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.


Topics - anthropocene

Pages: [1]
1
The forum / Intermittent - fail to post: "unable to handle request"
« on: November 06, 2019, 03:19:14 PM »
Hi
   Intermittently I get an error when attempting to make a post. Error is:

"This page isn’t working
forum.arctic-sea-ice.net is currently unable to handle this request.
HTTP ERROR 500"

It doesn't seem to matter whether or not a file attachment is included in the post.  Same result on both Firefox and Chrome browsers. Most recent case has been on Consequences section. Out of 5 attempts to post, only one worked.
Hopefully this post works! Anybody else seeing this?

2
Consequences / IPCC RCP is useless (apparently)
« on: August 15, 2018, 05:57:48 PM »
On another thread bbr2314 has stated that IPCC RPC is "useless".
To make it clear I assume we are talking about this:
http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/RCPs.html

I disagree. I could go into a long and detailed defence of the RCP - also listing the flaws I know of in the RCP (There are several - there always will be in a future modeling project of this type) but I don't  see why I should have to; To prove something is useless it is not necessary to list all the things it is useful for, it is required to state what the assumed purpose of that something is and why it doesn't meet that purpose, never has done and never will.

All I will say is that the general methodology follows what James Hansen did in the 1980s with 3 "pathways" (Which 30 years later has been  generally agreed on as a useful way to frame the model data and questions which we need answers to) and the RCP includes (mainly - nothing is perfect!) all the latest model data known to required margins of error.  Given that heritage, to say RCP is "useless" is a pretty extreme statement which requires pretty extreme evidence/argument to back up that statement (imho).

3
The rest / WarmRegards podcast: Engaging with climate change deniers
« on: February 17, 2018, 07:51:23 PM »
Can't find this mentioned anywhere else and since it doesn't fit into any of the other categories...
https://soundcloud.com/warmregardspodcast/finding-shared-values-katharine-hayhoe-on-engaging-with-climate-change-deniers

Episode from the Warm Regards podcast with Katharine Hayhoe. Some really useful advice on how to engage in discussions on climate, both face-to-face and online. Also what is striking is the level that this conversation is held at; intellectually, in emotional intelligence and positivity. It feels like the 21st century will be the century of women. If this podcast series is anything to go by, it can't come quick enough.

4
Science / Wind run historical data
« on: November 05, 2017, 06:22:47 PM »
As well as all the more well known effects of climate change, one noticeable change (here in the UK at least) appear to be the reduction in the overall amount of wind. From 30 to 40 years ago there seem to be many more completely still days with no wind. Of course, when there are storms these tend to be stronger with higher wind strengths but I would guess that this is more than compensated for by the increase in "quiet" days. For days one end the weather seems to get stuck in a mode with no or little wind. Good for cyclists, not so good for kite fliers.  The above is all subjective of course. What would be nice would be quantitative data to back this up. Since the strength of the wind is so variable I would guess this would be best measured by the total "wind run" (the total distance the wind would have traveled over the period time = wind speed x amount of time at that speed). Best would be this figure totalled over a period of time e.g. monthly values.
  I haven't been able to find any historical data for the wind run or wind strength. Does anybody know where this sort of data may be found (specifically for the UK) and whether this data is actually measured? Is it gathered consistently around the world?

5
Policy and solutions / Liars vs hypocrites
« on: July 09, 2017, 11:44:48 AM »
Hi
Couldn't see a thread to post links to of interesting articles so created a new thread instead. Interesting article about the on-going battle between climate science and climate deniers/cynics. Most interesting is definition of deniers and cynics and when one becomes the other. Also that hypocrites are thought of much worse than liars. Much food for thought on how to win the argument(s).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/07/climate-change-denial-scepticism-cynicism-politics

6
The below was posted in the IJIS thread. Rather than clog up that thread I've started a new thread here to discuss it. I don't understand what "exhausted a lot of heat" means. Every other point I disagree with. What are the chances of beating 2012 record low extent without a GAC like the 2012 GAC? Discuss...

"The gac is way overrated
The differences with and without it would have been incredibly small.
The most amazing part was the speed in which large areas of Ice floes melted so fast.
But it also exhausted a lot of heat.  Where as a 2010 like dipole would have injected more heat into the basin and had a very similar end result"

7
Science / Variability of global temp in transtion to higher average temp
« on: November 01, 2015, 03:34:14 PM »
Just finished re-reading Richard Alley's "Two Mile Time Machine".  One topic which I haven't seen much discussion about is the idea described in the book of the global temperature being a 'drunk person'. That is, when the temperature is allowed to sit in a stable position it will sit there without varying too much: however when it is pushed out of equilibrium it will vary wildly chaotically around a new average. This is illustrated by the ice core temperature record over the last 100,000 years. More technically I think this would be described by Lorentz attractors; the global temperature will vary only by small amounts from a Lorentz attractor until it is forced away from that attractor when it will vary wildly until it settles down to 'orbit' another Lorentz attractor.
  Now assuming that the ECS for CO2 doubling is  3degC. Have there been any scientific papers discussing this potential variability (over short time-scales) of the global temperature if this 3degC change comes to pass? In other words, the paleoclimate record points to a ECS of 3degC (over long timescales) is there any idea of the variability in the global temperature over shorter timescales after the long term average global temperature has shifter by +3degC? That is, with a global temp change of approx. +3degC could this transition include short term global temperature change of +4degC, +5degC, +6degC....?? 

8
The rest / The language of weather and climate: BBC show
« on: August 28, 2015, 12:41:46 PM »
Don't know what BBC policy is now on downloading programmes but hopefully this is available to many here.
Interesting take on language of weather and climate (why I'm not putting it in the science section).
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065tqyq

Most interesting aspect is that pre 17th century the weather was treated as God 'speaking' to humanity. Therefore foretelling the weather was prejudging what he would say and therefore sacriligeous. It has been almost 200 years since weather has been understood as a physical process and forecasting started. Even now we have people stating that extreme weather events are the wrath of a supreme being. We have only been talking about humanity changing the climate for 30 years. It is not surprising that some people have not yet made this cognitive leap. Food for thought for all sides.

9
Arctic sea ice / Relative height of North Pacific and Atlantic
« on: June 04, 2015, 11:58:29 PM »
In an interview (http://www.ecoshock.info/2015/05/crashing-climate-change.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoshockNews+%28Ecoshock+News%29) Paul Beckwith states that in normal conditions the Pacific is higher than the Atlantic. There is therefore a gradual flow from Bering Strait to Barents. He also states that this differential was increased in 2010 and the influx of warm water this caused was a major factor in the collapse of ice volume in that year. He also implies that this differential is larger in El Nino years. Everything would therefore point to a large differential in 2015. I know this was discussed many years ago on this blog but I can't find the thread. Anybody know of a resource for near real time sea-level differences between Pacific and Atlantic and/or a near real time measure of flow through Bering Strait? With the "North Pacific warm blob" if this flow is large I suspect this year will be close to minimum low no matter what the weather does.

10
Hi All,

        This discussion started on the 2015 Melting thread. It's not directly related to this melt season so I've split it out into a different thread. Neven, feel free to put this elsewhere if you see fit (e.g. science) but I think it has most relevance to the arctic sea ice.
   If I may be so bold to summarise the points made previously:
      1) During the melting season most of the posts forecasting warm weather in the arctic include maps showing heat well above ground levele.g. 800hPa or 850hPa.
      2) The majority of the time the air temp in the few metres above the ice will be at or below freezing (I think there are some differences as to why this happens but it doesn't change the temperature).
      3) Sometimes the ground-level temperature could be significantly above 0degC. This situation is most likely to be caused by strong warm winds blowing across the ice
 
Getting back to one of my original points: It is suggested that the temperature at 800hPa is used because that gives an indication of the amount of energy being provided to melt the ice. My question to that is, what mechanisms are there, for the heat at that height to get to ground level where it can melt the sea-ice? 

11
Policy and solutions / Divest from fossil fuels; Resources
« on: February 21, 2015, 12:23:08 PM »
My company pension scheme has a stakeholders meeting next week. I plan to make a proposal to that meeting that the pension fund divest all of its money from fossil fuel related stocks. There may be others here who have or are planning to do something similar. It would be good to have a single thread holding useful links to obtain data when preparing proposals of this type. Does anybody know good links? The more up to date the better. What would be useful would be following:

1) Economic studies showing how risky an investment in fossil fuel stocks is. The more economically respectable the institution and/or conservative writing the report the better. Making a good economic case must be the best way to produce a positive result at any meeting. If the report is recent enough to include the recent fall in oil price and therefore fall in oil stocks that would be even better.

2)Pension funds (being shareholders) should hold directors to account for irresponsible actions.  Reports on how fossil fuel companies are being reckless with shareholder's money re: spending billions exploring for oil which is likely to be worthless.

3) A concise summary of why it is a moral responsibility for investors to divest (aimed at a typical pension meeting crowd).

4) Examples of other pension funds and/or financial institutions divesting.

5) Anything else I missed?



Pages: [1]