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 - Klondike Kat

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
101
<snipped>
I seriously doubt we will see either name on the ballot.  Right now, it looks like either Biden or Warren.  If it is Biden, Warren as a VP would unite the party.  If Warren gets the nod, the VP is up in the air (Biden is unlikely to accept second fiddle again).
The DNC are very effective gatekeepers, often eliminating candidates that might have been able to win elections.


A damn shame really.
Terry

Usually they are reactive.  Witness the changes made after McGovern in '72 and Dukakis in '84. 

102
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 24, 2019, 01:18:42 PM »
I also note it is a lot smaller than this thread.

That just shows that the number of pessimists far outnumber the optimists.   ;D

103
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 23, 2019, 06:00:20 PM »
Recently I saw an article that was supposed to be alarming that stated that climate change could reduce US GDP "by 10% by 2100" if urgent action is not taken.  How insane! The us economy is $20 T/yr.  Who honestly thinks that can peg the size it will be in 2100 within 10%, climate change or no?! A 10% reduction is the difference between a 2% growth rate and a 1.87% rate. Economists!!

These types of prediction are pure folly.  To be within 10% by 2100, would require an amazing accuracy by the soothsayer.

104
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 23, 2019, 02:33:23 PM »
Wow. This thread is really depressing. Maybe it should be retitled to people doubling down on climate change. Many of these locations should be evacuated, rather than cool the outdoors and truck in water for toilets.

It is not just Qatar and the like.  The U.S. southwest has witnessed tremendous population growth, due largely to air conditioning and water piping.  The Phoenix area had barely 100,000 inhabitants in 1950.  It now has over 4 million!

105
Freezes ended the 2019 growing season across much of the western Corn Belt. Impacts on crop yields have not yet been fully assessed. U.S. corn & soybean development in other regions continues at record-slow pace.

https://twitter.com/usda_oce/status/1184823930688888832

You are correct in that the impacts have not been fully assessed.  That will not be known until years' end.  However, the markets are rarely off significiantly, and the current estimate of 13.8 million bu has not changed, and while the futures price went up slightly after the blizzard, it has settled back down to where it stood at the end of September. 

Both Dakotas combined account for about 8.5% of the total corn production in the U.S.  Most of the corn there reached maturity, before the blizzard hit.  Some farmers may be challenged to bring in the remainder of the crop before the expected hard freeze next week.   All in all, your prediction of a 20% hit to production seems rather pessimistic.

106
Science / Re: Climate Change Deniers can’t Spin the Truth!
« on: October 22, 2019, 07:12:42 PM »
Enlighten me, Kat. What's their climate plan?

Don't know.  I do know that they released American Energy:  Cleaner, Stronger earlier this year, promoting technological development and innovation in energy for the 21st cetury.   

107
Science / Re: Climate Change Deniers can’t Spin the Truth!
« on: October 22, 2019, 04:41:38 PM »
They can, and they do. Still.

ExxonMobil Is Still Bankrolling Climate Science Deniers

Link >> https://truthout.org/articles/exxonmobil-is-still-bankrolling-climate-science-deniers/

The U.S. chamber of commerce is considered a science denier?

108
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 22, 2019, 03:14:52 PM »
The highest ACE for the North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone season is 46.1. Current value is 37.1.

Yes, the North Indian Ocean has been well above average this year.  The North Atlantic has been above average also (by about 25%).  Conversely the entire Pacific basin has been below average for the year, resulting in a global ACE value below average.

109
Bernie for Pres
Tulsi for VP


Bernie is wonderful on the domestic issues, Tulsi on the international scene.
Both are needed if we are to have any chance of making any headway re. AGW.




Today I'm more concerned with Canadian politics. Trudeau has been a major disappointment across the board. That said, he's the best that has any chance of winning a majority.


Canadian politics is more a game of trying to shut out the worst, rather than fighting to elect a green candidate who can't win a majority and is very unlikely to be a part of any government that is formed.


Between elections I try to influence the Liberal Party to distance itself from the DNC, and to live up to their peaceful green talking points.
Terry

I seriously doubt we will see either name on the ballot.  Right now, it looks like either Biden or Warren.  If it is Biden, Warren as a VP would unite the party.  If Warren gets the nod, the VP is up in the air (Biden is unlikely to accept second fiddle again).

110
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
« on: October 17, 2019, 02:55:00 PM »
Shock News!!!


I said it many times already, to tell the truth has become one of the biggest crimes nowadays and it is by no means restricted to online communities but is favored by all governments and their puppet institutions (or vice versa)

Not so long ago people were hung or burned have they been telling unpleasant truth to the average people.

Nowadays we are neither burned nor hung but our reputation is damaged and we're ridiculed, mostly and unfortunately by people who on a first glance seem to be just and honest and fighting for
good causes.

Political correctness is one of the results and US-President Truman already had his say about it upon his Admiral reported to him about Pearl Harbor.

None of us is perfect of course but those allegations are indeed far from anything I would have
guessed possible as far as @Jim is concerned.

I certainly do not consent with every thing he has to say which certainly is mutual and totally normally the case but IMO it's quite obvious who knows what he/she is speaking about an whether the intention is evil or just.

In my opinion we all err and are allowed to err in the process of learning as long as our intentions
are just, hence it's the meaning and the intention that makes things evil or just, else they're simply right, wrong, personal preference or relative.

Unfortunately, this is true.  Too many are worried about perception, feelings, or their own personal agenda to be concerned about the truth.  This goes for dissenting opinions also.  Sometimes the truth is not know, but there are those who believe that they have all the answers, and mock and ridicule those who disagree.  Continue to put forth ideas, theories, and answers, and those that stand the test of time will win out.  But be careful, as many witch hunts may derail the truth.

111
What is the employees do want to keep the company stock?  Will they be forced to?  Sounds like more bureaucracy to me.

112
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 15, 2019, 02:25:28 PM »
For the current thinking on how climate change is affecting cyclones see:

Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I. Detection and Attribution

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0189.1

There isn't overwhelming evidence for anything yet, but the sorts of things that look suspicious are listed in the summary.

 "Most authors agreed that the balance of evidence suggests detectable anthropogenic contributions to:
i) the poleward migration of the latitude of maximum intensity in the western North Pacific;
ii) increased occurrence of extremely severe (post-monsoon season) cyclonic storms in the Arabian Sea;
iii)increased global average intensity of the strongest TCs since early 1980s;
iv) increase in global proportion of TCs reaching Category 4 or 5 intensity in recent decades;
and v) increased frequency of Hurricane Harvey-like extreme precipitation events in the Texas (U.S.) region. "

Very nice, and may I add a few more summaries:
i) The opinion on the author team was divided on whether any observed poleward TC changes demonstrate discernible anthropogenic influence.
ii) None of these observed tropical cyclone timeseries demonstrate clear evidence for a century-scale increase similar to that observed for global mean temperature.
iii-a)  U.S. landfalling hurricane counts (1878-2017) show a nominally negative decline, although
        the trend over 1900-2017 is not statistically significant.
iii-b) The timeseries of tropical cylcone landfalls for Japan since 1901 and global tropical cyclone
        and hurricane frequency since 1970 also show no strong evidence for trends.
iii)  In summary, no detectable anthropogenic influence has been identified to date in observed TC
      landfalling data, using Type I error avoidance criteria. From the viewpoint of Type II error
      avoidance, one of the above changes (decrease in severe landfalling TCs in eastern Australia)
      was rated as detectable, though not attributable to anthropogenic forcing.
iv)    A slight increasing trend in global intensity for the strongest TCs (at least hurricane
intensity) was identified (p-value of 0.1).
v)  we conclude that there is only low confidence in detection and attribution of any anthropogenic influence on historical TC intensity in any basin or globally.  However, ten of 11 authors concluded that the balance of evidence suggests that there is a detectable increase in the global average intensity of the strongest (hurricane-strength) tropical clyclones since the early 1980s.
vi)  the evidence for detectable increases in U.S storm total inundation levels, apart from changes expected from sea level rise influence, is mixed.
vii)  In summary, the author team had low confidence that anthropogenic influence specifically on hurricane precipitation rates has been detected. Alternatively, all authors concluded that the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a detectable long-term increase in occurrence of Hurricane Harvey-like extreme precipitation events in the eastern Texas region, and that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to this increase.

113
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 07:24:19 PM »

Quote
Sorry if I prefer solid scientific evidence over hyperbole.

You are cherrypicking. And i think you know that.

Why, because I prefer to use the entire dataset, rather than selective data?  I think you have the cherrypicking backwards.

114
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 05:56:38 PM »
Did not realize until now that KK is a cartoon figure, which stems back from the '60ies. Through more than 700 posts over the past year, this guy has tried to divert discussions from relevant and meaningful conversation.

I feel ashamed that this ludicrous character ( from my own time zone! ) has been allowed to spoil so many threads over the past year. This thread in particular is about more than 60 dead people in Japan this weekend,  hundreds of victims in the Bahamas during the past month and many more to come.

To rephrase a certain young activist: "How dare you?"

Glad to see that you recognize my character - also from my childhood time zone. 

How dare I?  You are the one diverting this thread from meaningful and relevant conversation.
Your post is typical of those who wish to influence scientific debate by incorporating an emotional element.  Sure, people feel for those who had to suffer through these diasterous events.  However, long term deaths have not increased due to hurricane activity.  Since 1880, the long term trend in Atlantic hurricane deaths is flat, i.e. no change.  On average, 760 hurricane fatalties have occurred annually.  That is the same today as it was 140 years ago, and that is total deaths!  Considering that the population has increased 5-fold since then, that is actually a significant drop in the death rate.  The deadliest years were 1900 (~12,000), 1998 (9,715), and 1930, 1963, and 1974 (~8,000 each).

The national hurricane center has calculated the accumulated cylcone energy (ACE) since 1950.  During that first decade (1950s) there were 69 total hurricanes.  This past decade (2010s), there have been 71.  NOAA has even stated that the trend in Atlantic hurricanes is "not significantly distinguishable from zero."  Sorry if I prefer solid scientific evidence over hyperbole.

115
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 03:39:54 PM »
When we talk ice KkK focuses on area/extent, a lower-dimensional measure than volume that produces a very long term prediction. That way he can avoid the truth that the volume numbers reveal.

When we talk Hurricanes KkK focuses like a laser, on ACE, which only includes wind speed and duration. He must ignore the floods, the rapid intensification, the slower paths, and the increased destructiveness.

He must pretend that average = normal AND that ACE is the only average that matters. Lucky him for being able to do that. I guess I'm just jealous of his bliss.

Sometimes it is important to focus on the most relevant numbers, rather than those which best exemplify ones own viewpoint.

116
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 13, 2019, 07:19:46 PM »
Except that the new "normal" is not all that different from the old "normal." 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201813

I'm sorry but what are you pointing at in this link? This is the final report for 2018, 2019 is not over. Yet you use this link as proof this season is "normal".

But even then when I look within your link what I read is :

Quote
The 2018 North Atlantic hurricane season had 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, and two major hurricanes. This is above the 1981-2010 average of 12.1 named storms, 6.4 hurricanes, and 2.7 major hurricanes. The number of named storms ranked as a tie for the tenth most on record. Both of the major hurricanes — Florence and Michael — impacted the U.S. mainland causing approximately 49 billion in damages between them and contributed to one of the costliest years in terms of weather and climate disasters for the nation. Although Florence weakened significantly before making landfall as a Category 1 storm, she brought unprecedented amounts of rainfall and subsequent flooding to parts of North and South Carolina. During the 2018 North Atlantic hurricane season, Tropical Storms Alberto and Gordon as well as Hurricanes Florence and Michael made landfall in the U.S.

The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index of tropical cyclone activity also indicated an above-average season in the North Atlantic. The ACE index is used to calculate the intensity of the hurricane season and is a function of the wind speed and duration of each tropical cyclone. The 2018 Atlantic hurricane season had an approximate ACE of about 129 (x104 knots2) which is greater than the 1981-2010 average value of 104 (x104 knots2).


I'm not sure what is so "normal" about that.

The season was slightly above average, well within one standard deviation.  2018 was 22nd highest, out of 69 years.  Over the past 14 years (including 2018, which currently stands at 118), 8 have been above the 70-year average, and 6 below.  One year was in the top 10, and one in the bottom 10.  How much more “normal” can you get?

117
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 12, 2019, 03:40:32 AM »
As much as I admire the NSIDC for the important work they do, I think they are erring in their analysis by focusing on:
* Extent, rather than also area, and volume based on modelled and measured thickness.
* Total extent, rather than also regional behavior.
* September, rather than all months. Separately, grouped seasonally, and annually.

Were they to widen their focus, they would find the "hiatus" since 2007 is not cobfirmed by many of the sub-trends.

NSIDC does look at many other factors.  The September sea ice has gotten the most attention because it has showed the largest decline.  The decline in sea ice minimum was greatest during the decade of the 2000s.  The decline in maximum sea ice has been greatest in the most recent decade.  As far as this thread is concerned, the minimum extent is most relevant.  NSIDC showed that the largest 13-year decline was 200,000 km2/yr.  During the most recent 13-year period, it has been only 1,200 km2/yr.  That is quite the swing, and unlikely due to random variation.

118
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 12, 2019, 02:16:43 AM »
NSIDC appear to be a bit supportive of a "hiatus" in Arctic Sea Ice Loss.

Who am I, a mere observer to disagree - but I do...

Evidence 1
Let us assume that 2007 & 2012 are outliers - i.e. caused by a combination of climatic occurrences that converged to produce the maximum possible ice loss at that time. If so, it is legitimate to exclude those years from the data.

The result  (see graph attached, that has both sets of data, i.e. with & without 2012 and 2007),
- a far more orderly progression in a downwards direction.
- no real sign of a hiatus
- a slightly better linear trend R2 value.,
- average annual loss reduced by 5k (82 to 77k)

Note well:- all I did was tell the spreadsheet to make the graphs & add the trend lines. No manipulation by yours truly
However, evidence 1 smells to cherry-picking (apologies). I prefer to think on physical factors that are slowing down the decrease of minimum September, such as more difficulty of ocean and atmospheric heat to really affect the CAB for different reasons (bathymetry; snow cover; melting momentum starting well entered the season; thicker ice laying there).

I thought hard before excluding 2007 & 2012 from the data. Nevertheless, I think it is more valid to look at trends in ordinary years - i.e. excluding exaggerated effects. That is my defence - but all we have to do is wait & see (just a few years).
__________________________________________________
EDIT: In early November I will give my open water graphs an airing. They will include the Aug-Sept-Oct averages to give a better view

By why stop with your so-called exaggerated years in one direction only?  If your are going to selectively discard data points, why not toss out the high years of 2000 and 2006 also?

119
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 12, 2019, 12:05:19 AM »
NSIDC appear to be a bit supportive of a "hiatus" in Arctic Sea Ice Loss.

Here is their spiel about it from Oct 3  https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (Graph also attached)

Who am I, a mere observer to disagree - but I do...


You are in good company i'm sure, at least and no matter that it does not matter,
I'm seconding every jota of your post, hence:

+1

Not everyone.  I am in agreement with the NSIDC scientists. 

120
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 11, 2019, 09:20:47 PM »
There was nothing normal about the 2 cat 5s in the Atlantic, although if the world keeps warming it will be normal.
1932, 1933, 1961, 2005, 2007, 2017, 2019. It was not extremely rare.

We are entering a new "normal". It doesn't matter how hard people deny it, the new normal won't last long. It will get worse.

Except that the new "normal" is not all that different from the old "normal." 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201813


"Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and difficult to forecast, according to new research led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Published Thursday in the journal Nature, the research looked at storms churning in the Atlantic over nearly three decades between the 1980s and 2000s and found the number of storms that underwent rapid intensification nearly tripled. The team considered natural variations in climate that might drive the increase, but still found the number “highly unusual.”

“I wasn’t surprised there was an upward trend, but I was surprised by the magnitude,” said lead author Kiernan Bhatia, who earned a doctoral degree from the University of Miami and completed the research while a fellow at Princeton University working with the NOAA team."


https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html

I would not be surprised either, starting with the lowest point.  NOAA went back to 1950, and found no overall trend (although there was a drop down the the 80s, and resurgence to previous levels since).  I guess who can make the data say whatever you like, if you just choose the right range.

121
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 11, 2019, 04:32:13 PM »

<snippage>
     FWIW, the September 2019 IPCC cryosphere report shows Extent becoming asymptotic at about 10% of the 2000 level around 2070. 
<more snippage>

I've been slowly arriving at a similar conclusion, as a result of a confluence of factors we've covered all over the forums.  Key among them are total system enthalpy, ocean enthalpy, the dynamics of seasonal changes in the radiative energy budget... but other things like just the nature of ocean surface dynamics and the physical chemistry of water come in to play as well.

I think before that last 10% or so disappears for good, there will need to be a lot more support for atmospheric heating at high latitudes.  Along the way, this will create conditions for stupendous storms at much higher latitude than we've ever imagined. 

The drop off insolation at the end of the melt season will be like a vaccuum collapsing with everything rushing in to fill it.  I think we'll see more continuous flow out of the tropics all the way to the Arctic, with no Ferrel or Arctic cells to speak of long before the ice fully disappears consistently in the summer.

That conclusion appears more likely than many here would like to admit, although there have been a few here that have supported it.  An ice-free Arctic in the next decade or so seems unlikely.

122
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 11, 2019, 04:27:28 PM »
There was nothing normal about the 2 cat 5s in the Atlantic, although if the world keeps warming it will be normal.
1932, 1933, 1961, 2005, 2007, 2017, 2019. It was not extremely rare.


We are entering a new "normal". It doesn't matter how hard people deny it, the new normal won't last long. It will get worse.

Except that the new "normal" is not all that different from the old "normal." 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201813

123
Consequences / Re: Drought 2019
« on: October 10, 2019, 03:20:31 PM »
Much of the drought can be tied to the lack of landfalling tropical systems.  The Jet stream has brought pleniful rains north of the Appalachians, but little to the south.  This is typically the wettest time of the year, but the Gulf and Caribbean have not been cooperating. 

124
That's quite a difference from the Fox News Wisconsin poll released this weekend, which had Biden 28, Warren 22, Sanders 17. The Change Research poll is done with targeted online ads. Curiously it has disappeared from their website as of now.

In South Carolina, Fox News has Biden 41, Warren 12, Sanders 10. A Change Research poll from August revealed it's the very large contingent of black voters that give Biden such a big lead with a 45-15 advantage over Sanders. I may be tone deaf, but I can recognize that Sanders' demographic appeal is limited at this point. Age 65+, college educated, and blacks are a huge part of the Democratic electorate. Sanders won't win without them.

Eight candidates have already qualified for the November debate, with Booker, Steyer, and Yang all getting their fourth poll in the last few days.

According to 538, that last two quality polls in Wisconsin had Biden had 28%, with Warren at 17 and 22% and Sanders at 17 and 20%.  Both those polls have a much higher rating on 538 than change research polls.


125
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:33:11 PM »
As we near the end of the 2019 season, global cylconic activity has been near normal.  Higher Atlantic and Indian ocean storms have been counter by lower Pacific (both eastern and western) activity.

126

As is shown on the attached graphic from the GRACE-FO data
( http://gravis.gfz-potsdam.de/antarctica ) - interactive map

and as I extracted from the ASCII file they provide.
____________________________________________
Note: The German Partners in the GRACE-FO project ( Helmholtz Centre Potsdam
GFZ - German Research Centre for Geosciences) are being very helpful in getting data out to non-scientists like me - instant answers to my e-mails.. I must write & say thanks.

JPL/NASA seem all about the scientists - never an answer to queries. But maybe they are getting strife from Trump acolytes.

As noted in Reply #1673, almost certainly the GRACE-FO ice mass values need to be increase by about 10%, due to more rapid than previously assumed ice rebound (i.e. the increasing mass of the mantle associated with the rapid rebound, can fool gravity measurements into believing that less ice mass has been lost than is actually the case).

Edit:  Also, I note that to date most of the freshwater released from Antarctica into the Southern Ocean has come from ice shelves and this ice mass loss is not measured by GRACE-FO and needs to be added separately, in order to evaluate the impact of the surface water freshening/cooling; which not only reduces the local SSTA but also accelerates the accumulation of warm deep water in the Southern Ocean; which in turn accelerates ice mass loss from both ice shelves and from marine glaciers in Antarctia.

The vast majority of the continent has experienced no net change in ice.  All the melt is concentration on a small section along the western coastline.  The ice rebound is likely to be  less than 10%, as so little area is affected.

127
Pocahontas is the worst. I would vote for Trump if the Democrats pick Pocahontas. I would not vote in the election otherwise, but if they nominate her, I will be a likely Trump voter -- and I can imagine many more independents also shifting to Trump if the D candidate is a lying socialist thief.
Ugly but it’s true. So many Americans willing to vote a proven “liar billionaire thief” (well the billionaire not entirely proven) before an, allegedly, “liar socialist thief”.

Yes, just look back to the 2016 election.

128
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 03, 2019, 02:58:13 PM »
Archimid, it is not a matter of "getting it."  I "get it."  We just differ on the outcome.  The arctic sea ice minimum has decreased by more than 40% over the last three decades.  The changes that have resulted have not been catastrophic.  What makes you think that another 40% will make such a big difference.  I am not the only scientist who disagrees with your prediction.

https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/04/02/fact-check-will-an-ice-free-arctic-trigger-a-climate-catastrophe/

129
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 02, 2019, 08:33:24 PM »
How did past fearmongering delay action? Any concrete example of that?

I don´t recall any fearmongering. For most people the issue was never important.

You must be realtively new to the issue.  A few examples include the 2005 season being the new "normal" for hurricanes.  Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.  50 million climate refugees by 2010.  It is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.  My personal favorite is snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event (although this might be welcome news to some).  What about the predictions of an ice-free Arctic in 2008? 

The reason that the issue has not been important is these ridiculous claims.  Granted, many people are little concerned about consequences decades into the future.  However, claiming that these consequences were imminent (in order to pursuade people to act) wound up making their claimants appear as chicken littles.  The general populous may not be the most intelligent, but they are not all together stupid either.  If someone makes enough false claims, they will begin to question the accurate ones also.  Presenting the issue in a factual manner is the best approach.

130
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 02, 2019, 07:39:49 PM »
There is no name calling there. He calls out one lie and the rest is prefaced by ´i think´.

That is a cope out response.  Prefacing a verbal attack by "i think" in no way changes the intent.  Additionally, there was no lie.  That is just another verbal attack.

131
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 02, 2019, 06:58:17 PM »
<snip>
Odd, as your loast post in when will the arctic be ice-free thread stated that an ice-free condition will occur around 2031 - definitely not next decade.

"Fearmongering"
Past fearmongering has delayed action by decades.

You are desperate and searching in corners with 2031-2029>0. You also lie in your last sentence! I think you are scared and have low morality. Something you can change :) .

I think you might improve your credibility by not resorting to name-calling those with whom you disagree. 

132
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 02, 2019, 06:19:33 PM »
Quote
Archimid has a separate agenda - that of exaggerated the effects in order to promote action.

Wrong. My "agenda" is to portray the risk to the best of my understanding to promote action. It is not an exaggeration to say that we may be ice free in the North Pole in September next decade. It is downright likely. The consequences of this event ( or continuum of events that already started) will be catastrophic for the North Hemisphere and the world at large. We are just at the beginning of it and insurance is already failing.

The threat is as real as it gets. Fear is 100% warranted and expected. If you do not feel fear about this, then you do not understand the danger.

As Donald Trump clearly shows fear is one of the most powerful motivators of humans at a society level. Trump exploits xenophobia to make some Americans scared shitless of brown children to such an extent that they exert cruel and unusual punishment and violate their human rights to keep them away. They love it because it appeases fear, however fake the fear is, and Trump takes full advantage of it.

Fear of climate change is completely warranted. That fear will cause action, if properly channeled that fear will produce the correct action against the real threat. Denying the danger blunts the actual fear that we should have, blunting action.

Fear of real danger is very good and a necesary response to activate human defenses.

Odd, as your loast post in when will the arctic be ice-free thread stated that an ice-free condition will occur around 2031 - definitely not next decade.  The evidence that this state will be catastrophic is severly lacking.

Fearmongering will not help the situation.  All it has done in the past is alienate the populace, who relate the fearmongerers to other Armageddon prophets.  The best approach is to educate the people on the real consequences and timing of such.  Past fearmongering has delayed action by decades.

133
Arctic sea ice / Re: Accuracy of poll predictions
« on: October 02, 2019, 12:43:00 AM »
Seems about right.

134
Science / Re: Has climate sensitivity been under-estimated?
« on: October 01, 2019, 05:11:40 PM »
the paleosens work from 2012 also showed this non-linearity of ECS  Though they simply checked over the last 800,000 years. see:  https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=1053.1550

There is no compelling reason for ECS to be linear.  As in most chemical and physical equilibria, it should decrease with increasing concentrations.

But doesn't ECS take that into account? Being the change of a doubling of CO2, instead of an addition of N trillion tons. Each increment will then be larger.

ECS is related to the log of CO2 concentration.  The issue is whether that is truly linear.

135
Science / Re: Has climate sensitivity been under-estimated?
« on: October 01, 2019, 01:43:17 PM »
the paleosens work from 2012 also showed this non-linearity of ECS  Though they simply checked over the last 800,000 years. see:  https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=1053.1550

There is no compelling reason for ECS to be linear.  As in most chemical and physical equilibria, it should decrease with increasing concentrations.

136
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: October 01, 2019, 04:27:02 AM »
wili
Only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon & Bill Clinton have been impeached by the House, Donald Trump will soon be the fourth in the last 230 years. I don't fear VP Pence becoming the incumbent in the next election only because I see no way for the Senate trial to succeed. I actually don't  believe Pelosi intended the impeachment to succeed.
What I do fear is that "The Donald" stands a much better chance of being re-elected now that Pelosi has (over)played her hand.


The time for arguing for or against the Democrats trying this tactic is past. Pelosi, who I see as an unsavory character, has committed the party & there's no way back, at least none that I can see.


The Democratic Party's internal polls must have painted a much darker picture of the coming election than anything we've I've seen, or the party would have waited and let the voters remove Trump. It makes little sense to impeach a President who you believe is about to lose an election.


A far more likely scenario is that Pelosi never intended to succeed in removing Trump by impeachment, but rather is hoping to injure him in the polls. I hope she's right, but if she is it indicates that the Democratic leadership felt that Trump is unbeatable in 2020 unless he can be damaged by the coming trials.


To say that this is a daring move is an understatement. If the independents become convinced that the "establishment" is picking on Trump, Democrats will take a huge shellacking in the election. Trump could emerge with Republican Supermajorities in House & Senate.


The Democrats will win in the House, Trump will win the Senate. Rather than judging the validity of the charges or the responses that follow, I'll be trying to assess their effect on the voting public.
Terry

I would agree with everything you stated, except that Nixon was never impeached.  He resigned before that could occur.  I do believe that the American people are tired of hearing about this, and it will likely harm the Democratic Party in general, as no one likes a witch hunt.

137
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 30, 2019, 02:08:06 PM »
Directly attributable? Of course not. Is the dramatically worsening climate situation adding to a rising sense of anxiety and unease in kids today? I think you'd have to be blind to say that it is not.

I can see quite clearly that it is not a cause of anxiety and unease.  Sorry, but the climate situation is not the cause of every ill on this planet.


Archimid is obviously correct.  Even if she is wrong, Greta stopped eating and speaking bc she was so distraught over climate change. She literally stunted her fucking growth bc of it. Do you think she is the only kid on the planet to be affected? You are a heartless person.

Archimid has a separate agenda - that of exaggerated the effects in order to promote action.  I disagree vehemently.  This technique is a proven failure.  I am sorry if truth and facts appear heartless.  But identifier single individuals among the masses to change opinions is what politicians do, not scientists.  This thread is not about individuals, but the bigger picture.

138
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 29, 2019, 07:58:15 PM »
 Nanning, your strict black and white ignores the large number of people which are neither rich nor poor. 

139
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 29, 2019, 07:53:42 PM »
Directly attributable? Of course not. Is the dramatically worsening climate situation adding to a rising sense of anxiety and unease in kids today? I think you'd have to be blind to say that it is not.

I can see quite clearly that it is not a cause of anxiety and unease.  Sorry, but the climate situation is not the cause of every ill on this planet. 

140
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 29, 2019, 02:43:52 PM »
Almost anything that has increased in recent decades could be “correlated” with climate change.  That does mean there is any connection.  Teen suicides are on the rise, but I doubt there are a result of global climate changes.

Jeez, KK, do you have kids?  I have one. Did you hear Greta's cri de coeur? Do you think the direction the human endeavor is heading in is making kids LESS anxious?  You may think everything's gonna be fine but the kids DON'T! Crikey.

Dnem, yes and they are all grown.  I also know parents who have dealt with this and not one could be attributed to climate.  Empathy is understanding, not using these events for activism.

141
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 27, 2019, 07:30:51 PM »
Almost anything that has increased in recent decades could be “correlated” with climate change.  That does mean there is any connection.  Teen suicides are on the rise, but I doubt there are a result of global climate changes.

142
Soooo, if we thought that Booker or Harris were likely to be the nominees, should we start constantly repeating the 'n' word here, because, hey, everybody should have to get used to it, since that's what at least some of Trump's followers will be using?

I still thing Bernie is more likely to win, so should I constantly refer to him as Bernie the Crazy Kike, so that we can all get inured to the slurs??
Bernie the Kike and Harris the nword won't be spoken out loud (by many), but Pocahontas will be blaring from every speaker for months. If Warren were of Native American heritage Pocahontas would equate to the nword, or kike, but she isn't, so it doesn't.
Campaigning against its use will further alienate Native Americans, their supporters, and every member of a visible minority will be pissed that a gringo first used minority identification to scam the system & now claims minority inclusion to fight her political battles. Not a good stance to take when the manure strikes the air handler.


It's not something she was born with, it was her own doing & she was foolish enough to bring it front and center through her very public bet with Trump. I think it cost her whatever chance she may have had to become the next president.


Bernie and Tulsi is my favorite ticket in part because I think they may have a chance against Trump. Anyone else has too many negatives.


Trump is going to be hard to beat with this impeachment show in the offing. I can't imagine why Pelosi changed her mind.
Terry

That is just part of her bigger image as being part of the elite, when it comes to government programs.  Her college tuition and debt proposals are viewed as another handout to the wealthy elitists. 

143
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: September 26, 2019, 03:20:53 PM »
On the other hand:

“The Dem House will impeach. And then the GOP will spend an entire election year explaining why the Senate won’t convict. An election year defending this? ...”
 

My crystal ball is showing something a little different.  The House votes to impeach before the end of the year.  The Senate then holds the "trial" over a holiday weekend, while the public isn't paying attention.  Trump is acquitted. 

The repubes then spend the year proclaiming that Trump was exonerated and denouncing Democrat partisan witch hunts.  Polls don't budge appreciably.  Trump wins or loses depending on the economy and how strongly smears stick to the Dem nominee.

Steve, that sounds like the most likely sccenario.  Somewhat similar to judge Kavanaugh, but with more partisanship (if possible) and less fanfare.  This has a greater potential to damage the Dems on a whole, as it may present itself as another witch hunt.  That would not bode well for the Dems chances to retain the House or win the Senate.  I agree that it will not affect the presidential election.

144
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 25, 2019, 06:30:36 PM »
Gerontocrat, I saw that also.  But much is overhype.  They forecast sea level rise around England at about half a meter, while London sits at 12m above sea level.  Istanbul and Seoul are further above sea level (~40m), with a similar forecasted SLR.  Lima is not even close to sea level, rising almost 300 m above the sea.
If all of London was at 12 m above sea level, the Thames Barrier would not have been built. The Houses of Parliament are merely one iconic symbol of the vulnerability of Central London along the Thames that already exists without any further sea level rise. Flooding is one of London’s highest risks with up to 680,000 properties at risk of flooding across the capital. Add half a metre sea level rise?

Lima - from a 2014 report. Half a metre sea level rise would, I think, make many low flooding risk areas into high-risk flooding areas.

I have to say your post is extremely misleading, much more than the BBC article.

What is extremely misleading is posting flood risks due to rivers overflowing, and claiming that it is due to sea level rise.  Read your links please.

145
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 25, 2019, 06:26:30 PM »
KK, cities are not points. One part of a city may be a hundred feet above sea level, and another neighborhood may be seven inches above sea level.

Tom,
None of these cities have neighborhoods that you describe.  London and Seoul are not even on the coast.  The lowest point in London along the Thames, still 5m above sea level.  The Han River running through Seoul is 16M above sea level.  Istanbul rises rapidly from the sea, and Lima is located on a 70m cliff overlooking the ocean. 

We will have much bigger problems, if these cities have SLR issues.

146
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 25, 2019, 05:04:38 PM »
Gerontocrat, I saw that also.  But much is overhype.  They forecast sea level rise around England at about half a meter, while London sits at 12m above sea level.  Istanbul and Seoul are further above sea level (~40m), with a similar forecasted SLR.  Lima is not even close to sea level, rising almost 300 m above the sea. 

147
Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:53:56 PM »
Quote
My answer is not directly.  I stand behind my claim that CO2 captured is a function of the concentration in the atmosphere, not the amount emitted.  When the captured amount exceeds the emitted amount, then the atmospheric concentration will decrease.  That will subsequently lead to decreased capture. 
KK you insist on ignoring the other factor, ocean surface concentration. The uptake of CO2 by the ocean in the near term is proportional to the atmospheric concentration less the ocean surface concentration (including the slower downward flux from the ocean surface to the deep ocean).  But the ocean surface concentration is a function of the past emitted CO2. Thus scrubbing of the CO2 from the atmosphere will be dependent on slower processes (assuming emissions stop at some point).
I expect that as a chemist this really should be crystal clear to you. The ocean surface equilibrates fast, and has already swallowed a lot of CO2, so further fast uptake is dependent on further increase in atmospheric partial pressure.

The gas exchange at the surface is but one aspect of the entire planetary sequestration process.  The mixing of the surface waters with the deep ocean takes much longer, as does calcification and other terrestrial sinks.  We have been operating under the assumption that planetary equilibrium is a slow process, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide lifetime is long.  Are you arguing for a fast equilibrium and short lifetime? 

148
Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 24, 2019, 05:55:28 PM »

So my question remains the same - will CO2 captured by the sinks decrease as emissions decrease? (or in another way- how sensitive is the chemical process that exchanges CO2 from air to ocean to small changes in CO2 ppm?)


My answer is not directly.  I stand behind my claim that CO2 captured is a function of the concentration in the atmosphere, not the amount emitted.  When the captured amount exceeds the emitted amount, then the atmospheric concentration will decrease.  That will subsequently lead to decreased capture. 

Hence, it is indirectly related to emitted CO2, as decreasing emissions will eventually result in decreased atmospheric concentration, and consequently decreased capture.

Of course, this cannot be proven until emissions begin to decrease.

149
Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 24, 2019, 03:42:33 PM »
Very nice gerontocrat.  The only constant in life is change - Heraclitus.

That said, we cannot predict what changes will occur.  In the absence of a known change, we assume a constant to minimize potential errors.

150
Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 24, 2019, 01:22:33 PM »
Land and ocean sequestrations that are based on physical properties will not change as CO2 concentrations rise.  This is straight-forward chemistry.  These natural processes will not change.  The one process that may change is the biological sequestration.  Deforestation has added significantly to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.  Fortunately, this has been recognized and efforts have been made to restore the forests (for habitat restoration purposes also).  This has fared much better than efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 

In the U.S., 26% of the forests were cut down by 1910 - mostly for agriculture.  Since then, the forested area has increased slightly (about 2%).  Europe has had much higher levels of deforestation, with some estimates at ~90%.  In recent years, thes temporal forests have been making a comeback, with reforestation efforts increasnig forested lands in both Europe and Asia.  Unfortunately, trends in tropical Africa and South America have countered these efforts.  Still, there is hope in reforestation efforts, which would increase land sequestration of carbon dioxide.  Hence, it seems more likely that sinks would increase in the coming years, rather than decrease.

https://ourworldindata.org/forests

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17