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 - anthropocene

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero
« on: February 15, 2021, 11:10:07 PM »
On Radio Ecoshock, interview with the author of the original paper which started this thread. Summary of the main points in digestible form and some of the questions posed here are raised in the interview.

https://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_MacDougall_LoFi.mp3

Read the write up here:
https://www.ecoshock.org/2021/02/stop-the-ghastly-future.html

2
Tor and El Cid:
You seem to make calculations where forcings are linearly related to emissions, or to concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.
However, forcings from CO2 are logarithmic.

"The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect."

Thus, with flat emissions, the forcings will slowly decline. The decay function for CO2 is central for the argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Incorrect. You are treating CO2 concentration and emissions as interchangeable. This is NOT the case (at least in the short term). El Cid is correct in treating cumulative emissions and temperature as having a (almost) linear relationship. See the temperature diagrams half way down this post: https://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2013/02/how-big-is-the-climate-change-deficit/

The failure is by taking in isolation the physical process of increasing CO2 concentration and its warming potential (radiative forcing) and directly applying it to emissions rather than modelling the entire earth system (In other words: If we lived on a barren planet with no ocean and so 100% emissions enter the atmosphere then the CO2 concentration and emissions would be interchangeable - fortunately we don't).

3
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 05, 2021, 12:26:32 AM »
The graph below would suggest the impact was minimal. Is this because the reduction in aerosols was small and/or for too short a time period? Is there any analysis of this?   
 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20201214_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf

Why would this graph suggest this?  2015-2016 was the strongest El Niño in modern history and 2019-2020 was barely a threshold weak El Niño.  I would say that this chart tells me the opposite. 

I could have phrased that better. It's more of a question: Is it possible to determine a signal of lower aerosols from the temp graph from 2020? The main problem is that we do not have direct measurement of the level of aerosols and their effect on incoming and out-going radiation. A point Hansen has made many times. So (from the graph) it could be inferred that possible lower aerosol amounts in the atmosphere contributed to higher temperatures in the March to June(?) period but with no direct record of when the reduction of aerosols happened and by how much it's just hand-waving. And then the November measurement has to be explained.

Summary of the Hansen and Sato paper (and later in the podcast repeat of counter research)  and discussion of aerosols is in EcoShock podcast episode: https://www.ecoshock.org/2020/12/global-warming-acceleration-hansen-sato.html 



4
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 18, 2020, 10:29:49 AM »
Good summary of global temperatures this year and also discussion of impact of aerosols which has been discussed in this thread. Also interesting read on solar cycles and implication for global temperature in the next few years.
Also discussed in this thread was the impact of covid-19 on aerosols and the impact that would have on global temperatures. The graph below would suggest the impact was minimal. Is this because the reduction in aerosols was small and/or for too short a time period? Is there any analysis of this?   
 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20201214_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf

5
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 14, 2020, 09:34:27 AM »
NOAA temperatures are in for July 2020. Continues the pattern of recent months with almost matching record high anomalies while having neutral ENSO conditions.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2020-was-record-hot-for-n-hemisphere-2nd-hottest-for-planet

"The July 2020 global temperature was 62.06 degrees F (16.72 degrees C) — 1.66 degrees F (0.92 of a degree C) above the 20th-century average — tying with 2016 as the second-hottest July on record. Last month was only 0.02 of a degree F (0.01 of a degree C) shy of tying the record-hot July of 2019.

The combined land and ocean surface average temperature for the Northern Hemisphere, the highest ever recorded for July, was an unprecedented 2.12 degrees F (1.18 degrees C ) above average. The combined temperature surpassed July 2019 by 0.14 of a degree F (0.08 of a degree C).

Record-hot July temperatures spread across parts of southeastern Asia, northern South America, North America, as well as across the western and northern Pacific Ocean, northern Indian Ocean and parts of the Caribbean Sea."

6
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 07, 2020, 01:45:06 AM »
Copernicus is in for July 2020.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-july-2020

"Global temperatures were much above average in July 2020. The month was:

    0.49°C warmer than the 1981-2020 average for July;
    the third warmest July in this data record;
    cooler by 0.07°C than July 2019, the warmest July;
    cooler by 0.04°C than July 2016, the second warmest July."

7
Consequences / Re: Global Dimming - The aerosol masking effect
« on: August 07, 2020, 01:41:50 AM »
Copernicus is in for July 2020.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-july-2020

"Global temperatures were much above average in July 2020. The month was:

    0.49°C warmer than the 1981-2020 average for July;
    the third warmest July in this data record;
    cooler by 0.07°C than July 2019, the warmest July;
    cooler by 0.04°C than July 2016, the second warmest July."

What differences from July 2019 and July 2016 does NCEP record? I make it: -0.14degC cooler than 2019 and -0.2degC. cooler than 2016 (https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR). I can't be sure whether these are the same as the data that you post because no links were provided.

Anyway - the thread topic is discussing what masking effect aerosols may have on continuously increasing temperatures from AGW. Why would you use model reanalysis numbers to base the discussion on when real world physical temperature measurements are available (if you can wait a few days for the collation for monthly figures to be published)?

So temperatures in the first half of 2020 have been almost record breaking with only slightly positive ENSO numbers. So there could be a signature of less aerosols due to covid-19 causing a temperature increase but the evidence is by no means compelling. I'm willing to be convinced either way - if somebody can provide real evidence to support their theory.


8
Consequences / Re: Global Dimming - The aerosol masking effect
« on: August 06, 2020, 01:31:06 PM »
I think it's called "weather".
July was a different story than June.
Meanwhile, temperature anomalies keep going down, in both NH and SH.

NCEP reanalysis is obviously broken.
Copernicus, NOAA and all other global temperature measurements I've seen disagree with the decrease in temperatures shown by NCEP. (With decreasing pacific sea surface temperatures I expect temperatures to decrease (slowly) for the rest of the year).
Please stop posting cherry picked data which matches your pre-judged position. For example the average of the last 12-months is close to a record: See: https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-june-2020



9
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 25, 2020, 01:21:53 PM »
I would be interested on peoples views on the consequences of when the Arctic ocean becomes ice free? Here is a peer reviewed paper by Guy R,McPherson in June 2020.


What has led you to the conclusion that it is a peer reviewed paper? What quantitative measurements or predictions in the article could be peer reviewed? (I'm interested in how the general public assesses the quality of "scientific" writing - especially articles online  (both climate denial and doomerism)). 

10
Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 13, 2020, 02:38:28 PM »
Confirming what wehappyfew has just posted:

Hefastios;  You are confusing irradiance with forcing.

THIS IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 OF THE LINK WHICH YOU PROVIDED. On the left-hand side is amplitude of solar irradiance (eye-balling the graph about 1.6 watts/m^2   and on the right hand side is the forcing: 0.25 watts/m^2). Hansen et al have done the conversion for you. It says " Left scale is the energy passing through an area perpendicular to Sun-Earth line. Averaged over Earth's surface the absorbed solar energy is ~240 W/m2, so the amplitude of solar variability is a forcing of ~0.25 W/m2."

 Either you are not understanding what is presented, not reading it all or wilfully cherry-picking quotes from scientific papers to make it look like they support what you say.  (Not for the first time either).

Also Figure 3 provides the GHG forcing (approx. 3 watts/m^2). So approx 12 times the amplitude  of a (unusually large?) solar cycle.

As you say yourself - OHC and surface temperatures are almost irrelevant side-effects ( ;-) ) of what happens at the TOA interface. So why do you complicate the discussion with these points? It could be taken as an attempt at a gish-gallop.

Either accept the points made by wehappyfew (and Hansen et al) or provide evidence to refute it and support your point.
 

 

11
...

Edit: Also, I note that if AR6 does decide to us weighting factors on ECS projections then they should also downweight the Russian (INM CM4/5) projection of ECS.

INM CM4 and CM5 models are among the ones that track actual temperature developments best. So might be a good idea to keep them - maybe they are the ones that will be demonstrated to have gotten the hydro cycle, as well as the cloud feedback right?
<-- cut -->
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S000143381004002X
The problem in the statement above is the word "actual". What is actual?

From the same climate-lab-book page link provided (so clear and obvious that it would be hard to miss. Surprising that it was not mentioned when presenting the evidence):
 
"The simulation data uses spatially complete coverage of surface air temperature whereas the observations use a spatially incomplete mix of air temperatures over land and sea surface temperatures over the ocean. It is expected that this factor alone would cause the observations to show smaller trends than the simulations."

How well do the various models perform if the above factor was applied to observational temperature or use of a more spatially complete data set? e,g. Cowtan and Way (although not perfect widely accepted to be a more accurate record of global temperature increase. Remember - here we're trying to evaluate the accuracy of the models over a relatively short time period (not track global temperatures over a long time period).


12
To get back to the OP of this thread, if there is to be multiple meters of SLR this century, this implies an average per year of multiple cm per year, which has not happened. What is the SLR for the last twelve months and how does that compare to the average over the last decade? Do you expect them to go up in a curve? Or do you expect a rise of a cm a month for a decade? How would the change in current SLR happen to get such a huge rise in this century?

Hi Tom,

The tyranny of exponential growth. Let's take current SLR at 3mm/year. And a doubling time of 15 years (suggested by Hansen) - possibly optimistic given 6-fold increase in Antarctica in the last 30 years. In 75 years - 5 doublings produces 96mm/year in 2095. 96cm/decade = near enough 1m/decade by end of century. So MISI and MICI are interesting concepts and potentially have a large impact on SLR and need investigating but to a large extent are a diversion from the main problem. Another issue is only reporting SLR up to 2100. From the above this would be approx 1.75m SLR by 2100. That's OK to manage you say. But in 10 years after 2100 there would be another 2m SLR. In the decade after that potentially another 4m. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that exponential growth would stop. What height wall do you build in 2100? A 2m high wall which will be useless in 10 years time. Let's make it 4m high then. That massively increases the cost and that will still be defunct in 20 to 30 years time. Answer: You don't build the wall at all. Like with covid-19, never play with exponential growth.


13
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 07, 2020, 09:36:24 AM »
Somebody able to find the error in the following? What am I missing or does this mean that we've already gone flying past Paris goal of  "pursuing" 1.5 degC above pre-industrial?

( "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement )

From:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-may-2020

- "with a global temperature 0.63°C above that for 1981-2010"
- "0.63°C should be added to these values to relate recent global temperatures to the pre-industrial level defined in the IPCC Special Report on “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The average temperature for the twelve months to May 2020 is close to 1.3°C above the level. "
- ENSO is currently neutral so current global temps aren't impacted by El Nino warming although Nino 3.4 region has been slightly above zero for most of the last 12 months: (See: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php)
- global temperature is currently increasing at a rate of 0.183degC/decade: (from Tamino https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/global-warming-how-fast/)
-  On top of this is the delayed heating of the atmosphere from the heating lag mainly caused by heat stored in the oceans. This article puts the full length of delay at 40 years ( https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html) Even being optimistic and saying that the full effect of the equivalent of 20 years of GHG emissions is yet to reach the atmosphere that's an additional 2 x 0.183 = 0.36degC.
- So total global temp. increase above pre-industrial already baked in is 1.3degC + 0.36degC = 1.66degC - blowing past Paris climate goal which even now is being "pursued"  (unless massive removal of GHG can take place in the very near future which appears to be fantasy at this moment in time).

It may be dispiriting but if this is the case then I think an honest assessment that this is the current situation is better than ignoring it.

14
With it being 29M versus the GFS 2M temps wont that typically cause a cool bias I'm situ?

Unless an inversion keep the lowest reaches of the atmosphere stratified.

But that is still 84 feet difference roughly

I have always argued and will continue to argue that the main cause is temperature inversion. The ice creates its own micro-climate, especially close to ground (ice) level. Friv, this is why the waves of "torches" of hot air temps hitting the ice which you regularly forecast never cause the amount of ice melt expected. A large proportion of the warm air will just be forced upwards away from the ice by the area of blocking colder air sat on the ice surface.

As further evidence for this I present the importance of melt ponds - especially early in the melting season. Melt ponds will tend to generate local sources of rising thermals which will cause the temperature inversion to break down. Therefore a large amount of melt ponds early in the melt season encourages more snow and ice melt and makes the ice more susceptible to invasions of warm air. 

My proposition is that the weather forecasting tools (e.g. GFS) do not properly take this inversion into account when presenting 2m temperature values.


 

15
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 07, 2019, 07:06:46 PM »
El CID:
That is one reason the US is so deep in denial. It has had the least warming of just about any land area, and actually has had, if anything, more snow.

So true.  No only that, but temperatures in the U.S. have moderated overall, with increased winter low temperatures and decreased summer high temperatures.  Hence, it is part denial and part approval for the better weather.
And later: "Cherry-picking the 1960s as your start date to validate your claim does very little to improve your stance or reputation."

1) Have you read the article? The 1960s is mentioned because that date is explicitly stated in the link. That is the time when the impacts of (one-off) drivers of USA temperature decreased allowing the (global) heating trend take the dominant role. It also happens to be a period that includes the life experience of the majority of people. Since we are discussing what is experienced by Americans, using the 1960s as a starting point seems to make perfect sense.

2) I'm not denying that temperature increases have been variable (in location and time) and that the experience of temp. increase may be less bad (and even good in some cases) for Americans compared to other regions of the globe. You are quite welcome to argue those points.

3) Would you like to state what time period the statement "but temperatures in the U.S. have moderated overall" covers? Moderated suggests change and the wording of the sentence suggests the end of the period is now. So when are you saying this period of moderation started?


16
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 05:01:30 PM »
Copernicus has October 2019 as warmest October (only by 0.01degC over 2016 October).

https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-october-2019

2015 I believe you meant?

Yes 2015 - thanks for the correction.

17
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 04:47:10 PM »
El CID:
That is one reason the US is so deep in denial. It has had the least warming of just about any land area, and actually has had, if anything, more snow.

So true.  No only that, but temperatures in the U.S. have moderated overall, with increased winter low temperatures and decreased summer high temperatures.  Hence, it is part denial and part approval for the better weather.

I wish you'd stop posting these falsehoods. Summer high temperatures may have increased more slowly than winter lows but they're still increasing (from 1960s) - this is not the same as decreasing. The dustbowl anomaly causing the unusual spike of 1930s and particulates warp results from before the 1960s. Unlike the dustbowl, the current increase in maximums is here to stay and will only get worse. And how many people can remember the 1930s or even 1960s? For most people maximum temps have been going up most of their lives.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

18
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?

19
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 01:25:07 PM »
Copernicus has October 2019 as warmest October (only by 0.01degC over 2016 October).

https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-october-2019

20
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: September 08, 2019, 10:07:02 AM »
At the risk of derailing the chilled out happy mood of this thread...  this is new and a soundtrack for the times we live in. It is also unbelievably sad.


21
At last! I can ask a stupid question - this is more than likely been asked before but you can never have too many stupid questions. Greenland melt and SMB are much in the news at the moment. The diagram below (the bottom graph) appears to show the SMB over the "melt" year. At the start mass aggregation is zero - makes sense. Mass is gained from September through winter - makes sense. At the end of May (ish) melting starts and SMB is started to be lost. So far so good. But the "average" graph shows that at the end of the year (End of August) SMB is approx 400Gt higher than 12 months earlier. Even 2011-2012 (the 12 month period of greatest melt?) only gets back to the zero - which means no mass was gained or lost? But Greenland is losing mass in most years. How can this be? What is wrong with the above and how should the graph be read?

22
The rest / Re: Stuff Steven Goddard/Tony Heller says
« on: July 25, 2019, 09:07:13 PM »
Mainly for Jim Hunt.

Seems like Tony Heller has resurfaced on youtube. Presumably he got tired of all the (inconvenient truth) replies being made on other formats. At the moment videos are posted and comments made with very little push back about the lack of scientific rigour and downright lies said - a shame - a little echo chamber is starting to form.

 So if any of you fancy wading in and rebutting this nonsense then be my guest. This video may be of particular interest to people here since it involves arctic sea ice and Tony uses his favourite MASIE graph even though he's been told many times why that particular source shouldn't be used for the purpose he uses it for.

23
Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: July 09, 2019, 12:46:14 AM »
This looked wrong straight-away. Checking seems to confirm this. Looking at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)  1ppm of C02 is approx. 8Gt of CO2 (other sites have slightly different figures but doesn't make much difference).
Saying pre-industrial was 280 ppm CO2 and so increase in C02 since pre-industrial is  (410 - 280)  =130ppm which gives a figure of approx. 1040 Gt of CO2 added.  This means above quote is out by approx a factor of 3. Is this just a confusion between mass of CO2 and Carbon on it's own?  If so, where is the error introduced - is it just a typo in to above quote and it should be "pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon"?

I don't know enough in this area to comment on the process, but you raise a pet peeve of mine. Unless we refer back to actual scientific papers, it seems we are chasing moving goalposts. Even then, it can be very difficult to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.


Thanks for the response. I would have linked to the original paper but of course it looks like it is pay-walled. Science needs to become more transparent: freely accessible papers and access to data as well. I don't know how publications make money out of that model but it is an area which needs improvement. It would create a step change in the quality of science and also force the reporting on science to up its game.  (Anyway - that's most probably enough off-topic).

24
Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: July 07, 2019, 11:16:06 PM »
Hi All

Can't see a link posted anywhere for this; doesn't fit naturally into any thread - this is the best fit I could find.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48870920

Also, since this is the science section. Could somebody check my maths. The above article includes this line.

"Once these trees matured they could pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, some two-thirds of extra carbon from human activities put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution."

This looked wrong straight-away. Checking seems to confirm this. Looking at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)  1ppm of C02 is approx. 8Gt of CO2 (other sites have slightly different figures but doesn't make much difference).
Saying pre-industrial was 280 ppm CO2 and so increase in C02 since pre-industrial is  (410 - 280)  =130ppm which gives a figure of approx. 1040 Gt of CO2 added.  This means above quote is out by approx a factor of 3. Is this just a confusion between mass of CO2 and Carbon on it's own?  If so, where is the error introduced - is it just a typo in to above quote and it should be "pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon"?

25
Sounds like a round about way of saying the decreasing tornados tre d is climate related.

Please provide a quote in either of the two articles linked which mentions a decreasing tornado trend and where is it said that the decreasing trend is climate related?

From the National weather center:
There has been little trend in the frequency of the EF-1+ tornadoes.
The trend in F3+ tornadoes has been downward.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends


From the NOAA link:

"To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed." ...
"The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years."

I don't see where it states F3+ are trending downwards?

No, they just showed a graph where they are trending downward.

Kinbote: What Klondike Kat is doing is a 'gish gallop'. Don't fall for it by moving the discussion onto the new reference thrown into the discussion by KK. (Even though this itself appears to be false since the NOAA article itself states "The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years." - sigh - squashing the inaccuracies is tiresome).

My original question came about after links to two articles were posted by Tom and Sigmetnow and Klondike Kat said: "Sounds like a round about way of saying the decreasing tornados tre d is climate related"  - my hypothesis was that this was not what those articles were saying. Dunno, maybe I missed something - so Klondike Kat was given an opportunity to quote where the two articles stated there was a downward trend and that downward trend was climate related. In the examples given by KK there is no statement to that effect. 

(If tornado region is moving east I guess there may be a reduction in tornadoes once the region moves into the Atlantic. But by then there may have been an F5 go straight up Pennsylvania Avenue. Some may say there'sbeen a metaphorical one of those already.  :o )


26
Sounds like a round about way of saying the decreasing tornados tre d is climate related.

Please provide a quote in either of the two articles linked which mentions a decreasing tornado trend and where is it said that the decreasing trend is climate related?

27
The rest / Re: Climate change activists should not fly
« on: April 22, 2019, 10:48:27 PM »
I was maybe over provocative on my previous post. For some it can be an infuriating subject. I've been on demos against climate change and been vilified for taking a bus to get there (it was hired and full and so just about as efficient as it could be). For some people any excuse will be taken to undermine the message.     

The discussion may be slightly at cross purposes because the discussion is covering two different ideas at the same time. On one side is persuasion - a logical argument which can change peoples minds and behaviours. It should (and does in the case of climate change) stand on its own independent of who is presenting it and what their carbon footprint is.
What Tom seemed to have in mind was influence. Not necessarily outright discussing climate change but changing views and behaviours of others purely by what they do. I can't think of a well-known global personality who influences views on climate change. Until there is a multi-national CEO or political leader who gets to the top with a minimal carbon footprint (e.g. not flying) etc. and continues that when they get there, then I don't see how else it will happen. Of course at a more local level there are influencers operating all the time on the small scale: Commuting by bike, working close to home etc. In many cases climate change may not be the main reason for the life choices they've made but they will still be exerting an influence on others around them.
In any case global personalities and the influence they do or don't bring to the climate change debate won't have much impact on the final result. Persuasion is by far the most critical lever in this battle.

And I'll leave you with another counter-example to the original statement. Sir David Attenborough, long time natural history presenter and national treasure. Most probably has a huge carbon footprint built up over the years but can't think of anybody people will have trust in and will listen to more: 


 

28
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: April 22, 2019, 11:35:12 AM »
The UK is burning. It is April. #winterisdying
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-48010513

29
The rest / Re: Climate change activists should not fly
« on: April 17, 2019, 02:01:12 AM »
You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. When activists fly around the world but say we have to cut carbon emissions, it send the message that you have to sacrifice but I don't. Activists for civil rights were thrown in prison, attacked by police dogs, tear gassed, etc. and have mostly triumphed. Activists for climate change too often are do what I say, not what I do and have mostly failed.

Most probably a trolling question but I'll bite - and back on topic.

1) What gives you the right to define what is the correct behaviour of others and what is not allowed? What if a climate scientist is vegetarian, doesn't drive and uses only renewable energy at home? Are they allowed to fly then? Is the quality of their work a factor in what  CO2 emissions they're allowed to produce? Can that be applied to all workers? - I doubt that would be popular.  What about the energy consumed by running the climate models their work is likely to be based on - should all the model results be calculated with pen and paper? When started down this road where is the line drawn?

2) The statement supports the fallacy that the problem of climate change can be solved by personal choice. This is not true - the only way to make the fundamental changes required is by systemic change. It is often stated that the only way to change the established order is to be part of the establishment. By using other transport to air travel they would be setting themselves as 'other' - which automatically reduces their influence. 

3) What is the point of the question - it only makes any sense if some sort of action is taken. What would that be? Discount any science published by scientists that take flights? Sounds very Stalinist.

4) You say you're prolife? How many orphans have you fostered and/or adopted? Less than 10? - then I can discount all your views then can I ? - you're not walking the walk enough.

5) Even asking the question implies that scientists are aiming to persuade public opinion - no, they are producing science based on the scientific method. Public opinion and policies should be based on the scientific facts - scientist's job is to educate, not persuade. This is a key difference between scientists and civil rights activists.

Some advice:  You've recently joined the forum and  make posts and provocative statements randomly across the forum. It's equivalent to walking into a room full of strangers in which a long, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes enlightening discussion has been going on for years between a group of acquaintances and  immediately talking over everybody disrupting the conversation. Observe, read and slowly increase participation after gaining a grasp of the tone and rhythm of the threads - you never know you may learn something.

30
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: March 14, 2019, 08:47:18 PM »
More from the Guardian ...

Sharp Rise in Arctic Temperatures Now Inevitable – UN 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/13/arctic-temperature-rises-must-be-urgently-tackled-warns-un

... Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN.

<---- snip
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/3-5degc-temperature-rise-now-locked-arctic

You would think that when quoting just about straight from the source the Guardian would be more accurate: The unenvironment link says;
"Even if Paris Agreement goals met, Arctic winter temperatures will increase 3-5°C by 2050 compared to 1986-2005 levels."     

1986-2005 is NOT pre-industrial.

31
...
2) Are there reasonable risks that feedbacks may kick in and send global temperature higher (and have maybe more severe regional impacts)? Yes
3) When will they happen? Almost 0% chance in the next 15 years, steadily increasing after that.
...

Anything to point to for this prediction (more than hand waving ;P)


Must admit I was mainly thinking of AMOC when I wrote that but it most probably holds for all potential positive feedbacks. For the list of potential feedbacks may as well use this list:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/humans-pushing-earth-closer-to-climate-cliff.html

   Main thinking is:

1) In order to increase so quickly to have significant impact in 15 years or less the feedback will require a fast positive feedback on itself.
2) At global temperatures at or just below current temperature fast positive feedbacks are unlikely to exist because if they did then Holocene temperature wouldn't have been as stable a temperature range as it seems to have been.

(Push beyond 1.5degC above pre-industrial (2035 and later) and the above argument starts to fail).

As far as I am aware the only feedbacks out of the 15 which could have a quick acting feedback on themselves AND can possibly change in the next 15 years are:
a) Arctic sea ice
b) Thermohaline circulation reduction
c) Permafrost (Methane release)


a) could be damped by negative feedbacks kicking in (Cloudier summer weather, cold fresh water lens and ice which needs to melt is at higher latitude)
b) Not aware of a mechanism to positively feedback on itself
c) Seems most likely candidate - but there are some good arguments why permafrost will not go in the next couple of decades; See David Archer's arguments e.g https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/02/why-you-shouldnt-freak-out-about-those-mysterious-siberian-craters/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83af48faa127

For AMOC in particular, we still don't have enough data to really know what the trend is, even what is driving the changes and what impacts those changes will have. See for example:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076350

It's not clear why the step-wise decrease in 2008 happened, if it'll happen again, how frequently and what size of decrease. With current data, making predictions of AMOC collapse in next 10 to 15 years are pure guess work (and partly most probably wishful thinking).
   


32
But don't say the population predictions and RCPs are useless. At the moment they're the best there is and many decisions and plans will be being made based on them. 


They ARE useless and the fact that decisions and plans will be made using them is precisely why we are supremely screwed. You just admitted in your post that the climate is screwed yet you still give credence to notions that the UN projections have some value EVEN THOUGH THEY IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS.

A gross mis-representation of what I said: UN population estimates we were talking about were to 2050. The statement about climate was about later this century. If you believe that climate will have an impact on population by 2050 then to get a measure of how much that may be you need to know the baseline of estimated population without climate impacts. QED: UN population estimates are not useless.   Mis-representation of what other people say, constantly raising new extreme statements before the old extreme statements can be discussed in any detail and no data or scientific evidence to back up statements made. I'll let everybody else draw their own conclusions.

33
What are you talking about? All the UN ever does is show rosy numbers and growth re: population, just like they did in Oil for Food when they were secretly channeling billions to Saddam. The UN is a corporatist sham that only exists to maintain and perpetuate the status quo, hence why their #s are always ridiculously optimistic.

Again, instead of keeping to the main point -  throwing out another statement - presumably to distract and act as another argument which it takes the other side time and effort to shoot down. This is a Trump tactic. Enough of it - I won't go down that road.

Latest UN population predictions are here:
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/

I can't see any mention of climate change so either it is not seen as anything like as big a factor as fertility rates or there is so much uncertainty it cannot be modeled onto population predictions. Just some points:
1) Can't see any recent reviews of population predictions but historically they seem pretty good; if anything tending too high (up to 5%) due to lower than expected fertility rates
2) In the past (assume it is still the case) most of the data and projections for population are simply an amalgamation of data from individual countries
3) I'm not sure what you think the UN does but I think you're massively over-estimating its power and what it has control over.  The UN shouldn't be blamed for all the actions its member countries do - that's a completely different story.

So you agree that 2018 has been a pretty exceptional year? What effect has this had on food production in the US and Canada? From here - not much: https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/Secretary_Briefing.pdf 

Interestingly I see in 2018 that Brazil has overtaken USA as largest soya producer. This has been achieved by increasing acreage into pasture and I would guess rainforest as well. Unless it is stopped, increasing food production can continue like this for the foreseeable future=> supporting predicted population growth.

So it seems population predictions will only dramatically change if global climate (and regional climate) predictions show conditions severely impacting food production and (regional) survivability.
Again the IPCC ( and therefore the RCPs) are simply a summary of current available scientific literature. I completely agree that one criticism of the RCPs is they don't contain many feedback loops that COULD happen. The problem is, in the RCP graphs where do you put them and what effect do they have? Go on - do it: Produce an updated RCP graph with impact of AMOC shutdown on it. Is that graph backed up with scientific literature or is it backed up with hand-waving? If it's hand-waving - good luck with anybody else taking it seriously. Also, AFAIK the latest scientific discussion is still trying to work out exactly what the impacts of a shutdown of the AMOC would be.
Let me be clear of my position here:
1) Do I think the RCPs are 100% right? No, almost certain to be out a bit. The optimistic pathways are most probably so optimistic to be unattainable (There is currently no practical BECCs technology for example).
2) Are there reasonable risks that feedbacks may kick in and send global temperature higher (and have maybe more severe regional impacts)? Yes
3) When will they happen? Almost 0% chance in the next 15 years, steadily increasing after that.
4) Do I think we'll be majorly f*cked later in the century? You betcha, unless we make some major changes PDQ

But don't say the population predictions and RCPs are useless. At the moment they're the best there is and many decisions and plans will be being made based on them. 






34
The UN only ever predicts continued growth. They show 10 billion and counting by 2050. About as useful as the RCP predictions on temperatures (aka, useless).

I don't usually react to statements like this. The freezing/melting thread is mainly a bit of fun and a good introduction to the forum so wild statements are let go there but down here in the darker recesses of the forum if you make statements like the above you better be able to back them up. I see bbr that in typical fashion instead of making one accusation and backing it up with facts ore reasoned argument you double-down by equating it with another wild accusation about RCP, likely meaning that the thread diverts into a completely different direction. (Can you see how this could be annoying?) To stop this I'll make a new thread: 
See:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2374.0.html

Anyway to keep to this thread. Burnrate: You may want to look at the "Near Term Human extinction" thread: A different question I know but there are some useful posts on there to do with projected human population with different heating scenarios. It's quite old now but Mark Lynas "Six degrees" book most probably has some useful references in it and goes into some detail on impacts on human civilisation.
My thoughts:
1) Unlikely to get scientific papers on this subject because it is so dependent on social and political choices and technological development which cannot be predicted
2) Can we sustain the future population levels predicted by the UN? Yes (in the medium term - say 80 years) but most probably only by remaining above the carrying capacity of the earth and by NOT doing what is required to reduce concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere (e.g. reversing deforestation. increasing soil carbon content etc). Up to this point with a choice between business as usual development and population increase and on the otherhand being more sustainable we've always chosen the first option;  This is self defeating because it makes the situation worse when the debts have to be paid but I don't see any reason why this will change in the future. 

35
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).

36
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: August 06, 2018, 11:06:26 PM »
Recent "Warm Regards" podcast hits the nail on the head (About half way through) and shows why making people the enemy of climate change is wrong-headed. 
https://soundcloud.com/warmregardspodcast/this-is-zero-hour-the-voices-behind-the-july-21-youth-climate-march

Basically this thinking  comes from "blue dot" planet earth environmentalism: i.e. The earth is a pristine natural wonder and it is people that have caused all the problems. Not a very effective political statement and it hasn't got very far up to this point. Also setting people vs people (e.g. developed countries against developing, developing countries that are controlling population growth vs those that aren't) is most likely to have negative consequences. Yes, I most probably am part of the "blue dot" generation - time's moved on & that should now be history. Fortunately the next generation have it right - putting people left, right and centre in the potential impacts of climate change and also the solutions.

As usual, Warm Regards is a good listen - if nothing else - because of how motivational it is.


37
I live in Chicago...mid 90's through the weekend with high humidity...no air conditioning...will do fine.

In times gone by, we had no air conditioning to cope with 90-degree temperatures, and we coped.

Sorry, pressed post too soon:

Wow so much either a lack of appreciation of the conditions in the past or lack of empathy. How much of each I don't know - you decide. How to respond depends on what you take as "times gone by" (Time isn't split into two parts, the now and a homogeneous past ), what is meant by "we" and what is meant by "coped" 

1) Well no, on average, people wouldn't have had to cope with 90-degree temperatures so often. And on average the humidity wouldn't have been so high. Most importantly they wouldn't have had to suffer high temperatures for so long - which is the big killer - and they wouldn't have had to cope with such high temperatures at night which means there is little recovery period. 

2) A lot depends on how far you go back. For this topic it is fair to take pre-industrialisation as one time period. Here people had more flexibility in work so if it was too hot they could move or do something else or do nothing.  In southern Europe they still have siestas although they are less common and shorter than previously. Stupidly, Anglo-Saxons have migrated to warm environments e.g. southern USA but not picked up this culture. Also buildings/caves etc. were cooler: Remember warmer in cold usually means cooler in heat so best location for most extremes. Thick stone walls and small windows tends to be cool.  We could design our buildings that way but it would most likely be a lot more expensive - are you willing to pay the price - both economically and aesthetically? Maybe we won't have a choice.

3)  Post-industrialisation: Well, either you succumbed to the heat, in which case they literally stepped over your lifeless body and got somebody else keen for the work. I'd like to think we place a higher value on human life now. Or you grinned and bore it - but the stress placed on the body (along with all the other stresses) meant you were lucky to make it to 50.
Even in recent  western history, in many ways it was easier to cope. A short commute walking or cycling to work. Large, cool offices - typewriters don't generate much heat. In the heat of the day, many streets would be deserted - everybody would either be at work, school or at home. Now the movement is constant, sitting in traffic jams delivering packages, take-aways etc. usually on a tight deadline and no chance for a break. 

4) of course it depends who is meant by the "we". In the past, if you were the upper-middle or higher classes then of course you could stand the heat. It's easy if you don't have to do anything or there is a servant there constantly waving a fan or providing cool drinks. And in summer they generally moved to cooler climes e.g. the Raj in India going to the foothills of the Himalayas and Russian court going to St Petersburg.  Commonly this is where we get our history from so of course, stress from heat isn't mentioned much.   

38
I live in Chicago...mid 90's through the weekend with high humidity...no air conditioning...will do fine.

In times gone by, we had no air conditioning to cope with 90-degree temperatures, and we coped.

So much either lack of appreciation of the conditions in the past or lack of empathy. How much of each I don't know - you decide. How to respond depends on what you take as "times gone by" (Time isn't split into two parts, the now and a homogeneous past ), what is meant by "we" and wha

1) Well no, on average, people wouldn't have had to cope with 90-degree temperatures so often. And on average the humidity wouldn't have been so high. Most importantly they wouldn't have had to suffer high temperatures for so long - which is the big killer - and such high temperatures at night.

2) A lot

2)

39
Antarctica / Re: 3 trillion tons of Antarctic ice lost since 1992
« on: June 16, 2018, 02:31:25 PM »
So the article at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/antarctic-ice-sheet-1.4703952  states that the mass loss is now 3 times what was estimated in 2012. I.e. the measure in 2012 was wrong by a factor of 3. The article at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show and the graph state that the melting is 3 times faster than what it was in 2012. One of those is misleading at best.

Also, when the Hansen paper came out there was plenty of discussion about time for doubling rates of ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland. iirc the consensus was 15 to 20 year doubling rates were bad enough, anything approaching 10 was pretty catastrophic. We've now got a measured tripling rate of 5 years? Even if this is an outlier measurement and the average increase in melting is less than this, say doubling rate of every 7 years these seems to be doomsday scenario for sea-level rise. Why aren't people making more of this? 

40
In reply to #2047

"I think this is proof that "scientists" are idiots. Why would an event that is recurring with worse and worse frequency not be seen again in our lifetimes? Do these idiots not see the soaring CO2 #s? It is ludicrous that on the one end we are supposed to trust these nincompoops and on the other they keep parroting the doctrine that "everything is fine" when it is clearly not. "

Normally I let the non-scientific comments go -  most of us are amateurs here after all. But when it includes unsupported attacks on scientists then this becomes more difficult. The event is not recurring with worse and worse frequency. What was discussed was a specific setup which causes a spike in temperatures. In this case the noise swamps the signal of climate change (for the time being anyway - I guess at some point in the future this will not be the case) Judging by the temperatures below (NZ summer temp graph taken from the article at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12028417 ) this will not be soon. Also the article explicitly states that the unusual setup is connected to La Nina. Since I understand that El Nino will increase in frequency and amplitude due to global warming I assume that La Nina will reduce in frequency. So if anything this unusual setup will happen less frequently.
I agree that everything is not fine and many events are caused by climate change: Not all events are - this looks to be a case when it is not. 

41
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.

42
Science / Re: Wind run historical data
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:29:30 PM »
Thanks for the reply Alison - at least it's not just me then ;-)

The lack of responses seems to suggest that this is something which is either not measured systematically or data is not made publicly available. Which is surprising really because of all the other areas which I would have thought could potentially be impacted by reduction in wind e.g.  air pollution, air borne spread of pollen etc,  and of course power generation.

43
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?

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 22, 2017, 09:03:24 AM »


That is a *serious* amount of tropical moisture and it is going to fall across and impact the Pacific/Beaufort pack, which is in the worst condition ever and is already giving way to the tune of tens/hundreds of K KM2 per day.

From Wipneus'  "Home brew AMSR2 extent and area calculation" taking combined Beaufort and Chukchi combined as "Pacific/Beaufort pack" area loss over the last few days (K km2) :


20/07:    -3.8
19/07:    -11.8
18/07:    -28.2
17/07:    +9
16/07:    +27.6
15/07:     -56.9
14/07:    +2.6

Total loss over 7 days:  -61.5k km2

45
Policy and solutions / Re: Liars vs hypocrites
« on: July 10, 2017, 07:11:55 AM »
The Skeptical Science website also has a good section on myth debunking
https://skepticalscience.com/


No. To some extent that is the automatic response the article argues the climate change community has to alter in order to gain support for the socio-economic changes required.  Have you read the article?

46
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

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 12, 2017, 08:32:44 PM »
Starting to feel that 13,878,287 is the maximum (portions of crow & humble pie at the ready)

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wxmaps/#ARC-LEA.T2

You are probably right...  It is going to be super hot over the next days  - no way there are increases.

From the climate reanalyzer you are showing most of the arctic basin is -10degC to -40degC. What  are you on about? (Although it may be that climate reanalyzer has changed. When referencing dynamic pages take a copy and post that direct rather than posting a link)

48
The rest / Re: Deniers Vs Science
« on: March 09, 2017, 09:06:17 PM »
I too didn't comment in the original PIOMAS thread because I didn't want to derail that topic.

But the original comments on the letter/paper  https://phys.org/news/2017-03-arctic-sea-ice-doomed.html made me angry. Why?
1) Because of the ad-hominem attacks on scientists/mathematicians. They don't deserve such abuse. I suppose we have to maintain free speech but espousing such views on this site and you can expect and deserve a lot coming back the other way.  Especially in these times when science and scientists are under attack from politicians in many countries. (I'm talking to you Pragma, Oren and Jim Williams).
2) The original post:
And then there is this astonishing bit of "science"

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-arctic-sea-ice-doomed.html

Are these people looking at the same planet that we are?

"Virtually Certain"???? Really ??? Who is paying these people?

Words fail me.

Seems to completely miss the difference between prediction and projection. Projection takes an assumption and then attempts to see what will happen if the assumption is true. In this case the assumption was that global temp is held to 1.5degC. No statement has to be made about the likelihood of the assumption actually happening. In that case, why do it? Because it fills in the picture of "what-if" scenarios which help decision makers do cost/benefit analysis on several options. Bill McKibben setup 350.org well after CO2 was over 350ppm. Are you going to attack him because reaching 350ppm CO2 is unachievable? Who do you think did the research that gave him the evidence to conclude that 350ppm is a "safe" value?

49
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 04, 2017, 09:03:34 AM »
Many thanks for that graphic Geoff Beacon. That shows the point beautifully. The title and question of the thread was "Population - climate change public enemy No.1?".  By the graph the answer is a resounding NO!. Next discussion topic.

50
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 03, 2017, 09:09:30 PM »
I will also keep it short.
Blaming population for climate change is a straw man. It will most probably be the last defence climate action deniers will hide behind. In the future the population will be greater than now and there is (I hope) no way in which a reasonable person would suggest to actively cut global population. Therefore some people blame climate change on population increase knowing full well that population increase doesn't have a quick fix so therefore they will argue climate change cannot be tackled. Even with today's population we produce too much CO2. The solution is not reducing population but removing the coupling of economic growth and production of CO2. End of argument.  Other factors (bringing people out of poverty and education and empowerment of women) will naturally reduce population growth.

Pages: [1] 2 3