Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 Next
Comments 15351 to 15400:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:49 AM on 8 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
I don't understand what Alchemyst is talking about. My initial post makes it clear that my concern is about the Arctic and the changes taking place there. I am comparing apples to apples, namely the temperature north of 80 degrees lattitude during the first 55 days of the year in the DMI archive. So, it is definitely comparing a cold period of the year with another cold period of the year.
There may have been a similar weather situation in 1962 as in 2018 but the temperature in the Arctic was nowhere close to what it has been since the beginning of this year, as is totally obvious from the graphs. As I stated above in another post, I looked at the entire archive and did not find a single year with temperatures looking like what was just recorded in 2018. I may have missed one, anyone is free to look for themselves, the archive is freely accessible.
I did not consider European weather, my comment was about the Arctic temperatures and state of the sea ice, which saw the lowest January extent on record, and retreating ice in the Bering sea. Sea ice extent shows no sign of improvement, barely exceeding 14 million sq.km at a time where the interdecile range is between 15 and 16 million sq.km. It appears likely that we are going to see the lowest max winter extent on record for a given year.
-
jef12506 at 02:26 AM on 8 March 2018There Will Be Consequences
This is a well done article. The only point I would make is the possibility that things can and often are happening much faster than discussed here.
For some reason most of science is taking the position of not wanting to worry people too much until it is too late. This is insanity.
-
James Wight at 19:49 PM on 7 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
nigelj @9
I'm also on the outside looking in, so we are equal in that regard!
#1 I don't dispute Obama's climate policies were less bad than Bush and Trump, but that's not saying much. They still fell far short of the phaseout of fossil fuels which is necessary to actually stop the rise of CO2, indeed Obama was still subsidizing fossil fuels. Despite his policies being less bad in a technical sense, I think there's a case to be made that Obama's net effect was worse than Bush and Trump, because Obama placated environmental concerns a bit. At least under the Republicans, everyone knows the government does not have climate change under control.
#2 Yes, Trump's dismantling of climate and environmental policies is a total disaster and insane at a time when humanity's impact on the planet is far outstripping anything sustainable. But the fact remains that those policies were already woefully inadequate and served primarily to reassure the public that something was being done. It's come out that some American towns have lead poisoning in their water supply, so clearly Obama-era environmental regulations weren't doing a great job.
#3 The fossil fuel industry has benefited from all kinds of government subsidies as well as other favorable rules. US fossil fuel subsidies increased by over a third under Obama: http://www.ibtimes.com/us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-increase-dramatically-despite-climate-change-pledge-2180918 Also under Obama, the government worked with mining corporations to run psyops against anti-fracking movements.
#4 You shouldn't assume the TPP is dead, because other countries are still developing it and Trump is now making noises that he might be open to getting back into it. Anyway, the TPP does not benefit the people of any country because it is inherently anti-democratic. Investor-state tribunals only benefit corporations and their shareholders, by allowing corporations to sue foreign governments for lost profits, hamstringing governments' ability to regulate corporate activities - such as pollution. So when you say it benefits "America" I think you mean it benefits American corporations. The TPP was negotiated under Obama's watch.
#5 Well I've just explained how the TPP is bad for anyone who's not rich. The Obama administration also infiltrated and shut down the Occupy Wall Street protests among other things. But yes, I agree the Republicans are making it even worse. That doesn't mean the Democrats were making it better. And the excuse of "We can't do anything because of the Republicans" wears pretty thin after eight years, especially since the Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years.
#6 I stand corrected on Obama's military spending. However, the Democrats voted in favor of Trump's massive increase in military spending, so my point still stands that the two parties are similar if not the same.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is at best quantitative, and at worst good-cop-bad-cop. I don't particularly blame Obama as an individual any more than I blame Trump for the policies being implemented now. I'm saying that voting for the other party won't solve the climate problem, because both parties are controlled by the same corporate interests including the fossil fuel lobby.
-
Doug_C at 18:30 PM on 7 March 2018There Will Be Consequences
I can't see business as usual lasting much longer in regards to fossil fuel use.
I live in British Columbia in the Okanagan valley, we are already seeing the impacts of much more chaotic weather here and across this province. Last summer we had record forest fires across BC, one fire alone was over 500,000 hectares. We are also being warned once again this spring to be prepared for spring flooding as the snow packs are not behaving as they have in the past.
And while this is happening this province has been in conflict with another who's government resents even talking about stopping a massive increase in the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline which carries diluted bitumen from the Athabasca tar sands to shipping terminals in the Vancouver area. One of the least sustainable of fossil fuels and if spilled one of the most polluting. If the billions of dollars required to build the new pipeline capacity which is close to 1 million barrels a day, is allowed that would require many years to see a return. We are still planning on the commercial exploitation for decades of the worst possible energy sources in this country even as governments at all levels discuss the need to mitigate climtae change.
We here in Canada live in the bizarre state of being told we need to use more fossil fuels to fight climate change.
The same goes for gas fracking and LNG. This is a huge issue here with the "new" provincial government approving a dam in the middle of the Montney gas formation who's only real intent can be powering an explosion of fracking across NE BC. Something the federal government also supports. While natural gas has only about 50% of the carbon intensity of coal, fracking for it also releases large amounts of methane from leakage. Making it as bad as coal as a climate change forcer.
BC has commit to spending at least $12 billion which will likely climb to $15 billion before the Site C dam is finished. We could be spending that money on alternative energy sources across the province that would make a real difference in carbon emissions and also drive innovation in sectors that need significant stimulation to replace fossil fuels. Instead the electricty from that dam will likely go to powering gas fracking operations across the Montney gas fields. The government here has stated that no matter what its own scientific studies on the issue say, a moratorium on fracking is "unthinkable".
We are still going in the wrong direction in regards to fossil fuels and climate change in BC and in Canada. Do not listen to claims from our politicians that they are doing something about this growing catastrophe.
As early as 1993 the federal government was claiming that Canada was planning for a fossil fuel free future and doing our part to mitigate climate change. And investment and exploitation of fossil fuels across the nation has only grown.
As I said at the begining, I don't think this will last much longer. We have already lost a Canadian city to climate change induced heats waves, this one in April of 2016 in Northern Alberta where temperatures reached over +20 C when usual temperatures are often -20 C in that area at that time. And came very close to losing several BC cities to fires last summer.
At some point there will also be a political tipping point where it is simply no longer possible to deny this growing catastrophe and pretend we can base our future on fossil fuels.
Here in Canada and BC this will mean huge stranded assets, but the alternative is changes that happen so fast and are so significant that they could possible drive our species extinct.
Before much longer I don't think we will be talking about even carbon neutral energy models, we will be talking about carbon negative models to at least try and mitigate some of the impacts that are predicted before long and some like extreme heat waves and massive forest fires are already happening here.
A future such as James Hansen is discussing with superstorms strong enough to hurl 1,000 ton boulders on shore is not an option. Or the loss of sea coasts through greatly increased erosion and then inundation.
How will Asian populations feed themselves as well with areas like the Mekong and Yangtze deltas where much of the rice is grown, going under the sea or made useless to agriculture by salt water intrusion.
Any policy that relies on fossil fuels on the decade scale should be treated in the same way we would with crimes against humanity.
Because that is exactly what it is.
-
nigelj at 18:21 PM on 7 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
James wight @8, on second thoughts it appears you are wrong. Obama didn't increase military spending, as per this graph.
-
nigelj at 16:23 PM on 7 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
James Wight @8
I don't live in America, so here is a view from the outside loooking in. It does look like both Republicans and Democrats serve corporate interests, however theres clearly a difference in quite a few respects:
1) The Democrats have provably had more powerful climate mitigation policies than Bush and the current Trump / Republican administration. This has been openly documented and is not seriously disputed.
2) It appears Obama at least tried to regulate other environmental and business issues, (The Dodd Franks Act comes to mind). Trump and the Republican Congress has done his best to dismantle all this. Notice how this study below just released shows the benefits of these regulations outweighed the costs.
"Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations. It was easy to miss, but OMB demolishes the GOP’s deregulatory claims."
www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/6/17077330/trump-regulatory-agenda-omb
3) I dont know how you say Obama drove a boom in fracking. Didn't the free market drive that?
4) Regarding the TPPA (trans pacific partnership agreement), this involved America and various pacific nations such as NZ, latin american countries, Japan etc. I like free trade agreements, but I agree the investor state dispute resolution process involves closed door hearings by lawyers, with arguably conflicts of interest that have been well discussed. It needs to be more open and transparent.
However it's a simple fact (because I followed the negotiation process closely) that America was getting by far the best deal out of this TPPA agreement, so the fact Trump has pulled out makes me laugh at how little he comprehends these things. America is also one of the most litigious countries in trade disputes, and generally does ok in these disputes. So I'm not entirely sure why you are so upset and blaming Obama. America has also benefited a lot from free trade, according to economists.
5) Saying Obama "oversaw a rise in wealth inequality" is rather general and meaningless. I dont think he personally caused it, unless you can show me some evidence. He certainly at least tried to help poor people with various programmes, but was defeated by a republican dominated congress.
Perhaps you can explain to me how Trump and the Republicans attempts to cut taxes for the wealthy, cut death duty taxes, and cut food stamps and welfare entitlements help reduce wealth or income inequality? Because it sure doesn't look like it will help.
6) Obama increased the military spending. Can't disagree, however Trumps spending increases appear considerably more ambitious. I'm not a pacifist, but I would have thought America has enough nukes to last a million years.
So there's actually a very significant quantitative and qualitative difference between Democrats and Republicans, and it is in favour of the Democrats.
And remember, the point of the article was related to differences in respect of climate mitigation and science between the parties.
-
James Wight at 15:15 PM on 7 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
This article seems to conflate politicians with voters.
The politicians all serve corporate interests, though the Democrats may tend to do it to a lesser degree or, I would argue, through sneakier strategies. A recent study from Princeton University found that US government policy is determined by economic elites with little or no independent influence from the grassroots: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
The Obama administration drove a boom in unconventional oil and gas, sabotaged the Copenhagen climate talks through NSA shenanigans, attempted to cede the sovereignty of democratic nations to unelected corporate litigators via the Trans-Pacific Partnership, expanded the military which is one of the world's biggest polluters, and oversaw a rise in the wealth inequality which gives power to corporate lobbies like fossil fuels.
So when it comes to the politicians, "Both Siderism" is very much correct. The Democrats are barely better than the Republicans, and arguably worse because they pretend to be better by saying the right words about climate change.
Republican voters are worse in large part because they have been subjected to decades of propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby. Democratic voters may be better informed, but they are likewise subject to the propaganda of the Democratic Party which is paving the road to hell. If you think voting Democrat will solve anything, you are in my view extremely misled and part of the problem.
-
ImaginaryNumber at 15:11 PM on 7 March 2018How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
I would appreciate your critique of these recent articles on Polar Bears by Pagano, vs a counter-article by Susan Crockford. To my non-scientific mind, it appears she has some valid points.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/568
https://polarbearscience.com/2018/02/01/polar-bear-specialists-double-down-on-message-of-future-starving-bears/
-
nigelj at 12:58 PM on 7 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
Money in politics is a huge problem. And the answer is what exactly? The system resists change.
The Democrats need to at least stop relying on the fossil fuel lobby and company donations. At least find some wealthy campaign donors sympathetic to environmental issues. Find your answer to the Koch Brothers.
-
Alchemyst at 11:33 AM on 7 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
This was the headline that nigelj posted
Arctic warmer than much of Europe is a worrying sign of climate change
however we now have established that in 1962 that a similar excursion took place in which the arctic was warmer than europe. a couple of degrees lass possibly, But these temperature reversals have a long history, so how can they be sign of global warming.
The headline is therfore misleading.
The fact that the arctic is warmer than europe at times is a sign of weather.
Moderator Response:[PS] But a change in trends is a sign of climate change, and that article went on to explain not the significance of one event but the underlying changes. As did the paper that is main focus of this blog article. Noone disputes that one event by itself is insignificant and just weather. Persistant changes to jetstream variability are another thing altogether.
Quoting Nigelj article (did you read down that far)
But such "intrusion events" are happening with increasing frequency, says Adamson. And they "are linked to increased temperatures and reduced sea ice cover."Global warming may be to blame.
"There is now a large and strong body of evidence that the major changes we are seeing are linked to climate change," Adamson said. "Changes in one part of the ocean-atmosphere system can have major impacts on another."
Note the "increasing frequency"?
-
Alchemyst at 10:16 AM on 7 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
M A Roger at 5:04 am 4 March
thanks for the tables. You missed the excursion!
please read that the highest winter peak was 261.33 K on 21 Nov 1962 not 252K in February.
Moderator Response:[PS] And??? What point are you trying to make?
-
Alchemyst at 08:16 AM on 7 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
P Chantreau
hanks for the graphs, You hoverer do not compare one cold period with the other.
You need also to compare like with like.
The 62 winter freeze extended through from December to March 63.
The temp at the begining of December in Greenland according to your graphs was 262K at 2017 it was 264 K quite close!
Is it possible to see a graph of these? also is it possible to see a graph of feb 2011 to get a good comparison. The cold snap this year has lasted 6 days The 62 lasted some 70 days and the sea was frozen in UK ports.
Moderator Response:[PS] It would still help this discussion if you made it clear what you are trying to establish.
-
william5331 at 04:58 AM on 7 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
All these analyses are nibbling around the edges and misdirecting our attention from the basic problem. There is one overwhelming reason for climate change dinial and one reason only. It is the same reason that kept cigaretts being extoled as the best thing since sliced bread and lead added to petrol being a good thing. Pick any cause you want and any year 12 student could tell you what the solution is. The only reason that trying to sort out these problems is so hard is money in politics. Who pays the piper calls the tune and it was never so true as in human affairs. If we want our governments to do what is so blindingly obviously needed, politicians need to be financed from the public purse and anyone giving them money or favours must be jailed. Only than will we begin to sort out the mess. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2018/01/wasted-effort.html
-
nigelj at 12:34 PM on 6 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
In addition to an unfortunate lack of balance in the media, the media seem to be increasingly inflammatory in things they say by my observation. I suppose its competition due to the internet, so they are crying out for attention.
Unfortunately this is creating a sort of monster of lowest common denominator flawed, ridiculous information. This is market competition that has gone seriously crazy, and its seriously dumbing down the population.
People are influenced by people like Rish Limbaugh above all else, and I doubt even that the leaders of the Republican party can now do much to counter this media monster even if they wanted to. The genie is out of the bottle. The voting "base" listen to the media directly now and its all they listen to.
Attitudes to climate change will improve with young people. They get the science at school. with less of the "noise". If only their climate denialist parents would shut up on the issue. But all this takes time.
-
John Hartz at 11:14 AM on 6 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
Recommended supplemental reading...
Millennials’ Climate Views Could Sway 10 House Elections This November by Josh Kurtz, E&E News/Scientific American, Mar 5, 2018
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:11 AM on 6 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
I transposed the date of the UN Report. It was also 1987.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:49 AM on 6 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
"In 1987, the FCC under Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, which required television and radio stations to be equitable and balanced. The Rush Limbaugh Show then launched in 1988, and so came the rise of right-wing radio. Fox News launched in 1996, providing conservatives a source of politically-biased news coverage. Combined with conservative news websites like Breitbart, Drudge, and Infowars, the right-wing echo chamber can envelop anyone who seeks only news spun to confirm their ideological biases."
And in 1978 the UN Report "Our Common Future" was published. THta clear-eyed look at waht was going on including the following blunt evaluation:
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."It seems the changes the Reagan Administration over-saw in 1987 helped amplify a caustic environment that had already been understood to be developing damaging results, encouraging people to be develop damaging attitudes and actions.
Team Trump winning would appear to be a natural inevitable development in such an environment. Hopefully it is a last gasp unsustainable Win by those type of people. Hopefully, they won't make things too much worse before they Lose the ability to significantly influence things.
-
nigelj at 08:40 AM on 6 March 2018Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures
Yes the Republicans figure more strongly in climate science denialism. However I suggest they are never going to accept the science. Just look at the history of various scientific debates, and we still see a core group of non believers, typically around 20% of the population.
If the Democrats owned the climate issue more powerfully at a political and personal level, it might gain them some traction with the public, because people would take it more seriously. This may at least force the Republicans to adopt renewable energy policies and a carbon tax, as they would be worried about losing votes to the democrats. Various commentators have suggested this.
You will only ever convince rational people in the middle of debates. There's probably room to convince a few more in America. Climate scepticism is higher in America than other countries, so they just may be slower to accept things for a range of reasons. But things will only change dramatically when the Democrats take a more powerful position on the issue.
-
John Hartz at 03:05 AM on 6 March 2018Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’
Recommended supplemental reading:
Implementing climate pact would dramatically save health care costs- researchers by Sebastien Malo, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Mar 2, 2018
The article summarizes the analysis contained in the paper, Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study by Anil Markandya et al, The Lancet Planetary Health Journal [open access], March 2018.
-
nigelj at 12:33 PM on 5 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
Bob Loblow, yes flooding data doesn't show an increase overall probably because of flood mitigation effects, dredging etc. I thought they may have tried to allow for all this in the studies, but it would be very hard now I think about it. I did some physical geography at uni, so I'm interested.
However this much is more certain:
www.climatecentral.org/news/europe-floods-climate-change-21704
"Will a warming climate affect river floods? The prevailing sentiment is yes, but a consistent signal in flood magnitudes has not been found. Blöschl et al. analyzed the timing of river floods in Europe over the past 50 years and found clear patterns of changes in flood timing that can be ascribed to climate effects (see the Perspective by Slater and Wilby). These variations include earlier spring snowmelt floods in northeastern Europe, later winter floods around the North Sea and parts of the Mediterranean coast owing to delayed winter storms, and earlier winter floods in western Europe caused by earlier soil moisture maxima.
-
nigelj at 11:27 AM on 5 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #9
Some other news: "Donald Trump’s Know-Nothing Science Budget"
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-know-nothing-science-budget
Talk about weapons grade stupid policy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:45 AM on 5 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
nigelj, Section 2.6.2.2 is brief. It appears to evaluate flooding by analysis of river flow rates. The following statement is the majority of the section:
"AR5 WGII assesses floods in regional detail accounting for the fact that trends in floods are strongly influenced by changes in river management (see also Section 2.5.2). Although the most evident flood trends appear to be in northern high latitudes, where observed warming trends have been largest, in some regions no evidence of a trend in extreme flooding has been found, for example, over Russia based on daily river discharge
(Shiklomanov et al., 2007). Other studies for Europe (Hannaford and Marsh, 2008; Renard et al., 2008; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Stahl et al., 2010) and Asia (Jiang et al., 2008; Delgado et al., 2010) show evidence for upward, downward or no trend in the magnitude and frequency of floods, so that there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding except for the earlier spring flow in snow-dominated regions (Seneviratne et al., 2012)."The key seems to be a lack of a statistically significant consistent global change in flooding. Some areas have increased flooding and others have reduced flooding, as stated in the following portion of the much larger section 2.5.2 of the report:
"Recently, Stahl et al. (2010) and Stahl and Tallaksen (2012) investigated streamflow trends based on a data set of near-natural streamflow records from more than 400 small catchments in 15 countries across
Europe for 1962–2004. A regional coherent pattern of annual streamflow trends was revealed with negative trends in southern and eastern
regions, and generally positive trends elsewhere. Subtle regional differences in the subannual changes in various streamflow metrics
also can be captured in regional studies such as by Monk et al. (2011) for
Canadian rivers." -
BaerbelW at 03:50 AM on 5 March 2018Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
villabolo @98
Nice to hear from you!
To answer your question: whenever a rebuttal gets updated, the date gets changed. It is then a decision of the author who is making the update whether or not an author-change is warrented. For minor tweaks like fixing links or typos this doesn't happen but for more substantial changes it is usually done. That you were the original author of the basic version has been preserved in the archives for the rebuttal:
-
MartinJB at 02:17 AM on 5 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
MA Rodger (r.e. "Interestingly, the DMI data shows the summers over the last couple of decades with lower temperatures than in the 1960s.")
I'm going to guess that more exposed water slows the warming of the air as summer sets in because you get more heat exchange between water and air than ice and air. Whereas having ice-covered water basically insulates the air from the moderating effects of the water. Just a guess...
-
MA Rodger at 00:44 AM on 5 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
The DMI 80N daily data is exceedingly wobble-ridden. To get a sense of seasonal trends, I have plotted out decadal 31-day rolling averages. This does show significant change but only since 2000. The graphic linked here (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') shows the freeze season (Oct-Dec) was +3ºC warmer in the 2000s. And the 2010s have show additional warming with the height of the freeze (Jan-Mar) is on average+ 5ºC warmer. In that context, the 2018 season is probably averaging +7ºC warmer. Interestingly, the DMI data shows the summers over the last couple of decades with lower temperatures than in the 1960s.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 16:52 PM on 4 March 2018New research, February 19-25, 2018
Thank you, I corrected the link.
-
Wol at 15:19 PM on 4 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
>>I'm afraid some brits tell me that this cold spell is nothing like what happened in 1962<<
I don't have the data to hand, but I was flying training in 1962/3 and subjectively it was in the same category as this winter: days on end of cancellations and life-threatening cold.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:02 PM on 4 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
niglej:
Without reading the chapter, is it possible that the difference is due to better flood mitigation? Or just poorer (more noisy) flood data?
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:59 AM on 4 March 2018Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
villabolo:
IIRC, the web code for SkS attributes the article to the last person that made minor edits. A known bug. Not sure how to fix it.
-
michael sweet at 09:48 AM on 4 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Philippe Chantreau and MA Rodger,
It is my understanding that while the high temperature this year in Northern Greenland was not the highest ever recorded it was above zero for much longer than had ever been recorded. (Sorry no cite, it was a newspaper article) Eyeballing the graph at 25, the temperature was above 260 for several days. That is not the same as Greenland but it does support the claim that the heat wave this year was extraordinary.
-
villabolo at 09:24 AM on 4 March 2018Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Hey guys at SkS, this article is attributed to Dana1981 but was written by yours truly villabolo. :-)
-
Synapsid at 07:35 AM on 4 March 2018New research, February 19-25, 2018
Thank you for this weekly feature.
11. The link does not connect to the paper named.
-
nigelj at 05:54 AM on 4 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
The IPCC fifth assessment report finds no evidence that flooding has increased, yet has good confidence that extreme rainfall events have increased. This seems hard to reconcile.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:25 AM on 4 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Glad to see that my 252 eyeballing was that close. Thanks for the link. I looked at the entire DMI archive and did not see a year with a spike as high as 2018 in the first 55 days, although the lows may be the more remarkable story. The level of the minimum Arctic temp in this year's first 55 days is quite interesting.
-
MA Rodger at 05:04 AM on 4 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Philippe Chantreau @25,
You might be interested in the daily DMI data available in spreadsheet form courtesy of 'Tealight' at Arctic Neven's Forum. 'Tealight' runs CryosphereComputing website. The numbers (1960-2017) are very handy for comparing the inter-year DMI data. Thus in early 1962 the temperature is given as peaking at 251.72K on 14th Jan & 252.53K on 29th Feb (evidently some form of leap year handling process is in use), these being the 3rd & 4th warmest excursions of the 1960s (exceeded by one in 1960 & one in 1965).
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:26 AM on 4 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Alchemyst brings our attention to the 1962 event that showed an apparently similar weather patern as the one we're experiencing this year.
I looked at the archives of the DMI and found the Arctic temperatures above 80 deg lattitude for that year. The highest temp for the first 55 days of the year in 1962 are arond 252 deg K. For 2018 they are approximately 264 deg K, 12 degrees warmer.
In comparison, this is 1962:
-
sidd at 10:01 AM on 3 March 2018Actions today will decide Antarctic ice sheet loss and sea level rise
That Gardner paper in Cryosphere is nice. From table 1) i see that basins 20,21,22 (include thwaites) are showing increases in net mass loss of the order of 1%. Thats reassuringly smaller than Hansen's projection, in the "doubling time" picture a time of 70 yr or so. -
nigelj at 09:47 AM on 3 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Argus @23,
The sun is shining less now than 20 years ago. Refer to "its the sun" under climate myths at the left hand side of the page. So quite obviously the warming arctic and decreasing ice can't be attributed to solar activity.
Natural fluctuations have always occured, but that obviously doesn't mean they are always particularly strong, or that humans can't have an influence.
I don't know about other people, but I try to be a "climate realist".
-
Argus at 08:52 AM on 3 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
The post was talking about winters ("Abnormal winter weather"), and I was talking about the winter sun, or lack of sun – but you and the moderator are talking about summer, with midnight sun and all that. A slight misunderstanding.
Ok, so just now the ice cover seems to get thinner, and covers a smaller area in the summer. The sun does what it's meant to do, shine. So does it shine more now than 20 years ago, or 50 years ago? If so, why? Maybe this is just a period where ices are smaller, and 20 years from now maybe they will be thicker and bigger again. What's the problem? Fluctuations have always occurred.
Everybody in this forum seems to be climate pessimists.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:53 AM on 3 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Argus@21,
In addition to the Moderator's correction regarding your comment, when the ice covers the arctic waters in winter it acts as insulation keeping the warmth in the water. So winter maximum extents not declining can actually lead to even smaller summer minimum extents.
The ice cover is getting thinner. More of it is only new ice rather than thicker multi-year ice. That makes it easier for the trend of minimum extent in each new summer to be significantly smaller as the 24 hour sunshine warms the larger area of uncovered waters. And that significant downward trend of summer minimum extent is indeed what is observed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:40 AM on 3 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM@183,
I try to follow all commenting in strings I participate in, as well as reading comments on items I do not have any comments to add to. So I will start by 'addressing the issue of sea level rise' then continue with the relevant related issue of your comment that was introduced into this discussion by your comments that imply the need to 'limit harm to the developed economy', not negatively affect any already very fortunate people (and you claiming that the added work required in future generations is a "Good Thing").
The maximum potential harm created by the current most fortunate beneficiaries of the burning of fossil fuels is what the current most fortunate beneficiaries of the burning of fossil fuels must correct. The more that they try to benefit, the more they need to do now to protect the future generations from the potential future challenges or negative consequence. So your 11” value, which is not the worst of the possible future impacts, is irrelevant when discussing/evaluating the actions required today. The required actions are immediate actions to sustainably deal with the worst of the potential developed outcomes. Those actions are either the immediate building of conservatively adequate height and durability sea walls (massive), or the rapid reduction of impacts to reduce the magnitude of required wall building. (refer to my comments @139 and @143)
Now onto the rest of my reply.
Thank you for bothering to read my brief presentation @98 that focuses on the globally developed and robust understanding that the Sustainable Development Goals are the collective of actions required to sustainable help the least fortunate have better lives. Feel free to provide any substantial new information you believe would change any aspect of that international leadership developed understanding.
Your lengthy reply, that offers no information that would alter the understanding of the importance of achieving all of the SDGs, reinforces my understanding that you are one of those among humanity who has developed personal interests that lead them to like to claim that their personal ability to continue to benefit from burning fossil fuels 'must be allowed for the good of the poor'.
From your comment I would expect you to be a very ardent supporter of nations like China and India being exempt from having to reduce their per-capita CO2 production while the more fortunate nations lead by example and rapidly reduce their impacts while providing assistance to help China and India transition to reduce their CO2 impacts (essentially the basis for the internationally understood Kyoto Accord and the Paris Agreement). However, I have my doubts about you arguing that way (refer to my comment @32 and @68). Of course, my understanding is that even in places like China and India there are many more fortunate people who should also be rapidly correcting how they behave. So, while I accept that places like India and China should be able to continue increasing their per-capita impacts while the supposedly more advanced nations rapidly reduce their impacts, I would push for the wealthiest in those nations to do what those other most fortunate people are all expected to responsibly do (with penalties from peers applied effectively to the recalcitrant among their kind - no Dictators required).
The burning of fossil fuels is undeniably unsustainable and undeniably creates harmful changes for the future generations while reducing the non-renewable resources available to future generations.
That understanding makes it clear that the most fortunate need to stop trying to personally benefit from the activity, and the ones that benefited most to date from the burning owe everyone else, especially the future generations. My main take-away from your comments is that you do not believe in confronting/declaring the unacceptability of those who are resistant to correcting the way they think. Correcting their attitudes and actions is the required step. The benefiting from burning fossil fuels needs to rapidly be restricted to the least fortunate, with assistance provided to most rapidly transition their ways of living away from the burning of fossil fuels. (refer to my comment @38)
John Stewart Mill in “On Liberty” said: “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.” Those unwilling to accept the awareness and better understanding of the need for all of the SDGs to be achieved are like Mill's Mere Children needing to be better educated, to correct their developed personal desires to benefit from understandably unsustainable and harmful activity, people who have developed a lack of interest in better understanding the harmful unacceptable 'externalities' created by their developed addiction to benefiting from pursuing unjustifiable Private Interests.
My primary objective is indeed helping to improve awareness and understanding of the corrections of what has developed to sustainably end poverty. Correctly understanding climate science and the corrections/changes it identifies are an important part of sustainably ending poverty, developing a sustainable better future for humanity. That includes understanding that some people will persistently resist correcting their understanding of many things, resulting in them resisting the understanding of the corrections required to sustainably help advance humanity to a better future.
Un-refereed Capitalism competition can only develop good results if Everyone is dedicated to increased awareness of what is going on and limits their actions to the proper understanding of what is acceptable, actions that fit under the very broad but still limited umbrella of the Sustainable Development Goals.
My conclusion based on all of your comments is that you hope to appeal to people who are easily impressed. Frankly, your comments are unimpressive, poorly justified. The understanding of the required corrections of what has developed is strengthening, particularly because of the continued misguided arguments against the responsible changes required by all of the most fortunate to develop improvements of human activity that are sustainable into the distant future - no more pretending that developed perceptions of winning/superiority in the developed competitions for popularity and profitability are justified or deserved.
-
John Hartz at 04:21 AM on 3 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM wrote:
I find the Climate Report much more readable than the IPCC Fifth Assessment.
As to be expected. The Climate Report was written by a relatively small group of scientists who all spoke the same language. The IPPC Fifth Assessment Report was written by a large group who spoke different languages.
-
NorrisM at 04:06 AM on 3 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
MA Rodger and michael sweet,
Thanks for your responses. I plan to spend time reading at least Chapter 12 of the Climate Report before I get back to you on SLR. I find the Climate Report much more readable than the IPCC Fifth Assessment.
-
Argus at 03:40 AM on 3 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
The top post states: "White ice is reflective, but dark oceans aren’t. When sea ice sitting on top of the ocean melts, the Arctic surface becomes less reflective, absorbing more sunlight, which in turn melts more ice in what’s known as a “positive feedback.”
It's not that simple. That's not the whole truth. The people who wrote that must live in quite another place, where the sun is above their heads.
Here are a couple of factors that work in the other direction: 1.Ice covered by snow also acts like a blanket, and protects the relative warmth underneath it from escaping. 2.There is almost no sunshine in the winter to be absorbed in the Arctic; the angle of incidence of the few hours of sunlight available is just a couple of degrees, at which angle almost all radiation is reflected from the water surface.
Moderator Response:[DB] "there is almost no sunshine in the winter to be absorbed in the Arctic"
There is almost no darkness in Arctic summer. Winter and summer cancel out, inconveniently for you. Over the course of the year, water without ice absorbs more energy from the sun than water covered by ice. This is well-understood and not contentious in any way.
-
John Hartz at 01:09 AM on 3 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Speaking of severe weather events in the US during the current Winter season...
Once-in-a-generation flooding possible in Boston — for the second time this year by Matthew Cappucci, Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post, Mar 1, 2018
'Bomb cyclone' forms as flood threat sparks 'LIFE & DEATH' warning by Faith Karimi & Joe Sterling, CNN, Mar 2, 2018
Major Coastal Flooding, Hurricane-Force Wind Gusts Expected From Friday's Nor'easter by Jeff Masters, Category 6, Weather Underground, Mar 1, 2018
-
michael sweet at 23:15 PM on 2 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM:
You object to my statement at 153 that "Your claim of 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100 is false." I am sorry. In attempting to shorten my post I misspoke. I intended to say that your claim at 152 suggesting that you supported the IPCC 1meter of rise was deliberately false and intended to short cut the discussion. Your claim has consistently been 11 inches. Please link to a statement where you supported a 1 meter claim.
This entire discussion began with your claiming that mitagating AGW would provbide employment and was good. You have not stated where you will put the millions of climate refugees that Canada will have to take in by 2100. Please address where you will house all these people in your country.
You have made the completely usupported claim that reducing CO2 emissions might harm the economy. I have provided two technical reports that claim reducing CO2 will provide millions of jobs and reduce energy cost at no danger to other sections of the economy (except fossil fuels) and the Stern Report which documented years ago that reducing CO2 would provide much more benefits than harm. Since then the cost of renewable energy has plummeted so the benefits would be much greater. I will conceed that Stern has said they underestimated the damage from AGW and the benefit would be greater than they estimated.
You must provide a reference to a peer reviewed economic report that claims reducing CO2 will harm the economy or withdraw your absurd claim.
You must say where you expect the 650 million refugeees from sea level rise to go and describe how Canada will house their share of these persons. We will leave the refugees from drought unaccounted for.
You must link a comment you made at SkS where you support the IPCC median sea level rise as 1 meter and conceed the damage it would cause. If you cannot you must withdraw your claim at 152 that you have supported that amount of damage.
In previous comments you have dodged these questions and changed the topic of discussion. We need to answer them so that the discussion can proceed on. Please do not change the topic again.
-
MA Rodger at 20:18 PM on 2 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @181.
I will admit that it was not clear to me that the period for which you appled that 11" SLR was 2018-2100 (rather than 2000-2100) and that your 11" was therefore not outside the limit set out in the 2017 Climate Science Special Report. It does set a linear projection of current rates to set that lower limit which is much the same method as you employed. I was wrong to state your 11" lay outside their lowest limit.
Yet your talk of "casting aspersions on the intent" rather trumps any contrition on my part. You feel content to bandy a level of SLR for the century that sits at the lowest limit.
If nothing else, this ignores all the places which, balanced by other places which will see less than the average SLR, those places which will see SLR above the global mean, places like Miami which has to contend with a sinking coast line. Note that up-thread @137 the talk that spawned your 11" was of Miami.
But it is not "nothing else." You may feel your arguments hold water but your argument require the acceptance of unbelievable inconsistencies. You tell us you disgree with "proposals that could seriously harm many of the poor in this world" which sounds all very commendable. You would therefore be arguing that the impacts from AGW-mitigation under,say, RCP2.6 would harm "the poor in this world" far more than the AGW prevented by such mitigation.
So where does your 11" SLR fit into all this? Doesn't that 2017 Report say that the 12" lower limit to 21st century SLR is very unlikely, and this even under the RPC2.6 scenario? Doesn't it say it is impossible under BAU? You are being insincere or silly with your magicing away multi-foot SLR. You argue that AGW mitigation measures are unnecessary but cite reduced AGW impacts that require those mitigation measures to have been enacted.
Do you not then see why your arguments here attract the description "false"?
-
nigelj at 15:50 PM on 2 March 2018What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?
Sunspot cycles in recent decades barely cause a wobble in increasing global temperatures.They might affect winter weather, but aren't by definition the only factor.
Temperatures in the artic are currently 35 degrees above historical averages, and are affecting fundamental circulation patterns. This seems far more likely to be the most important factor in europes current storms, especially given that a mechanism has been explained by the experts.
-
NorrisM at 15:22 PM on 2 March 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
OPOF @ 182
I have just reread your comment at 98 and, again, there are so many "factual statements' in there that are unsupported that I do not know where to start. I do admit that Africa is a problem all by itself.
I have zero data to support this but my suspicion is that the poor who have benefitted from fossil fuels are largely in China and India where there are political systems that are not so corrupt as to deny the poor any chance. But we are a far way from talking climate change.
When talking about the poor, my real thought is the farmer somewhere who uses some form of locomotion powered by fossil fuels to farm his land and who relies on trucking of some sort to deliver his product to other transmission points which then allow his product to be exported to other parts of the world again relying on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, these tractors will sit in the fields. They will not be powered by EV tractors and then transported by railroads powered by electricity simply because the cost per product produced will be too high. The fields will return to nature. At the same time, the diesel generators needed to provide the electricity for an emergency operation to save his daughter from some life threatening event will not be there. Until we have a viable storage system for solar power we cannot rely on solar power in outlying areas. We need diesel power as a backup.
You talk about the millions of people who will be displaced by climate change but ignore the millions of people who will die from being cut off from a cheap source of energy that has for the first time allowed them (like the farmer referenced above) to produce a product that is not only for their consumption but can be sold to provide them with the resources to have a better diet or to perhaps fund an education for their children.
I will limit my comments to the above because we could go on forever on this topic. There are no "studies" that I know of that have examined how the poor of this world could survive if we cut off their access to cheap energy.
The underlying issue is that we as humans have leveraged energy beyond what our own bodies can produce to develop the society we presently live in. For the last 200 years it has been fossil fuels that have propelled us to where we are so that you are able to use a computer and the internet to communicate your thoughts on this website.
We have realized that the use of fossil fuels is complicating our future because of what it is doing to the atmosphere, our land areas and to the oceans and the organisms that live in it. So we have to do something about it. But until we have developed viable ways to replace fossil fuels, we cannot just cut humanity off from this lifeblood of our civilization. We will have to live and deal with the consequences of not being able to do so.
This website is devoted to convincing people that there is a problem. I clearly accept that there is a problem. I am not totally convinced as to how sensitive our climate is to the massive increases in CO2 but I agree that we should be "covering our bets". The real issue is what can we and what should we do about it given the present state of knowledge.
OPOF, perhaps this is why I have limited my responses to you!! You get into philosophy and that takes a lot of time and words which I am sure most do not want to read.
-
chriskoz at 11:58 AM on 2 March 2018Actions today will decide Antarctic ice sheet loss and sea level rise
Antarctica is now discharging 1.93 trillion tons of ice each year, up from about 1.89 trillion tons per year in 2008
When talking about SLR contribution, you should look at the ice mass balance, i.e. difference between accumulation and discharge. Accumulation number by itself is meaningless, esp. if warming sub-zeroC temperature results in higher snow precipitation. There is an abrupt tipping point though, when air temp reaches freezing point and snow turns to rain but Antarctica is far away from that point yet.
The only sentence about the ice balance in the article
When accounting for snow accumulation, the continent is losing about 183 billion tons of ice per year
Doesn't say how much the balance has been changing in the last decade and if the loss's been accelerating. Hansen 2012, for example claims that the loos has been doubling every 7-10 years and that's the number we should concentrate on here as we talk about SLR prediction as antarctic IS loss wil be dominant contribution to future SLR. But the number's missing in the article.
The interesting number to note though, is that ice mass exchange due to melting from below and accumulating from above is ATM 10 times bigger than the ice loss (simlarly to CO2 exchange with the ocean). I wonder if it's going to stay that way (i.e. snow precipitation steadily increases in the warming weather until an abrupt tipping point metionaed above) or we are going to see the ratio lowering as the gap in favour of melting inevitably increases. So far, the ratio is big enough so that, theoreticaly at least, we could slow down the melting by inducing more precipitation of we knew how (aerosol spraying?) before the radiation balance & climate is stabilised.
Prev 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 Next
