Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« Last post by Lord M Vader on Today at 05:57:47 PM »
I think HYCOM is overestimating the melting rate. There is no way that Kara Sea will more or less melt out in a week!

I'm pretty sure that we'll dodge another bullet this year. Personally, I don't think we'll see a big melting year until we either go into a strong La Niña or when the PDO switch back to its negative phase.

As you might have seen, the landfast ice in Chukchi Sea have finally detached into floes. Winds and currents should have more impact from now and onward.

GFS 06z operational run is absolutely hilarious in Fantasyland! At +384h there is a 965 hpa bomb cyclone over the CAB. While that is just a pure fantasy it would had been interesting to see how such an intensive cyclone in July would impact the Arctic. Any ideas?

2
Policy and solutions / Re: Non-incremental Solutions for Global Warming
« Last post by Neven on Today at 05:56:14 PM »
There are some individuals on this forum who object to incremental approaches to stopping global warming/climate change.

I'm not objecting to them, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that it's not enough, even if we ignore the fact that there are more global problems besides AGW, which are all caused by the same systemic flaws in how things have been set up.

What I object to is to you objecting to that.  ;)

Sometimes it's difficult to explain what something is, especially if you only have a few sentences to do it. It can then be easier to explain what something isn't. So, here goes:

Solutions that do not change the system, aren't solutions, whether they are incremental or not, because you can't solve a problem if you don't take away the cause.
3
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Last post by Sigmetnow on Today at 05:43:59 PM »
U.S.:  New Group, With Conservative Credentials, Plans Push for a Carbon Tax
Quote
Proponents of a market-oriented plan to fight climate change by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and giving the revenue to American taxpayers are starting a campaign to run advertisements as early as this fall and introduce legislation in Congress as early as next year.

The plan’s supporters have formed a group called Americans for Carbon Dividends that will lobby for the proposal. The group plans its first event on Wednesday and includes a number of well-known members, including Trent Lott, the former Senate Republican leader from Mississippi, and Janet L. Yellen, who led the Federal Reserve under President Barack Obama.

The initiative has already won endorsements from some environmental groups, like Conservation International; fossil fuel giants like Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP; and major companies in renewable and nuclear energy and consumer goods.

“It’s something that may command bipartisan consensus,” Ms. Yellen said in an interview, calling the proposal “a very exciting prospect.” Taxing carbon dioxide emissions to reduce energy use, she added, is “absolutely standard textbook economics.”

The proposal would set an initial tax of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced and would increase the price over time. That would raise the cost of a gallon of gas by approximately 38 cents, the group says, with similar effects on household heating and other energy use. That could, in turn, encourage people and businesses to become more energy efficient and curb their use of fossil fuels.

To offset the higher prices, the tax revenue would be returned to consumers as a “carbon dividend.” The group estimates that the dividend would give a family of four about $2,000 in the first year.

The group says the plan could reduce United States emissions even further than the Obama administration pledged under the Paris climate accord. ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/carbon-tax-climate-change.html
4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« Last post by meddoc on Today at 05:39:06 PM »
HYCOM Thickness Forecast for 03 July pretty similar to observed Data in 2016 for the same Date.
I expect the same record Low, Heart- shaped slushy Minimum- absent any more GAC- Surprises...

https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2016070212_2016070300_572_arcticictn.001.gif
5
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« Last post by Sigmetnow on Today at 05:38:33 PM »
Push to Burn Wood for Fuel Threatens Climate Goals, Scientists Warn
Scientists say a new EU renewable energy policy on biomass is 'misleading' and will raise emissions. U.S. forests are being turned into wood pellets to feed demand.
Quote
But the renewable energy policy includes burning wood for fuel. Over a year ago, the EU's science advisors published a comprehensive report debunking the logic behind treating all wood fuel as beneficial to the climate. Because burning wood gives off more CO2 than coal per unit of electricity produced, the climate math doesn't add up, scientists say.

Large-scale forest harvests have a climate warming effect for at least 20 to 35 years, said University of Helsinki climate and forest scientist Jaana Bäck, who noted that scores of evidence-based studies all say basically the same thing.

"And if we look at the Paris targets, we are in critical times at the moment. We need to reduce emissions now, not in 50 or 100 years," she said.

Of particular concern is the harvesting of mature trees. Converting waste wood or fast-growing agricultural products has less climate impact.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21062018/forest-biomass-renewable-energy-paris-climate-change-emissions-logging-wood-pellets-electricity

U.S.:  “In North Carolina, the wood fuel industry has been logging about 50,000 acres per year (about the size of Washington, D.C.) to meet demand at four wood pellet factories for export to Europe. ”
https://mobile.twitter.com/insideclimate/status/1010493169723568128
6
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« Last post by Sigmetnow on Today at 05:30:18 PM »
XKCD Comic:
“Newton's Trajectories”
https://mobile.twitter.com/xkcdComic/status/1011103295375433728
Image below.

Elon Musk:
“Could be very close call. Earth is ~4.5B years old & sun will expand to heat Earth beyond livable temp in ~0.5B years, so if advent of civilization took 10% longer, it wouldn’t have happened at all.

This doesn’t take into account shifting trillions of tons of carbon from subsurface to atmosphere, which could accelerate overheating time by a factor of a million (or so). This is why Tesla.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1011114064737693697
7
Consequences / Re: 2018 ENSO
« Last post by AbruptSLR on Today at 05:28:15 PM »
For what it is worth, the attached TAO Eq Pac subsurface temp and temp anom profiles indicate that the recent oceanic equatorial kelvin wave is beginning to dissipate:
8
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Last post by oren on Today at 05:27:12 PM »
My sister and her husband are child-free by choice, though the reason is mostly a personal lifestyle choice (but also awareness of the dire situation of the environment and the poorer prospects going forward). I note they are also vegan, and strongly anti-consumerism. We need many more people of their attitude and opinions.
I also note with sadness that children being born are brought up mostly by those who hold other attitudes and opinions. An inevitable catch-22.
9
Jakobshavn Isbræ is back in normal calving and retreat mode. Tabular icebergs are now history and
 You better be watching the Ilulissat Webcam there will very soon be some large tabular icebergs moving by, the first one should be passing by within hours.
10
Consequences / Re: 2018 ENSO
« Last post by AbruptSLR on Today at 05:26:22 PM »
The four attached weekly Nino indices plots thru the week ending June 24 2018, were issued today by the BoM, and show the Nino 1, 2, 3 & 4 indices, respectively.  Collectively, they indicated that while ENSO conditions have warmed recently, they remain neutral:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10