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 - Shared Humanity

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48
1
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: January 09, 2018, 03:31:49 AM »
Thanks for clarifying Bernard. I am sadly in the +25 camp. Humanity is moving too slow to curb its carbon addiction, and feedbacks are kicking in.

Sadly, I agree. If we were to see continued acceleration over the next several decades (say 25, 28, 31), we could be approaching 500 ppm in about 30 years.

2
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: January 07, 2018, 05:40:57 PM »
As we approached the magical 400 ppm number, this was a very popular thread on this site.

Now? Yawnnnnnn...  :'(

When do we get to anticipate our approach to 500 ppm would be a good poll question.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: January 07, 2018, 05:17:38 PM »
When Dr. Francis 1st made headlines here with her jet stream analysis and the resulting slide towards sticky weather patterns, I posted some very long comments regarding my concerns about the emerging sticky weather that, due to my nearly complete lack of scientific knowledge, was very speculative, depending solely on a very layman's perspective.

The 7 day forecast you have just posted has caused me to want to post a similar comment, actually a question for this community.

First, my assumptions:

Dr. Francis is correct. The rapidly warming Arctic is resulting in a slower, more elongated jet stream and this trend will continue. Sticky weather will be a result. I believe the recent research is supporting her argument.

My concern:

This sticky weather will not be random but, in fact, will have a stickiness to it that is a result of the jet streams interaction with the complex topography of the northern hemisphere. This is already the manner in which northern hemisphere climate and long term weather patterns occur, a very direct linkage between topography (oceans, continents etc.) and the atmosphere. We thus get persistent regional climates like the deserts of the southwest U.S., the temperate climate of the British Isles, the fantastic phenomena of tornado alley which I happen to live in and I believe is the result of an interplay between the Rocky Mountain, the Great Plains, a warm Gulf of Mexico and the jet stream. Essentially, our existing climate across the northern hemisphere already demonstrates vividly a stickiness which is due to the linkage between our topography and the atmosphere.

So, what are the major northern hemisphere topographical features? The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the North American Rockies and Great Plains, The vast Eurasian landmass, the Himalayas, the icy expanse of Greenland and until very recently, the persistent icy Arctic. There are others I am sure (Ooops, the Mediterranean Sea).

All of us are intimately familiar with the local climate of our region and the effect of the interaction between the atmosphere and local topography. The temperate rain forest climate of the Northwestern U.S. and the previously mentioned tornado alley for example.

Sorry for the long post but the forecast just posted, I believe, is evidence of an emerging sticky pattern, high pressure ridges that frequently set up over the North Pacific and over the North Atlantic and persist over long periods and are a direct result of an increasingly strong topographical influence over a weakening jet stream where the Pacific Ocean and the Rockies and the Atlantic Ocean and, perhaps, the icy landscape of Greenland will cause sticky patterns.

Arctic cyclone cannons anyone? How about more frequent and stronger U.S. East Coast bombogenesis Nor'Easters and the desertification of the U.S. Southwest?

As the jet stream weakens, would it not be the case that topography will have a stronger influence on weather and climate, essentially begin to dictate more thoroughly the weather and climate and impose a stickiness that a stronger jet stream would often but, now, less frequently overpower?

5
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 31, 2017, 07:54:31 PM »
So, why will it be a permanent relocation? Why can't we make them go back to Puerto Rico? (a local Trumpista worried query) Simply put, as Puerto Ricans settle into their new homes around the country, they simply will not consider a move back and much of Puerto Rico will never be rebuilt.

6
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 31, 2017, 07:41:38 PM »
Days after the hurricane, as the extent of the damage became known, the Wall Street Journal reported that, if it took too long to rebuild the infrastructure that is the basis for modern living, there would be an influx of up to 600,000 from Puerto Rico who would permanently relocate to the U.S. It is happening as I type.

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-nws-puerto-rico-meeting-20171130-story.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-puerto-rico-evacuees-still-flooding-into-orlando-20171205-story.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-power-in-puerto-rico-evacuees-come-to-orlando-and-find-scant-housing-1510935425

On a positive note, this migration will result in Florida becoming a reliably Blue state.

7
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: December 31, 2017, 07:16:56 PM »
These kinds of announcements will become routine over the next 2 decades, occurring so frequently that they will no longer be picked up by national news networks but make only local headlines.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/louisiana-sinking-fast-prepares-to-empty-out-its-coastal-plain

We have begun the massive relocation of hundreds of millions of humans from rising seas. Miami will not survive the century. Neither will Norfolk, Virginia.

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 31, 2017, 07:02:58 PM »
If this weather pattern continues, the Pacific and Atlantic sides of the Arctic will be in a world of hurt during the approaching melt season.

For those here who like to constantly post comments, suggesting things aren't as bad as they would appear to be, I would like you to take a close look at extent at the end of 2017 and wish you a...

...HAPPY NEW YEAR!

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 31, 2017, 06:55:05 PM »
Murgatroyd is an English surname. Its etymology, according to one source, is as follows: in 1371, a constable was appointed for the district of Warley in Yorkshire. He adopted the name of Johanus de Morgateroyde, or literally: Johanus of Moor Gate Royde or the district leading to the moor. Another source says the place name means Margaret's road. In Norse, the Royd meant "Clearing" (as in a forest) Although Moorgate in London was a gate with the road to the moor passing through, in Yorkshire, Gate (again from Norse) means street, so Moor Gate Royd would be "A clearing in the forest on the road to the moor".

The name is also used in the favorite catchphrase of the Hanna-Barbera cartoon character Snagglepuss – "Heavens to Murgatroyd!", a line first spoken by Bert Lahr in the 1944 film Meet the People, whom Snagglepuss' voice is largely based on.

The name may refer to the following people:

Cecil G. Murgatroyd (1958–2001), long-running satirical political candidate in Australia and New Zealand
Gavin Murgatroyd (born 1969), Namibian cricketer (previously known as Bryan Murgatroyd)
Henry Murgatroyd (1853–1905), English cricketer
Peta Murgatroyd (born 1986), professional dancer
Stephen Murgatroyd (born 1950), writer, broadcaster and consultant.


And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 31, 2017, 06:48:35 PM »
Not quite sure how it would be quantified, but it looks to me like the DMI 80N is settling into a much narrower temperature band that it used to in winter.  Not as narrow as summer, but still visibly different from the past.

There certainly has been a trend of increasing temperatures, particularly in the fall over the past couple of decades but I had not noticed this reduction in range for a specific season. I decided to visually scan all of the years back to 1958 and came away with the sense that seasonal variation is all over the map. Would need to do a statistical analysis with the data to see if this is actually occurring.

The 8 or 9K average temperature 'step change' (eyeballed difference between current winter average and graph's average line) occurred at the end of December 2015 on the DMI 80N chart.  I don't recall anybody identifying a concurrent weather/climate change.  Did I miss the discussion or is this worthy of its own thread [maybe "DMI's 80N step change in winter temperatures" or "Step change in winter temperatures (e.g., DMI's 80N)"].  If so, someone with weather-cred should start such a thread, as they could better describe what appears to be happening ("climate" being '30-years' and we have 'two'.)

2016 was certainly a wild year for temps but it could very well be an outlier as this year has fallen back to track more closely with years prior to 2016. Still very warm but not insanely so. No doubt, we are heading into uncharted territory.

11
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 25, 2017, 12:00:56 AM »
DNFTT

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 22, 2017, 04:43:31 AM »
The CAA is wearing corduroy!

13
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 22, 2017, 04:35:48 AM »
“A shorter snow season increases the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth’s surface and can further warm the planet.”
GIF at this Twitter link: https://twitter.com/wxshift/status/943861210369462273

Article and interactive graph:  http://wxshift.com/climate-change/climate-indicators/snow-cover

As does clearing of the fallen snow.  Black roads, parking lots, rooftops, etc. absorb sunlight that would have normally been reflected.

Sigmetnow posts a chart that shows that summer snow cover in the northern hemisphere has dropped by 50% or 4 million square miles in the last 40 years which is dramatically increasing the amount of sunlight absorbed and you decide to talk about plowing snow having the same effect??

Now I know why I set you on ignore and how it is a mistake to click to see what you say.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: December 20, 2017, 02:25:45 AM »
Ah, the eternal mystical appearance of the sun every morning when it's not cloudy.

For all we really know the sun might simply fail to appear on a cloudless day, plunging us into perpetual night.  I don't think so, but I don't KNOW otherwise.

I'm still watching day by day.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: December 19, 2017, 02:15:14 AM »
meh...

16
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 17, 2017, 05:08:20 PM »
Capitalism is a growth system, absolutely dependent on a growing population to consume all of the shit we make. A shrinking population will bring down the entire crumbling edifice.

17
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 17, 2017, 05:05:00 PM »
So lets assume we will no longer be consuming any products made from oil in a couple of decades and thus need not worry about these ports. Not so fast. 43% of U.S. agriculture exports depend on these ports with New Orleans accounting for the bulk of this (36%). So why is New Orleans so dominant? The bulk of these products are transported by barge down the Mississippi, natures very own network. Good luck moving the Mississippi River to the new port you will be constructing.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/PortProfiles2017.pdf

18
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 17, 2017, 04:34:22 PM »
Lets look at Houston and the other Gulf coast ports. On average, 3.5 million barrels or 70% of U.S. oil imports flow through these ports daily and they are the most vulnerable ports in the U.S.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_MOVE_IMPCP_A2_R30_EPC0_IP0_MBBLPD_M.htm

50% of the U.S. refining infrastructure is located in this region and the transport infrastructure (pipelines) fanning out from the coast serves the entire country except the west coast and most of Canada.

https://www.eia.gov/special/gulf_of_mexico/

One group of vulnerable ports and a single very fundamental commodity.

19
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 17, 2017, 04:04:48 PM »

More immediately than even sea level rise mitigation, tropical ports will need to be made hurricane-proof to survive.


Is a "hurricane-proof" port even a possibility?


With ever advancing sea levels, could that level of protection ever be financially justified?


Could redundant ports rather than resilient port structures provide the flexibility needed ahead?
Terry

At this time, the answer is no.  This probably will not change in the future.  Multiple ports makes the most sense, as the best backup plan, provided they are sufficiently far from each other.

It is not so simple. Pick any port on the planet and what you will find is a vast infrastructure surrounding it worth trillions of dollars that transports the goods and materials that flow in and out of the port, often for thousands of miles. The physical infrastructure that spans the globe is a massive network and ports are the most embedded nodes of this network. Lose one port and you disrupt the flow of all of the goods and materials that flow in and out. Build a port that is far from the existing port and it will be isolated from this dense infrastructure network that has, in some cases, taken centuries to construct. Even more fundamentally, the ports are where they are because nature decided where to put them.

20
Consequences / Re: California weather extremes and climate
« on: December 17, 2017, 01:57:58 AM »
Have a bil who lives in Tucson. Snow routinely accumulates on peaks there.

21
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 16, 2017, 07:43:55 PM »
Live news stream.

http://www.ksby.com/category/297505/live-stream

Homes in Montecito are burning.

22
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: December 16, 2017, 05:19:26 PM »
Alexander555,
About the concern you have over using fossil fuel products to make clean ones:

Say you are building a housing development. You want to make them all net-zero-energy houses. Do you wait years until you can manufacture them entirely with clean energy and sustainable products?  Or do you build them now, with the most sustainable items and energy you can. The houses are going to be built anyway.  Making them net-zero now brings us that much closer to the future we need.


You build them now obviously.

I am more concerned with our existing built infrastructure. We cannot simply replace the structures on Manhattan. If we are to make any real progress we need to migrate existing buildings rapidly to as close to net-zero as possible, a massive undertaking.

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Energy Efficiency: The “First Fuel”
« on: December 16, 2017, 05:15:02 PM »
The only real hope we have to solve AGW while preserving the world economy is if we can decouple energy consumption from economic growth. Transitioning to non fossil fuel sources is crucial but energy efficiency from this perspective is far more important.

24
Consequences / Re: General Drought Stuff
« on: December 16, 2017, 04:50:03 PM »
 You know you're in trouble when the cactus start dying.

25
Consequences / Re: California weather extremes and climate
« on: December 16, 2017, 04:44:26 PM »
I have a sister who lives in Flagstaff and this is their snowy season. There is some great skiing on the high slopes there.

26
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 16, 2017, 04:26:40 PM »
I am at my most frustrated here when I am having a discussion with someone who dismisses the horrific impact that widespread destruction of built environments caused by climate change will have on the system of global capitalism. This physical structure has taken centuries to construct, represents the only real accumulation of wealth that supports commerce and cannot be easily replaced.

Food for thought...

It took the British more than a century to build the infrastructure needed to integrate India into the emerging system of capitalism!

27
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 16, 2017, 04:16:50 PM »
Very well said SH.

I have been posting here for several years. The only time I feel truly comfortable expressing my opinion is when I am explaining issues related to the economy, a direct result of a 35 year business career in manufacturing supported by an economics degree and MBA from the University of Chicago.

As a V.P. of Operations I was completely dependent on a functioning supply chain. Sure, I could have a poorly functioning purchasing department or west coast longshoreman strike gum up the works but it was the destructive plant fire from a key supplier that could really screw things up.

28
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:57:21 PM »
The most interesting reason I've heard for the delay is that there are no materials. There are no poles, no cables and many other of the many components of an electric grid. Crews are scavenging for materials among the wreckage.

I can think of many reasons  for the shortages.

1. Harvey, Irma, floods and fires are straining US supplies.
2. Low supply to begin with. Irma took a good chunk and the bankrupt monopoly was stream lining supply chains.
3. Horrible beurocracy that is slowing down the supply chain.

Functioning supply chains are the result of the magnificent infrastructure that has been created over the past century to support the system of global capitalism that we all take for granted. Sure, there are transitory degradations in the functioning of this supply chain such as financial crises, social unrest, even bureaucrats who are asleep at the wheel, but it is the destruction of this infrastructure that can have a lasting and often seemingly permanent impact on the supply chain. Puerto Rico has had just such an event.

Paradoxically, it takes functioning roads, electric grids and water systems to effect repairs on broken roads, electric grids and water systems.

Given the ever increasing disasters heading our way as a result of climate change, it is going to get...

...a...whole...lot...worse!

29
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:44:08 PM »

My family has lived around here for 150 years and our ( human. ) complicity in all this destruction wears on my soul. Millions and millions of my fellow human cohabitants don't feel my pain for the Coyotes, Cougars, and minions lost. They can't feel for what they know not.

The least informed of us humans will be feeling the pain soon enough, pain that will dwarf the hurt that families who are losing their homes now feel.

30
Consequences / Re: California weather extremes and climate
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:25:00 PM »
90, 180 and 365 day sea level pressure anomalies. Am I ill informed to be concerned by these trends? It is amazing to me that these high pressure anomalies are occurring over the oceans in both the southern and northern hemispheres. Is this the result of some natural oscillation?

31
Consequences / Re: California weather extremes and climate
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:16:15 PM »
And the 30 day sea level pressure anomaly showing persistent high pressure over the western U.S. which is driving much needed moisture north of California. I believe that this high pressure anomaly is the new normal under the emerging climate regime. It does not bode well for the Southwestern U.S.

32
Consequences / Re: California weather extremes and climate
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:04:19 PM »

33
Consequences / Re: California weather extremes and climate
« on: December 16, 2017, 02:57:12 PM »
And the Evaporative Demand Drought Index (EDDI) from NOAA shows the effects of this persistent weather pattern with little to no precipitation. This is the wet season for California and it is behaving as the worst category drought.

34
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: December 10, 2017, 02:44:22 PM »
This is great news. If pricing adjusts properly due to the availability of accurate information, the slide in coastal property values will serve to soften the damage to our financial system. Death by a thousand cuts is far better than cutting off a limb.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 05, 2017, 02:45:38 AM »
That is one scary chart with the inflection point in the 1990's. Clearly something has changed and the change appears to be persistent, if not permanent.

36
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 05, 2017, 01:45:20 AM »
62F in Chicago at 7 pm with thunderstorms and possible hail rolling in. Yesterday, they forecast a high for tomorrow of 31F. Now the forecast is 41F. The low is tracking much further north than expected. Winds are ridiculous.

It is December for God's sake! 62F!

37
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: December 03, 2017, 03:52:23 PM »
Keystone leaks all the time, far more than predicted before construction. Colour me unsurprised.

"The existing 2,147-mile (3,455 km) Keystone system from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Texas coast has had three significant leaks in the United States since it began operating in 2010, including a 5,000-barrel spill this month in rural South Dakota, and two others, each about 400 barrels, in South Dakota in 2016 and North Dakota in 2011.

Before constructing the pipeline, TransCanada provided a spill risk assessment to regulators that estimated the chance of a leak of more than 50 barrels to be “not more than once every seven to 11 years over the entire length of the pipeline in the United States,” according to its South Dakota operating permit.

For South Dakota alone, where the line has leaked twice, the estimate was for a “spill no more than once every 41 years.” 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pipeline-keystone-spills/keystones-existing-pipeline-spills-far-more-than-predicted-to-regulators-idUSKBN1DR1CS

sidd

Shale oil is more viscous than conventional oil and, due to impurities, far more corrosive. Shale oil becomes pourable at temperatures between 24 and 27 °C (75 and 81 °F), while conventional crude oil is pourable at temperatures between −60 to 30 °C (−76 to 86 °F). This property affects shale oil's ability to be transported in existing pipelines and transporting requires the addition of highly flammable deluents or solvents. It is no surprise that pipelines rupture more often as a result.

Tar sand oil is even worse.

38
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 03, 2017, 03:32:01 PM »
55F and sunny in Chicago today. High of 61 and rain forecast for tomorrow. It is then supposed to get cold with highs in the low 30's but this is similar to a forecast for last week when rain was supposed to usher in colder weather. The rain never happened and temps continued to climb into the high 40's and low 50's throughout the week. Last weeks forecast predicted highs in the low 30's today.

I'll wait and see.

39
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: December 03, 2017, 03:29:15 PM »
Our planning and financial systems bring the assumed future into the present. As soon as the assumption of rapid future sea level rise takes hold, probably within a couple of decades max., the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) will go onto rapid collapse. With it will go the private pension system and the general economy.

If climate change speeds up as is quite possible, then that day could be a lot sooner.

I am 62, quite healthy and have longevity in the family. I fully expect to witness a global financial crisis, triggered by climate change, that will make us all remember fondly the crisis of 2008.

40
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: December 03, 2017, 03:19:50 PM »


As long as the scientists fail to deliver the wake up call, governments will keep making stupid decisions which lock them in to fossil fuel usage for many decades.

Sadly yes. Good science would inform good policy decisions.

41
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: December 02, 2017, 06:28:26 PM »
In 2010 Peoples Gas received approval to implement an accelerated plan to replace aging gas mains in the city of Chicago at a cost of $2.6 billion. The utility had been working for the previous 2 decades to replace the mains and it had become clear the rate of replacement was too slow. In 2017 the utility got approval to accelerate the accelerated plan to complete the remaining 2000 miles of rapidly aging gas mains that are failing at an alarming rate. This project is now forecast to be completed by 2040 at a cost of $300 million per year. The total cost of replacement is now expected to top $6 billion.

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170512/NEWS/170519964/chicago-gas-pipe-replacement-costs-continue-to-climb

These kinds of ambitious infrastructure investments are intended to support our built structures (in this case the 3rd largest city in the U.S.) and are difficult to finance even in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Once in place, this fixed infrastructure which represents a large portion of accumulated wealth of a nation is expected to reap benefits for the region as a whole out into the distant future. You do not get any 'take backs' when complete and you better hope this long term investment of precious wealth took sufficiently into account all of the factors affecting that distant future.

No one bothered to ask what role natural gas would or should play in 2050 or 2080!!!

42
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: December 02, 2017, 05:04:03 PM »
"These deep uncertainties call for the development of robust adaptive strategies."

And it is this need for and the failure to implement "robust adaptive strategies" that is going to destroy large portions of the accumulated wealth of nations across the planet. In the U.S. we have coastal communities that are beginning to grapple with sea level rise. They debate the need to spend tens of millions to raise sections of roadway by a foot or hundreds of millions to protect a region's waste water system from sea level rise of 2 feet.

The infrastructure that these communities are attempting to harden took a century to create and the costs to protect them are already overwhelming local communities. The costs will eventually become prohibitive and eventually, in many cases, adaptation will no longer be technically feasible. When sea level rise really gets cooking in the 2nd half of the century, the costs will overwhelm national governments including the wealthiest nations in the world. We will be witnessing evacuations of large regions of the country and the loss of wealth that this built structure represents will decimate economies.

43
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 02, 2017, 04:37:19 PM »
It's tee shirt weather here in SW Ontario, but the green leaves have turned. Pleasant fall weather.
Terry

Trees in Chicago have finally had a substantial leaf drop in the past week, much later than normal.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: November 30, 2017, 05:47:43 AM »
Hudson Bay's refreeze over the last week has been one of the earliest on record over the past twenty years it seems. Should be mostly frozen by 12/5-12/10!

It is freezing much faster than 2016 but pretty much in line with 2012 through 2015.

45
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 28, 2017, 02:10:51 AM »
A beautiful sunny Spring day in Chicago today as temperatures climbed to a balmy 57F. Tomorrow's high will be 56F but it will be rainy.

Forecasts through Monday, December 4 call for highs around 50F.

This...is...insane.

46
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: November 25, 2017, 05:33:36 AM »

47
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 23, 2017, 01:16:27 AM »
If you mean Fig.1 in CM Miller 2017, that refers to earlier data-free speculative models that the paper later rejects as totally erroneous at least for the long expanse of the ESAS edge, based on Swerus cores. There is no discussion of landslide susceptibility in this paper and no mention of Storegga, which might have but did not release sufficient methane at sufficiently rapid rates to significantly affect the atmosphere or warm the climate:

It is not my intension to be argumentative,

Please, not to worry. I can't imagine anything more I'd rather witness than 2 ASIF heavy weights going toe to toe in the ring. I'm going to get me a ring side seat.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 19, 2017, 11:18:51 PM »
Jim,  I really like your graph.  However, the 2000's average is getting a little long in the tooth as a "current" baseline.  It would be nice to have a more recent aggregated average to compare against.

While you can't do a 2010's average yet, maybe you can add in a dashed line for the previous 10 years average.

It is a mistake to call the 2000's average a 'baseline' regardless of whether you attach the modifier 'current'.

Baseline: n: a line that is a base for measurement

Using the term correctly, even the 1990's average is not properly a baseline and calling it such could serve to obscure how badly things are deteriorating. Simply call it what it is, an average for a decade.

I am OK calling the 1980's average a baseline for this chart so long as we acknowledge that this 'baseline' does not, in fact, capture extent decline that had occurred prior to that decade.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: November 19, 2017, 10:41:40 PM »
A general warming trend over the last 4 decades.

Looks more to me like the continents are flat while the oceans are warming -- though the Pacific is more variable than the Atlantic.

Are we looking at the same charts?

Since 2002, the colder years for both Siberia and North America are more like the warmer years from the previous century.

Siberia:

1991 to 2000: 5 of 10 years with temps below -11C.
2001 to 2016: 1 of 16 year with temps below -11C.

1991 to 2000: 3 of 10 years with temps higher than -10C.
2001 to 2016: 13 of 16 years with temps higher than -10C.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: November 19, 2017, 02:12:55 PM »
I've been playing a bit with temperature data from the NCEP reanalysis dataset

I've divided the Arctic (65-90N) into four sections:

Here are graphs for October 2005-2017 and 1948-2017:
Thank you Neven, very interesting. It seems 2016 automn "craziness" was mostly in the Pacific sector, which also shows the strongest long-term warming trend.

It does look as if some shift occurred around 2000 in all regions. All are warmer with the shift more noticeable in the Pacific and Atlantic sectors.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48