E
Ender
Guest
If all the sea ice in the Arctic melted it would not raise sea levels at all. The melting of floating ice does not raise the level of the water it’s floating in.
Ender
Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level
- Status
Ender
L
lynnvinc
Guest
The problem with that is that the upper atmosphere (above the GHG “belt”) is actually getting cooler, since less energy is leaving the earth system than coming in at this point.
In fact, some scientists trying to fool people into believing GW was not happening used those satellite temps (either above the GHG belt, or a mixture of above and below) – until some more honest scientists pointed out their “flaw” (deceit).
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That’s actually correct. It is the increasing warming expanding the seawater and the melting of ice above sea level that increases sea level.
However less ice in the arctic also may have some other negative consequences:
- Dark seawater absorbing more heat than reflective ice - causing a positive feedback of initial warming → melting → more warming → more melting → more warming, and so on.
- Less arctic ice has also been linked to Rossby waves (cold arctic weather coming southward, as is happening right now in parts of the US) and worse storms.
Arctic scientists have warned that the increasingly rapid melting of the ice cap risks triggering 19 “tipping points” in the region that could have catastrophic consequences around the globe.
The Arctic Resilience Report found that the effects of Arctic warming could be felt as far away as the Indian Ocean, in a stark warning that changes in the region could cause uncontrollable climate change at a global level.
Temperatures in the Arctic are currently about 20C above what would be expected for the time of year, which scientists describe as “off the charts”. Sea ice is at the lowest extent ever recorded for the time of year…
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here’s something I just read re a new study linking GW, arctic melt, and polar vortex:
“Polar vortex shifting due to climate change, extending winter, study finds” at washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/10/31/polar-vortex-shifting-due-to-climate-change-extending-winter-study-finds/?utm_term=.8d7182ac2512
Global warming could be making winters in eastern North America even longer, according to a new study.
The study finds that, because of sea ice loss in the Arctic, the polar vortex is shifting*and temperatures are turning colder during March…
…the stratospheric polar vortex has changed position while weakening over the past three decades. The net result has been toincrease delivery of cold air into parts of Eurasia and North America, particularlyin late winter and early spring.
It’s counterintuitive, but when the polar vortex is weak, it’s more unstable, and cold air outbreaks from the Arctic southward toward the mid-latitudes become more likely.
And the study:
“Persistent shift of the Arctic polar vortex towards the Eurasian continent in recent decades” at nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n12/full/nclimate3136.html
Z
zz912
Guest
Again, that has nothing to do with the claim made. If the entire ice shelf in Greenland were to melt, ALL of the world’s oceans would rise equally, within a few inches of variability.
Z
zz912
Guest
The global warming shtick goes like this:
- America is always the bad guy
- Socialism and more government is always the answer.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
In such discussions, it would be well, perhaps, to let people know something about the subject matter, generally, for example:
- There are always polar vortices. They’re a natural phenomenon, and always have been.
- Their intensity is mostly determined by conditions on the large, cold land masses, like Siberia and northern North America. They’re spinning air masses like high and low pressure masses, just very cold because they gather air from very cold places. They spin because of the earth’s rotation.
- The direction in which they bring frigid temperatures to particular places (or don’t) is determined by the meanderings of the jet stream.
- There are always several of what we call polar vortexes going in the wintertime, not just one.
- Moving air masses tend to stay cold over land or ice, but warm up over open water. That’s why coastal Washington isn’t as cold as Montana in the winter, and it’s why there are things we call “Alberta Clippers” or “Blue Northers”. Air moving from the arctic over land stays pretty cold, and it can arrive suddenly, depending on what the jet stream is doing. That’s why there are no palm trees growing in southern Kansas, whereas in southern Spain, on the same latitude, there are. For arctic air to reach Spain, it almost always has to travel over warming ocean water. But between the arctic and Kansas there’s nothing but a few barbed wire fences.
But then, saying warming causes it to get colder is always a bit of a tough sell.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
What word was used to describe cold snaps before “polar vortex” came into common use in 2014? Was it simply that the jet stream stalled further south than usual?
T
tomarin
Guest
Trucks and cars contribute one-fifth of all U.S. emissions according to this. I thought it was larger, actually. China is of course notorious for burning coal.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I noticed that when ice melts in my glass of ice water, the water level doesn’t change. A floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Since water expands when it freezes, one ounce of frozen water has a larger volume than one ounce of liquid water.
T
tomarin
Guest
Cue Thomas Dolby, “Science!”
E
edwest2
Guest
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Read your own writing right there. By the same token, it can’t be unverified either. However, if it is posited that cyclical behavior can be found in climate-related measurements given enough time, then it is hard to believe there would be no cycles found in these measurements were we able to take them.
So you’ve stepped back from “conclusive” to “strongly suggestive”. That implies you are at least somewhat open to the idea that correlation is not always causation. I’ll give you credit for that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why should we believe that cyclical behavior can be found given enough time? I can understand random variations, but cyclical implies a kind of regularity that is not justified here. But even if there are cyclical variations in ocean level, that does not mean man-made climate change might not contribute to, hasten, and amplify such changes.
Of course. Science is never completely definitive. It is always open to being falsified with new evidence. Anyone who says something is settled and there is no way he is going to change his mind is not a scientist.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m no expert on polar vortices (is that the correct plural?) or common terms for it, either one. But “cold snap” could be it, before the popularity of “polar vortex”. But there are others, like “Alberta clipper” and “Blue Norther”. The whole concept is sometimes called the “Continental Influence”. Regardless of what one calls them, they are fairly fast infusions of cold northerly air into more southern climes. Because there is nothing but land between much of the continental U.S. and the arctic, the cold can move a long way south and pretty rapidly, because dirt is a poor conductor of heat. In much of Europe, it’s different because prevailing winds tend to pass over the relatively warm ocean. Water is a good conductor of heat, and the winds pick up heat from the water.
That’s why, in the U.S., climatic planting zones run pretty resolutely north and south while in western Europe they run east and west. But if you’ll notice, the zones swing northward in the U.S. on the east coast and the west coast because they’re on the ocean.
Regardless, the jet stream is an incredibly powerful force affecting weather. It ripples up and down in patterns that can be affected by El Nino and La Nina. If it ripples down from the north over land into the U.S., it can bring very cold weather in the winter; basically arctic air that’s only slightly warmed in transit by modest conduction of heat from the earth and greater solar radiation in more southerly latitudes.
But polar vortexes (sp?) have always been with us, and have probably been called that for a long time by science folk. But more recently, others have picked up the term and use it instead of “cold snaps”, “Blue northers” or “Alberta clippers” or other such names.
T
Theo520
Guest
Source please, not clear what you are talking about.
I was only aware the models predicted a hotspot in the troposphere, which has not materialized to the degree predicted.
This reminds me of the very natural El Nino warming, we are slowly getting our arms around the natural cycles of weather.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
No scientist is denying that. There have also been heat waves, hurricanes, wild fires, droughts, floods, crop failures, and a host of other things BCCC (before the current climate change) that the current climate change is now making worse, with much worse expected on into the future.
The studies re the polar vortices relate to how they are changing, which MAY be linked to climate change. Since this is cutting edge research without 1000s of studies done on it (as there have been done on climate change itself) this is not yet “robust” science – plus there are a few honest, sincere scientists who have doubts about that link.
Also, in no way does doubt about this study undermine the basic science on global warming, which is quite robust and has been since 2000 or so.
However, as Catholics who follow what the Holy Fathers tell us, prudence requires that we mitigate climate change even if the science is not robust, which means we should have been mitigating it since the late 80s when knowledge of it came to widespread public awareness and some top scientists were telling us it could be harmful and dangerous.
And most certainly since 1995 when some studies reached 95% confidence (p=.05 on the null) on anthropogenic climate change.
And we have absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not mitigating after 2000, when the science on it became quite robust.
J
JW55
Guest
An excellent assessment. Thank you.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I accept it that Pope Francis seems to be persuaded MMGW exists, though I’m not entirely sure he ever said it’s due to fossil fuels.
But whether he did or not, I’m free to disagree with him on this. He might have opinions about the Argentine stock market too, and he might have expected Clinton to win the presidential race, for all I know.
E
edwest2
Guest
Who is this “we”? Contact the corporations that own companies around the globe that are spewing billions of tons of pollutants into the air.
Or just continue here. If they don’t care about the science then they don’t care, not “we.”
Ed
- Status