today.  Above, Simon showed the residually strongly skewed in recent decades.  All told, the sea ice minimum appears to be reverting to the long term trend after a short term accelerated loss.  Whether the long term trend will be maintained or a new trend associated with a state change dominates remains to be seen.  Stay tuned.

1 Like

15

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: November 11, 2020, 06:39:41 PM »

I definitely feels like a slow motion coup d'etat.

Sorry, but I do not subscribe to any of these conspiracy theories.

1 Like

16

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: November 11, 2020, 05:44:58 AM »

I believe that life has become much more difficult during the last 50 years. Medical costs, education costs... for example have increased more than the salaries. So some people who were proud to be able to manage everything on their own can't do it anymore and so they found that some solidarity makes sense, that taxes should be also paid by the riches...

I believe the opposite; namely that so many more options are available to the average Joe that were only available to the wealthy.

This is kind of like defining economic trouble
A economic downturn is when people you don't know are laid off.
A recession is when your neighbor or people you know is laid off.
A depression is when you get laid off.

I have heard that expression many times before.  Not sure how it relates to this discussion though.

1 Like

17

The politics / Re: Your 2020 US Presidential Election Map

« on: November 02, 2020, 11:14:56 PM »

Something to keep in mind from America's most trustworthy news source :-J

October Surprise: This Race Is Over
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/october_surprise_this_race_is_over_.html

Finally, there’s the matter of polling. Most polls are commissioned by media organizations that are openly hostile to Trump. Why should anyone believe them now making basically the same anti-Trump predictions that were completely wrong in 2016?

One polling company, though, stands out. The Trafalgar Group accurately predicted Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016. Now Trafalgar forecasts Trump will take Florida, Michigan, and Arizona.

Me? If someone forced me to make a prediction, I would say Biden will win, but not by a landslide (this article shows why a Blue tsunami is unlikely now). But that is what I thought about Hillary back in 2016, so what the heck do I know?

Anyway, still a few hours to post your map predictions.

The best way to determine a pollsters accuracy is to compare the polling numbers to the ballot results.  Looking back to 2016 and comparing the Trafalgar data in those states polled in the last week before the election and the final results, reveals the following:

State:      Trafalgar:     Results:     Diff.:
PA           Trump +1     Trump +1    0
MI           Trump +2     Trump +0    Trump +2
FL           Trump +4     Trump +1    Trump +3
NC           Trump +5     Trump +4    Trump +1
OH           Trump +5    Trump +8    Clinton +3
GA           Trump +7     Trump +5    Trump +2

Overall, there was a 1% bias towards Trump.  Other states, such as IA, WI, AZ, etc were not polled by Trafalgar.  Trafalgar has Trump ahead in all these states by at least 2% in their most recent polls.   Trafalgar is polling WI, NV, and MN this election cycle, and showing Biden ahead narrowly, but Trump leading AZ.

1 Like

18

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: October 27, 2020, 11:51:51 PM »

Are you threatened by a woman of superior intellect?

1 Like

19

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: October 24, 2020, 03:00:21 PM »

Regarding the numbers in the US. Is there somewhere a figure showing the number of tests done and the positive rate of the tests? I'm asking because I think that the number of tests done might be lower than the maximum (Trump: test less -> get fewer cases) and still the number is very high. Basically my question is, can we compare today's numbers with those from the summer?

Here in Germany they still insist that the current numbers cannot be compared to the spring numbers because they test more, which is kind of true, but the worrying part is that the test positive rate is going up steeply. It was way below 1% in summer and the latest number now is 3.6 %.

Yes.  Here is the link:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-tests

Yesterday reached a high of 1,280,000 tests. With 81210 positive tests the rate is 6.3%.
The previous peak was 78971 positives among 960925 tests for an 8.2% rate.
Back in April, the peak was 34807 positives among 155234 tests for a 22.4% rate.

1 Like

20

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change

« on: October 23, 2020, 11:09:05 PM »

Well, this Oct 23 is 80º F in Twinsburg, which is kinda weird.

And snow is forecast in Texas this weekend.

1 Like

21

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: October 23, 2020, 04:21:49 PM »

Of course much depends on who is doing the counting and what is considered terrorism.  The following lists 12 terrorist events in the U.S., killing 8 and injuring 187.  Of those 12, just two were perpetrated by right wingers; both attacks on police in California.  All the rest were listed as criminal terrorist activities, which resulted in 6 deaths and 183 injuries.  I suspect that Trump is counting all those as leftwing terrorism, as all but one occurred during recent rioting.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

1 Like

22

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: October 21, 2020, 05:34:21 PM »

In two weeks, the daily reported UK death toll has more than tripled, from 76 to 241.

If this holds, in another two weeks, the daily death toll will be around 750, and in a month, the daily death toll will be 2K+.

Unfortunately, given the massive wave now underway across the UK, these numbers do not seem unfeasible. I anticipate a collapse of the healthcare system in most European countries beginning around November 1st. This will likely contribute to more deaths like what happened in NYC and CDMX.

The UK was reporting around 1,100 deaths a day at peak in spring, the same as NYC,which is 1/8th the size. It is not unfeasible that the peak of the primary wave will produce 5K+ daily deaths in the UK, though this would be an interval of about two weeks if it does occur. During the peak of the primary wave in NYC, about .1% of the city died in excess deaths per week.

A national equivalent would be about 60K excess weekly deaths in the UK for two weeks, or almost 10K excess deaths a day at peak.

There is still a possibility that a vaccine can be deployed effectively to limit the damage past peak but I think the numbers may now be indicating that the cascade is very well underway and much of the damage is already done in many of the EU (or formerly EU) nations.

It is France, Italy, as well now... probably Germany too if not in a week or two. France is at 2K new daily hospitalizations, same number as March 22nd, they were at 3,108 on March 29th, and 1.931 on 4/4. I do not think that the number two weeks from now will be lower, in fact I think it will be like 4-5K and then.... worse.

https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/vue-d-ensemble?location=FRA

Selecting two data points and extrapolating makes for poor statistics.  The current rise is much slower than the spring rise, and as such, I would expect the weekly deaths to be much lower. 

1 Like

23

Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable

« on: October 21, 2020, 05:01:30 PM »

I believe that Co2 emissions will be cut drastically by 2050 (50-80% from today's levels) and eliminated by 2100. No Arctic sea ice from June till December (like the Hudson).
Most anything beyond 40 N will be warmer, wetter and more productive agriculturally. I think that we shall once again have a Green Sahara with huge new areas to grow food. I also believe that current puny 1-1,5 t/ha average grain yields in Africa will reach East Asian averages of cca 4-5 t/ha. 
Stockholm will be the new Paris, London will be the new Rome. Pensioners will flock to Ireland to buy holiday homes on the island with the most pleasant climate. Russia and Canada will be the breadbaskets of the world.

I am dead serious.

I would agree.  During previous warmer (and wetter) times, the Sahara and higher latitudes were greener.  I see no reason that this time should be any different.

1 Like

24

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020

« on: October 20, 2020, 11:25:50 PM »

As we approach the end of the 2020 tropical season, the global tropical ACE measure stands at 66% of average.  The North Atlantic is at 138% of average, while the eastern Pacific is at 57% of average and the western Pacific a paltry 37% of average.

1 Like

25

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA

« on: October 15, 2020, 08:39:37 PM »

I do join Tom in condemning right wing violence.  I also condemn the growing trend of left wing violence.  I do not pawn it off as just people venting anger.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/16/us/far-left-social-media-violent-messages-trnd/index.html

1 Like

26

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA

« on: October 12, 2020, 06:02:06 PM »

Just curious, Walrus:
What means do the Left use?

While some gun violence does exist, there is a greater frequency of arson, looting, and direct physical encounters. 

1 Like

27

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA

« on: October 12, 2020, 03:16:30 PM »

Yes, more gun-related violence has been perpetuated by the right.  The left prefers other means.  Neither is acceptable.

1 Like

28

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: October 12, 2020, 02:22:10 PM »

Actually I expect most of the violence is neither Left or Right...not political at all.
I's drug lords fighting each other, muggings, assaults...mostly done for reasons not having anything to do with politics.
And the violence, while it has been rising the last couple years, is nothing like it was in the ACW, or in Europe in the World Wars. The scary thing is worrying about it getting that bad again.

Maybe you're right, but political violence is something specific because it targets people who are totally innocent, and is done in order to gain power. It destroys democracy, and once the violent one is installed, it is quite difficult to get him out.

The violence of criminal organizations is something that a democratic society should be able to control, even if it is not always easy.

I'm living in Europe, so I can't testify about what's happening in the US, but in the news over here, we only see political violence  coming from the alt-right, excepted sometimes people reacting to planned provocations.

In the U.S., we have both.  It varies as to which side appears to exist in greater numbers.  Prior to recent activities , I would agree with those claiming the violence started mostly from the right.  Recently, it appears the left has taken over that stop.  Violence in Portland and Denver over the weekend  supports that.

1 Like

29

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW

« on: October 09, 2020, 04:17:50 PM »

Here is your link.  Not only has production increased, but it has been accomplished uses less land.

http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

1 Like

30

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: September 25, 2020, 01:54:13 PM »

With posts like that, it is no wonder that Trump got elected.

1 Like

31

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event

« on: September 25, 2020, 01:39:54 PM »

How is DMI N80 heavily skewed?

As I understand it, not all areas N of 80 are equally weighted in their "average."  Weighting increases as you approach the pole.  I can't fathom why it was set up this way.  But having started with this algorithm, it needs to be continued to enable direct year-to-year comparisons.

It was done to relate temperature to equal measures of latitude, instead of area.

1 Like

32

The rest / Re: The Collapse Of America

« on: September 25, 2020, 02:07:20 AM »

With posts like that, it is no wonder that Trump got elected.

1 Like

33

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: September 23, 2020, 08:28:33 PM »

I agree that it is a hot topic button.  However, if anyone should bring it up, Tom should have every opportunity to express his views on it.  Too much censorship occurs here already.

1 Like

34

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event

« on: September 22, 2020, 03:51:54 PM »

Warmth in NH midlatitudes is usually not harmful. Actually, in most places it is beneficial because of a a longer growing season.

The growing season will not grow longer. It will grow more irregular. More early/late frosts. More early/late heatwaves. More heavy rains and droughts.  More heavy snows and droughts. Less regularity. That is what is happening now, I expect it to increase as we approach a BOE.

That is not the experience of the past 10 years, at least not in Europe. There seems to be no growth in the standard deviation of temperature. Both monthly high and low temperatures are higher. The growing season IS longer. There is a marked change since 2007 for sure but that is a change of general warming.
For example in my country the average last frost date is now earlier by 13 days (2010s vs 1960-1990), the average first frost date is later by 13 days and both monthly minimum and maximum temperatures are higher by 1-3 C. This is true for most of Europe. Not based on anecdotal evidence but on hard data measurements.

A similar observation can be made for the U.S.  While, rainfall has generally increased, the standard deviation has remained constant.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation_.html

A study focusing on just the Midwestern U.S. showed an "increase in the number of heavy precipitation events as well as overall increase in the number of wet days and multiple wet day events."  This trend is exemplified in both the "increased flood risk" and "decreased incidence of drought" as well as "reduced numbers of extreme and exceptional droughts."

http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/NCA/MTIT_Historical.pdf

The increased precipitation has not been accompanied by an increase in variability.

1 Like

35

Consequences / Re: Regional/Local Impacts of Global Warming in the Great Lakes

« on: September 19, 2020, 02:01:03 AM »

Very nice wdmm. 
We two seem to be the most interested in this post due to living within the Great Lakes.

1 Like

36

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event

« on: September 03, 2020, 02:46:29 PM »

Not directly.

But crop failure is a complicated thing. They can fail because it is too hot and too dry.
Or you have an excellent year ended by a month of rain at harvest time which will also ruin them.
And there are many more factors depending on the type of crop.

In the BOE context the ice loss will push global temperatures up at a faster rate then methane.

Yes, it is much more complicated.  Each crop has its own ideal temperature and water requirements, not to mention other nutrient requirements.  To make a broad, sweeping statement about crop failures is rather difficult.

1 Like

37

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: September 02, 2020, 01:51:27 PM »

I wonder what you are looking at. Yellow line is volume. Connect 1987 to 2019 and extrapolate.

My apologies.  I was looking at the red line.  I now agree with your extrapolation.

1 Like

38

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask

« on: August 26, 2020, 01:54:04 PM »

Binntho,
That is similar to what I have gotten.  My answer is that there is a slightly bigger chance of a larger maximum following a low minimum.  I like your wording, so I am going with it.

This was the question that Colding asked originally, and many responses did not address the question.  I agree with those posters that higher minima have no reflection on the following maxima, but that was not the question posed.  The scientific evidence points to open water losing more heat that ice-covered, but is it enough to overcome the extra heat added?  The data is inconclusive (or ugly), but does point in that direction.  If next March, the maximum is slightly higher again, then we have one more data point in support.  If not, then the opposite.

Thank you for your comment, but I admit that I had to consult my dictionary.

1 Like

39

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask

« on: August 22, 2020, 02:01:48 PM »

You are not totally wrong.  Open water loses heat at night.  Once we pass the autumnal equinox, the hours of darkness exceed those of light, and nighttime losses exceed daytime gains.  This is why the minimum occurs at this time.  As the season progresses, heat losses increase from the ocean as sunlight decreases.  The more open water, the greater the heat losses.  Ice formation reduces the heat loss.  Whether or not this leads to a recovering the next winter has not been established.  The heat loss is not insignificant.  This has led some to speculate that an Arctic BOE is further into the future than many speculate.  Even mixing of warmer waters will not prevent freezing during the long, cold Arctic nights.  The heat lust is proportional to the temperature difference between the air and water.

1 Like

40

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: August 18, 2020, 05:39:02 PM »

Peter Wadhams again?  When does he predict the Arctic will be ice-free this time?

Aha The Walrus, I suspect that you forgot for a moment that you're on the ASIF and that you have let us (again) see into your cards.
Your cards don't belong here.

Funny, I thought this was a scientific forum, and one should use scientific "cards."  Apparently, you think that the only "cards" that belong here are those espousing rhetoric, instead of science.

1 Like

41

Consequences / Re: Global recession, supply issues and other COVID-19 consequences

« on: August 17, 2020, 02:43:06 AM »

Rodius, what would you consider to be a “significant war”? One with a million deaths? One with nukes? We are always having wars.

Significant is one that disrupts the global status quo.

WW2 saw the rise of the US and the fall of the UK... for example... which led to a new way of doing things afterwards.

The next one may cost many lives, or not (probably will) but the end result will be a new way moving forward. Which could be better or worse.

If a significant war that has nukes happen, Covid and climate change will not be our biggest problem and it will always be much worse than anything else.

As an FYI, we are less at war now than we have ever been. Saying there are always war when there are billions of people is not surprising or noteworthy.

I cannot see the major powers going to war at this time.  They all know the potential consequences.  That said, a smaller conflict with their allies could drag them into a war, similar to WW1.  Yes, we are living in relatively peaceful times.

1 Like

42

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season

« on: August 12, 2020, 10:28:20 PM »

F.O.o.W.,

Most weather forecasters are predicting cooler temperatures for northern Alaska over the next fortnight.  Hence, I would side with weatherdude.

1 Like

43

The rest / Re: Pseudoscience and how to debunk it

« on: August 08, 2020, 01:54:35 PM »

Walrus, what validates the opinion of a think tank writer and invalidates the finding of all those scientific articles presented to you in the other thread?

The issue was not about validating or invalidating the science.  Rather the validation only of that science that corresponds to ones own views.  Calling those that do correspond as “science”, and those that do not as “opinion”, is quite telling. 

1 Like

44

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA

« on: July 31, 2020, 01:39:49 PM »

I can't quite figure out why one must insist the pandemic is fake in order to prove that bad political things are being done, some on the pandemic's name, some while denying the pandemic. If not for the pandemic, something else would have come up. Why deny the science of the pandemic to make a political point?
Never mind, guess it's the wrong thread.

As far as I can see, Neven's hypothesis is not that the pandemic is fake, but that powerful figures in the shadows are whipping up a lot of unnecessary hysteria over it, to regain control over a populace that are starting to wake up to the lies. That could well be true - there's some evidence in favour of it - but there are other explanations.

The simplest is that Bad News Sells - the media are eager to put the worst face on it, to get the extra sales and clicks. And politicians go along with it because they have to be seen to be concerned about each and every death. If they said "it seems to be settling down to less than one death in a thousand, and mostly the old and sick - the useless ones" they'd be lynched.

Both explanations are plausible, even likely.

1 Like

45

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction

« on: July 30, 2020, 04:49:08 PM »

Yes, technically it is not a true hibernation as their body temperature does not decrease.  However, the bears can reduce their metabolic rate, while maintaining body temperature, a state sometimes called "walking hibernation."  Similarly, a female polar bear will enter the same state, often referred to as "denning."  In either case, less nutrition is required to maintain the lower metabolic rate.  As the winter temperature warms, less nutrition is required to maintain body temperature. 

Polar bears do not fatten up in winter, as the solid sea ice prevents hunting.  Rather, they catch seals in spring and early summer. when the ice begins to break up and seals emerge from their dens.  The longer the summer ice-free season, the fewer calories, but this is compensated for by a shorter winter ice-clad season.  Areas which have experienced thick spring ice in the past have had detrimental effects on the survival of polar bear cubs.

1 Like

46

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction

« on: July 29, 2020, 09:00:47 PM »

Which assumptions do they make that are not supported by the data?

"Estimating when different subpopulations will likely begin to decline has not been possible to date because data linking ice availability to demographic performance are unavailable and unobtainable a priori for the projected but yet-to-be-observed low ice extremes."

Yet they go on to make the very same estimates that they claim are not possible.

1 Like

47

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction

« on: July 29, 2020, 08:14:16 PM »

The seal issues always seems to rear its ugly head, whenever the polar bear discussion arises.  Yet, polar bears do much worse when there is more sea ice, as there is no place to hunt for seals.  When the polar bears awaken earlier, the sea ice has already begun to break up, making for optimal hunting.  The article makes numerous assumptions that are not support by the data.

1 Like

48

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse

« on: July 29, 2020, 04:23:46 PM »

Not sure if anyone has read this article, or the one by vice, or even the study that these articles refer too, but thought this should be shared

TDLR: Scientists give us a 90% chance of collapsing in the next 2-4 decades..

https://futurism.com/the-byte/physicists-90-percent-chance-civilization-collapse

That paper pins global collapse to the loss of global forests, which they claim will occur between 100 and 200 years.  Yet, over the entire course of human civilization, scientists have estimated that less than 50% of the trees have been cut down.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14967?proof=true

That paper claiming the demise of the forests also states that the rate of deforestation has declined.  Another paper using satellite imagery has shown that forested area has actually grown over 35 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14967?proof=true

1 Like

49

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction

« on: July 29, 2020, 04:06:29 PM »

Climate Change On Track to Wipe Out Polar Bears by 2100
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-climate-track-polar.html

Climate change is starving polar bears into extinction, according to research published Monday that predicts the apex carnivores could all but disappear within the span of a human lifetime.

In some regions they are already caught in a vicious downward spiral, with shrinking sea ice cutting short the time bears have for hunting seals, scientists reported in Nature Climate Change.

Their dwindling body weight undermines their chances of surviving Arctic winters without food, the scientists added.

"The bears face an ever longer fasting period before the ice refreezes and they can head back out to feed," Steven Amstrup, who conceived the study and is chief scientist of Polar Bears International, told AFP.

A male bear, for example, in the West Hudson Bay population that is 20 percent below its normal body weight when fasting begins will only have enough stored energy to survive about 125 days rather than 200 days.

On current trends, the study concluded, polar bears in 12 of 13 subpopulations analysed will have been decimated within 80 years by the galloping pace of change in the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the planet as a whole.

There is not enough data for six others to make a determination as to their fate.

"By 2100, recruitment"—new births—"will be severely compromised or impossible everywhere except perhaps in the Queen Elizabeth Island subpopulation," in Canada's Arctic Archipelago, said Amstrup.

There are approximately 25,000 Urus maritimus left in the wild today.

This is just a repeat of inaccurate information.  As winter temperatures warm, the polar bear hibernation period decreases.  This decrease can be 30% or more.  The bears simply do not need as much body mass to sustain them through a shorter hibernation period.  The absence of any decrease in polar numbers worldwide should help to diffuse this type of misinformation.  To quote Mark Twain, the death of the polar bear "has been greatly exaggerated."

1 Like

50

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event

« on: July 23, 2020, 03:39:28 PM »

A hot BOE can't happen in September because there isn't enough sunlight in September. In September we can only have an ice-free arctic. A BOE must happen in August, so there is time for the higher latitudes oceans to absorb solar energy.`

After the first BOE, the march towards no ice in July and June begins.

See the Chukchi for early characteristics of a BOE.

Late refreeze, very high Air surface temperatures followed by a fast freeze in November-Dec, then thin ice until the beginning of the melting season.

The point I keep on trying to make is that to have a BOE requires early melting in the peripheral seas and the seas surrounding the CAB, and it is that early melting that is already having the greatest impact on increasing the Cumulative Albedo Warming Potential.

Indeed. The first BOE will probably be brief and in September. But it is not just that week or two that's the problem. In the lead up, there obviously need to be weeks and months of large, open areas of dark ocean; weeks and months of insolation, weeks and months of surface mixing through increased wave action and weeks and months of surplus energy warming water instead of melting ice. It will be the beginning of an era of 'first year' only ice. It's the Laptev bite making it to the pole by early July!
I think how brief or how late in the season the first BOE is will be irrelevant, it will mark a clear tipping point when each subsequent year is so much more likely also to go poof. There may be a cooler year or two down the track that buck the trend but that would be matter of luck. Other than glaciation or centuries of natural CO2 drawdown, there really is no going back from a BOE.

On the contrary, a BOE is not necessarily permanent.  It will be, if temperatures continue to climb.  However cooling, even slightly, would cause increased ice formation.  This is a physical process, which is completely reversible.

1 Like