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] 2
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: August 03, 2020, 05:20:27 PM »
At some point people like Neven and myself are probably going to stop reading this thread, and more and more of the chicken littles in this thread will join us thereafter, leaving those with their heads stuck in the sand to enjoy their miserable self-imposed quarantines over a virus which has generated an enormous amount of hysteria, a minor amount justified, a majority of which is completely nonsensical and extremely destructive.

It is interesting watching the faction of posters who take NYT & WaPo drivel for gospel diverge from the common narrative of the reality shared by people like Neven, myself, and many others here. They are becoming increasingly unhinged and seemingly more willing to impose fascist and totalitarian beliefs and tactics on anyone who disagrees with their increasingly warped worldview.

As a survivor of the Great Death-Ing of NYC in 2020, who was immersed and subsumed in sirens, silence, and solitude for a fifty-day period this springtime during the height of the pandemic's impact here, I can say these hysterical reactions by many are totally unfounded. What should be a brief period of horribleness in most locations is being prolonged into an excuse for all the Little Eichmanns to come out of the closet and assert their dominance on society. The Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt is important reading and illuminates this most tedious tendency to terrible deeds that are seemingly innocuous but cumulatively are severely harmful.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: August 03, 2020, 02:25:26 AM »
I stay away from the political threads. I’m posting once and never again. I’m not sure if this is the right thread to post on, but it seems to address the issue that I thought was important.

I live in Indiana in the Midwest US. For those who do not know, that is Mike Pence’s home state. 

I have two high school aged children and one middle school age child.

The interesting thing that I wanted to post is that every kid I know thinks the American flag is a racist symbol. 

The republicans are trying to “make America great again,” but they are making the youth hate America.

I don’t know what you guys will make of that, but in middle America which is a Trump stronghold the kids hate him and our country. 

EDIT: I should also add that none of the kids I know in our town will ever stand for the National Anthem. Again, I wonder what Trump and the GOP think they are accomplishing. The old people might like them, but they will be dead soon.  The youth hate them and they are turning the youth so far away from their message that none of their agenda stands a chance of lasting more than a small number of years.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: August 02, 2020, 01:57:13 PM »
I love how left-wing fascists are now calling everyone else fascists. As if the blatant fake propaganda (masks don't work! HCQ is fake! quarantine forever and never work again!) has some possibility of being accurate?

I truly feel this event has seen the left-wing of the political spectrum showcase its stupidity and they are, in fact, WORSE than right-wingers in imposing unscientific and harmful measures borne from the billionaire class on the rest of the population. Look at the repeat posts from Vox_mundi et al that contain zero analysis and just blather on and on, and then Archimid's responses, how the quarantine failures in Australia are being portrayed by those who support them....

It is very relevant to AGW because the things one can do to minimize COVID risk to near zero (i.e. get sunshine, eat healthy, lose weight) are all easily put into practice, yet we still have posters here raving about Trump and Bolsonaro and anyone else who dares support HCQ and herd immunity via summertime transmission. It is almost like many posters here have no concept of personal responsibility.

That bodes super well for reducing GHGs, lollllllll.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: August 02, 2020, 12:41:28 AM »
Neven, I gave you this example of blatant disinformation, presenting as medical fact something which is clearly the opposite of a fact.

Yes, but you obviously have trouble reading it correctly because of bias.

You said: 'Why would anyone think or claim there is no transmission in children?'

Whereas it clearly says in the text you quoted: 'the risk of disease and transmission in children is extremely low'.

The reason someone would claim the risk of transmission in children is extremely low, is because there are scientific studies showing this (such as this one). Of course, you can brush this aside with more anecdotal evidence from Israel (no links), and if you'd make more of an effort, you'd find scientific studies that show the opposite. That's because it's far from clear.

My problem with your argument is that you latch onto something, call it an 'example of blatant disinformation', and then simply brush everything aside. That's just too easy, and shows you have already decided what reality is, simply based on media narratives that people have been bombarded with for more than 100 days straight.

And then you arrogantly state that you 'shudder to think this is someone's primary source'. Well, show me a perfect primary source then! You can't, because it doesn't exist. The easiest thing to do in the world, is to find one sentence, declare it 'blatant disinformation' (true or not) and dismiss the whole thing.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 01, 2020, 06:22:44 PM »


You are obviously not following mainstream media, or read what 80% of Vox Mundi's links in the COVID thread are about. Never has a disease received so much attention, with so little context or perspective. Not even Al Qaeda has had so much terror associated with it as this 'silent, invisible serial killer'.

If I'm agitating against that, and people automatically infer that I believe vulnerable people deserve to die, it just shows how succesful the relentless brainwashing has been.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 01, 2020, 05:26:25 PM »
Feels really strange, but I had to put Neven on my ignore list after the really really bad comment about Herman Cain and his cancer. I had cancer myself two years ago and according to Neven it is OK if I die in case I get Covid 19 - as I will die with Covid and not of Covid.
Somehow I have a different opinion.

This is entirely your (mis)interpretation of what I wrote, as I just quoted some parts from a news site.

My point was that old people with pre-conditions die from COVID-19, as they do from many other diseases, because people simply die. This kind of context is structurally lacking from most news reporting (for more than 100 days now), because the only way one is allowed to view SARS-CoV-2 is as some alien zombie virus that causes a Hollywood blockbuster-level plague.

Of course, you are entirely free to put me on your ignore list. Just don't slander me.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 31, 2020, 02:00:38 PM »
Herman Cain dies at 74


Calabrese said doctors were hopeful as recently as five days before his death that Cain would make a recovery. However, because Cain previously beat liver cancer, he was considered at high-risk for complications related to COVID-19.


On the campaign trail, he spoke about being diagnosed in 2006 with stage 4 liver cancer and his doctors giving him slim hope for long-term survival.

It sounds like this...... a person with stage four cancer got hit by a bus and died. But because he had stage four cancer, death by bus doesn't count.

It seems like that person would probably still be alive today if he hadn't caught Covid 19. So Covid killed him.
It is a big deal for the month it rips through the population. Afterwards it goes back to normal. The longer people lock down for, the longer it will take to go back to normal.

Melbourne is now at the point that containment is impossible and you will have to go for herd immunity (and so will the rest of Aus). The countries not going for herd immunity are basically down to NZ and Taiwan which means they are going to end up going for herd immunity in the end as well.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 31, 2020, 12:40:17 PM »
Thank you  :-*
I may return.. soon?..
sorry but taking some time off to contemplate

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: July 29, 2020, 04:06:29 PM »
Climate Change On Track to Wipe Out Polar Bears by 2100

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."

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: July 28, 2020, 12:26:04 PM »
Sig, there was a massive chunk of horse trading went into the EU negotiations to agree their budget and set up a recovery fund to emerge from covid.

The EU budget was supposed to be finalised in 2019 but with the departure of the UK an expansionary budget was deemed unrealistic by those who have to pay for it and so it could not be agreed.

Because the UK stops paying in January, it is impossible for the EU to just kick the can down the road and add a bit more on for the recovery.  The UK was the second largest economy in the EU and is the second largest net contributor to EU funds. As there are only 8 net contributors to the EU 28 budget, which will become 7 in January, not agreeing the budget, whilst agreeing a covid rescue fund was not an option.

Having set the scene, here is the relevant bit.

In order to bring the 5 nations lobbying to scale back the budget and the recovery fund (all net contributors), Germany and France (the other two net contributors), needed to get everyone else on side in order to get the rescue fund agreed.  What is not seen in the press is that Germany and France are the third and fourth largest recipients of this fund.

So they need Poland and Hungary on board. Neither of whom have signed up to the EU 2050 0% emissions target.

If you do a bit of digging into the budget they agreed, certain areas of green funding were slashed and a commitment to Hydrogen was made for larger vehicles.

Poland is one of the highest users of Coal in the EU and is not transitioning out any time soon.

Poland and Hungary held the EU to ransom during these negotiations forcing a climb down on renewable funds, targets and the rule of law.

For those discerning climate readers, the UK exit from the EU was a disaster because these Eastern EU States were relying on deep UK cuts in emissions to keep emitting and still fall within the EU targets overall.

It is no surprise that the EU is attempting to follow a path which established industry believes is lower risk. These politicians have no real way of knowing that they are being led into a blind alley and, to be honest, don't care if their successors have to deal with it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Reversal of the Siberian Coastal Current
« on: July 26, 2020, 10:09:44 PM »
I think the prolonged high pressure had to force 20cm of water away from the epicenter, in the end the only route thats constantly available is over Lomonosov, so both the in-situe mass and the added mass from compaction established a flow loosely towards Fram once the flow began it had a kind of flywheel effect and pulled the Pacific waters in it's wake.  From the Asian side there exists a current that regularly flows this route and i suspect that is drawn in that direction by the flow of Atlantic waters which having insufficient kinetic energy, or being simply too dense is halted by the Chukchi plateau and falls and finds it's level above the Makarov basin and here either recycles towards Fram or drives other water in it's stead. So possibly the excess waters from the high follow above this route?
We now find ourselves looking at the Pacific side of Lomonosov being somewhat depleted and the low in it's turn attracting more water i don't think a reversal of the Pacific inflow[towards Beaufort] is the most likely, what i expect is a tidally moderated flow from the Atlantic forcing it's way across N.Greenland and Ellesmere/Axel-Heiberg Is. creating turbulence/vortices which will remove all coastal ice from the shelf. That'll flow into Beaufort and an enhanced flow west from Banks island is likely, and there may be some drawn down Nares but reversal of flows through the CAA. NWPs. So more Atl. waters into both the ESS and Beaufort, but we'll see.

The following are from IPCC Chapter 7 on Clouds and aerosols to refute your above claims. They show you that

1) it does not take months but instead only days for aerosols to breakdown (see troposheric lifetime)
2) the net effect of aerosols is not at all final and we are not yet sure whether it is positive or negative

In light of the above I still say that the April lockdown "experiment" showed that the net effect of aerosols is likely not significant

I took a look at 2020 monthly temperature anomalies vs 2015-19 average at GISS Temp.

here are the results :
Jan +0,21 C
Feb +0,19 C
Mar +0,07 C
Apr +0,20 C
May +0,17 C
Jun +0,13 C

We had an "amazing", unprecedented and likely unreplicable experiment this year when globally many many factories closed off, airplanes were grounded, cars stoped, etc from roughly mid-march to mid-May, so aerosol emission fell by a lot.

If there were a big aerosol effect then April (and partly March and May) temperatures should have been much higher than  Jan, Feb and June. They are not. And this somewhat proves to me that aerosol effects are not as strong as estimated.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 25, 2020, 05:46:45 AM »
The theory he proposes is based upon his interpretation of a study by Dr. Hansen. I see no harm in giving  him his own thread to discuss that theory.
It is fair its already been debunked repeatedly. Its about the data. If the planet was cooling we would talk about why. The planet is NOT COOLING so we do not talk about why it is cooling. we do not talk about many things that are not happening. We do not talk about why the earth blew up yesterday. We do not talk about why the moon is made of green cheese. We do not talk about why all the glaciers in antarctica melted over the weekend. There is just no point in that manner of time wasting. Unless you purpose is wasting time. People intentionally wasting time need to get the boot.

Is it debunked? Or is it not? lol

Why don't you post some stats backing up your perspective instead of just making things up?

If locale A averages a temperature of -20C in winter and +10C in summer, a +10C winter departure and a -10C summer departure probably equal out to year-round snowcover or at least year round snowfall despite the net neutral temp departure.

Just because the temp is 0 or +1 does not mean the seasons are not dramatically shifting and I think the net cooling across the continents we are now seeing in springtime and summertime is MORE SIGNIFICANT TO PRACTICAL WEATHER than net warming in wintertime (across the continents) where wide regions are cold enough in DJF that they literally would need to be +20C for the period to see a "mild" winter and even then that could be accompanied by prolific snowfalls.

I love how you claim my theory is "debunked" yet North America's +SWE this year was the highest we have seen from the Canucks to date, and Eurasia STILL HAS +SWE anomalies at the end of July.

Honestly the sequence of the response I am replying to and my reply illustrate why I am so upset here -- I supply mountains of evidence and am met with retorts of "well the data shows it isn't getting colder or snowier" when that is literally what the data is explicitly showing....

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 25, 2020, 04:15:55 AM »
I support the notion that Gero should not have special treatment, especially when he throws his opinions  about other posters ideas in absolutely off-topic comments. We have to be very careful when directing opinions about other posters ideas, however he has the *pass*

Another guy that is extremely bothersome is this Bintho, he has great eloquence and rhetorics (and English is obviously not his second language), which he uses to diss people’s comments and opinions, he asks for references as if he was a professor, but ideas? Creative thinking? Conjectures? Interesting debate? Rarely. He just makes his depositions here and there dissing other posters ideas without really adding anything to the conversation.
He ridicules a conjecture that I recognize needs validation ( I am not claiming terraplanism either) and he disses the idea with an absolutely wrong concept of “floes don’t jump” demonstrating a very wrong and poor physical vision. Of course, he also lacks the references or valid counter-arguments that he demands, so he is a fraud unless he really comes with something.

It’s really tiresome, these characters that think of themselves as Sires, never get moderation when they should, and honestly, give worse vibe to the Forum than a poster occasionally snapping or getting into a rage.

I think this forum is full of these egos which is what it gives the unfriendly and hostile, I would say even closed-minded character to the Forum as of today.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 25, 2020, 03:56:46 AM »
[T]he ice age/reglaciation theory that you are presenting has been rejected here on the ASIF. It is not only wrong, but a derailment in every discussion where it pops up. As a moderator in the Cryo section I cannot allow it to be bandied about. IMHO it also muddies the waters with AGW, with no scientific justification, and thus may help deniers, which is why I oppose the concession of allowing it to be discussed in a dedicated thread. . . .

If you wish to be allowed a thread to discuss it, either convince Neven or a majority of the moderators, and I will have to comply. Otherwise, I hope you can get over its absence on the ASIF, and continue to contribute on other subjects.

I think this is very unfair.  As you and others have noted, bbr’s theory has never been popular on ASIF. But, as FOOW noted above, it is not bbr’s theory.

There is science supporting what he is saying.  It comes from a peer reviewed paper published by Dr. Hansen who is one of the most respected of all climate scientists.  A couple of years ago people were picking on bbr, and he shared that paper with us.  It was a long one, but I read the whole thing and there is some support for bbr’s interpretation of the science. 

That paper might be dated, but it has not been retracted.

As bbr mentioned above, when he had his own thread, he restricted his comments on his controversial theory to just that thread almost 100% of the time. 

I see no harm in letting him continue to have a thread on that subject. If people think it is wrong, they can ignore the thread. If people think newer studies contradict the findings from the original paper they can point that out in bbr’s thread, and he can do battle there.   

I have always liked bbr, and think he is a valuable member of this community. He has always been picked on because people don’t like his pet theory, but he always presents science and data to back up his arguments.

I am not saying I agree with his theory. I don’t. But, I also know I might be wrong so I don’t mind listening to what he has to say as long as he continues to back it up with science and data.

The theory he proposes is based upon his interpretation of a study by Dr. Hansen. I see no harm in giving  him his own thread to discuss that theory.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 25, 2020, 02:05:48 AM »
BBR - that snowfall theory is not even your theory. It's a very, very old theory that has not stood up to the tests of time and detailed scientific research. When the evidence does not support you, move on. There are many, many scientific publications about ice age initiation and there is a long history of those publications proving that snowfall theory wrong.
My theory is not Ewing-Donn but thank you, I am well versed on the literature.

It is kind of close to their revision, although I focus more on ALTITUDE than latitude as evidently the onset may not even occur in the highest latitudes near the Arctic. In fact my theory kind of flips the revised Ewing-Donn on its head as I do believe extant albedo at lower latitudes is the most effective at resolving the excess accumulation of heat in the Earth system (how much more W/M^2 do the Himalayas and lower Rockies get than the ranges of Northern Alaska.... now THAT is how you equalize an anomaly).

According to the revision, the importance of the ice-free Arctic Ocean is in the initiating of high-latitude glaciation followed by glacial growth to lower latitudes in those regions where an adequate moisture supply is present. The Arctic Ocean surface would freeze once a good-sized peripheral ice sheet formed and would have no direct effect in the nourishment of continental ice sheets thereafter.

Uncannily enough, the Himalayas are experiencing a summer like no other in recent history this year, concurrent with the Arctic sea ice situation... but as in Ewing-Donn, so are the mountains peripheral to the Arctic.

If snow isn't falling year-round in increasing numbers of locations then WTF is the attached map signaling? I think part of my perceived psychosis on this issue is that I truly believe we are seeing the changes I have mentioned unfold in real time, confirmed by actual data, yet mentions of this are dismissed and ignored which makes me feel like I am going insane.

I fully understand my opinions have been rejected by the majority on this Forum, but I don't think putting them on ignore is healthy when what I described is literally now happening (although I do understand that some people also find these statements untrue and would argue that in spite of massive purples across elevated NAmerica and Eurasia peripheral to Arctic, there isn't increasing summer snowfall ????)

If I am so wrong then why the f*ck is this happening concurrent with the situation in the Arctic!?!?!?!?

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 25, 2020, 12:19:57 AM »
Bbr, I am sorry that you are upset and feel bullied. I do not hate you and never did, and I value your contributions both on weather issues and on other issues such as Covid.
However and that is a big however, the ice age/reglaciation theory that you are presenting has been rejected here on the ASIF. It is not only wrong, but a derailment in every discussion where it pops up. As a moderator in the Cryo section I cannot allow it to be bandied about. IMHO it also muddies the waters with AGW, with no scientific justification, and thus may help deniers, which is why I oppose the concession of allowing it to be discussed in a dedicated thread.
Be aware that when you re-registeted, after being banned last year may I remind, the question arose of whether to allow you to come back. Despite what you may think of my feelings for you, I supported your staying, with the caveat of said theory being nipped at the bud.
If you wish to be allowed a thread to discuss it, either convince Neven or a majority of the moderators, and I will have to comply. Otherwise, I hope you can get over its absence on the ASIF, and continue to contribute on other subjects.
My snowfall thread was literally where I contained the discussion and then gerontocrat took it over. I was either banned for saying Ilhan Omar is a threat to the United States <You lied about her in a horrifying way. Just as you did now which i'm snipping here (strickly speaking you repeated your bannable offense here. Ironic! - BK >, the ban was unrelated to weather talk and derivative of events in the off-topic section. <This is correct. - BK>

My major problem with today's events is I did not mention the ice age at all. I said that the configuration of the remaining ice this year will have major implications to practical weather and could result in early and severe negative temperature anomalies in North America by late August and September, and Eurasia come October. That is literally what has happened almost every year since 2012, it is not saying we are reglaciating, it is extrapolating / forecasting what is impending imminently.

Gerontocrat then said "oh here is BBR's ice age theory again, he won't shut the f up about it", completely baselessly, which then ended up with my post being deleted for the perception of being something it wasn't about at all, due to a man who has actively attacked me for the duration of my posting here.

Can you honestly say you have ever seen me attack any poster here if it wasn't relating to posts about denying climate change? If so, it would have been years ago, and it is not something I do today. I am here for one reason only and that is to discuss and learn and share my knowledge and others' knowledge re: the crysophere.

<snipped insult - BK>

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 24, 2020, 09:08:51 PM »
I don't think they hate you. I like your contributions. Outside of your pet theory, at least.
If you didn't actively hate or dislike someone then why would you rave about them posting in the main thread and say they should have a dedicated thread, and then proceed to intrude and take over the new thread dedicated to the subject? Maybe hate or dislike are the wrong words here, but I do think gerontocrat's actions express an intention that is extremely negative.

Leaving in all the insults against me, and then I am accused of replying to a post stating the Beaufort will be safe out of intention of having his sh*tty internet reload an image?

Perhaps what bothers me most is the double standard I perceive in moderation here. I truly believe the moderators here protect climate change deniers. And I think this discrepancy is extremely wrong, especially given the current state of the Arctic.

The sum of today's events have left me very upset. I think the actions of the mods in today's melt thread validate my points above and indicate that both oren and be-cause are ill-equipped to moderate the ASIF. Instead of defusing the situation, both be-cause and oren have actively inflamed it by deleting my well-reasoned initial post and leaving up the ad hominem attacks thereafter (including ones made by be-cause and oren -- I consider <ice age pet theory talk banned> an ad hominem attack because it includes falsehoods and is insulting).

<removed baseless accusations - BK>

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 24, 2020, 08:35:19 PM »
There is more hilarity. When I volunteered to contain my snowfall posts within a single thread (containment I have stuck to 99% of the time and only violated by accident / I always end posts that might touch on the subject with *moderator please move if off-topic*), gerontocrat was the one who was saying my posts were stupid and useless blah blah blah. He is still attacking me.

Yet after my posts were contained in the thread, he took that over too, and started posting his stupid analysis and useless graphs. So what is it? Do people hate me because my posts are wrong and misleading or do they hate me because they are incapable of critical and original thought, and are jealous of perception and analytical abilities?

Given most of the criticism comes from oren + gerontocrat and the now-deleted Shared Humanity , I think it is fair to assume the latter.

IDK. But I don't think it is fair and I think I am being bullied.

<softened language - BK>

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 24, 2020, 08:18:21 PM »
Can you imagine accusing me of spreading a fake theory when all the data is supporting it at this point

I love how oren and gerontocrat are allowed to say "bbr's stupid theory" when the data is now affirming my predictions.

<softened language - BK>

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.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 22, 2020, 03:51:27 PM »
What sort of person would be willing to sacrifice their own bodies for Trump's vaccine?

This is borderline misconduct.

It's barely been 6  months and these companies are already doing human trials?

No chance in heck that these pharmaceutical companies were able to evaluate the vaccine in controlled animal trials.

Modern day cannon fodder.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 21, 2020, 08:02:56 PM »

There's so many false assumptions on this post it's difficult to know where to start exactly.

Great, scientific, factual argument. You have me beat!
I think I'm buying a beach house. I don't care if the market crashes. It will be elevated 15'+. Above Sandy flood plain. If it gets destroyed, insurance will pay for a rebuild.

I would rather die with the end of the world than cling to life in a bunker with no internet. This forum is excellent for aiding hysteria and paranoia (I would know, as I have bouts of both especially when reading some of the content applicable to the far-future here, which isn't even relevant to my life or any of our lives as we will all be dead by then....)

There is this weird notion we all have of "surviving the apocalypse" but if COVID proved anything it is that you probably do not want to survive an actual apocalypse, lol. Spending fifty days in my apartment in NYC with options available but not used was extremely difficult, can you imagine doing it for years?

My point here is that these attitudes on this thread are prevalent most elsewhere on this forum and it is both normal and acceptable for posters to be doomsday-ing on a forum about the end of the Arctic Sea Ice. However, what we read here is not reality necessarily -- I mean, if this thread were legitimate, 10% of the world would be dead by now and the world would have ended in March.

So I think it is better to just live life, pay attention to existential threats but realize you are going to die anyways and if an existential threat does endanger humanity it is probs better to die in the EVENT than to survive and die in the aftermath. lol. If all you do is pay attention to existential threats they will consume your life that way instead....

Any analysis of global temperatures without including an analysis of the current ENSO state is incomplete, for example see:

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 20, 2020, 06:24:02 PM »
Our society is obsessed with maintaining the status quo.

The fact that scientists don't even understand how the coronavirus damages the brain and vessels makes a vaccine outright dangerous.

The fact that these companies are rushing the vaccine through human trials is the height of negligence.

Under the National emergency and Trump's orders, if there's a negative side effects, the human guinea pigs are likely not legally allowed to discuss this with the media. 

I have a suspicious that regardless of lack of information, a vaccine will still be produced and will make corporate shareholders a great deal of profits, give hope to consumers, and make no appreciable change in our day to day lives.  Possibly even make our lives worse.

Policy and solutions / Re: Life Without
« on: July 20, 2020, 11:40:56 AM »
Thanks oren and pikaia for your views.
Thank you sidd for giving the context. Sorry that I thought it was fiction (I have not searched the book on the Internet).

Re: Re-incarnation, rebirth (after-life): I have already responded to that fixation which is one of the things that drives these people.
I agree, it is indeed a draconian example. They have very good intentions but are without limits, understanding, balance and calibration imo.

My life choice is to be frugal. To have no affluence. To not participate in bad systems if there's a choice. I can write a list of bad systems. I can write a high morality rules list. I can link frugality to energy need, climate change, health, strength, happiness, physiological functionality, lazyness, social functions, connection with nature, empathy and sanity (psyche).
I have much to say but don't want to set the discussion.

To answer what 'life without' will/may look like, first it is important to define the meaning of "life without". Could you please explain what you mean by it?

I think 'life without' should be in balance with living nature, and as close to living nature as possible because the right path is to go closer to our original make-up for how we are optimized to perform&function concerning psyche, body, behaviour, social functions etc. As close as possible in this civilisation wtith e.g. lack of pristine living nature and many modern things such as the need for an ID and a house. I do not consider homelessness because in current western society that makes you very vulnerable (most civilisation humans have no empathy for homeless people, au contraire) and it probably means the loss of control over your life.

EDIT: I cannot find the after-life text I wrote yesterday. Writing that text took quite a bit of effort, and now it is gone. kassy, it looks like you have removed it using your moderator powers without consulting me. Why have you broken into my post above and left that comment? I cannot understand why that post was moderated. Especially the after-life text since it was definitely on topic. Can you restore my text or send it to me via PM because I archive those though-out formulations. Let's say to collect them for writing a book or a thesis.

Policy and solutions / Re: Life Without
« on: July 19, 2020, 11:25:03 AM »
You just picked that single thing from my post and have no other comments on it?
I should perhaps have been more specific even though the context of how I meant it was clear from the text. It's about fantasies such as after-life, a God, privileged thinking, hierarchy, tidiness, ownership, ..  and the many things that are seen as 'normal' for civilisation, such as a mother and a father as parents (which is not part of this discussion).

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 19, 2020, 09:38:47 AM »
To Rod - I believe Pheonix is well-intentioned, though his effect is that of a troll. This is why I take the time to educate and make rebuttals. If it pisses you off that he is wasting my time and playing me for a fool, please assume my time and patience are limitless, and that I am fool to begin with. I hope this will cool your anger. As for the disruptions caused, I am applying stricter and stricter moderation until I finally reach the point where no more disruption is occurring. If this fails, banning is always an option.
And yes, the ignore function can help calm things down. I don't have anyone on ignore, so you need not worry I will miss any offending posts (though I may not always recognize them as such).

To gandul - I too miss old-timers who were the giants on the forum. Some of them still show up from time to time, some of them have seemingly moved on. But that is the way of life, I can't control that (though I've often thought of reaching out to various old timers and suggesting they make a comeback). But that doesn't give anyone the right to belittle current contributions by posters. If you want to raise the quality of the forum, why not try to do that yourself. Learn all you can of weather and climate and environmental science and ice and whatever. Post numerical and qualitative analysis. Find a piece of underreported data and make it your habit to report it.
We have quite a few posters who post data regularly on a daily or weekly or monthly basis. Some have better style (to my personal taste), others maybe less so. I have made some suggestions to the reporting format over the years, some have been taken up, some not. But in any case, I am grateful for every one of them, as I would never keep up with the data otherwise. And so should you - be grateful. Don't kick the hand that feeds you. Gerontocrat is the record holder of making regular updates in the largest number of data threads on the ASIF. Without him, many of these threads would be dead. If he posts a bit too much language with the data - he has earned that right. There is a reason why he is the most Liked poster by far on the ASIF. You can skip the words and just read the data, I mostly do that myself. You can post a regular "competing" data update yourself - JCG does that successfully in the JAXA thread. But please, don't attack. Impolite and ineffective.
About Foow, what can I say? Make your predictions, try to see if you have better success rates.
Blumenkraft is a bit of a hothead, as he would admit himself. When you think he (or any other poster) is in the wrong, report to moderator is the best recourse. In his own section (politics) write to his co-moderator B.C if needed.
As for my moderation style, I keep learning. Never done that until nominated here on the ASIF. If you feel my post disrupts the flow, report to moderator and give me feedback. If you feel someone else's post disrupts, report to moderator. If you have a specific or general complaint about the Cryo section, feel free to PM me. I promise to genuinely listen to all, though I don't promise any automatic changes.

GSY - I believe you do not intend the typos, though I highly recommend rereading your posts before submitting. There is a preview function, and pay special attention to words you type in CAPS, typos in them are very conspicuous. I often read my posts after submitting as well, and edit out the frequent remaining errors. However, regardless of the above you are double the hothead that BL is, which is why you have been put on moderation. Tips: When criticized, correct your ways. When notified of a typo, edit it. Don't spam threads and don't post big "F Y", that is offensive and disruptive. When you feel you are wronged, report to moderator.

To all - we live in angry times. Trump, AGW, the coronavirus, economic issues, all serve to raise the anger level. Please help making this a peaceful place by keeping things civil and polite. As it is, I am not aware of a better science-minded forum on the Internet, so let's all be grateful that it exists, and strive to make it better in our little way.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: July 17, 2020, 08:27:20 PM »
Renewables only became cheaper than fossil fuels in some areas starting in 2018.  With costs of renewables continuing to decline, they are becoming cheaper than fossil fuels in more areas.  And given that it can take two years for a new wind or solar farm to come online, and five to ten years for a fossil fuel plant, it will take some time for the full impact of the cost reductions in renewables to be seen.

We're already seeing it in new investments.  Investments in renewables are now outpacing investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.

Goldman Sachs says renewable-energy spending will surpass oil and gas for the first time ever in 2021 — and sees total investment spiking to $16 trillion over the next decade
Ben Winck
Jun. 17, 2020

Green-energy investing will account for 25% of all energy spending in 2021 and, for the first time ever, surpass spending on traditional fuel sources like oil and gas, Goldman Sachs said in a Tuesday note.
Should the US aim to hold global warming within 2 degrees Celsius, the pivot to renewable energy sources will create between $1 trillion and $2 trillion in yearly infrastructure spending, the team of analysts added, or an investment opportunity as big as $16 trillion through 2030.
While past economic downturns halted efforts to lift clean energy initiatives, the coronavirus recession "will be different," the firm said.
Green technologies "are now mature enough to be deployed at scale," and the transition can benefit massively from cheap capital and "an attractive regulatory framework," according to Goldman.

In the US, electric utilities are retiring coal plants early and replacing them with renewables.  Becuase they can save lots and lots of money.  It's cheaper to build new renewable power plants than to operate existing coal fired power plants.  And that trend is spreading around the world.  It's estimated that $141 billion can be saved by replacing coal with clean energy by 2025.

Replacing coal with clean energy can save up to $141 billion by 2025

Out of 2,500 coal plants, the share of uncompetitive coal plants worldwide will increase rapidly to 60 per cent in 2022 and to 73 per cent in 2025

ETEnergyWorld July 10, 2020

New Delhi: Replacing coal with clean energy can potentially save electricity customers around the world $141 billion by 2025, according to a report by US-based Rocky Mountain Institute launched in collaboration with Carbon Tracker Initiative and the US-based environmental organisation Sierra Club.

Utilities are increasingly skip the "bridge" of replacing coal with natural gas and just jumping strait to solar or wind.

More utilities bypassing natural gas bridge and going straight to renewables

Utilities that are transitioning away from coal are starting to view the creation of a natural gas “bridge” to renewable energy as an unnecessary step.
July 2, 2020 Jean Haggerty

Utilities that are transitioning away from coal are starting to view the creation of a natural gas “bridge” to renewable energy as an unnecessary step. Last week utilities in Arizona, Colorado and Florida announced plans to close one or more of their coal plants and build renewables without adding any new gas-fired generation.

There are many more examples I could post of renewables replacing operating fossil fuel plants.  And the trend will accelerate in the future as the costs of renewables continue to decrease.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: July 17, 2020, 12:08:42 PM »
Thank you for your responses.
Warning: I am somewhat sarcastic today after this morning's disappointments by moving my post and kassy's 'moderation'

Most people on this planet do not own a car.

I observe on this forum in these cases a privileged-people bubble, blacking out all other people (the majority) (no pun intended). These people are the same sort of people who dig up your essential resources and make your clothes etc. etc.
Please think honestly about it and understand where your anger comes from.

Try to imagine to amount of microplastic from 12 Kg of plastic (av. life time pollution of just one set of tires).
The research shows that the airborne plastic pollution is larger than all the plastic flowing from rivers into the ocean. Think about that for a minute.

This is not just a little drawback from driving cars that can be swept under the carpet (as will undoubtedly happen here as I have learned from past experiences). The advertorials will come back (without any new technology, just features and products) and all is forgotten.

Many (erroneously) think that cars are essential. I have ideas on solving the problem of a society without cars (much more localized work/production etc.) but that is for later actually, it has been done before not so long ago.

My intention here is to inform, discus and build a consensus. I really thought that this was a scientific oriented forum, open to new ideas and insights; creating hypotheses and analyse them and then refine and create new hypotheses so that a consensus arises. Until new information comes in and the scientific process restarts. No feelings, believes, privileges or bubbles can be part of that process.
Imo, creating a consensus here has appeared to be nigh on impossible because most forum members' minds are already set with "nobody takes away my car", "there's no alternative" or "I will not sacrifice anything because I believe in progress of technology that will solve everything". This is privileged thinking; the sacrifices have to be made by other (poor) people. And so it goes.

Hefaistos, try to investigate it for yourself. I know you can because of your posts in the AbruptSLR thread. I am not going to 'defend' the scientific article. Take it up with the researchers if you doubt the results. Start with looking up "synthetic rubber" on wikipedia.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: July 16, 2020, 06:57:37 PM »
Keep in mind that RCP 2.6 is a scenario with a peak above 3.0 w/m2 and then a decrease in the later half of the century back down to 2.6 w/m2.  Given the rate at which renewables are replacing coal and natural gas plants and the coming transition from gas to electric vehicles, RCP 2.6 is still very possible.

Also, RCP 4.5 is currently possible too.  This article was written before the Covid recession and the oil and natural gas gluts that are currently stifling further investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.  (It also uses the new SSP scenarios, which are an update over the RCPs).

Our business-as-usual projection of 3C of warming — rather than 4 or 5C — is a testament to the progress in global decarbonization over the last few decades. It also reflects the fact that rapid growth in coal use during the 2000s was not necessarily characteristic of longer-term energy use trends. The world has taken concrete steps to move away from coal in the past decade, and this progress should be reflected in our assessment of likely emissions pathways — and their resulting climate impacts — going forward.

The worst case outcomes of ten years ago appear far less likely today. But there is also a risk of overenthusiasm about progress; there is still an ever-growing gap between current emissions and what would be needed to limit warming below 2C. With every year of continued emissions growth and increased deployment of clean energy, we make both low warming (<2C) and high warming (>4C) increasingly unlikely.

IEA CPS emissions in 2040 are in-between the SSP4-6.0 and SSP2-4.5 scenarios, and are in the bottom 15% of all the baseline scenarios in the SSP database. The SPS scenario is a bit below SSP2-4.5, and lower than any baseline scenarios — though this is not necessarily unexpected, as baseline scenarios exclude current commitments that have not yet been translated into policy.

The recent UNEP Emissions Gap report provided an estimate of combined emissions from all greenhouse gases — including land use change — in the year 2030 under both current policy and under a scenario where countries meet their Paris Agreement nationally determined contributions (NDCs). UNEP’s current policies scenario has 2030 GHG emissions of 60 GtCO2e. This falls between SSP2-4.5 (57 GtCO2e) and SSP3-6.0 (62 GtCO2e), and is well below SSP3-7.0 (69 GtCO2e) and the worst-case SSP5-8.5 (71GtCO2e). UNEP projects 2030 emissions of 54 GtCO2e if all Paris Agreement NDCs are met.

Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 14, 2020, 09:10:03 PM »
At surface, with constant albedo

But actually we do not have a constant albedo. There is a year over year decline of ice cover in the mountains, landscape changes in Siberia, declining arctic sea ice and those changes alone will override it.

The decline of which you speak amounts to ~0.2% of the total surface of the Earth.  Granted the change in albedo over that portion is rather large.  How much difference does changing cloud cover constitute?  What about the decrease in forest cover from ~40% to 30% since the dawn of industrialization?  Urban areas have roughly doubled to ~3% of the surface, which their contributing albedo changes. 

Incidentally, research has shown that the albedo has been remarkably constant over time:

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 13, 2020, 04:20:00 PM »
Neven help us understand your point. What should Florida do right now?

Florida has a record number of new cases with the number of deaths climbing, a positivity rate of 19%, and not reporting hospitalization levels since it hit almost 100%.

C'mon Neven stop concern trolling, misinforming and cherry-picking, and take a stand.

I don't know what Florida should do. I don't think there's enough time to reduce obesity and diabetes. There's no time to change demographics and reduce the high concentration of elderly people, most of whom are probably overmedicated. It's too late to introduce Medicare4All and reduce cost- and corner-cutting in the health sector.

Florida, as well as many other places in the western world (especially the US of A, which is sick beyond belief), pays the price for decades of neoliberal globalist policies, for rising inequality, for the hollowing out of culture and society, for turning people into stressed, unhappy consumption addicts.

One can either accept this and take it like a (wo)man who knows that in life everything has its price. Or one can be a pouting child and whine about how unfair it is that the cake can't be had and eaten too.

If you are honest, allow us to understand you, because right now you are coming across as a dishonest troll.

And you're coming across as an emotional little authoritarian who only knows how to shame and shout down people, because his lack of any real vision, based on years of study and life experience, makes him react out of his conditioned gut only.

Can you handle this, or can you only dish out? Because if it's the latter I'll be more soft on you and let your insults wash off my back.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Northern Sea Route thread
« on: July 12, 2020, 10:53:24 PM »
This kind of seeking "official" agains visible, physical and mathematical  facts is part of what
kept us to react to AGW in time, even though my teachers told me it will eventually happen about 60 years ago in school.

The route is navigable, it think we're talking about the development and behaviour of the arctic ice in the first place and not about some russion civil cervants feeling fit to announce something today or tomorrow because it's i.e. Sunday.

While I understand where you are coming from, a sea route opening is not a scientific event, it is shipping-related event. The route is open when the ships can start sailing it. And this does not equate there being no ice in the route, it equates the ships having confidence that there is no ice in the route. Because without this confidence, the ships will not attempt to sail the route, even if it would have worked if they gambled and tried anyway. And such confidence requires confirmation from a better source than just hobbyists peeking at low-resolution cloudy satellite images.

Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 11, 2020, 05:07:56 AM »
Your attempts at avoiding the subject by distraction is reminiscent of the sleazy lawyer who tries to smear the expert witness because he cannot refute his testimony.  If my statements are truly unfounded, then you should be able to present evidence in rebuttal, instead of mud-slinging.  You are correct in saying that the members here are too smart to fall for that xxx.  However it is yours that they are too smart to fall for.  We do not advance our position by denying the truth and banning those who present it.  Rather, we acknowledge the truth and try to put it the proper perspective.  When you deny the truth, you are no better than the true deniers, and just provide more ammunition for their fodder. 

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: July 09, 2020, 08:58:42 PM »
kassy, are the rising permafrost emissions, possible subsea methane bursts, rising lake emissions and lost forest-sinks etc. included in our radiative forcing path?

Many of the projects about emissions from permafrost, methane bursts, etc... are based on RCP8.5 model runs.  Reading the papers, you see that the projections of increased emissions are much lower for RCP 4.5 or RCP 2.6.  And the amount of methane from the Arctic is much less than what's emitted in the tropics, much of it coming from fossil fuel extraction and agriculture.

Here's today's view of methane emissions from Copernicus, the North Pole view.  Note that many parts of the Arctic Ocean over the ESAS are free of sea ice now, Siberia is burning up, etc...  Yet those areas are below the global average methane concentration.,3,2020070803&projection=classical_north_pole&layer_name=composition_ch4_totalcolumn

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: July 05, 2020, 04:02:33 PM »
The impact of his dead is getting pretty big. He died on the 25th. At that point the number of infections was going down. Than the protest started all over the US. And 2 weeks later the infection started to pick up. And now they are above 50 000 a day. And the protests are still going on. Even with a lockdown it will take 3 months to bring the numbers down to a few 1000 a day. By than it will already be freezing in the north. And i think they want be able to stop it in winter. That will bring it to may/june 2021. Europe had a few protests, but not that many. And so far there is no spike like in the US.

The high-flying models have more to prove in terms of tracking actual temperatures, than their more realistic competitors. So what's the argument, ASLR, why should they be "downweighted", as you propose? Because they don't err on the side of maximum ECS drama?

It is clear that climate change is more complex than any current model can simulate, thus it is bad science to keep focusing on relatively simple models and then demanding unreasonable accuracy from more nonlinear models, as the use of simple models for a complex system entails a large degree of climate risk.

It's also bad science to focus on the few models that appear to be outliers, denigrate the vast majority of other models and ignore the paleoclimate evidence that supports a lower ECS.

The aforementioned Zeke Hausfather has a good article on this:

Cold Water on Hot Models
Feb 11, 2020

News headlines have recently warned about “troubling” new warming projections from climate models that are “running red hot.” In reality, these only represent a small subset of the new models currently being developed — most of which are not running notably “hot.” And many of the “hot” models do a relatively poor job of reproducing past temperature changes, an important test of model skill. Climate scientists use many different lines of evidence to estimate how sensitive the climate is to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, and it is premature to conclude that climate sensitivity is likely higher than we previously thought.

Many high sensitivity models have poor hindcasts

Climate models provide both projections of future warming and “hindcasts” of past temperatures. These hindcasts can be used as a tool to evaluate the performance of models, though historical temperatures are only one of many hundreds of different variables that climate models generate.

A number of the higher sensitivity models in CMIP6 have had trouble accurately “hindcasting” historical temperatures. Some show almost no warming over the 20th century — with cooling effects from aerosols almost completely counterbalancing rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations — followed by a massive warming spike in recent decades. Others show too much warming over the past 150 years.

High sensitivity models (in red) generally show more warming than observations over the last three decades, while those with a TCR of around 2.2C or less (in blue) tend to agree much better with observations. High ECS models tend to have high TCR, though the two measures of sensitivity are not perfectly correlated. In this case, all the models in the figure with an ECS above 5C (except for one — CESM2) also have a TCR value above 2.5C.

Climate sensitivity should be based on multiple lines of evidence

Models are an important way that climate scientists estimate sensitivity, but they’re far from the only one. Sensitivity can also be estimated by applying emergent constraints to climate models — for example, identifying which models perform better on observable metrics such as cloud behavior that are correlated with climate sensitivity. Sensitivity can also be inferred from the instrumental temperature records over the past 150 years, as well as from climate proxy records from the Earth’s more distant past — periods such as recent ice ages, the Pliocene, or the Eocene.

By considering these multiple lines of evidence — rather than just a subset of the latest climate models — we get a more nuanced view of climate sensitivity than if we only rely on the latest climate models. The figure below shows the climate sensitivity range inferred from various types of studies, based on a review of 142 estimates published between 2001 and 2018.

These new 5C ECS models should remind us that large uncertainties (and long tails of risk) remain, but they do not by themselves overturn the long-term consensus that climate sensitivity is likely somewhere around 3C (+/- 1.5C) per doubling of CO2.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 24, 2020, 07:11:40 PM »
One must really be careful in using such Windy maps to judge area in the arctic, as they don't appear to be equal area map projections. In order to fit a rectangular space, they deconvolve the actual global surface area so as to exaggerate area near the pole (ie they are not equidistant maps). Also, the one Phoenix posted doesn't seem to have much of a cloud opacity gradation, and so may overemphasize the area that appears overcast. Just my two cents.

I think using the equidistant map projections provided by Wetterzentrale or Climate Reanalyzer are a safer bet to accurately represent area over the arctic. Given the difficulty in actually predicting cloudiness over more than 1-3 days, I think surface pressure maps and geopotential heights are the best we have at getting a general sense of how cloudy its likely to be in a given area.

In the linked reference, Pollard and DeConto largely confirm their 2016 projections for the WAIS.  Furthermore, if they were adopt the TCR and ECS values from E3SM1 (one of the CMIP6 models) then their projected collapse dates for the WAIS under RCP8.5 would most likely be significantly earlier than indicated by the attached image.

Pollard, D. and DeConto, R.: Improvements in one-dimensional grounding-line parameterizations in an ice-sheet model with lateral variations, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss.,, in review, 2020.

Abstract. The use of a boundary-layer parameterization of buttressing and ice flux across grounding lines in a two-dimensional ice-sheet model is improved by allowing general orientations of the grounding line. This and another modification to the model's grounding-line parameterization are assessed in two settings: a narrow fjord-like domain (MISMIP+), and in future simulations of West Antarctic ice retreat under RCP8.5-based climates. The new modifications are found to have significant effects on the fjord results, which are now within the envelopes of other models in the MISMIP+ intercomparison. In contrast, the modifications have little effect on West Antarctic retreat, presumably because dynamics in the wider major Antarctic basins are adequately represented by the model's previous simpler one-dimensional formulation. As future grounding lines retreat across very deep bedrock topography in the West Antarctic simulations, buttressing is weak and deviatoric stress measures exceed the ice yield stress, implying that structural failure at these grounding lines would occur. We suggest that these grounding-line quantities should be examined in similar projections by other ice models, to better assess the potential for future structural failure.

Caption: "Figure 7. Equivalent global sea level rise in simulations of future West Antarctic ice retreat with climate forcing based on the RCP8.5 greenhouse gas scenario. The sea-level rise calculation accounts for ice grounded below sea level, which if melted contributes only its ice-overflotation amount. Thin lines: with previous model (no modifications, version A). Medium lines: with new 2-D grounding-line orientation (section 2.1, version B). Thick lines: with new 2-D orientation and new grid-cell weighting of imposed grounding-line velocities (section 2.2, version C). Blue: control (perpetual modern climate). Green: with RCP8.5 forcing, without hydrofracturing or cliff failure. Red: with RCP8.5 forcing, with hydrofracturing and cliff failure."

Why did they do a new paper using the "extreme" (their word) RCP 8.5 scenario (red line in their graph)?  I think most scientists recognize that RCP 8.5 is incredibly unrealistic now, given the complete collapse of coal mining and the rapid ascent of wind and solar.

The current forcings, continued, is somewhere between RCP 4.5 and 2.6.  It's represented by the blue line in their graph.  It would appear to be more realistic, if less sensational.

Figure  7.  Equivalent  global  sea  level  rise  in  simulations  of  future  West  Antarctic  ice  retreat  with  climate  forcing  based  on  the  RCP8.5 greenhouse gas scenario. The sea-level rise calculation accounts for ice grounded below sea level, which if melted contributes only its ice-over-260 flotation  amount. Thin  lines:  with  previous  model  (no  modifications,  version  A).Medium  lines:  with  new  2-D  grounding-line  orientation (section 2.1, version B). Thick lines: with new 2-D orientation and new grid-cell weighting of imposed grounding-line velocities (section 2.2, version C). Blue: control (perpetual modern climate). Green: with RCP8.5 forcing, without hydrofracturing or cliff failure. Red: with RCP8.5 forcing, with hydrofracturing and cliff failure.

The link study reports on an updated survey of sea level experts for their projections of future sea level rise.

Published: 08 May 2020

Estimating global mean sea-level rise and its uncertainties by 2100 and 2300 from an expert survey

Benjamin P. Horton, Nicole S. Khan, Niamh Cahill, Janice S. H. Lee, Timothy A. Shaw, Andra J. Garner, Andrew C. Kemp, Simon E. Engelhart & Stefan Rahmstorf

Climate and Atmospheric Science volume 3, Article number: 18 (2020)


Sea-level rise projections and knowledge of their uncertainties are vital to make informed mitigation and adaptation decisions. To elicit projections from members of the scientific community regarding future global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise, we repeated a survey originally conducted five years ago. Under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, 106 experts projected a likely (central 66% probability) GMSL rise of 0.30–0.65 m by 2100, and 0.54–2.15 m by 2300, relative to 1986–2005. Under RCP 8.5, the same experts projected a likely GMSL rise of 0.63–1.32 m by 2100, and 1.67–5.61 m by 2300. Expert projections for 2100 are similar to those from the original survey, although the projection for 2300 has extended tails and is higher than the original survey. Experts give a likelihood of 42% (original survey) and 45% (current survey) that under the high-emissions scenario GMSL rise will exceed the upper bound (0.98 m) of the likely range estimated by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is considered to have an exceedance likelihood of 17%. Responses to open-ended questions suggest that the increases in upper-end estimates and uncertainties arose from recent influential studies about the impact of marine ice cliff instability on the meltwater contribution to GMSL rise from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 21, 2020, 03:16:17 PM »
Hand waving?  You call solid physics “hand waving?”  If you do not believe the physics, there is little more I can do.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 21, 2020, 02:19:48 PM »

I presented my theory to Tom’s question, and presented evidence in support of that theory.  No one else has given any explanation, except to state short term (120 yr?) noise.  I am a retired environmental chemist, who has studied exhaust gases for years.  Show me some other explanation for the data.

Well, the problem is that the evidence does not support the theory.

This is a clearcut case of circular reasoning - the data shows an anomaly, you put on your thinking cap and come up with a hypothesis as a possible explanation, and then voila! The data anomaly itself  becomes proof of the hypothesis which then rapitdly becomes a theory, proven by the existence of the very question it was meant to answer.

You claim that the lack of warming in some areas of the continous United States is due to net insolation having a negative correlation with increased GHG concentration, but only when insolation is at maximum. But you have neither shown that this is a real phenomenon (i.e. lack of warming in the continental US has not been shown as being a proxy for the rest of the globe), nor shown whether this negative correlation is big enough to explain the supposed effect, nor  forwarded any evidence specifically supporting your claim.

And please note that if this were a real phenomenon (which I am not denying could be, by the way), then somebody should have written about it, modelled it and measured it. But nobody seems to be able to find anything along those lines, I've tried myself and I assume that you have also.

So perhaps it's time to put this to rest - and take a look at Tamino's speculations on the same subject (i.e. apparent lack of warming in the continuous United States), which I linked to as an answer to Tom's question.

Perhaps we need to delve deeper into science.  I was hesitant to do so, based on the title of this thread, but here goes.  I will reference the following websites from Caltech.

First, note figure 2.4 on page 5.  Only 50% of the incoming radiation reaches the surface, with water vapor and clouds being the largest absorbers, followed by CO2, oxygen and ozone.  The absorption spectrum is presented in figure 2.6 on page 3.  There are multiple absorption bands, with greater absorption occurring at higher wavelength.  Now refer to the two references to blackbody radiation.  The emission wavelength is defined by temperature alone; cooler bodies emit radiation at higher wavelengths.  According to Wien's displacement law, the peak radiation emission occurs at the following wavelengths for the given temperatures:

-40C   12.4 microns
   0C   10.6
 20C     9.9
 35C     9.4

The infrared absorption bands of the various atmospheric gases is shown in the following reference:

As you can see from the absorption bands, the major absorption band from carbon dioxide occurs at 15 microns.  At colder temperatures (-40C), CO2 absorbs a higher fraction of the emitted radiation than at higher temperatures, whereby the peak is shifter to a lower wavelength.  The dip in the water absorption spectrum occurs between wavelengths of 8 and 12 microns.  At the higher surface temperatures, water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb much less infrared radiation.  Atmospheric absorption is lowest during the hottest days.

While the fraction of incoming radiation absorbed remains relatively fixed at ~50%, the increased day length results in a greater total absorption of radiation during the longer summer days, than the shorter winter days.  During the winter, the absorption rate increases, as the temperature decreases towards greater absorption of the emitted infrared radiation.  Combined with the longer nights, the total energy absorbed by these gases is much higher than during the summer. 

This is the difference between discreet and average values (like Tamino's).  Hopefully, I have not exceeded the realm of this thread title by too much.  I am not even going to discuss the 'odd' greenhouse explanation, which does belong under this title.

Does this help clear up any confusion?

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 20, 2020, 03:09:29 PM »
The gases do not just absorb outgoing radiation, but incoming as well.  This effect is greatest during the summer daylight hours.
Walrus, you have claimed this is established science. My knowledge is limited but my nose claims something is fishy here. If you are wrong this borders on denial IMHO. Please provide serious article, website or paper showing GHGs blockage of incoming radiation is larger in total effect than GHGs blockage of outgoing radiation, thus leading to summer daytime cooling with GHGs rise. Not providing such may lead to further escalation.

Note: Cherry picking US data that somehow always combines the dust bowl period is not a proof of the above claim. Do GHG cool summer days?? A clear scientific response please.

You are asking for something that is virtually impossible to measure.  I have shown absorption spectra of both incoming (shortwave IR) and outgoing (longwave IR) radiation, along with the respective absorption bands of the various GHGs.  The best we can do is measure the difference by using temperatures as a proxy. 

No it's not impossible to measure. If any real scientists thought that this was a real phenomenon they would model it mathematically as a first step, and measure it as a second step.

But what you've just confirmed is that you have absolutely no idea, you'r just making some spurious claim and when pressed for evidence you make the even stranger claim of it somehow not being possible to measure!

It has been modeled.  Fourier presented that with his first hypothesis about GHGs.

The problem is measuring.  As opposed to outgoing radiation, with is emitted from a plane, incoming radiation varies based on latitude, time of day and year.  Hence it is different for each location.  With enough computing power, this can be estimated.  The incoming radiation is also a magnitude higher than outgoing, so the absorption is a much smaller fraction with even higher uncertainty.  The post that it is mostly transparent is somewhat accurate.  However, a small fraction of a large value (becoming radiation) is often greater that a large fraction of a small value (outgoing).  BTW, a greenhouse warms because the incoming radiation is absorbed by water which cannot penetrate the glass.  The outgoing radiation can and does escape.  The actual absorption varies according to surface characteristics.  The reflected radiation varies by relative humidity and cloud cover,  which is constantly changing.  This is where the real difficulty lies.  CERN has been running these types of experiments for over a decade, with much difficulty.  The claim that no one has measured supports my claim that it is virtually impossible. 

You say my statement “choosing to deny evidence” has a sinister motive.  What about your statement, “you have absolutely no idea?” or “the stupidest thing about my post?” implying other parts are stupid also.  I presented my theory to Tom’s question, and presented evidence in support of that theory.  No one else has given any explanation, except to state short term (120 yr?) noise.  I am a retired environmental chemist, who has studied exhaust gases for years.  Show me some other explanation for the data.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 19, 2020, 06:00:23 PM »
     My statement about a "minority of U.S." was with respect to and true for the summer temperatures graphic, it was not referring to the warmest days graphic.   

  RE  "The warmest temperatures of the past two decades in the U.S. are below those of the first two decades of the 20th century.  That precedes the dust bowl!"
     Not true.  The comparison for the warmest days image is 1986-2016 vs 1901-1960.  Thus the comparison to earlier years includes all of the dust bowl years. 

     The reason for my objections to your argument is your assumption that "just because the warmest temperatures are not increasing."   Yes they are increasing if the reference point is warmest temperatures of the day, i.e. average daily max.  Only looking at the extreme warmest day of the year leads to a distorted impression.  That is why folks are giving you grief about this.

The entire AGW theory does get not dispelled just because the temperature record is not exclusively rising.  Anyone who does so, is not being honest with themselves or others.  The observed temperature increase is due to atmospheric gases decreasing the energy loss, by absorbing infrared radiation that would otherwise be lost to space.  The energy loss is greatest during winter, nighttime, and higher latitudes, and consequently, the warming effect is largest during those times.  The gases do not just absorb outgoing radiation, but incoming as well.  This effect is greatest during the summer daylight hours.

All of this was in response to Tom's question, which I have reposted:

Here is a “stupid” question:
Why are the 48 contiguous states AGW Houdini?
Whenever I see a map of AGW I see swaths of red, brown and maroon with a white or even pale blue blob in the CONUS. We haven’t had a summer like 1988 since, well, 1988. If it were hotter here it would be easier to convince us of AGW.

My answer is that it would be easier to convince others if summers were getting hotter.  However, one does not convince another by dismissing their original contention.  They will just consider the entire argument false, based on the denial of the stated fact.  That is why I prefer Freegrass' response best,

"That's why I'm still calling it Climate Change. It's much easier to explain a changing climate to people that live in area where temperatures have actually gone down."

Pages: [1] 2