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 ... 17
51
How is that for an answer without BS?

Very, very bad. 'Lower care' is pure BS.

I suggest you restrict yourself to the Arctic sea ice part of the Forum.

Fine.  Less care if you are going to nitpick. 

52
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 12, 2019, 11:25:17 PM »
The Chuckchi sea (and the Bering) can really start the next melt season with the record low volume (again). But it won't be a catastrophe because the CAB still have the pretty thick ice that will mostly survive the melt season.
This is wrong. The Chukchi and Bering are, IMO, directly tied to the freezing season in North America and its duration. If the Chukchi and Bering's volume remains at record lows through the freezing season and into the spring, there is a very good chance winter will not abate until May, or even June, across the most productive food-growing regions on the planet.

We already have a catastrophe unfolding after this year's late start and early finish. If 2020 repeats the same pattern (or worse) there will be major shocks to food prices beyond what is already likely in the pipeline due to this year's harvest.

If the CAB has ice when people start to starve, BOE will be trivial at that point. The impacts are already well underway due to certain regions becoming increasingly ice-free, and we may not even need an ice-free CAB to see catastrophe unfold in the form of spiraling food prices.

Thus years harvest was not a catastrophe.  Corn production is only down about 9% from last year, and still above 2015 levels.  Wheat production was up 4% over 2018.  Food prices are down significantly from the spring scare, which caused more hype than harm.

53
Unless you confuse that understanding by sowing disinformation.

I wonder how stupid one has to be to hear that any country in the world with single-payer only pays half of the cost for healthcare and still think this is not applicable to the US.

At this point, any discussion about the topic should be over.

Kat, i asked you once if you think that Americans are too stupid to pull that off. You never answered i think. So let me ask again. What is your argument to why it's possible in any random country in the world but not the US?

I suggest you stop talking about the topic unless you can answer this question without BS.

It is not a matter of the Americans being too stupid.  Rather, it is a matter of what they want.  They look at the system in other countries and see lower costs for lower care.  Many would argue that we should get lower care, as many tests and/or procedures are unnecessary.  On the other hand, some want the extra precautions and elective surgeries.  The other difference is the speed at which non-critical care occurs in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world.  Lastly, there are those who would rather take the chance of not needing healthcare, and spending their money elsewhere.  Many ignore these people, because they cannot fathom the idea that some people choose to be uninsured.  This should come as no surprise, compared to the numbers that do not have life insurance, fire insurance, etc.

How is that for an answer without BS?

54
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 12, 2019, 04:02:26 PM »
More caffeine, and here comes - we have two measures, Extent (E) and Volume (V). A simple ratio of the two (V/E) gives us average thickness (Tav).

Since the third term is a calculated average (and not a finite measure as the other two) then flipping them around makes no sense.

My original statement was that if volume is declining faster than extent then thickness is also declining faster than extent. Glen disputed this. I played around in Excel and came to the conclusion that I was right.

More coffee has then helped me tease out the following:

E  = 1 - percentage rate of extent loss (i.e. for 1% rate of extent decline E = 0.99)
V = 1 - percentage rate of volume loss (i.e. for 2% rate of volume decline V = 0.98)
Tav = E - (E - V)/100

So in the above example, at 1% and 2%, Tav = 0.99 - (0.99 - 0.98)/100 = 0.9899

Which is very close to 0.99 but not quite. So what are the actual percentage loss rates? Ball park figures are a decline in volume from 15 to 5 thousand km3 in 40 years which gives us a value of V at 0.973 and a decline in extent from 7 to 4.3 over the same period, giving a value of E at 0.988.

The resulting value for Tav = (0.988 - (0.988 - 0.973)/100 = 0.98785

So obviously, while thickness is declining faster then extent, the difference is exceedingly small and can be ignored.

I do not think that more caffeince was the answer.  Glen is still correct.  If volume is decreasing faster than extent, all that tells you is that thickness must be decreasing (If thickness were held constant, then the volume would be decreasing at the same rate as extent). 

Using the actual values, sea ice extent has decreased to 58% of the 1979-83 average (a 5-year average just smoothes out the bumps).  Oren suggests we use area, which is probably more relevant to the discussion at hand.  The area has declined slightly more to 54% of the average.  Thickness calculations have yielded a drop to approximately 57%.  Volume calculations are about 28%.  Using the mathematical equation that area x thickness = volume, then the area percentage multiplied by the thickness percentage should equal (more or less) the volume percentage.  Multiplying 54% x 57% = 31%, not too far off from the PIOMAS value. 

55
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 12, 2019, 04:39:52 AM »
The problem with the ice cube analogy is that it is not representative of sea ice.  The sea ice basically melts from two directions; the solar energy above and the water below.  Very little side melting occurs as the ice is adjacent to mostly ice.  Hence, I feel that extent (or area) is the better metric, not to mention they are measured with higher accuracy.

56
I think you are right.  People like the idea, but balk at the cost.  In order to receive similar care as they are receiving today, the costs are quite high.  Warren’s claim that all these costs can be borne by the rich is a fallacy.  At least Sanders admits that taxes must go up for everyone in order to pay for his plan.  Getting the people to support this is the real stickler.

57
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 11, 2019, 10:07:00 PM »
It is time for the monthly update of my extrapolation when the extent [Extent], volume [Volumen], thickness [Dicke] and area [Fläche] will reach zero.

Volume is king/queen.  Extent and Thickness can't be above zero when Volume is zero.  So when I see the linear trend for Volume hitting zero for JULY in 2034, that is yet another Yikes moment.  Can you double check that?   That would bring major albdeo impact, polar cell/weather disruption, and other global consequences if that trend holds up.   This stuff is just getting too weird.  We don't need to worry about 2100. We've got to get past 2034 first.

Conversely, volume cannot be zero, if extent and thickness are not.  Volume, being three-dimensional, will always change faster than thickness (one-dimensional) or extent/area (two-dimensional).  At some point, they must converge.  What is your reasoning to believe that volume is the key metric over the others?

58
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 11, 2019, 10:04:29 PM »
Also worth noting the linear trend of September minimums predicts BOEs will be common in 16 years from now.

Scary.

An excursion below the trend line such as seen in 2010, 11 or 12 reduces that to 4 or 5 years from now.

Very scary.

True, but a polymeric trend does not yield a BOE until much later.

A quadratic will be sooner than linear.



Except that a quadratic is a poorer fit than a linear.  A third-order is a better fit than either.  I am not sold on the Gompertz, which never reaches zero.

59
Re: the majority of Americans do not want universal healthcare. 

cite ? Here is one poll that says a majority do want universal health care

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279991-poll-majority-of-americans-support-federally-funded-healthcare

here's a couple more:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/new-poll-majority-of-gop-voters-support-medicare-for-all.html

https://www.healthpopuli.com/2019/01/24/americans-are-warming-to-universal-health-care-kaiser-poll-finds/

sidd

One needs to dig a little deeper into the polling numbers.  Yes, the majority want some sort of government-provided healthcare, but very few want a government-only system (13%).  Conversely, very few want a private-only system (15%).  Most want some sort or private/government mix.  Of course, those pushing one form or the other can manipulate these figures to their own advantage.  We all know about liars and statisticians.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for

60
I'm really surprised that Harris imploded as she did.

Any theories on that?

I believe it can be found on the same coin as her rise; the debates.  She shone in the first debate, and her attacks on Biden resonated quite well with many.  She came out unscathed because she was not one of the front runners.  By the second debate, the other candidates took her seriously, and she found herself defending some of ther past actions.  Her poor performance and the realization that she was more glitz than substance, led to her fall.  IMO

61
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 11, 2019, 07:05:10 PM »
Also worth noting the linear trend of September minimums predicts BOEs will be common in 16 years from now.

Scary.

An excursion below the trend line such as seen in 2010, 11 or 12 reduces that to 4 or 5 years from now.

Very scary.

True, but a polymeric trend does not yield a BOE until much later. 

62
Those polls are interesting, but in the end, they do not matter.  The only poll that matters is the vote tally.  Even the video admitted that in the polling of registered voters, Sanders trails - and by a lot.  Most have him third, but double digits.  I maintain that the only way the Sanders can win the nomination, is for Warren to drop out and supprot him.  I do not envision that happening.

63
Sadly, i'm not even a vote, Kat.

A majority of Americans want universal healthcare, want to stop never-ending wars, want clean air and water. And there are many more problems Obama never even tried to touch.

If it means alienating conservatives when you stubbornly demand those changes and blame the murderous politics of past presidents, i'm fine with that.

Conservatives?  I would hardly call Obama supporters conservative.  Sure, they are many problems, none of the past presidents addressed, and it has been almost a century (perhaps longer) since a president did not bomb anyone.

  From I have read, the majority of Americans do not want universal healthcare. 

64
Oh, right. Obama the glowing hero.

The hero who bombed and killed worldwide just like his Republican preprocessors. Surely a true American hero.

You are but one vote.  The majority of Americans feel differently.  Alienating those voters is not a good strategy to win an election.

65
Rob, that makes a ton of sense.  I do not believe that the candidates that talked the Obama administration did themselves any help during the last debate.  The best thing Biden did at the debate was defend Obama.

66
That is just part of it.  His criticism of her include her “if you were only as smart as I am, you would agree with me” attitude.

67
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 10, 2019, 02:43:07 AM »
Kris Van Steenbergen on Twitter: "We're heading to the hottest Arctic fall season in 3M years. Entire basin & Greenland 16°C to 28°C warmer than normal.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/krvast/status/1192379141880000512
Image below. GIF at the link.

I would not put too much (or any) faith in someone's twitter post.  If that were to occur, just think of the ramifications.

The GFS message is the same, regardless of the messenger.

Did GFS say 28C warmer than normal?

68
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 10, 2019, 02:41:56 AM »
Kris Van Steenbergen on Twitter: "We're heading to the hottest Arctic fall season in 3M years. Entire basin & Greenland 16°C to 28°C warmer than normal.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/krvast/status/1192379141880000512
Image below. GIF at the link.

I would not put too much (or any) faith in someone's twitter post.  If that were to occur, just think of the ramifications.

The GFS message is the same, regardless of the messenger.

Did GFS really saw the hottest Arctic fall in 3 million years?

69
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 09, 2019, 03:27:18 PM »

 I can see how ASI refreeze declines could slow as diminishing ice cover allows more ocean heat to escape to the atmosphere during the winter. 
   


 More open water means more time for heat to escape but it also means more heat gets into the oceans.  It seems to me that as long as there is significant ice in September the ice extent will grow, sometimes furiously fast and heat will be trapped in. The top layer of the ocean, when frozen, keeps the heat in.

True, but much depends on when the open water occurs.  During the spring and summer, full sun will heat up the open water.  However during the autumn, there is more darkness than light, and consequently, more loss of heat than gain. 

70
OMFG, what a shitshow. How is Biden any better than your average bigot Republican Joe?

Biden Says Warren’s An “Elitist” While He Sucks Up To Wealthy Donors



It will be hard for Warren to counter elitism when she was a Harvard professor and her election team is made up of ivy leaguers.  By contrast, Delaware looks rather modest.  Image is a major factor in politics, and this branding could her.  Less in the primaries, where large numbers of similar-minded voters will side with her, but more so in a general election (if she were to get that far), where the centrists makes up most of the electorate.

71
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 08, 2019, 05:17:07 PM »
Gerontocrat, your graphs has gotten me thinking.  What if the open water in the peripheral seas is contributing to larger heat losses, resulting in faster refreeze of the CAB?  Widespread ice cover in the past may have kept more heat bottled up beneath the ice. 

72
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 08, 2019, 01:25:30 PM »
Kris Van Steenbergen on Twitter: "We're heading to the hottest Arctic fall season in 3M years. Entire basin & Greenland 16°C to 28°C warmer than normal.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/krvast/status/1192379141880000512
Image below. GIF at the link.
Well, the heat capacity of water is larger than the heat capacity of ground, so WACC is the result, to make it most basicest.

I would not put too much (or any) faith in someone's twitter post.  If that were to occur, just think of the ramifications.

73
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: November 07, 2019, 07:32:45 PM »
Yes, the North Indian has had its most active tropical season on record.  The North Atlantic has been somewhat above average also.  Those combiend with below average activity in the Pacific basin has resulted in a near average 2019 tropical season. 

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/

74
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 07, 2019, 07:28:45 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?

1)  The 1960s is but one of the dates mentioned, and it is mentioned simply as the time that temperatures bottomed, without regards to one-off impacts.  Yes, there has been an increase since the 1960s, but there is also a decrease since the 1930s, and no overall change since the start of the 20th century.

2)  No argument on those points.

3)  The timeframe is that given in the link, namely comparing present day temperatures to a 1901-1960 baseline.  The coldest temperatures have increased ~3F on average over that timeframe, and in every region of the country.  The hottest temperatures have decreased by 1F, and has occurred in every region except the southwest.  Yes, moderated implies change - particulary change towards less extreme, and the end of the period is now, as suggested.

75
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 07, 2019, 04:43:06 AM »
I agree that Glen has presented an excellent analysis.  It may come down to whether the high latitude endgame or thin ice scenario wins out.  My only qualm about his post is his claim that 10 yearly data points is not long enough to make statistically valid conclusions during the hiatus, yet that is exactly what he does for the previous 10 years when the ice is declining.  Yes, the volume reached zero in 2040, if the second order curve is used.  However, the third order curve (which has a better data fit), pushes that date much further into the future. 

As GSY stated, the darkness and cold is hard to comprehend.  It appears that same statement applies to the data.

76
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 05:51:15 PM »
Kat, you are cherrypicking again. Global temperatures are rising. You know that!

Read the posts by El Cid to understand the discussion at hand.  Extraneous comments are not helpful.

77
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 05:16:16 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/

Have you read you reference?  Winter low temperatures have increased an average of 5F since 1900, and everywhere except for a few sections of the southeast.  The coldest days have increased an average of 3.3F, highest in the North and lowest in the Southeast.  Summer high temperatures have not changed since 1900, with the hottest days decreasing an average of 0.9F.   Every section of the country experienced a decrease, except for the southwest.

The heat wave index (Fig 5.4) is not just lower than the dust bowl era of the 1930s, but every decade from 1910 through the 50s.  An increase in the heat wave index, warm spells, and warmest daily temperatures is only detectable when compared to the low values of the 1960s.  Cherry-picking the 1960s as your start date to validate your claim does very little to improve your stance or reputation.

78
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 03:45:08 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.

79
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 06, 2019, 02:43:26 PM »
Binntho,
Careful.  You are making the mistake that others have; namely using data for the entire Arctic to describe the CAB.  Recent climatic changes have been sufficient to melt a significant portion of the ice in the peripheral seas, but the central Arctic is a different story.  We may get there eventually, but to quote Archimid, "At least two heatsinks must be saturated before the march towards the first BOE can continue."

80
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 06, 2019, 01:58:47 AM »
Very nice Gerontocrat.  The open water graphs look more like a phase change occurred around 2007 that anything else.  The volume shows a smoother change.  Either way, the indcation is that a BOE is not imminent, and may not occur at all.

Bruh......Do you need a pair of glasses? Because I think your not understanding this stuff

The percent open water has not increased in over a decade.  Do you see the purple trend line in the volume graph?  Neither graph is popinting towards a BOE anytime soon.  Perhaps you need to borrow my glasses to see them more clearly.

I’m not gonna debate with someone who has poor logic and thinking skills. Don’t @ me

Then I suggest you stick with me.  I see you are unwilling to accept the graphs that gerontocrat posted.  Too bad.  You would find that he is quite adept at these time of things.  Counter his graphs with something that does not describe what he has posted seems rather disingenuous.  Did you even read his post?  May I suggest improving your scientific skills, rather than resorting to insults and blind faith.

81
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 05, 2019, 08:21:19 PM »
Very nice Gerontocrat.  The open water graphs look more like a phase change occurred around 2007 that anything else.  The volume shows a smoother change.  Either way, the indcation is that a BOE is not imminent, and may not occur at all.

Bruh......Do you need a pair of glasses? Because I think your not understanding this stuff

The percent open water has not increased in over a decade.  Do you see the purple trend line in the volume graph?  Neither graph is popinting towards a BOE anytime soon.  Perhaps you need to borrow my glasses to see them more clearly. 

82
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 05, 2019, 04:22:28 PM »
Very nice Gerontocrat.  The open water graphs look more like a phase change occurred around 2007 that anything else.  The volume shows a smoother change.  Either way, the indcation is that a BOE is not imminent, and may not occur at all.

83
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: November 04, 2019, 08:08:12 PM »
Personally, I prefer the hot-dry-wind (HDW) index developed by the U.S. Forest Service:

https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2018/ja_2018_goodrick_001.pdf

Updated and historical values can be found here:

https://hdwindex.org/

84
I don't see that.

Grab some popcorn. :)

Which part don't you see?  How do you envision the primary season playing out?

85
Well, then let's just watch this a little longer, shall we? :)

Biden will drop, even more, is what i see.

Possibly.  My crystal ball is broken.  After super Tuesday, I expected the field to be whittled down to three, unless Buttigieg lingers.  I suspect that when Klobuchar and Yang drop out, that their supporters will flock to Biden, with the remainder split between Sanders and Warren (although possibly more so to Sanders).  That would leave the spread nearly at the status quo.  The only way I see Biden losing is if either Sanders or Warren drops out and throws their support to the other.  They may have to do so early in the primary season, to prevent Biden from securing enough delegates before the convention.  Then again, these are just polling numbers.  No one has actually cast a ballot yet.

86
Hehe, that is funny.

Anyway, i promised you Biden would drop in the polls, and here we are. You can count on me, Kat. :)


Yes, on August 12 you stated that he would fade.  His polling numbers actually dropped before then (down about 5% from his June high), so you were just confirming what had occurred over the previous two months.  His number have not changed much since then.  Therefore, I would conclude that his numbers have not dropped since your statement, and he especially has not faded.

Sander's numbers are about the same over the same period, and his has consistently trailed Biden by about 13 percentage points.  Warren's numbers have shown the biggest change over the past three months, rising about 7 points.  Her gain seems to have coincided with Harris' drop.  Biden is still holding a 5-10 point lead over Warren, and 10-15 over Sanders.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

87
Hey, Kat, do you see that?

 8)

Yes, and I also saw the NYTimes polls which shows Trump beating Warren by 7, Sanders by 2, and edging Biden by 1 in Iowa.

88
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« on: November 01, 2019, 02:31:10 PM »
Yes Kassy.  Additionally, extent and area show the largest divergence during the late summer and early autumn months, as larger ocean surfaces show enough ice to be considered ice-covered in the extent measurements, but are not fully ice covered for the area measurements.  Slush qualifies as ice-covered for extent measurements, but only partially in the area measurements.  During late winter, extent and area measurements converge as most of the surface is ice-covered.  NSIDC prefers using extent as the measurements have been more consistent over time (area measurements tend to fluctate more due to thin ice and melt ponds).

Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS).  The model incorporates sea ice thickness, calculated using the HYCOM-CICE model developed by DMI and sea ice concentration (different from extent or area).  Consequently, volume can differ significantly from either area or extent. 

89
Quote
Being in the top 1% of income, my taxes will go sky-high under a Bernie Sanders administration, but sometimes you have to be willing to fight for someone else, fight for someone you don’t know.

People are dying cuz they don’t have healthcare, those are people worth fighting for.

So by all means, tax the hell out of me.

A nation is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable people among us.

While I live in luxury, most Americans are working harder than I’ll ever work in my life, & get paid scraps for it.

It ain’t right.

Tax me whatever‘s necessary.


Via comrade @michaelsayman on Twitter >> https://twitter.com/michaelsayman/status/1188702321879875584

Yet, they fail to mention the larger number of people likely to die, due to inefficient, government-run healthcare. 

https://fee.org/articles/if-american-healthcare-kills-european-healthcare-kills-more/

90
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 30, 2019, 02:05:18 PM »
No, the article seems to answer that quite explicitly.

As opposed to the following research, which states, "the significant increases in TC stalling frequency and high potential for associated increases in rainfall have very likely exacerbated TC hazards for coastal populations."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-019-0074-8

91
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 30, 2019, 02:29:06 AM »
The intense rainfall begs the question of whether warmer waters are leading to enhanced total rainfall or  just locally higher totals due to slower traveling storms.

92
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 27, 2019, 05:48:00 PM »
...
However, what the trigger has been for this major extent gain in the last 3 days is a mystery to me.
...
Hint.
That's where it happened, not why such a sudden increase
I commented on an Aleph Null animation three days ago that the winds were containing refreeze over ESS. It has been on the brink of sudden expansion for a number of days now. Today and yesterday winds abated and refreezing has just boomed.

Not trying to teach you anything, it just happens I’ve been following the ice bridge formation from continent to ice pack the last few days

Thank you for your insight and explanation

93
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 27, 2019, 03:07:01 PM »
Damn that was a huge jump.

You sound disappointed.  Isn’t that a good sign?

94
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 26, 2019, 01:58:41 AM »
Stalled' hurricanes like Dorian could become more common
In a warming climate, hurricanes could linger longer, causing extreme rainfall and wind damage.
By Peter Sinclair
Monday, October 21, 2019
Quote
A CNN meteorologist characterizes Dorian with these words: “The thing just wobbles and wobbles and wobbles and just doesn’t go anywhere.”

“Perhaps the term ‘catastrophic’ may fall short for the amount of destruction created over the Bahamas” as a result of the “slow down and stall,” says Ángel F. Adames-Corraliza of the University of Michigan.

Meteorologist Jeff Berardelli citing not only Dorian but also the 2017 Category 4 Hurricane Harvey that pummeled parts of Texas, said researchers recently are pointing to evidence that hurricanes “may be slowing down” in their movements from place to place. Berardelli also explains at one point how the “damage potential” from a 150-mile per hour hurricane is 250 times – not simply two times – that from a 75-mile-per-hour hurricane. “The multiplier is incredible.”

Masters points to three Category 4 storms land-falling in the U.S. in just two straight years, with only 28 previously having done so going back to 1851.
Yale Climate Connections, text & video included:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/10/stalled-hurricanes-like-dorian-could-become-more-common/

Only video:


Yes, there is evidence that tropical cyclones are slowing down.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/insideclimatenews.org/news/03092019/hurricane-dorian-climate-change-stall-record-wind-speed-rainfall-intensity-global-warming-bahamas%3famp

95
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 25, 2019, 02:27:31 PM »
Typhoon Ida in 1958 produced up to 750 mm of rainfall.

Yes.  Another example that this event was not unprecedented.

96
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 25, 2019, 02:02:43 AM »
Of course the much greater loss of life could be related to Vera being a stronger typhoon, with a barometric pressure of 895 compared to Hagibis at 915.  Hagibis has been downgraded to a category 2 storm at landfall, with winds of 155 mph, while Vera made landfall near full strength.

97
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 25, 2019, 12:25:43 AM »
To claim this has “no historical equivalent” is to deny history.  Typhoon Vera in 1959 resulted in greater flooding, causing more damage and loss of life.  That event was the impetus to the vast expanse of levees.  Japan is more prone to catastrophic flooding due to its sharply rising terrain and shallow river beds.

98
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 24, 2019, 04:18:07 PM »
Are you suggesting, "Let us pretend that climate change is real."?  "Just as a fanciful notion, let's humorously assume more intense rain events will be in our future.  On this basis, should the levees be stronger and taller or should we not build homes in flood plains any more or were the old levees just not maintained enough and can be repaired to original specifications?" [/sarc]

Some in Japan have questioned the defenses against flooding from typhoons:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-questions-flooding-defenses-after-severe-weekend-typhoon-11571146223

Tadashi Yamada, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Chuo University in Tokyo, said that given the nation’s geography, flood control has been a challenge for governments as long as they have existed in Japan. After several deadly typhoons in the early post-World War II period killed more than 1,000 people, a national program to build up river banks began in the 1960s.

However, Prof. Yamada said cities like Tokyo got first priority. “When you go to rural areas, you see really thin river banks, which look really weak,” he said.

In the 1990s, corruption scandals involving construction companies briefly drove the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party from power. The backlash against big construction projects, plus concerns about paving over verdant river valleys with concrete barriers, led to a slowdown in flood prevention, Prof. Yamada said.

He and others said it was hard to draw a balance between preserving the beauty of the countryside, holding down costs and protecting against disasters that may hit a particular area only once in a century.

99
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 24, 2019, 03:14:55 PM »
Lets hope this spurs them on to more action against global warming.

Why not just fix the decades-old levees?

100
Glaciers / Re: Glaciers worldwide decline faster than ever
« on: October 24, 2019, 01:26:42 PM »
A Two-Century-Long Advance Reversed by Climate Change
Mauri Pelto
15 October 2019

In 2008 and 2012, JIRP was at the terminus, creating the map below. There was no change at the east and west side of the margin since 2008, with 55 to 115 m of advance closer to the center. The glacier did not advance significantly after 2013 and did not retreat appreciably until 2018. The Taku Glacier cannot escape the result of three decades of mass losses, with the two most negative years of the record being 2018 and 2019. The result of the run of negative mass balances is the end of a 150+ year advance and the beginning of retreat. Sentinel images from 2016 and 2019 of the two main termini Hole in the Wall Glacier (right) and Taku Glacier (left). The yellow arrows indicate thinning and the expansion of a bare rock trimline along the margin of the glacier. The Hole in the Wall terminus has retreated more significantly with an average retreat of about 100 m.  The Taku main terminus has retreated more than 30 m along most of the front.

...

All other outlet glaciers of the Juneau Icefield have been retreating, and are thus consistent with the dominantly negative alpine glacier mass balance that has been observed globally (Pelto 2017).  Now, Taku Glacier joins the group unable to withstand the continued warming temperatures. Of the 250 glaciers I have personally worked on, it is the last one to retreat. That makes the score: climate change 250, alpine glaciers 0.

https://glacierhub.org/2019/10/15/a-two-century-long-advance-reversed-by-climate-change/

Over 150 years of advance, followed by a mere two years of retreat?  I would like to see this sustained before I make this type of judgment call.

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