Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

[lynnvinc]

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

We, the people of the whole wide world, including biz leaders, of course.

Unlike point source pollution by companies who pollute the local air and waterways, most GHGs are emitted by nearly everyone when they drive an ICE car or cook with gas, etc. That is our direct contributions of GHGs.

When we choose products that entail greater GHG emissions when there are other less-GHG intensive choices, then we are also responsible, though not at much, since it is often difficult to determine which product entailed less GHG emissions.

We also have the responsibility to lower our GHG emissions through Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and going on alt energy when affordable and feasible.

For the more point source GHG emissions from companies and electricity providers, they have greater responsibility to reduce their own GHGs.

And it is very weird, but companies like Exxon have actually reduced their own GHG emissions greatly. Why, because it saves them money, just like most measures we as individuals and family take to reduce our GHGs also save us money.

3M, when confronted with new regs coming up in the early 1990s, put the word out to all its employees from the CEOs, to the engineers, to the assembly line workers, to the janitors to try and come up with measure to lower pollution that didn’t cost much. They got back lots of suggestions, which when implemented ended up saving them $millions per year, so they started their 3P program, Pollution Prevention Pays. Some other companies have done the same. The story goes on.

We at the individual and household level also started reducing our GHG emissions, and my husband afraid of it costing or our living standard being lowered told me only to do those things that don’t have a net cost. And we were able to reduce substantially without lowering our living standard AND save $1000s since 1990.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way. And if we seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, all things will be added unto us.

I didn’t totally believe that until it actually happened.

 

[Ender]

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.

With regard to hurricanes this assertion is not supported by the facts. I can’t speak for the other categories, but I suspect the claim they are getting worse is equally unsupported. This is a marketing pitch; it is not science.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

With regard to hurricanes this assertion is not supported by the facts. I can’t speak for the other categories, but I suspect the claim they are getting worse is equally unsupported. This is a marketing pitch; it is not science.

Ender

I haven’t been closely keeping up with the science, but in 2005 some studies came out that showed hurricane frequency had been increasing. Then in 2012 a study found that hurricane intensity had been increasing. Or vice versa.

I guess the main issue is that there is more heat energy in the system. Hurricanes require warmer sea surface temps off which they feed, so to speak, and GW is providing that. However hotter SST is only a necessary cause, not a sufficient cause – hurricanes require other factors. So it is complicate. I guess what can be said is the risk of stronger and more frequent hurricanes is there – whether or not they manifest.

 

[Peter_Plato]

With regard to hurricanes this assertion is not supported by the facts. I can’t speak for the other categories, but I suspect the claim they are getting worse is equally unsupported. This is a marketing pitch; it is not science.

Ender

Pretty much.

youtu.be/2Lye5liWuZw

 

[Theo520]

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c87dec28970b-500wi

 

[Ender]

I haven’t been closely keeping up with the science, but in 2005 some studies came out that showed hurricane frequency had been increasing. Then in 2012 a study found that hurricane intensity had been increasing. Or vice versa.

The claim of a study here or there does not a fact make. Here are 30 studies since 1996 that dispute your assertion. Even the IPCC doesn’t doesn’t support it.*“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low” *(IPCC AR5 [2013] Working Group 1, Chap 2)
Why are you still making this claim when there really is no evidence to support it? How can you claim the science of global warming is so robust if there is still dissension over not what the facts mean but what the facts are?

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

The claim of a study here or there does not a fact make. Here are 30 studies since 1996 that dispute your assertion. Even the IPCC doesn’t doesn’t support it.*“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low” *(IPCC AR5 [2013] Working Group 1, Chap 2)
Why are you still making this claim when there really is no evidence to support it? How can you claim the science of global warming is so robust if there is still dissension over not what the facts mean but what the facts are?

Ender

I don’t really accept whatever wattsupwiththat blog page has to say – the host is not a climate scientist and he seems to have some sort of vengeance for climate science in general: desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

First off, the IPCC quote you gave only refers to EXTRA-tropical (not in the tropics), so it really has nothing to do with the studies I mentioned.

Also I’m not really focused on today or even my lifetime. I’m mainly concerned about future generations and my soul. The physics are there for tropical cyclones – heat energy can change into kinetic energy, which is what happens during cyclones.

Now, it is also possible that GW could possibly intensify some cyclone killer factor, like wind shear, at least for certain phases of the warming, so the two factors would cancel out the risk of cyclones: increasing SST increasing the risk of cyclones and increasing wind shear decreasing the risk of cyclone.

And you are right, the science on cyclones is not as robust as it is on CC in general, I think due to the multiple factors that go into making cyclones.

I also forgot to mention another 2014 study that found increase in intense cyclonic frequency along the east coast of India: omicsonline.org/open-access/temperature-rise-and-trend-of-cyclones-over-the-eastern-coastal-region-of-india-2157-7617.1000227.php?aid=32625. Chennai just experienced a horrible cyclone slamming into it, and this after a devastating flood last year. And, of course, you have probably heard about the extremely devastating cyclones that have wiped out huge swathes of the Philippines in recent years.

It’s not good to play with matches in a dynamite factory!

 

[Theo520]

Lynn, you can’t just ignore the peer reviewed research just because one site aggregated the links to the research.

 

[lynnvinc]

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c87dec28970b-500wi

The OP is about the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

Cooling in Podunk does not disprove global warming, which has to do with the global average temps, which means it could conceivably be cooling in some places, but on the whole and OVER THE LONG TERM of many decades the global average temp has been increasing.

Also it takes some 30 years to establish a trend, so while 20 years is important (and may eventually be thought of as part of a trend, if it continues cooling), it does not mean the place is not warming – there are natural factors or “sloshings” that make temps go up and down over short term cycles, with global warming superimposed on that.

Quote from the article’s (on which your story was based) abstract: “Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.” at nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/abs/nature18645.html

From what I understand the science on the warming trend in Antarctica is not as robust as in other parts of the world, esp the Arctic, and for the whole world in general.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t really accept whatever wattsupwiththat blog page has to say – the host is not a climate scientist and he seems to have some sort of vengeance for climate science in general: desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

First off, the IPCC quote you gave only refers to EXTRA-tropical (not in the tropics), so it really has nothing to do with the studies I mentioned.

Also I’m not really focused on today or even my lifetime. I’m mainly concerned about future generations and my soul. The physics are there for tropical cyclones – heat energy can change into kinetic energy, which is what happens during cyclones.

Now, it is also possible that GW could possibly intensify some cyclone killer factor, like wind shear, at least for certain phases of the warming, so the two factors would cancel out the risk of cyclones: increasing SST increasing the risk of cyclones and increasing wind shear decreasing the risk of cyclone.

And you are right, the science on cyclones is not as robust as it is on CC in general, I think due to the multiple factors that go into making cyclones.

I also forgot to mention another 2014 study that found increase in intense cyclonic frequency along the east coast of India: omicsonline.org/open-access/temperature-rise-and-trend-of-cyclones-over-the-eastern-coastal-region-of-india-2157-7617.1000227.php?aid=32625. Chennai just experienced a horrible cyclone slamming into it, and this after a devastating flood last year. And, of course, you have probably heard about the extremely devastating cyclones that have wiped out huge swathes of the Philippines in recent years.

It’s not good to play with matches in a dynamite factory!

Here is what the IPCC AR5 (WGI, Ch 2, 2.6.3, pg. 217) says abut tropical cyclones:
“In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.”

So low confidence in increased frequency, but virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in [the North Atlantic].

Well, those of the ones that do the most harm…

Good data for other areas of the oceans apparently do not go back far enough to make good assessments over the long term (except for that one re the east coast of India).

 

[Ender]

I don’t really accept whatever wattsupwiththat blog page has to say – the host is not a climate scientist and he seems to have some sort of vengeance for climate science in general:

Once again your response to data contrary to your position is to simply ignore it, even though Watts is doing nothing more than linking to the actual reports themselves. You have no answer to real arguments that contradict your position other than assert you are justified in pretending they don’t exist.

First off, the IPCC quote you gave only refers to EXTRA-tropical (not in the tropics), so it really has nothing to do with the studies I mentioned.

There were plenty of cited studies that included tropical storms. What is your justification for ignoring them?

The physics are there for tropical cyclones – heat energy can change into kinetic energy, which is what happens during cyclones.

Once again you misstate what the scientists themselves are saying, which is the exact opposite. More storms may be generated in cooler climates.“Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. (Sugi et al, 2015)

Now, it is also possible that GW could possibly intensify some cyclone killer factor, like wind shear, at least for certain phases of the warming, so the two factors would cancel out the risk of cyclones: increasing SST increasing the risk of cyclones and increasing wind shear decreasing the risk of cyclone.

Except increasing SST (sea surface temp) doesn’t seem to have that effect.“The various SST measures only have a weak influence on TMLGP[tropical cyclones making landfall, South China] intensities. Despite the long-term warming trend in SST in the WNP, no long-term trend is observed in either the frequency or intensities of TMLGP[tropical cyclones making landfall, South China].” (Zhang et al, 2012)
Ender

 

[Theo520]

The artic ice melt has zero impact on sea levels, because that’s the way ice works in water. That the Antarctic is not warming and is actually adding ice mass on land is mitigating sea level rise. Previously it was claimed the Peninsula was warming, now evidence shows it is not.

The OP is about the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

Cooling in Podunk does not disprove global warming, which has to do with the global average temps, which means it could conceivably be cooling in some places, but on the whole and OVER THE LONG TERM of many decades the global average temp has been increasing.

Also it takes some 30 years to establish a trend, so while 20 years is important (and may eventually be thought of as part of a trend, if it continues cooling), it does not mean the place is not warming – there are natural factors or “sloshings” that make temps go up and down over short term cycles, with global warming superimposed on that.

Quote from the article’s (on which your story was based) abstract: “Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.” at nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/abs/nature18645.html

From what I understand the science on the warming trend in Antarctica is not as robust as in other parts of the world, esp the Arctic, and for the whole world in general.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t really accept whatever wattsupwiththat blog page has to say – the host is not a climate scientist and he seems to have some sort of vengeance for climate science in general: desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

First off, the IPCC quote you gave only refers to EXTRA-tropical (not in the tropics), so it really has nothing to do with the studies I mentioned.

Also I’m not really focused on today or even my lifetime. I’m mainly concerned about future generations and my soul. The physics are there for tropical cyclones – heat energy can change into kinetic energy, which is what happens during cyclones.

Now, it is also possible that GW could possibly intensify some cyclone killer factor, like wind shear, at least for certain phases of the warming, so the two factors would cancel out the risk of cyclones: increasing SST increasing the risk of cyclones and increasing wind shear decreasing the risk of cyclone.

And you are right, the science on cyclones is not as robust as it is on CC in general, I think due to the multiple factors that go into making cyclones.

I also forgot to mention another 2014 study that found increase in intense cyclonic frequency along the east coast of India: omicsonline.org/open-access/temperature-rise-and-trend-of-cyclones-over-the-eastern-coastal-region-of-india-2157-7617.1000227.php?aid=32625. Chennai just experienced a horrible cyclone slamming into it, and this after a devastating flood last year. And, of course, you have probably heard about the extremely devastating cyclones that have wiped out huge swathes of the Philippines in recent years.

It’s not good to play with matches in a dynamite factory!

Ironically, most people on the IPCC are not climate scientists and are under-qualified to be making these assessments.

 

[lynnvinc]

Once again your response to data contrary to your position is to simply ignore it, even though Watts is doing nothing more than linking to the actual reports themselves…

He does things in a very deceptive way, like giving just a partial quote, etc. Like he did with that IPCC quote – leaving out the part that said it is “virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in [the North Atlantic].”

He uses all sorts of logical fallacies, including red herrings, grains of truth, etc. I don’t have the time to go there and find them all for you, but here are some answers in general to denialists’ fallacious or deceitful claims: skepticalscience.com.

If one doesn’t want to wade thru the deceitful & twisted claims then look into their debunking, a good idea (which is the one I follow) is just read what actual, practicing climate scientists are saying in their studies in well-recognized scientific journals – or at least the abstracts, which are usually understandable by the general public.

What Watts says is not to be trusted. One accepts them as valid science not only at their own risk, but the risk of life on earth.

God is Truth. Lying and deceiving others, esp on very important, life-threatening matters, is wrong.

 

[Theo520]

Lynn, are you certain your links were not referring to Extratropical Cyclones?

Extratropical cyclones are the only ones that really matter, these low-pressure areas along with the anticyclones of high-pressure areas drive the weather over much of the Earth.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, are you certain your links were not referring to Extratropical Cyclones?

Extratropical cyclones are the only ones that really matter, these low-pressure areas along with the anticyclones of high-pressure areas drive the weather over much of the Earth.

They also matter, and it’s possible eventually the science will be coming in that show CC is enhancing the frequency and/or intensity of these. Storms have many factors and it’s a lot more difficult to find a CC connection in them, even tho we know more heat energy in the earth system could transform into more kinetic energy storms.

I, however, live in a tropical zone, so tropical cyclones are more a matter of concern personally for me, and also my relatives around the world who also live in tropical zones & are getting battered severely by cyclones.

 

[lynnvinc]

Ironically, most people on the IPCC are not climate scientists and are under-qualified to be making these assessments.

That just is not true.

Most in WGI (the science) are scientists, and their work on the IPCC is carefully scrutinized by top scientists. These chapters are based almost entirely on peer-reviewed scientific studies published in respected science journals and also some data sets.

Also, WGII chapters (impacts/adaptation) are based heavily on the science, though not entirely on peer-reviewed studies, but also on various composite reports (which themselves are based heavily on peer-reviewed studies). However, WGII chapters are now being carefully scrutinized by scientists after the big hullabaloo over an error in IPCC’s AR4.

RE the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 error (that Himalayan glaciers would all melt by 2035) on pg. 193 of the Asia chapter of Working Group II - Impacts, I actually caught it right after publication, but thought it was far-fetched based on info I’d been getting from climate scientists over the years (tho I didn’t know for sure) so I didn’t use it in a peer-reviewed article I was writing. The following year expert glaciologist from WGI found the error and had it corrected, so no harm done, it was never cited in a peer-reviewed article or anywhere else that I know of. And now because of the hullabaloo over that error, as said, the IPCC is much more careful to have all its claims reviewed by experts. Live and learn. Science is self-correcting.

The IPCC is still a very great source to find out about CC, and I’d suggest people read at least parts of it: ipcc.ch/

RE that corrected mistake, however, the big take-away message from it and why it took so long to discover and get corrected is that no one was reading that chapter, which means that people don’t really care about the impacts of CC on Asians, at least enough to read a chapter about it. That’s the real story.

 

[SuperLuigi]

lynnvinc;14352929]That just is not true.

Yes it is.

Most in WGI (the science) are scientists, and their work on the IPCC is carefully scrutinized by top scientists. These chapters are based almost entirely on peer-reviewed scientific studies published in respected science journals and also some data sets.

I clearly said they weren’t CLIMATE scientists.

Also, the peer-reviewed process when it comes to climate change has been largely compromised and most of their predictions have been wrong, even by the top scientists.

Also, WGII chapters (impacts/adaptation) are based heavily on the science, though not entirely on peer-reviewed studies, but also on various composite reports (which themselves are based heavily on peer-reviewed studies). However, WGII chapters are now being carefully scrutinized by scientists after the big hullabaloo over an error in IPCC’s AR4.

RE the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 error (that Himalayan glaciers would all melt by 2035) on pg. 193 of the Asia chapter of Working Group II - Impacts, I actually caught it right after publication, but thought it was far-fetched based on info I’d been getting from climate scientists over the years (tho I didn’t know for sure) so I didn’t use it in a peer-reviewed article I was writing. The following year expert glaciologist from WGI found the error and had it corrected, so no harm done, it was never cited in a peer-reviewed article or anywhere else that I know of. And now because of the hullabaloo over that error, as said, the IPCC is much more careful to have all its claims reviewed by experts. Live and learn. Science is self-correcting.

This information is leading to inaccurate conclusions. The fact is even with all of their combined efforts, they clearly cannot model the climate of the entire planet.

And I would encourage folks to read information provided by the Heartland Institute:
heartland.org/topics/climate-change/index.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

As I sit here, it’s about nine degrees outside.

If they ever put global warming to a vote, my vote will be “aye”.

 

[Ender]

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 IPCC is more circumspect than you are (citations from AR5 WGI, ch 2)In summary*, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in **drought *or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century,

In summary*, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems*

In summary*, confidence is low in changes in surface wind speed over the land and over the oceans owing to remaining uncertainties in data sets and measures used.*

In summary*, large variability on interannual to decadal time scales and remaining differences between data sets precludes robust conclusions on long-term changes in indices of ** climate variability**.*

In summary*, confidence in precipitation change averaged over global land areas is low for the years prior to 1950 and medium afterwards because of insufficient data, particularly in the earlier part of the record. Available globally incomplete records show mixed and non-significant long-term trends in reported global mean changes. Further, when virtually all the land area is filled in using a reconstruction method, the resulting time series shows less change in land-based precipitation since 1900*
The take-away from all this is that flat assertions that climate events are more extreme is not even supported by the IPCC, at least not by the scientists writing the reports.

Ender