Arctic Sea Ice Watch

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

The causes aren't uncertain. Global Dimming has been known about for decades and we know that it has been masking global warming. It means that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect should be worse than it is, but our particulate emissions are blocking some sunlight and slowing the warming.

There are some geo-engineering proposals to reverse global warming that involve deliberately releasing particles into the upper atmosphere to block some sunlight but we'd rather it not come to that

There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how much anthropogenic forces contribute to the present warming.

While no doubt 'global dimming' masked a certain about of warming, what needs to be asked is: how much warming did it mask? Surely, cleaner, less polluted air in itself will allow more solar radiation to reach the earth's surface, thus contribute to a significant percentage of the warming we are now seeing?

As for 'geo-engineering proposals' to release particles into the atmosphere to curb 'global warming', who actually decides this? Who is to give the 'authority' to these people to use our atmosphere as something to be experimented with without actually considering the wider implications of potential consequence? What are they hoping to achieve exactly? A return to some sort of 'climate optimum' that does not, and never has, existed? Perhaps a return to a climate scenario that was in place before the advent of the industrial revolution?

Gaoth Laidir

Prof Ray Bates released a paper last year that claims that the climate sensitivity is only half of what has been previously accepted by the "majority of scientists". Read it and make up your own mind. If it's true then it means a whole lot of reevaluating of what we think we know.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

Danno

IMO the C02 is not the problem, water vapour is. The human race has been cutting down rainforests for many decades now and all that moisture is now in the system as opposed to being stored up in vast swathes of trees and vegetation. We all know that water vapour holds way more heat and all this water vapour is now caught up in the circulation system that ends up in polar regions. This milder moist air is responsible for increased heat in the poles and leading to ice melt. We need to review our land usage and restore rainforests, tackle our UHI's and then we'll see a reversal of Global Warming.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

IMO the C02 is not the problem, water vapour is. The human race has been cutting down rainforests for many decades now and all that moisture is now in the system as opposed to being stored up in vast swathes of trees and vegetation. We all know that water vapour holds way more heat and all this water vapour is now caught up in the circulation system that ends up in polar regions. This milder moist air is responsible for increased heat in the poles and leading to ice melt. We need to review our land usage and restore rainforests, tackle our UHI's and then we'll see a reversal of Global Warming.

With all due respect 'IMO' is a phrase that has no place in a scientific discussion

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how much anthropogenic forces contribute to the present warming.

While no doubt 'global dimming' masked a certain about of warming, what needs to be asked is: how much warming did it mask? Surely, cleaner, less polluted air in itself will allow more solar radiation to reach the earth's surface, thus contribute to a significant percentage of the warming we are now seeing?

As for 'geo-engineering proposals' to release particles into the atmosphere to curb 'global warming', who actually decides this? Who is to give the 'authority' to these people to use our atmosphere as something to be experimented with without actually considering the wider implications of potential consequence? What are they hoping to achieve exactly? A return to some sort of 'climate optimum' that does not, and never has, existed? Perhaps a return to a climate scenario that was in place before the advent of the industrial revolution?

Before the industrial revolution earth was on average about a degree c cooler than today. Global dimming is bad news because it hid the greenhouse effect and delayed our response to reduce carbon emissions.

Regarding geo engineering, if it gets to the stage where it is needed, your concerns will be petty compared to the devastation of global warming

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

With all due respect 'IMO' is a phrase that has no place in a scientific discussion

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Before the industrial revolution earth was on average about a degree c cooler than today.

How did the vikings settle Greenland?

Rikand

Danno wrote: »

How did the vikings settle Greenland?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/

^^ that's a long read, but kinda interesting

From 900-1300 there was a global warm period and the vikings could settle everywhere. Then a volcano erupted causing the earth to cool and more frequent storms to appear akin to the "Nor'easters" that hit northern US these days. The ice expanded and the Vikings either died with it or got the **** out of there

caff

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

They can explain it http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

pedigree 6

Rikand wrote: »

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/

^^ that's a long read, but kinda interesting

From 900-1300 there was a global warm period and the vikings could settle everywhere. Then a volcano erupted causing the earth to cool and more frequent storms to appear akin to the "Nor'easters" that hit northern US these days. The ice expanded and the Vikings either died with it or got the **** out of there

I just find all this stuff so interesting.:)

Basically there was this warm period then, warmer than now in fact and then there was a once in a 7000 thousand year volcano eruption that put so much ash and dust in the stratosphere that it cooled the earth and brought about little ice ages.
Cool.:D

Yourself isit

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

Vortex lift

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/longstanding-puzzle-of-ho/

riffmongous

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

Wow!

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Regarding geo engineering, if it gets to the stage where it is needed, your concerns will be petty compared to the devastation of global warming

You didn't address any of my points. But I think if we are going put things on a pettiness scale, then the issue of climate change is going to become pretty high up there on it as the mood of global politics continues to take on an increasingly darker and more malevolent tone in the years to come.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You didn't address any of my points. But I think if we are going put things on a pettiness scale, then the issue of climate change is going to become pretty high up there on it as the mood of global politics continues to take on an increasingly darker and more malevolent tone in the years to come.

Global warming is probably the single biggest threat to human survival.

Nuclear weapons could wipe us out faster, but they hopefully will never be used again. Inaction on global warming is already putting us into doomsday scenarios in the medium term with extreme weather events becoming more and more common and permanent changes to weather patterns as the ice melts on our poles and glaciers

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Global warming is probably the single biggest threat to human survival.

Nuclear weapons could wipe us out faster, but they hopefully will never be used again. Inaction on global warming is already putting us into doomsday scenarios in the medium term with extreme weather events becoming more and more common and permanent changes to weather patterns as the ice melts on our poles and glaciers

Sensationalism at its worst. There's no evidence that any weather event is linked to increased ghg. We're not seeing the doomsday scenarios we should be seeing now. After the 2005 hurricane season we were told to expect more of the same. We've got the opposite. After the 2007 record low sea ice we were told the Arctic could be ice-free by 2020. Nonsense. Now we learn that climate sensitivity is only half of what was believed initially (Bates 2016).

Comparing climate change to nuclear weapons is about as extreme as I have ever heard.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Sensationalism at its worst. There's no evidence that any weather event is linked to increased ghg. We're not seeing the doomsday scenarios we should be seeing now. After the 2005 hurricane season we were told to expect more of the same. We've got the opposite. After the 2007 record low sea ice we were told the Arctic could be ice-free by 2020. Nonsense. Now we learn that climate sensitivity is only half of what was believed initially (Bates 2016).

Comparing climate change to nuclear weapons is about as extreme as I have ever heard.

You're so wrong its not even funny.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327083120.htm

As per nuclear weapons. The extra energy trapped by the greenhouse effect dwarfs nuclear weapons

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw

Akrasia

I'm so fed up with global warming deniers. You're no better than moon landing deniers but at least that's harmless

Oneiric 3

I suppose there is one thing that global warming and nuclear bombs have in common, and that is that both are the result of pioneering scientific endeavour... :rolleyes:

@Akrasia. My post had nothing to with nuclear weapons or the threat of nuclear war. Global politics is changing, slowly but surely, and with that, so will global perception. The rise of the Right; the undignified, shameless self destruction of the Left; the increasing detachment and elitism of the Centre... it's all politics. And scream as you may, Climate science needs politics more than politics needs climate science.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You're so wrong its not even funny.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327083120.htm

As per nuclear weapons. The extra energy trapped by the greenhouse effect dwarfs nuclear weapons

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw

Let me ask you this (and you can answer it after you deal with the hurricane, Arctic sea ice and climate sensitivity points I made in my previous post): if what Mann says is true and increased ghg are causing this shift in the jet stream, do you not think that it's been happening right since 1850? Back then the northwest passage was also navigable. CO2 levels were much lower than today yet the warming started then at a similar rate to today's. So if warming is causing all these catastrophic events then they would have started happening 100 years ago and not just since the '70s. Did Mann go back that far? Can you point to any drought in Africa, flood in Bangladesh, heatwave in Europe, tornado outbreak in the US, etc. and claim that they are part of this "greatest threat to mankind"? Let's see your proof.

Also, what's with this term "climate denier"? Is it someone who denies climate exists? Or someone who denies climate change exists? Which is it? Everyone knows that climate changes so it's a ridiculous term used by people like you to try to label someone with a different opinion. It's like the misuse of the word "carbon" when in fact "carbon dioxide" is what is meant. Carbon is a harmless element so at least get the terms right.

Danno

Well said Gaoth. The next generation are so deficient in critical thinking.

Oneiric 3

When 'science' is confronted by the faintest hint of intellectual scrutiny..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo

Danno wrote: »

The next generation are so deficient in critical thinking.

I don't think that is a very fair or accurate generalisation Danno. Every generation has its thinkers and every generation has its doers.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Let me ask you this (and you can answer it after you deal with the hurricane, Arctic sea ice and climate sensitivity points I made in my previous post): if what Mann says is true and increased ghg are causing this shift in the jet stream, do you not think that it's been happening right since 1850? Back then the northwest passage was also navigable. CO2 levels were much lower than today yet the warming started then at a similar rate to today's. So if warming is causing all these catastrophic events then they would have started happening 100 years ago and not just since the '70s. Did Mann go back that far? Can you point to any drought in Africa, flood in Bangladesh, heatwave in Europe, tornado outbreak in the US, etc. and claim that they are part of this "greatest threat to mankind"? Let's see your proof.

Also, what's with this term "climate denier"? Is it someone who denies climate exists? Or someone who denies climate change exists? Which is it? Everyone knows that climate changes so it's a ridiculous term used by people like you to try to label someone with a different opinion. It's like the misuse of the word "carbon" when in fact "carbon dioxide" is what is meant. Carbon is a harmless element so at least get the terms right.

Arctic sea ice is in a downward spiral which is clear to anyone who doesn't cherrypick the data. The northwest passage was a mythical route that was never viable because it was only fleetingly open in the most favourable conditions. Compare that with today. Since last year you can buy package holiday cruise to go through the Northwest passage. It's reliably ice free and its only getting easier from now on.

Hurricane's are complex beasts, the science predicts increasingly powerful storms but by small percentages that are within statistical noise. Hurricanes are affected by ENSO which seems to already by dusrupted and we have unusual el nino and la nina patterns recently.

Climate sensitivity is dealt with in the ipcc reports. If you're genuinely curious about how global dimming or 'global brightening' affects sensitivity then read about it in AR5. Its been accounted for and it's bad news

Regarding the jet stream, of course it's affected by climate change, and the affects are becoming more measurable as warming has increased. Warming has not been a straight line graph, its an upward trending u shaped curve. The effects of global warning accelerate as the natural carbon sinks get saturated. 90% of warming has been absorbed by the oceans, but thats starting to feed back into the atmosphere and it's only gonna get worse

If you want evidence of heatwaves, 70000 people died in europe 14 years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
Last week planes were grounded in Arizona because it was almost 50 degrees Celsius...

The evidence is everywhere.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

If you want evidence of heatwaves, 70000 people died in europe 14 years ago

Awful.
Yet, the yearly death rate in France, for example, did not see a spike in 2003? If anything, rates increased slightly in the following years, peaking in 2006, which admittedly, was another hot summer in western Europe.

As awful as this number of deaths is due to heat, it is statistically proven that far more people die from cold than heat on an annual basis in contemporary society, while historically, severe cold winters wiped out 10s of thousands in Europe alone on a frequent basis. Death by climate is nothing new.

Akrasia

I was asked for examples of extreme weather from global warming. Tens of thousands of people dying in western europe from heat stroke and dehydration should count

Oneiric 3

Do you think this is the first time this has happened in Europe?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Arctic sea ice is in a downward spiral which is clear to anyone who doesn't cherrypick the data. The northwest passage was a mythical route that was never viable because it was only fleetingly open in the most favourable conditions. Compare that with today. Since last year you can buy package holiday cruise to go through the Northwest passage. It's reliably ice free and its only getting easier from now on.

Hurricane's are complex beasts, the science predicts increasingly powerful storms but by small percentages that are within statistical noise. Hurricanes are affected by ENSO which seems to already by dusrupted and we have unusual el nino and la nina patterns recently.

Climate sensitivity is dealt with in the ipcc reports. If you're genuinely curious about how global dimming or 'global brightening' affects sensitivity then read about it in AR5. Its been accounted for and it's bad news

Regarding the jet stream, of course it's affected by climate change, and the affects are becoming more measurable as warming has increased. Warming has not been a straight line graph, its an upward trending u shaped curve. The effects of global warning accelerate as the natural carbon sinks get saturated. 90% of warming has been absorbed by the oceans, but thats starting to feed back into the atmosphere and it's only gonna get worse

If you want evidence of heatwaves, 70000 people died in europe 14 years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
Last week planes were grounded in Arizona because it was almost 50 degrees Celsius...

The evidence is everywhere.

I think maybe you're the type of person who believes the Daily Express-type headlines and takes everything at face value. It seems that you see something bad happen and link it to obvious agw. Your evidence has done nothing to support your point.

Yes, Arctic ice is on a decline. No doubt about it. However, 10 years ago many were reckoning that we could see ice-free summers by 2020. That's not going to happen. They were wrong.

Likewise with the hurricanes. You say they're complex. Of course they are, but Katrina fed the hype and went down as another "example" of our effect on the climate. "Expect more of them", we were warned. Yet the US has gone its longest spell without a major hurricane since records began. It's been widely known for decades that global teleconnections are the biggest influence on hurricane activity, far outweighing ghg signals. And there's nothing "unusual" about the El Niño patterns recently. The last one was a big one but it's happened before and will happen again.

Since the IPCC reports there has been new evidence to indicate that climate sensitivity is not what it was believed to be. I have referenced thay paper by Ray Bates and I attended his lecture on it. Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is only about half of what the IPCC previously believed. Read that paper a few posts ago and see what you think.

The warming has not been an upward-curving graph. The FORECASTS were for that but it has not transpired that way. Bates' paper explains this in detail and accounts for the 15-year flatter trend than forecast. Yes the oceans will store this heat but my point is that we are continually seeing unexpected trends that the go against the "consensus" ones.

The population of the world is growing rapidly so thousands of deaths from an event (if these deaths can be definitely attributed to it) needs to be see in perspective. As Oneiric said, this is nothing new. Heatwaves have occurred before. 50 degrees in SW USA is nothing new. The grounded flights you refer to were only CRJ aircraft, which have limited hot-and-high performance capabilities. What you didn't state is that all other flights (Boeings, Airbus, etc.) were not affected. Maybe you didn't read past the headline...

What I fail to understand is why all possible consequences of warming are invariably "devastating", "catastrophic: or "bad news". We are told that the poorest nations will see more droughts. The horn of Africa has forever been most affected by ENSO setups and other teleconnections. Again, it's nothing new. The deserts of the world are where they are because of the Hadley Circulation, not because of agw. Countries in the Sahel have always been in a precarious position, given the natural variability of the rain seasons, etc. That's why they have these problems. Is there anywhere you see that could benefit from the changes you believe in? If there are losers on one side then there must be beneficiaries on the other. It can't all be doom and gloom.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

When 'science' is confronted by the faintest hint of intellectual scrutiny..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo

"Without humans, the climate today would have been like it was in 1750"

I rest my case. So all the early warming was due to humans too? The warming in 1850 started because of agw? How, when the CO2 emissions were a fraction of today's? This is the sort of nonsense I'm talking about.

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

"Without humans, the climate today would have been like it was in 1750"

Yes, because the mid 18th Century was the place to be, climate wise:

1744, a storm did prodigious damage at Port Royal, in Jamaica. It stranded, wrecked and foundered eight British ships, and ninety-six merchant ships in the harbor.174

1744, floods struck many regions of China.

In 1745 the cold of winter reached 14° F (-10° C) in January in the region of olive groves in southern France. Many of these trees died.

1745 A.D. In Dublin, Ireland, there was a great flood; serious damage to bridges.47, 92

In April 1745 in London, England, a great cattle plague began, having been brought from Holland [the Netherlands

On 11 May 1745, a hailstorm struck Yorkshire, England. The great storm caused great damage to the gardens and fields. The hailstones were 5 inches [13 centimeters] in circumference

On 8 July 1747, a violent storm of thunder and lightning and a fall of hail struck Bristol, England. Many of the hailstones were several inches round. One in particular measured about 5 inches [13 centimeters] round. When it was put in a basin and dissolved, it yielded nearly a quarter pint of water. Several shocks of an earthquake, attended with a considerable noise, and succeeded by claps of thunder, were felt in different parts of Devonshire.293 [The thunder was so strong that it made the ground shake.]


In 1747, there was a drought in Scotland. The autumn was hot and dry. The rivers were lower than ever known


In February 1748, several people have been found dead this month [in England] due to the excessive cold. Multitudes of sheep in Derbyshire, the south downs of Sussex, and other parts have been lost under deep snow.


I'm not going to bother posting anymore but these are just a very few small examples from here:

http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf

riffmongous

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think maybe you're the type of person who believes the Daily Express-type headlines and takes everything at face value. It seems that you see something bad happen and link it to obvious agw. Your evidence has done nothing to support your point.

Yes, Arctic ice is on a decline. No doubt about it. However, 10 years ago many were reckoning that we could see ice-free summers by 2020. That's not going to happen. They were wrong.

Likewise with the hurricanes. You say they're complex. Of course they are, but Katrina fed the hype and went down as another "example" of our effect on the climate. "Expect more of them", we were warned. Yet the US has gone its longest spell without a major hurricane since records began. It's been widely known for decades that global teleconnections are the biggest influence on hurricane activity, far outweighing ghg signals. And there's nothing "unusual" about the El Niño patterns recently. The last one was a big one but it's happened before and will happen again.

Since the IPCC reports there has been new evidence to indicate that climate sensitivity is not what it was believed to be. I have referenced thay paper by Ray Bates and I attended his lecture on it. Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is only about half of what the IPCC previously believed. Read that paper a few posts ago and see what you think.

The warming has not been an upward-curving graph. The FORECASTS were for that but it has not transpired that way. Bates' paper explains this in detail and accounts for the 15-year flatter trend than forecast. Yes the oceans will store this heat but my point is that we are continually seeing unexpected trends that the go against the "consensus" ones.

The population of the world is growing rapidly so thousands of deaths from an event (if these deaths can be definitely attributed to it) needs to be see in perspective. As Oneiric said, this is nothing new. Heatwaves have occurred before. 50 degrees in SW USA is nothing new. The grounded flights you refer to were only CRJ aircraft, which have limited hot-and-high performance capabilities. What you didn't state is that all other flights (Boeings, Airbus, etc.) were not affected. Maybe you didn't read past the headline...

What I fail to understand is why all possible consequences of warming are invariably "devastating", "catastrophic: or "bad news". We are told that the poorest nations will see more droughts. The horn of Africa has forever been most affected by ENSO setups and other teleconnections. Again, it's nothing new. The deserts of the world are where they are because of the Hadley Circulation, not because of agw. Countries in the Sahel have always been in a precarious position, given the natural variability of the rain seasons, etc. That's why they have these problems. Is there anywhere you see that could benefit from the changes you believe in? If there are losers on one side then there must be beneficiaries on the other. It can't all be doom and gloom.

There was already a rebuttal to an earlier version of the Bates paper a few years ago, questioning the method it's based on (Lindzen and Choi), which was already pretty much discredited due to it's assumptions

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wr7nr8m4v4kwhc8/BatesResponse.docx?dl=0