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 - aperson

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
My naive impression is that we're seeing the beginning of an equable climate forming in the night time tropospheric polar vortex. In general, the shapes sark is showing look like patterns composed of spherical harmonics that are moving from a lower energy state to a higher state. These higher energy states seem to be stable as they increase meridional heat transport and form stable blocking patterns. In essence, once you break out of the lowest level harmonic (a single large tropospheric vortex), you get self reinforcing patterns that let air in and out of the Arctic (configurations with 4, 6, 8, etc... quasi-symmetric nodes).

Of course, this is all conjecture from me as well since I'm not a researcher in this field. But these patterns have jumped out to me as a casual weather watcher as well.

Edit: Maybe Chladni plates provide another example of what these cross-sections look like as they move from lower to higher energy states (in this case, lower hz to higher hz):

2
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 01, 2019, 09:30:57 PM »
I can see quite clearly that it is not a cause of anxiety and unease.  Sorry, but the climate situation is not the cause of every ill on this planet.

I imagine it's pretty easy to see that when your entire posting career is one Type II error after another.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 16, 2019, 05:39:33 AM »
On the bright side we've now triple-validated our work :)

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 16, 2019, 05:35:06 AM »
September 15th, 2019:
     4,006,036 km2, a drop of 19,682 km2.
     2019 is now 2nd lowest on record.


5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:15:41 AM »
@aperson
It's not a denialist mistake to be wrong. Everybody is wrong sometimes with their predictions. It's just a mistake. What do we call people who voted for BOE option THIS YEAR, during this melting season. Or do you think that was more realistic than weatherdude's prediction. They were just wronglike him. That is it. No conspiracies or hidden meanings behind every false prediction. Some are more realistic, some are less.

Hi colchonero, I agree with you. Regardless, I don't think you understand the context for this specific poster. They post denialist rhetoric on other forums like americanwx and then disappear whenever SIE or SIA goes back to low values. They seem to have registered here to do the same.

I agree with making falsifiable predictions and verifying them, in fact I have one coming up in just a few days that may bust that I will be posting about! It is not his prediction I have a problem with, it is his hubris: "Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent."

And note that this is not the first time this specific user has done this on this forum or elsewhere. Without this surrounding context I would have not been so judgmental.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 11:07:43 PM »
He is a denier troll and it was not a risk, it was a lie designed to further obfuscate and derail the discourse on this forum.

Yep, this isn't the only forum he does this garbage on. Unfortunately he made the denialist mistake of making a falsifiable prediction.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 08:12:25 PM »
Hi weatherdude88,

I can't wait to hear your verification summary from this July prediction:

Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent. We may not end up in the top 5 in a sea ice area metric (looking at UH AMSR2 and NSIDC daily data and extrapolating).

The regions that will matter at the end of the 2019 melt season are the Central Arctic Basin, East Siberian sea, Beautfort sea, Greenland sea, and Canadian Archipelago.

For the most part, we are lagging the highest melt years in these regions (There are 5 years that lead 2019 in all these areas combined).

There is too much high latitude ice in the critical regions. All the subjective interpretation of data will not translate to reality, no matter how many members reiterate it.

By the end of the first week of August, it will become evident that 2019 will be ordinary, as it relates to sea ice minimums over the last decade.









8
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 10, 2019, 10:31:37 AM »
I think some of you are confusing liberal denial with "left-wing denial".

This is an excellent and important distinction to clarify. The liberals want to maintain the status quo just as much as the denialists, they just have different tactics. It is important we don't use tactics that can be coopted by them when advocating environmental justice.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 08, 2019, 01:55:17 AM »
You don't think November can be +7C in the entire Arctic?  sheesh, tough crowd

Heh, that CFS chart to me looks like a standard, modern November. Looks like a lack of Bering Sea ice, a relentless -EPO run, and sustained warm air advection toward the pole in the Pacific.

10
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 10:00:35 PM »
Would it really be so bad if the trust of the "general public" in the NWS was reduced? In those susceptible to "trust reduction" I would argue that most already do not believe in climate change and are generally egregiously stupid. If they get sucked into a tornado or blown away by a hurricane, what's the loss? I would say it is actually a gain in terms of reducing emissions, ironically the roundabout way of doing this is also the most effective.  :)

You're a bit too high on your own supply of irony here friend. Put it down before you start believing other foolish things like an imminent reglaciation.

11
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 08:31:56 PM »
Do you think Dorian's name will be retired?

It is an absolute certainty.

12
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 08:31:26 PM »
^^
I do think this is more than a little overblown.
But I won't get drawn into a debate.
It was stupid. It didn't bring the NOAA to a halt.
Terry

I think it's a serious problem because it erodes the public's trust in impact forecasting. Can you imagine how much of a nightmare emergency management & response would be if the populace was as distrusting of the NWS as they were of climate scientists?

13
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 03:50:08 AM »
Seriously?  Does anyone actually believe that his misstatements hindered efforts in any way?  Please stop posting such nonsense.

Dr. Maue, is that you?

14
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 06, 2019, 08:55:19 PM »
3 days ago I said to a friend in Halifx that within 10 years they will face a fully fledged =>cat1 hurricane overhead, that was perhaps a bit optimistic :-(

The Canadian Maritimes are hit by hurricanes regularly, but not frequently. Hurricane Juan in 2003 (973mb / 85kt) is a good example of one that caused significant damage in Halifax. So impacts happening altogether is well within climatology, though I would expect frequency to increase as systems stay tropical longer before they fully go extratropical and the poleward migration of tropical cyclones results in more hits up there.

That being said. I do not think the maritimes have ever seen a major (cat 3+) hurricane landfall.

15
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 05, 2019, 06:26:28 PM »
And on Sunday / Monday Nova Scotia / Newfoundland get a hurricane for breakfast.

Or not. This baby was expected to land in Florida and see what happened...

There's a big difference between a fully tropical system with little to no synoptic steering and a hurricane undergoing extratropical transition that is firmly hooked to a gigantic trough.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 04, 2019, 09:40:55 PM »
I've been watching Lingling and Dorian recently, and I'm interested that they both undergo extratropical transition and integrate their momentum into the jet stream around the same time:



Dorian and Lingling are the symmetrically opposite 968mb lows here. Their angular momentum seems to enhance a dipole pattern, and the timing of their momentum transfer will be critical to how it sets up here. Regardless of the exact configuration, it looks like this will split the initiating tropospheric polar vortex into two lobes and allow a major heat/moisture intrusion from the Pacific



As we enter peak hurricane season, it's important to remember that one of the major heat engines that moves heat from equator to pole are tropical cyclones, so watching their activity will be critical to see how the freezing season initiates (or fails to)

This to me indicates that the melting season is not over yet and way may see losses for the next two weeks. I would be stunned if the AO does not go negative again in the next two weeks, but then again I'm just a naive observer and not a pro meteorologist.

Edit: And after looking at this month's PIOMAS, I really wonder if this will push the Sept 15 update into first place.

17
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: July 03, 2019, 06:24:53 PM »
One thing rather special about Hurricane Barbara was 
Quote
Barbara vaulted from a tropical storm with 70 mph winds to a Category 4 hurricane with 130 mph winds in just 18.5 hours, as confirmed in a special update issued by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) [Tuesday morning].
(Weather Underground)

I understand the NOAA forecasters were not expecting this rapid intensification (RI).  RI seems to be happening more often in recent years - Global Warming, per chance?  [/sarc].

SHIPS - an intensity forecasting model and one of the primary intensity forecasting tools used by the NHC - was showing heightened chances of RI well in advance. Here's a post from a tropical cyclone tracking forum on Sunday showing very high chances of 48/72hr RI relative to climatological averages from SHIPS output: http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=2744612#p2744612

Quote
SHIPS Prob RI for 55kt/ 48hr RI threshold=  41% is   6.9 times climatological mean ( 5.9%)
SHIPS Prob RI for 65kt/ 72hr RI threshold=  46% is   9.5 times climatological mean ( 4.8%)

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 01, 2019, 07:56:39 PM »
Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent. We may not end up in the top 5 in a sea ice area metric (looking at UH AMSR2 and NSIDC daily data and extrapolating).

A falsifiable prediction! I can't wait to revisit after minimum

19
Given the start and finish point for this game and the Oregon trail style, I think a major driver of variability between gameplays will be just how chaotic synoptic scale weather will be in this scenario.

Is there an option to start the journey at different times of year? Summer would essentially be hard mode compared to Winter. Some playthroughs should expect to see regions with neverending torrential rains while similar regions are covered in extreme drought on a different playthrough.

Would there be options to wait in place and consume resources instead of move on? Decisionmaking about whether a stuck weather pattern will moderate or whether one must instead just push through it would be critical.

Having someone in your party with access to satellite data from things like the GOES satellites that are still just up there orbiting would be a major boon to being able to make smart migratory decisions.

Lots of interesting options here with this style of game.

Edit: I'd also recommend putting the backstory in the OP to get more relevantly guided discussion. It may also be useful to consider what sort of concentration pathway got us to 4C. Is this 4C in 2150 or 2050?

20
Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: June 28, 2019, 11:20:26 PM »
You can't think that you'll be reviled in 50 years if there's no concept of how things might be 50 years in the future.  One has to operate within the reality of the moment.  Do you condemn geologists for talking about the fixed placement of continents prior to Wegener introducing the idea of continental drift in 1912?

There is a difference between scientific fact and moral imperative. I would hope even you are aware that this is an egregious false equivalency.

If you have a basic sense of empathy and compassion you can easily find many things where there is a dissonance between how people act and how people should act. I can spot many things now that are generally acceptable that will likely be seen as taboo in the future: Denying transgender people rights, littering, etc....

I can cultivate compassion and listen to others and spot even more things. I would hope that the leader of our country is a person that does this instead of a means-tested weathervane that naively follows the zeitgeist through bad and good like Joe Biden.

21
Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: June 28, 2019, 09:35:31 PM »
I suspect many of you, when in your seventies, will be able to look back at things you thought and did when you were much younger and realize that you did not think or do the right thing by current standards.  But at the time that seemed to be the right thing to think or do.

Rather than using this as a rationalization for poor actions, it's a good thought experiment to consider whether what you're doing is truly progressive or not. If you think what you're doing will be reviled in 50 years, maybe try harder?

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 20, 2019, 09:08:22 PM »
Just for the record, I was asking a question, not making a point.  Pedantry would imply I was imparting knowledge.  I was seeking it.

Indeed, I am the one being pedantic  :)

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 20, 2019, 08:29:15 PM »
My question is with respect to the Nullschool forecast (as of June 20) and what it is showing up to 5 days from now.

A point of pedantry: Nullschool is a presentation layer, it does not provide a forecast. Its source for most land-derived parameters is the most recent GFS operational model run (the source field in the menu shows the source provided for the currently active field being displayed).

And another point of pedantry about dipoles: The Dipole Anomaly is defined as the second EOF of the 1000 millibar height pattern (the first EOF that explains more variance in the principal component analysis of the 1000 millibar height pattern is the Arctic Oscillation). To present a DA pattern one needs to present a map of 1000h whereas we commonly show 500h. These two heights correlate but are not identical.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 20, 2019, 12:13:45 AM »
^ If those PWATs validate there will be extensive melting along the Barents Sea where 2019 has increased extent coverage relative to recent years.

I'm of the possibly naive belief that Warm Air Advection of high PWAT air parcels gives you the vertical instability needed to transfer massive amounts of heat to the ice surface. Without the humidity, warmer air should float above the protective cold air directly above the ice surface with insufficient convective instability to reach the surface.

25
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 18, 2019, 07:54:12 AM »
Yes, in a warmer world, rainfall is expected to increase.  This will naturally led to enhanced flooding.  On the flip side, it will lead to diminished drought.

Increased flooding and increased drought are not mutually exclusive. You have an incorrect mental model of temperature and precipitation. The most basic way to correct your misunderstanding is to understand the relationship between temperature and the amount of water vapor that can be held in the air before it saturates. At warmer temperatures it is harder to saturate the atmosphere, but it will rain harder when it reaches saturation.

26
Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:40:15 PM »
who cares?

The relatives of the ones who die from this do care quite a lot. Not that i know them, but i feel save to assume so.

Pretty sure what kills people is the wet bulb temperature, not the temperature in the sun. All they have to do in the latter is just to seek shade.

While you are "pretty sure", you are not really correct here. To determine heat stroke threat, the NWS uses the Heat Index, which is a regression that includes both temperature and relative humidity. It is distinct from a dewpoint calculation, see:

https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/heatindex_equation.shtml

Hot and dry environments with a suitably high heat index would have a low dew point yet would still present a high heat stroke threat.

Also note that "All they have to do in the latter is just to seek shade" is not very good advice given how rapidly heat exhaustion can present and how much it affects your physical and cognitive abilities.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 17, 2019, 09:44:36 PM »
As a layman, I don't really know what I'm talking about, so maybe someone can help me out. Frivolous, who seems to speak with some amount of authority/expertise, is posting 5-10 day forecasts; how much attention should we pay to those? I know that temp forecasts beyond a few days out are often wildly inaccurate, are long-range MSLP forecasts typically better?

It depends. Typically there is high variability around D5 on operational runs, e.g. GFS and ECMWF. If there is consistency between multiple runs, it may be indicating a pattern that models have higher confidence on appearing.

For anything past D5 we should only be posting ensemble model outputs instead of operational runs, e.g. GEFS and EPS, but we often don't. These ensemble runs are like their operational counterparts, however the initial conditions are modified slightly for each ensemble member to generate a spread of outputs that can better find divergent states or more confidently show that there is convergence on a given single state. The output for things like 500mb heights in ensembles then represents the blended state across all ensemble members rather than the single expected state that one model run sees.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 03, 2019, 12:51:41 AM »
Extensive melt-ponding in the Laptev Sea near the Lena River Delta has occurred over the past 5 days. This is indicated by the darker blue compared to the cyan that ice (both on the surface and as cloud vapor) returns. Attached is Jun 2nd Terra/MODIS bands 7-2-1 from Worldview: https://go.nasa.gov/2WLEyV6

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 26, 2019, 02:59:00 AM »
You care more about looking smart than educating people.

You indicated you were an engineer, I gave you a short response that I figured was geared toward an engineer. I will try to provide a better Simple English answer in the future to spare you from throwing a tempter tantrum.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 25, 2019, 08:37:34 PM »
edit: I've just seen the ECMWF forecast and it looks pretty terrible indeed. Anything above 1030 hPa around this time of year, is a disaster for the ice. I'll post the latest forecast this evening.
Can you explain why you say it's bad in reference a pressure? I understand Pa refers to a Pascal. I'm an engineer, and the importance of air pressure rather than temperature is not obvious to me.

High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.

31
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 29, 2019, 11:13:26 PM »
I was not aware that double cropping was one of the strategies.  Of course, that assumes that precipitation will decrease, even though precipitation has increased during the most recent warming period, and is expected to continue as the planet warms.

There are other sources of water supply beside precipitation. See: Snowpack runoff.

Yes.  Both snowpack and precipitation have increased in the corn belt in recent years.

Yes.  And the dates by which snowpack melt begin move earlier in the year, meaning that there will be increased river streamflow at the beginning of the growing season with decreased river streamflow from snowpack at other times. This increases flood risk while decreasing the duration that snowpack runoff can be relied upon as a water source.

32
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 29, 2019, 06:25:55 PM »
I was not aware that double cropping was one of the strategies.  Of course, that assumes that precipitation will decrease, even though precipitation has increased during the most recent warming period, and is expected to continue as the planet warms.

There are other sources of water supply beside precipitation. See: Snowpack runoff.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: March 03, 2019, 01:14:29 AM »
I read something recently that was looking at the flooding of the strat , over the U.S.A., with water vapour from ever taller storms and have to wonder if we can rapidly alter the levels of heat trapping water in the arctic strat impeding the loss of heat from the polar night?

Is a warmed world providing a rapid path to an equable climate?

Definitely, although I think water vapor intruding from tropics to poles causing an equable climate is almost true by tautology. Equable climates can be defined in terms of only having a Hadley cell stretching from equator to pole instead of our 3 cell hadley, ferrel, polar cell regime.

I think what we have been witnessing in terms of Rossby wavebreak patterns transporting water vapor poleward (especially over Alaska) is a leading indicator of the 3-cell regime breaking down entirely.

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 03:12:42 AM »
Oren, if you knew people will read, edit  or censure what you write, would you write the same way? No. Impossible. Censuring your own writing for fear of censorship is probably the quickest way to kill creativity. Elon still enjoys the right to free speech and this tweet did not move the markets in any way.

This tweet was not material information, was after market hours and clarification was offered before  market open. I think he SEC is significantly over reaching. The courts will decide.

Non-public production numbers are material information. The original tweet was made at 7:15PM ET which is 45 minutes before the After-hours market closes.

I understand you like to cheerlead for Tesla. I recommend that you cheerlead by not posting information that is factually incorrect.

35
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 12:49:06 AM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/elon-musk-faces-u-s-contempt-claim-for-violating-sec-accord

Title: Elon Musk Faces U.S. Contempt Claim for Violating SEC Accord

Extract:

The SEC claimed on Monday that a Feb. 19 tweet by Musk violated the settlement when he wrote that “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019.” The settlement with the agency required him to seek pre-approval from the company for social media posts and other written communication that would be material to the company or investors.

“He once again published inaccurate and material information about Tesla to his over 24 million Twitter followers, including members of the press, and made this inaccurate information available to anyone with Internet access,” the SEC said in court papers filed in Manhattan federal court.

Tesla shares plunged as much as 5.4 percent as of 6:30 p.m. Monday in New York. The stock was already down 10 percent this year through the close of regular trading.

36
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 26, 2018, 06:09:15 AM »
The 2018 National Climate Assessment report by the US Government places the aerosol cooling effect at around 0.7 - 0.8c. See Figure 2.1 from: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

37
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 23, 2018, 05:30:58 AM »
Quote
And yes, wdmn, this is an Extinction Level Event over which we have NO influence.  It is beyond our technological capability to do anything about it.

Which is why world leaders go through the motions, but put all their effort into maintaining BAU as long as possible.

If the world were going to end tomorrow, they would still want you to pay your bills and show up for work today.

The immediate threat is the day that stops happening.

Just wondering how much consensus there is on this, since accepting it as true changes everything. I gather that the catch is we have no idea when this will happen, or how quickly...

If this is true, then why are so many people on this forum talking about policy solutions, and how to get better politicians into office? Why are scientists publishing papers warning about climate thresholds, if there's no way to avoid a hothouse earth?

I find it all very disingenuous, and the result is that I don't want to trust anyone on anything, put my energy into advocating for anything, or really do anything other than to tell all humans to fuck off for being such pieces of shit.

I'm trying to find a relevant quote from Shakhova but not having luck atm (I think it may be video not print). Essentially, it comes down to methane releases from the gas hydrate stability zone having "exponential uncertainty" not linear uncertainty. e.g. we're not concerned about 100 vs 200 vs 300 MT of carbon released as methane, we're concerned with whether it's 100 MT or 1 GT or 10 GT etc.... This spread of uncertainty cannot currently be constrained with available methods and research, and it's hard to square away with IPCC's emission pathways when the uncertainty bounds are between "significant but manageable impacts to global mean surface temperature" and "dominating the overall warming fingerprint"

An earlier post on this thread disagrees with you...S&S say that clathrates are a red herring; the actual problem is subsea permafrost.

I'm not talking about clathrates. I'm talking about the methane that is being capped by subsea permafrost that will naturally escape into the water column as permafrost degrades. S&S discuss the entire process from how CH4 migrates through taliks and weaknesses in permafrost up to the water column, then how it is mixed up the water column to the surface, and finally how it gets mixed into the atmosphere through upwelling created by low pressure systems. S&S argue that some regions of the Arctic ocean are more vulnerable to this process (like the East Siberian Arctic Shelf) and that the reserve of capped methane is large enough to vastly alter biogeochemical processes on the planet if even a small percentage is released.

There is of course exponential uncertainty in terms of the emissions pathway of the capped methane. Understanding the variance for emissions pathways requires understanding how permafrost degrades, how methane cycles in the water column, how it's upwelled from the surface into the atmosphere, and how methane cycles in the atmosphere.

See: https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005602

Quote
Arctic shallow hydrates, because of their inundation, have been exposed to temperatures about 5°C–10°C warmer than temperatures of terrestrial Arctic shallow hydrates for the past 5–10 kyr. On the basis of the heat transfer downward from relatively warmer ocean waters and upward from below, numerical models predict destabilization after ∼5–10 kyr of inundation [Romanovskii et al., 2005]. As a result, it is probable that large‐scale hydrate destabilization will occur first in the ESAS and other areas of submerged shallow permafrost. In fact, it is feasible that hydrate destabilization in the Arctic is currently creating free gas reservoirs trapped below the largely impermeable permafrost layer. In contrast to other areas of the Arctic Ocean, the ESAS water column provides a very short conduit for releasing CH4 to the atmosphere. This makes the ESAS a primary, important region for CH4 release, compared to other areas of the Arctic Ocean where the majority of CH4 passing through the water column is oxidized [Westbrook et al., 2009].

[53] Continued hydrate destabilization will lead to increasing pressure in these shallow reservoirs. In such case, fracturing and thawing of the permafrost will create pathways for deeper, hydrate‐derived CH4 deposits to escape to the sea surface, a process that we propose is currently occurring in the ESAS and is consistent with our data. Further, the shallowness of the ESAS implies hydrate‐derived CH4 here will affect atmospheric budgets much more than will most of the CH4 from deep‐sea hydrate deposits at lower latitudes [Kvenvolden, 1988, 2002].

38
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 22, 2018, 08:04:57 PM »
Quote
And yes, wdmn, this is an Extinction Level Event over which we have NO influence.  It is beyond our technological capability to do anything about it.

Which is why world leaders go through the motions, but put all their effort into maintaining BAU as long as possible.

If the world were going to end tomorrow, they would still want you to pay your bills and show up for work today.

The immediate threat is the day that stops happening.

Just wondering how much consensus there is on this, since accepting it as true changes everything. I gather that the catch is we have no idea when this will happen, or how quickly...

If this is true, then why are so many people on this forum talking about policy solutions, and how to get better politicians into office? Why are scientists publishing papers warning about climate thresholds, if there's no way to avoid a hothouse earth?

I find it all very disingenuous, and the result is that I don't want to trust anyone on anything, put my energy into advocating for anything, or really do anything other than to tell all humans to fuck off for being such pieces of shit.

I'm trying to find a relevant quote from Shakhova but not having luck atm (I think it may be video not print). Essentially, it comes down to methane releases from the gas hydrate stability zone having "exponential uncertainty" not linear uncertainty. e.g. we're not concerned about 100 vs 200 vs 300 MT of carbon released as methane, we're concerned with whether it's 100 MT or 1 GT or 10 GT etc.... This spread of uncertainty cannot currently be constrained with available methods and research, and it's hard to square away with IPCC's emission pathways when the uncertainty bounds are between "significant but manageable impacts to global mean surface temperature" and "dominating the overall warming fingerprint"

39
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: November 21, 2018, 10:36:52 PM »
Dr. Kate Marvel: "If climate change was a hoax, an insurance company could undercut all the competition by offering lower rates. None of them do.”
https://twitter.com/DrKateMarvel/status/1064515779272601600


“In the near future, insurance companies will likely stop insuring homes, buildings, farms, factories, schools, hospitals etc, etc, that they judge to be under imminent, inevitable and constant threat of damage because of climate change. We’re talking here about properties that are at risk of being permanently inundated by rising sea levels, but also those on river flood plains, those in forests that regularly burn and those on the edges of ever encroaching deserts.”

The Glacier Trust - Insuring the uninsurable
http://theglaciertrust.org/blog/2018/11/19/insuring-the-uninsurable

This seems rather irrelevant.  Insurance charge based on risk.  That risk is based largely on past settlements.  They are the least forward looking of companies.

This is a completely ridiculous claim. Cite your sources. I expect you'll find it quite hard to find this view among insurers at large, rather there are some very restricted domains where this is the case.

Ridiculous?  Find me an insurance company that does NOT charge based on risk!  Anyone that does not accurately base their premiums on the risk of payout, will probably be out of business soon.

Yes, the idea is that they charge based on risk. Effective insurers look at risk rates by modeling the future as well as modeling the past. Why would you expect otherwise?

40
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: November 20, 2018, 12:44:15 AM »
Dr. Kate Marvel: "If climate change was a hoax, an insurance company could undercut all the competition by offering lower rates. None of them do.”
https://twitter.com/DrKateMarvel/status/1064515779272601600


“In the near future, insurance companies will likely stop insuring homes, buildings, farms, factories, schools, hospitals etc, etc, that they judge to be under imminent, inevitable and constant threat of damage because of climate change. We’re talking here about properties that are at risk of being permanently inundated by rising sea levels, but also those on river flood plains, those in forests that regularly burn and those on the edges of ever encroaching deserts.”

The Glacier Trust - Insuring the uninsurable
http://theglaciertrust.org/blog/2018/11/19/insuring-the-uninsurable

This seems rather irrelevant.  Insurance charge based on risk.  That risk is based largely on past settlements.  They are the least forward looking of companies.

This is a completely ridiculous claim. Cite your sources. I expect you'll find it quite hard to find this view among insurers at large, rather there are some very restricted domains where this is the case.

41
The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: November 18, 2018, 01:24:34 AM »
I wish I could spend likes to force another user to cite their claim or make a falsifiable prediction. If they don't provide, they get banned 1 day for every like I spent.

42
Science / Re: AMOC slowdown
« on: November 15, 2018, 06:30:15 AM »
The ECMWF wasn't even atmosphere-ocean coupled until this year. It's definitely got a long way to go before it can be used as any sort of useful indicator for D10 SSTs. A lot of the other global models aren't even coupled altogether.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 14, 2018, 12:28:44 AM »
...did you bother reading my post or are you just angry and illiterate?

QUOTING FOR YOU

HB is going to freeze very quickly over the next week, EURO shows most of it falling sub-29/30F through this time. It has taken awhile to get going but my 11/15 prediction for 75%+ coverage (using NATICE) should be off by less than a week which I am not sad about.

Maybe they were referring to your original post:

By 10/25, Foxe Basin should be entirely covered, by 11/15, Hudson should be mostly complete (I will say 75-85% at that point). We can revisit this post 11/16 and see if I am wrong.

You made a falsifiable forecast and it busted. Kudos to you for actually making a falsifiable prediction for once. However, accept your estimation error instead of shifting the goalposts.

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean 'acidifying rapidly'
« on: November 13, 2018, 09:26:52 PM »
I read recently that there is not enough fossil fuel to create the necessary CO2 required to dissolve all the calcite at the bottom of the ocean. So rest assured the oceans ability to hold CO2 and buffer pH are intact. On the other hand if ocean temps are warming they will expel CO2 through a shift in solubility, which will raise the pH and form more calcite.

Cite your sources for your claim. There are recent sources that disagree with you, such as DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1804250115 (summary at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-seabed-future.html)

We also don't need to "dissolve all the calcite at the bottom of the ocean" to locally increase the lysocline in specific regions of the ocean, which will still have negative consequences.


46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 05, 2018, 05:40:19 AM »
yeah it gets cold because of a trough.  the polar vortex is not really a ground level phenomenon.  saying the polar vortex is centered over hudson bay is just wrong.  that's a trough.

after the (perhaps I should specify) stratospheric polar vortex settles down, as forecast, it would tend to indicate milder conditions.  granted, somewhat after mid-month.

not all cold is "polar vortex" although that's how it gets used in the popular vernacular ever since that one PV split in like Nov 2014

I think it would be wise to indicate whether one is talking about the stratospheric polar vortex (as you are referring to) vs the tropospheric polar vortex (as bbr is referring to).

47
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 29, 2018, 02:52:09 AM »
In my naive opinion, the most dominant short term feedback effect is the negative one from our sulfate aerosol emissions. While not continuously accelerating, we do essentially have a debt that comes due right as we lower aerosol emissions. The size of that debt is up for debate though, as is the question of what other dominoes it may hit.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: September 27, 2018, 05:41:47 AM »
This seems like the beginning of a repeat of how the DJF trimonth went last year.

1. Low SIE in the Bering/Chukchi seas helps support a Rossby wavetrain that enhances a strong -EPO pattern. The -EPO pattern creates a heat dome over these regions that prevents refreeze and creates a feedback loop.

2. Weak SIE in these regions alongside persistent blocking highs result in more transport of ice into the ESS and a slowing/shutdown of transpolar drift into the Atlantic

3. A lack of ice transported into the Atlantic results in less of a freshwater lens along the Atlantic margin.

4. Atlantification continues deeper into the Atlantic margins of the Arctic as saline water can mix closer to the surface.


Honestly, freezing season is when the Arctic is exciting.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: August 23, 2018, 12:44:36 AM »
You could also take the view that heat out varies with 4th power of temperature and this is a strong negative feedback that dominates the system and tends to prevent run away situations.

Please explain.  I'd say justify too, but I think an explanation would cover that.

(This could explain why we are not Pluto or Venus, but I don't understand it.)

The Stefan-Boltzmann law for black body radiation says that the amount of energy radiated from a black body varies with the 4th power of the surface temperature of the body. If you want to go full Venus, you'll need to add energy at a rate strong enough to dominate this effect, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

Edit: Thank you Ned for correcting my error.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 05, 2018, 05:45:18 AM »
Those are clouds formed from Lee Waves

Pages: [1] 2 3 4