Page 15 of 24

Cool blob and the AWW, Arctic Warm Wedge

Unread postPosted: Tue 05 Feb 2019, 08:44:45
by Whitefang
jupiters_release wrote:
Rod_Cloutier wrote:
Parental Advisory for explicit content

Content over the top. The lucky bugger got a threesome, and yet he's travelling all around the place telling people to commit suicide.

His reputation has just gone down a few notches.

He mentioned that was a completely fabricated smear campaign. Writing, grammar, spelling definitely not in line with Guy's "let's see the dictionary definition" concretized mindset.

The smear campaign works fine, many of his presentations get cancelled as people are walking away from him, even if he proves he never met this Selina person he will be tainted as a dirty ol'basterd chasing young girls up the stairs with sexual favours and fantasies in mind....not that there is anything wrong with that :-D as long as nobody is forced unless you want to, everybody is happy, satisfied weather sexual or monetary.

But let us stick with the facts on abrupt CC.

He does not know himself where exactly we are on the exponential curve, he expects we are a few years or even months before the speed up, interesting article on his blog, cool blob on the North Atlantic, minus 3 degrees cooling for decades as a result of Heinrich event speed up, The GIS in a terminal condition.

First the latest, on the hotspot near Svalbard and African cold:

Surface air temperatures near Svalbard were as high as 5.2°C or 41.4°F near Svalbard on February 3, 2019. At the same time, it was as cold as -3.5°C or 25.6°F in Africa.
The contrast was even more profound on February 4, 2018, when at those same spots it was as cold as -10°C or 13.9°F in Africa, while at the same time it was as warm as 5.8 or 42.4°F near Svalbard.
How is this possible?

As the Arctic warms up faster than the rest of the world, the temperature difference between the North Pole and the Equator narrows, making the jet stream wavier, thus enabling cold air from the Arctic to descend further south, as illustrated by the image on the right, showing instantaneous wind power density at 250 hPa (jet stream) on February 4, 2018.
Furthermore, as oceans get warmer, the temperature difference between land and oceans increases in Winter. This larger temperature difference results in stronger winds that can carry more warm, moist air inland, e.g. into the U.S., as illustrated by the cartoon on the right.
As the jet stream becomes wavier, this also enables more heat to enter the Arctic.
On December 8, 2018, the sea surface temperature near Svalbard was 18.2°C or 32.7°F warmer than 1981-2011. On January 23, 2019, sea surface temperatures at that spot were as high as 18.3°C or 64.9°F, as illustrated by the image on the right, from an earlier post.

A warmer sea surface can cause winds to grow dramatically stronger, and they can push warm, moist air into the Arctic, while they can also speed up sea currents that carry warm, salty water into the Arctic Ocean.
As warmer water keeps flowing into the Arctic Ocean and as air temperatures in the Arctic are now starting to rise on the back of a strengthening El Niño, fears for a Blue Ocean Event are rising.
Rivers can also carry huge amounts of warm water from North America and Siberia into the Arctic Ocean, as these areas are getting hit by ever stronger heatwaves that are hitting the Arctic earlier in the year.
With Arctic sea ice at a low, it won't be able to act as a buffer to absorb heat for long, with the danger that an influx of warm, salty water will reach the seafloor and trigger methane eruptions.
Ominously, the image below shows peak methane levels as high as 2764 ppb on February 2, 2019.

As the Earth continues to heat, paleoclimate evidence suggests transient reversals will result in accentuating the temperature polarities, leading to increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.

Pleistocene paleoclimate records indicate interglacial temperature peaks are consistently succeeded by transient stadial freeze events, such as the Younger Dryas and the 8.5 kyr-old Laurentide ice melt, attributed to cold ice melt water flow from the polar ice sheets into the North Atlantic Ocean. The paleoclimate evidence raises questions regarding the mostly linear to curved future climate model trajectories proposed for the 21ᵗʰ century and beyond, not marked by tipping points. However, early stages of a stadial event are manifest by a weakening of the North Atlantic overturning circulation and the build-up of a large pool of cold water south and east of Greenland and along the fringes of Western Antarctica. Comparisons with climates of the early Holocene Warm Period and the Eemian interglacial when global temperatures were about +1°C higher than late Holocene levels. The probability of a future stadial event bears major implications for modern and future climate change trends, including transient cooling of continental regions fringing the Atlantic Ocean, an increase in temperature polarities between polar and tropical zones across the globe, and thereby an increase in storminess, which need to be taken into account in planning global warming adaptation efforts.

Arctic heat wave

Unread postPosted: Tue 05 Feb 2019, 15:07:36
by Whitefang ... 834,77.461

Minus 8 degrees Celcius at the shore of the northernmost peninsula of Asia

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Thu 14 Feb 2019, 13:16:50
by Subjectivist
Tanada wrote:
How having a PhD in Biology, Conservation Biology, Climate Science, or anything else really doesn't necessarily qualify you to speak on energy issues. Having actual expertise on energy issues is more important as without the prerequisite 10,000 hours of study you just won't know what you don't know.

On a Facebook page called the Arctic News I got into an argument with some Guy McPherson (a conservation biologist) fan club boys about global dimming. The thrust of their position was that because of global dimming caused by aerosols put into the atmosphere by dirty power plants (all kinds including mobile ones) it would not do us any good to try doing anything about global warming.

The thrust of their argument is that based upon a 2001 study of planet warming caused by the suspension of air traffic in the United States following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 means that if we were to eliminate air pollution from dirty global warming sources the planet would warm up an additional 1 degree Celsius to 1.5 degrees in the matter of a few weeks. The couple week lag is for the time it takes for particulate matter to fall out of the air basically.

None of this proven in any prima fascia way mind you, it is just extrapolated from data gathered from one incident of involving one event in the United States lasting a few days in the year 2001.

While studying this event is useful and it is something we need to do it doesn’t mean we should make the conjectural leap to the idea that society at large should not bother even trying to combat climate change by installing renewable energy, switching to electric drive vehicles, or improving energy storage and efficiency. It is my position this idea is just wrong regardless of if the foundational premise is true.

Later I ran across a James Lovelock (another biologist) You Tube Video where he was talking about how human numbers need to be reduced to less than one billion people for our civilization to have any chance to being sustainable. This is a position I have held for quite a while based upon the historical evidence we have. Mysteriously Lovelock says it is a waste of time for humanity to try to reduce their carbon emissions by switching to renewable resources also. Somehow magically if there were less than one billion humans all would be fine (presumably even if we all were still using fossil fuels?) but reducing carbon emissions now while we are in population overshoot would be a waste of time.

What gives here, am I missing something or am I witnessing a Podsnap flourish? I think what Lovelock is really saying is that given the context of population overshoot (by a factor of 10X) that renewables, and carbon emission reduction schemes won’t save us. That has been my position also, but that doesn’t mean these things are worthless efforts, or that we should not do them. It is all about the context, and in this instance the context is unstated.

This kind of advice is not only bad advice; it is poorly articulated to be charitable about it. Guy McPherson stayed at our house once in preparation for giving one of his talks for the ASLC in town here. While he was here I showed him a LED light bulb and explained to him that it was literally thousands of time more efficient at producing light then a kerosene lantern. He seemed unimpressed in a Rumsfeldian kind of way.

In other words he didn’t know what he didn’t know. Neither Guy McPherson nor James Lovelock are experts in the field of energy matters. Having a PHD in another field and general scientific knowledge may lead them to think they are expert enough to speak on matters they don’t have expertise in really. If I were to trust a climate change scientist (not a conservation biologist or a biologist) in energy matters I would be more inclined to trust Kevin Anderson of the Tyndale Center in England who really seems to know his stuff about current energy issues

Who am I to judge this you may well ask? I have been interested in energy issues since the early 1980’s. I was the Vice President of an energy efficiency company called Negawatts Inc. for 10 years. I also worked at power plant for over 24 years at NMSU operating boilers, chillers, and a jet turbine that generated 4.2 megawatts of power for the campus. This a long with my abiding interest in energy issues qualifies me more than a PHD who just thinks they know about a field they really have never studied or experienced in any depth.

I heard this kind of talk from “Doomers or Collapsitarians (parroting the Guy McPherson line) all the time. While the word “Hubris” doesn’t normally apply to this kind of speech it helps to think of it that way.

So called experts making broad stroke assertions about Near Term Human Extinction and the uselessness of any steps to even try to address climate change are just way out over their skis in the mental ski jumps they are making.

In the first place the climate system has proven to be astonishingly complex and over the last thirty years has thrown lots of curve balls at the climate scientist studying the issue. While we do know it is being caused by human activities we do not know in any great detail about how it will play out over the next fifty years, if we have that long? Anyone who claims they do know is either oblivious to their ignorance on the matter, suffering from their own form of hubris, or both. Giving advice to society at large not to act is foolish in the same way it is foolish to tell a young person not to bother with automobile insurance because they likely will not get into an accident.

Since renewable energy sources like solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels such advice runs counter to what society is now likely to do anyway for least cost decisions. Electric drive for example uses one third less energy per mile, so why would you advise people to throw away money on petro cars when they have a better option. It is the same all down the line as the advice runs completely counter to the best economic decisions people make if they were acting on the best enlightened self-interest.

There is one last caveat, so what if we are all going to die soon, that doesn’t make a prima fascia case for wasting money or resources. I will be 69 years old this year and I can guarantee you I am not going to be throwing away money needlessly. Even without NTHE (Near Term Human Extinction) I will probably die of natural causes in twenty years. Even so, I am advising my children to buy efficiencies and electric drive for their next car purchase. I don’t know enough to tell them it is a waste of time and they shouldn’t bother trying. We have grandchildren and if these efforts buy them years, or even just a day the effort is justifiable in my mind.

What is on display here with our PHD friends and fan boy followers, is not their knowledge or insight, it is the poverty of their ignorance about energy matters generally, and their inability to imagine a world not being run on fossil fuels. They just don’t know what they don’t know, or seem appreciate the fact that there are unknown unknowns. A little humility in the face of their and our collective ignore-rance is what is called for here. Such arrogance about ignorance is the very root cause and meaning of the word “Hubris”.


I think this is pretty accurate, many academics think because they are experts in one field they are experts in every field they are interested in.

Spring is in the flowers everywhere

Unread postPosted: Fri 15 Feb 2019, 11:06:03
by Whitefang
Global Dimming is no fantasy, but the topic is far from settled.
If the loss of the dirty shield would only jump the global temerature half a degree, we would suddenly be at 2 degrees Celcius above preindustrial, enough to trigger almost all the 60 plus feedbacks in high gear, if they aren't already.
We only need a tiny extra effort to push the arctic over the brink, the rest will follow soon after, years and decades for the large ice sheets and glaciers.
We should celebrate the spring with every inch of joy we can muster :-D
Holland just broke new daily temperature records, a full month early for the flowers to come up and bloom 8)

Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.[19] According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."[20] The magnitude of this masking effect is one of the central problems in current climate change with significant implications for future climate changes and policy responses to global warming.[19]
Interactions between the two theories for climate modification have also been studied, as global warming and global dimming are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory. In a paper published on March 8, 2005 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Anastasia Romanou of Columbia University's Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, New York, also showed that the apparently opposing forces of global warming and global dimming can occur at the same time.[21] Global dimming interacts with global warming by blocking sunlight that would otherwise cause evaporation and the particulates bind to water droplets. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. On the other hand, global dimming is affected by evaporation and rain. Rain has the effect of clearing out polluted skies.
Brown clouds have been found to amplify global warming according to Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric chemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA. "The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as 50 percent of global warming by greenhouse gases through so-called global dimming... While this is true globally, this study reveals that over southern and eastern Asia, the soot particles in the brown clouds are in fact amplifying the atmospheric warming trend caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50 percent."[22]

photograph showing aircraft contrails and natural clouds. The temporary disappearance of contrails over North America due to plane groundings after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the resulting increase in diurnal temperature range gave empirical evidence of the effect of thin ice clouds at the Earth's surface.[ ... 932,65.212

Look at the Taiga, largest forest worldwide, all winter the eurasian side, west of the Urals, has been way above normal, now even the normaly coldest place on the NH, northeast Siberia has reached minus 8 degrees Celcius, a heat wave in winter. Problem is if this persists, it will lead to early snowmelt on the trees and ground, early ice break up, warm high pressure and heat to the arctic ocean, the ideal conditions for a new record low sea ice extent or even the first BOE. ... R2_nic.png

Sea ice is breaking up, lots of yellow and even green, if you know what I mean 8O

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Fri 15 Feb 2019, 12:02:11
by onlooker
Over time, organic carbon settles into the deep ocean—a process referred to as the "biological pump." The upper ocean has lower concentrations of total carbon than the deep ocean as a result of this pump. But if the ocean were completely mixed from top to bottom, as could happen if its "thermohaline" (heat and salt) circulation system was disrupted, much of this carbon could be churned up toward the surface. The ocean could become a source, rather than a sink, of carbon dioxide—a phenomenon that would have a catastrophic impact on global temperatures. ... s_chem.php

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Fri 15 Feb 2019, 12:03:21
by Tanada
I know most will dismiss it as 'anecdotal evidence' but when I was a kid the local river had enough ice in winter you could safely walk/skate on it and lake Erie almost always had enough winter ice for people to drag ice shanties out miles off shore with snow mobiles or even pickup trucks in really cold winters. Now we rarely get winter ice on the river and the lake has not frozen that hard in about 15 years. Sure in sheltered locations the lake still gets some iced over spots, but the ice used to extend half way to the international border with Canada, now it is close inshore.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Fri 15 Feb 2019, 14:28:59
by Revi
He's a bit melodramatic, but maybe we need someone like Guy in order to get people listening. His predictions may be dire, but maybe we can even get most of the decision makers to at least consider the possibility that this is a big problem and we should do something.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Fri 15 Feb 2019, 15:19:04
by jedrider
Revi wrote:He's a bit melodramatic, but maybe we need someone like Guy in order to get people listening. His predictions may be dire, but maybe we can even get most of the decision makers to at least consider the possibility that this is a big problem and we should do something.

I think Guy will be wrong, but only by half. 6-8 years out versus 12-16 years out is really a big deal, though.

It is interesting how the world refuses to entertain a paradigm shift. The wealthy get more wealthy and all is well with them.

The rest of us will get shoved through the grinder, but without a technological civilization, very few of us can survive (certainly not the wealthy), and the remaining few will be at the mercy of what's left of our technological civilization (the well to do, perhaps, and their puppets).

I'm all for preserving what's left of nature and if we don't head that, I am so satisfied with the fate that we will meet. I think Guy would concur with that.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Fri 15 Feb 2019, 21:41:16
by asg70
He's baaaack.


And with it, the forum discussion will descend back into the gutter.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Feb 2019, 08:06:26
by onlooker
asg70 wrote:He's baaaack.


And with it, the forum discussion will descend back into the gutter.

Give him a break ASG, he is being poetic :)

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Feb 2019, 12:33:07
by asg70
He's being AGW-denialist (i.e. evoking the little ice age) in poetic form.

Same old PStarr, always furthering his wrong opinions.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Feb 2019, 12:38:56
by onlooker
pstarr wrote:[smilie=5brokenheart.gif] Asgy doesn't love me. :cry:

Folks like him have always ragged on me, because I am honest . . . and cute

:lol: :twisted:

Dutch solution, the run for the mtns

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Feb 2019, 13:31:47
by Whitefang
Hi pstar,

One could say the same re Dutch winters, once upon a time.

We Dutchies will fight SLR till the very end, no easy solution there, our homes are built on lowlands, at least most.
But the Alps are just a day drive away: ... SKCN1PQ4RY
TECHENDORF, Austria (Reuters) - It is 22 years since canals in the Netherlands froze enough to run the country’s most famous speed skating event, an epic race that snakes through towns near the northern coast.
But enterprising skaters have created a reliable backup - on a lake in the Austrian Alps.
The 11 Cities Tour, or Elfstedentocht, a roughly 200 km (125-mile) marathon through the northern province of Friesland, was first held in 1909. The most recent, in 1997, drew more than 16,000 skaters, the fastest finishing in just under seven hours.

Heck, I thought they moved the event to Norway or Sweden.

Milder winters have meant it is now rare for ice on the canals to form to the required thickness of 15 cm (6 inches). The Dutch meteorological institute KNMI predicted in 2007 that there would only be four races this century, compared with 15 in the previous one.
No such problems affects the Weissensee, a picturesque lake in southern Austria. It freezes over every winter, and an alternative Elfstedentocht has been held there annually since 1989, drawing thousands to several races spread over two weeks.
“In Holland it’s not cold enough, sadly,” said 31-year-old Karin Soutberg, one of this year’s roughly 4,000 skaters. “That’s why we do it over here.”

Instead of one big loop through the northern Netherlands, skaters do 16 laps of a 12.5 km circuit winding across the lake. And the landscape, with its dramatic Alpine backdrop, is different too.
“It’s nice to skate with some actual views,” Soutberg said.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Sun 17 Feb 2019, 02:55:40
by ralfy
The problem is that we face not the effects of global warming or energy matters but both plus pollution, the threat of a resource crunch, and so on.

The only way to deal with this combination of crises is to limit ecological footprint per capita to less than one global hectare, and even lower as population rises. That's not likely to happen.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Fri 22 Feb 2019, 13:17:20
by jupiters_release
Guy needs to do more learning.

Just heard a NASA scientist say we've lost over 80% of ozone layer. 6th great extinction should be finished within five years.

I do believe future life on the planet will evolve to thrive in sub 280 nanometer solar radiation.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Sat 23 Feb 2019, 09:35:10
by chilyb
Hello jupiters_release:

Just heard a NASA scientist say we've lost over 80% of ozone layer.

where did you hear this exactly?

one of the latest intervieuws

Unread postPosted: Fri 01 Mar 2019, 13:03:38
by Whitefang

The Natural Progressive

Live gestreamd op 23 feb. 2019

Discussing abrupt climate change with Dr. McPherson
Impact of population growth and natural hazards on biodiversity

Dr. Guy McPherson on Twitter @NatureBatsLast1

3 trillion trees less than 200 years ago?

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Mon 04 Mar 2019, 01:17:52
by jedrider
chilyb wrote:Hello jupiters_release:

Just heard a NASA scientist say we've lost over 80% of ozone layer.

where did you hear this exactly?

I can't find anything about that. But I found this instead:

Ozone hole damage revealed to be caused by production of Chinese home insulation

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Mon 04 Mar 2019, 10:40:09
by Revi
The middle of the road scenarios on climate change are scary enough. I think it will take longer to get to a new stable state, but we will get to a world at 5 or even 6 degrees. That means we'll have rendered the planet uninhabitable. I don't think it will happen until the end of the century, but that's actually in the lifetime of a child born now. Nature has a way of readjusting at another steady state. We have benefitted from a relatively stable climate for the past 10,000 years or so. Now it's going to change, and change quickly. Not as quickly as Dr. McPherson suggests, but in terms of adaptation, we may have to change everything.

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postPosted: Mon 04 Mar 2019, 14:27:46
by jupiters_release
jedrider wrote:
chilyb wrote:Hello jupiters_release:

Just heard a NASA scientist say we've lost over 80% of ozone layer.

where did you hear this exactly?

I can't find anything about that. But I found this instead:

Ozone hole damage revealed to be caused by production of Chinese home insulation

They removed the real number of factories which I already posted on: the-ozone-thread-merged-t15823-140.html#p1414828

The scientist wanted to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.