Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

[Theo520]

And scientists are apparently too frightened to tell us the worst:
climatechangenews.com/2016/09/26/scientists-too-frightened-to-tell-truth-on-climate-impacts/

“Sooner or later, there will be an unbridgeable gulf between global food needs and our capacity to grow food in an unstable climate. Inevitably, starvation will reduce the world’s population.”

China buying land in Africa has nothing to do with climate change

They export significant manufactured goods to Africa but Africa sells them little in return. Using all that money they were paid to buy cheap land is a smart investment. If they can make it productive then ‘good on em’

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

 

[lynnvinc]

MMGW ideology always wins it’s argument for MMGW’s existence, because it is an ideology.

If it’s colder, it’s because of MMGW
If it’s warmer, it’s because of MMGW
If it’s drier, it’s because of MMGW
If it’s wetter, it’s because of MMGW
If there is no change in temps, the heat is hiding somewhere; in the deep ocean, in the arctic, but always somewhere. Soon it will break out and fry us all. Besides, it’s now “climate change” anyway, so it can be cooler, warmer, drier, wetter that some reference time because it’s “change”.

I know it is too much to ask of people to study the issue, but here’s a simple explanation:

Warmer air holds more moisture (H2O is actually a positive GHG feedback from the smaller amount of warming from CO2, etc). This means it tends to suck up (evaporation is the technical term) water from waterways, land, plants, etc., causing drought conditions and dry brush and wood for increased wild fires. The moisture, of course, does not stay up in the atmosphere (in fact the residency of H2O is usually a few days, which means tho it is a potent GHG, it is not a “forcing” GHG as are CO2 and CH4).

Under certain weather conditions a lot of that moisture in the air can come down all at once as a deluge, either in the same place where it was sucked up and caused a drought, or in another place where the winds took it. So crazy as it may seem you can sometimes have flood conditions even during great droughts. The net effect is greater precipitation in a globally warming world – but greater in more pole-ward latitudes; while the equator-ward latitudes are experiencing greater drought conditions.

That CC may be increasing negative arctic oscillations (Rossby waves, polar vortexes) was pretty much a surprise to me some 10 years ago (and I think the science is becoming stronger on this). The explanations for it are somewhat more complicated, but as I recall one part of the explanation has to do with decreased ice in the Arctic. So, yes, you can get more colder weather … right in the middle of the growing season for winter crops in N. Mexico and for us in the RGV. Drats!!! Overall, though, the trend is warming nearly everywhere on average (it’s those killing freezes that are outliers from that average that can do great harm).

Then the issue of increased storms, like hurricanes. That requires a bit of physics to explain how heat energy can become kinetic energy (I just know that it can). So for hurricanes one necessary (but not sufficient) cause is high sea-surface temps. Then under certain weather conditions, the system can take up that heat energy and turn it into the kinetic energy of a storm.

RE where the heat is hiding, the scientists actually are concerned with the total of Earth’s energy balance or budget (see climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.eeb and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth’s_energy_budget). Global warming is causing the Earth’s system to gain more energy. Eventually it will get into balance again (at a higher level of energy), but right now it’s gaining more than it’s giving off.

So the upshot is that is doesn’t matter in that equation where the heat may be stored, whether in the deep ocean, the surface temps, the land, the lower atmosphere, only that more is coming in than going out. However, there are more accurate and longer-term measurements for some of the places where it is going, so they’ve been using the surface temps as a proxy for the total energy.

There is also a very negative impact of having the deeper oceans store the heat, and that is it could melt the methane hydrates (methane locked in molecular ice cages), some of which could be released into the atmosphere, a very potent GHG, causing even greater warming. So having it stored in the deeper oceans is not necessarily a good thing because it masks CC and renders surface warming less than it would be.

I hope this helps explain what seems to be contradictions. I think it’s a fascinating subject (if it weren’t so threatening to life on earth), but now that I’m retired I don’t study it as much as before.

 

[vz71]

I know it is too much to ask of people to study the issue, but here’s a simple explanation:

Every year predictions of the last fail and there is always a simple explanation.

I have a simple explanation too. They are wrong.

 

[JW55]

I know it is too much to ask of people to study the issue, but here’s a simple explanation:

Warmer air holds more moisture (H2O is actually a positive GHG feedback from the smaller amount of warming from CO2, etc). This means it tends to suck up (evaporation is the technical term) water from waterways, land, plants, etc., causing drought conditions and dry brush and wood for increased wild fires. The moisture, of course, does not stay up in the atmosphere (in fact the residency of H2O is usually a few days, which means tho it is a potent GHG, it is not a “forcing” GHG as are CO2 and CH4).

Under certain weather conditions a lot of that moisture in the air can come down all at once as a deluge, either in the same place where it was sucked up and caused a drought, or in another place where the winds took it. So crazy as it may seem you can sometimes have flood conditions even during great droughts. The net effect is greater precipitation in a globally warming world – but greater in more pole-ward latitudes; while the equator-ward latitudes are experiencing greater drought conditions.

That CC may be increasing negative arctic oscillations (Rossby waves, polar vortexes) was pretty much a surprise to me some 10 years ago (and I think the science is becoming stronger on this). The explanations for it are somewhat more complicated, but as I recall one part of the explanation has to do with decreased ice in the Arctic. So, yes, you can get more colder weather … right in the middle of the growing season for winter crops in N. Mexico and for us in the RGV. Drats!!! Overall, though, the trend is warming nearly everywhere on average (it’s those killing freezes that are outliers from that average that can do great harm).

Then the issue of increased storms, like hurricanes. That requires a bit of physics to explain how heat energy can become kinetic energy (I just know that it can). So for hurricanes one necessary (but not sufficient) cause is high sea-surface temps. Then under certain weather conditions, the system can take up that heat energy and turn it into the kinetic energy of a storm.

RE where the heat is hiding, the scientists actually are concerned with the total of Earth’s energy balance or budget (see climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.eeb and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth’s_energy_budget). Global warming is causing the Earth’s system to gain more energy. Eventually it will get into balance again (at a higher level of energy), but right now it’s gaining more than it’s giving off.

So the upshot is that is doesn’t matter in that equation where the heat may be stored, whether in the deep ocean, the surface temps, the land, the lower atmosphere, only that more is coming in than going out. However, there are more accurate and longer-term measurements for some of the places where it is going, so they’ve been using the surface temps as a proxy for the total energy.

There is also a very negative impact of having the deeper oceans store the heat, and that is it could melt the methane hydrates (methane locked in molecular ice cages), some of which could be released into the atmosphere, a very potent GHG, causing even greater warming. So having it stored in the deeper oceans is not necessarily a good thing because it masks CC and renders surface warming less than it would be.

I hope this helps explain what seems to be contradictions. I think it’s a fascinating subject (if it weren’t so threatening to life on earth), but now that I’m retired I don’t study it as much as before.

Bottom line, aside from all the theories, personal opinion of what is or isn’t taking place, 1)what do you want to see the United States and the rest of the world to do and 2)what are you personally doing ? A, B, C, …

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I wonder if people have seen this graph, which shows just how not normal 2016 is in terms of sea ice.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[vz71]

I wonder if people have seen this graph, which shows just how not normal 2016 is in terms of sea ice.

I doubt many will drag out that chart.
It shows that all prior claims were wrong.
Remember, the claim that sea ice is melting has been a staple for over a decade.
This graph shows otherwise.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I doubt many will drag out that chart.
It shows that all prior claims were wrong.
Remember, the claim that sea ice is melting has been a staple for over a decade.
This graph shows otherwise.

What graph are you looking at that says otherwise? You didn’t think that the scientists were suggesting that every year would have less ice than every previous year, and that ice has stopped forming in winter, did you?

 

[vz71]

What graph are you looking at that says otherwise? You didn’t think that the scientists were suggesting that every year would have less ice than every previous year, and that ice has stopped forming in winter, did you?

What I see in the graph is levels of sea ice overlapping year after year.
Were sea ice really disappearing more each year, such overlap would not be so evident.

So the crowd that has been proclaiming MMGW can pick their poison.
Either the graph is trustworthy and their claims for previous years are false, or the graph is not accurate and their claim for this year is false.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

What I see in the graph is levels of sea ice overlapping year after year.
Were sea ice really disappearing more each year, such overlap would not be so evident.

So the crowd that has been proclaiming MMGW can pick their poison.
Either the graph is trustworthy and their claims for previous years are false, or the graph is not accurate and their claim for this year is false.

I choose option “C” you are unclear on how trends operate. You believe people are getting taller over time, right? If you were to graph the height of all the students in my secondary school over the past 25 years, you would find an equally messy graph. Some people are far taller or shorter than average. People have growth spurts at far different times. Some grades will be shorter or taller than average. It doesn’t change the fact that overall the trend has been to taller.

Some years are hotter in the summer, and colder in the winter. Some are colder in the summer and warmer in the winter. Some are mild the whole way through, and some are nothing but cold. You would expect a messy map. However, if you look month by month, and year by year, there is less ice now.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What I see in the graph is levels of sea ice overlapping year after year.
Were sea ice really disappearing more each year, such overlap would not be so evident.

So the crowd that has been proclaiming MMGW can pick their poison.
Either the graph is trustworthy and their claims for previous years are false, or the graph is not accurate and their claim for this year is false.

Sure, but I see the 197x and 198x lines tend to be towards the top of the overlapping area, while the 201x lines tend to fall towards the bottom. That’s exactly what you would expect with a global climate phenomena (changes are slow and noisy) and why the dramatic fall this year is so disturbing.

 

[Theo520]

I know it is too much to ask of people to study the issue, but here’s a simple explanation:

RE where the heat is hiding, the scientists actually are concerned with the total of Earth’s energy balance or budget (see climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.eeb and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth’s_energy_budget). Global warming is causing the Earth’s system to gain more energy. Eventually it will get into balance again (at a higher level of energy), but right now it’s gaining more than it’s giving off.
.

Where your heat is hiding is of immense importance, since heat is something we can readily measure. That it is missing is more indicative there are significant errors in the model assumptions than the heat is hiding from us. Maybe the heat is more a figment of the model makers imagination?

Recent could research out of CERN points to significant errors in assumptions about cloud feedbacks into global warming.

I wonder if people have seen this graph, which shows just how not normal 2016 is in terms of sea ice.

Your graph only confirms the obvious, that El Nino warm weather has had an impact on ice coverage,
a completely predictable response to El Nino temperatures.

 

[Seamus_L]

I live near Chicago, and based on our weather forecast for the coming week, I wouldn’t mind a little global warming.

 

[vz71]

Sure, but I see the 197x and 198x lines tend to be towards the top of the overlapping area, while the 201x lines tend to fall towards the bottom. That’s exactly what you would expect with a global climate phenomena (changes are slow and noisy) and why the dramatic fall this year is so disturbing.

Nope.
What I see is years of data piled on top of itself.
And this data does not correlate with the stories from previous years.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Your graph only confirms the obvious, that El Nino warm weather has had an impact on ice coverage,
a completely predictable response to El Nino temperatures.

So you’re saying that El Nino hasn’t happened in the past 40 years? Because if it had, there would be a second line near the 2016 line. But neither the 1982-1983 el nino season nor the 1997-1998 season are even close, despite being equally strong as 2016.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Nope.
What I see is years of data piled on top of itself.
And this data does not correlate with the stories from previous years.

I guess “I’m not looking closely, but I don’t see it” is a defense. And so is “well all this sounds new to me.” But they’re fundamentally unserious, and I think everyone reading your defense will understand that you’re literally just covering your eyes to the reality staring you in the face.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I am astounded by some of the responses I see to this issue. It was demonstrated in the 1820’s that CO2 trapped long wave radiation in the atmosphere. It has been demonstrated that 1/4 of the CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by us. The thermometers show that the temperature has been rising. The three hottest years on record are the last three years. The Arctic sea ice has dropped 40% since it has been measured. The oceans are several centimetres higher.

What would it take to convince people this is happening? To paraphrase one posters signature:

Facts clearly don’t matter.

 

[Theo520]

So you’re saying that El Nino hasn’t happened in the past 40 years? Because if it had, there would be a second line near the 2016 line. But neither the 1982-1983 el nino season nor the 1997-1998 season are even close, despite being equally strong as 2016.

Best you sit back and think through your arguments.

a significant one year shift can’t be due to the steady push of increasing CO2 levels, it’s an anomaly with a cause. El Nino is known and the most likely cause of the shift this year.

Your static chart doesn’t all us to peel away all the recent years and look at the impact of the last el nino.

Acknowledging the role of el nino does not disprove a steady warming from AGW, or not.

 

[Theo520]

I am astounded by some of the responses I see to this issue. It was demonstrated in the 1820’s that CO2 trapped long wave radiation in the atmosphere. It has been demonstrated that 1/4 of the CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by us. The thermometers show that the temperature has been rising. The three hottest years on record are the last three years. The Arctic sea ice has dropped 40% since it has been measured. The oceans are several centimetres higher.

What would it take to convince people this is happening? To paraphrase one posters signature:

Facts clearly don’t matter.

nobody is disputing we are in a long term warming trend.
Since the temp record is quite short, this naturally would lead to regular record breaking years.

I certainly don’t dispute that CO2 radiative forcing is contributing to that warming trend.

What I object to is blind belief that the IPCC model projections are valid, are proven reliable. The model warming is heavily dependent on additional feedbacks separate from CO2. The feedbacks have not been validated by measurement.

 

[lynnvinc]

Every year predictions of the last fail and there is always a simple explanation.

I have a simple explanation too. They are wrong.

Forgot to mention that climate and climate change are very long term phenomena – in fact they are the statistical aggregate of weather over the long haul. So you cannot expect the climate to change drastically within a year or even a decade. It usually takes 100s or 1000s, even 10,000s of years for global warming (or cooling) to happen.

In our case now, we are digging up fossil fuels, burning them, and emitting them lickity-split in geological terms, so we are causing global warming to happen magnitudes of order faster than in the past. However this still means many decades and centuries.

As far as the impact on life to date, it is not extreme at this point. Not sure how many are dying from this (GW-enhanced droughts, floods, crop failure, wildfires, vector disease spread, harm to seafood productivity, severe storms and their repercussions, etc), but maybe several million per year, so I do understand how people can be saying that abortion is the more important pro-life issue than climate change.

However, just as CC is a very slow process, it also means that the GHGs we are emitting today will be up there to create conditions that harm and kill life for 100s & 1000s of years, even up to 100,000 years. So long term it is a more serious issue than abortion, and is caused by nearly all people on earth somewhat above the poverty level, unlike abortion which involves directly just those women having abortions and their abortionists.

It basically means nearly all of us are all killers of life.

And perhaps this unwillingness to reduce one’s GHG (indirect and direct) emissions is for similar reasons that women have abortions – economic aspirations, fear of various harms to one’s lifestyle, etc. And in both cases we deny – the woman having the abortion denies she is aborting a human life (it’s just a bunch of plasma to her), those emitting GHGs deny there is any connection between those GHGs and the GW-enhanced drought/crop failure/and starvation, say, in some places in Africa, and other GW knock-on effects.

The ole “Cain & Abel” story repeated over and over again. I guess we all bear the mark of Cain.

 

[lynnvinc]

nobody is disputing we are in a long term warming trend…

I think they are, at least here on CAF and in certain political circles.

What I object to is blind belief that the IPCC model projections are valid, are proven reliable. The model warming is heavily dependent on additional feedbacks separate from CO2. The feedbacks have not been validated by measurement.

Actually the IPCC is way too reticent and conservative re the issue – greatly fearing the false positive of making inaccurate claims, rather than fearing the false negative of failing to alert people to the very serious dangers.

As mentioned in the news article, “Scientists ‘too frightened’ to tell truth on climate impacts” at climatechangenews.com/2016/09/26/scientists-too-frightened-to-tell-truth-on-climate-impacts/ :

“[There are]…a number of serious threats to the planet resulting from the loss of Arctic ice. These include much greater sea level rise than estimated by the*Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), resulting in the flooding of cities and of low-lying deltas where much of the world’s food is grown.”

&

“…*large escapes of methane from the Arctic tundra and the shallow seas north of Siberia – again, something that has not been fully taken into account in the IPCC’s calculations on the speed of warming.”