Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

[lynnvinc]

Basic grade school math.
Significant digits refers to the accuracy in a calculation being no greater then the least accurate number involved.

I know that weather can range wildly, but climate (which is the aggregate and stats of weather over a long time and/or great area or region, or the whole world) is fairly stable. Also that global average temps even a few degrees cooler mean serious ice age, or a few degrees warmer mean serious global warming. So even a few fractions warmer or cooler does cause repercussions in the global climate system.

I know most Americans live in climate controlled environments, mainly in cities where they are unable to perceive any CC-related problems, unless they read the news about them, and the media is supported by commercials (and big biz just wants people to buy and not consider CC). Also there are some places where climate is not changing much and other places where is it changing a lot, well above average.

What I don’t understand is why so many people are opposed to the science on this when they are given the real facts about it – which at this point are neither alarmist nor denialist, but just increased frequency and/or intensity here and there of heatwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires, crop loss, storms and hurricanes, disease spread, etc.

I realize most Americans are not affected by these at this point, except maybe indirectly and slightly in their pocketbooks. It is the poor and the future generations that will be suffering greatly by our refusal to address the issue. You’d think at least women, who seem to be more concerned about and focused on children, would be into this issue more…altho our society, including women, has perhaps indeed shifted to what one author said is a “child-hating society,” as evidenced by the millions upon millions of abortions.

I’m just trying to understand the denialism and why people won’t at least follow the sensible (and moral) path of prudence of mitigating CC – as the US Bishops told us to do in 2001 – even if we have some doubts about the data or veracity/capabilities of climate scientists.

Why not at least turn off lights not in use and all the other things that do not cost or even save money short or long run, esp since nearly all these measures also reduce other environmental problems that harm people. What’s the problem?

 

[Book_Worm]

My guess as to why people deny the science of climate change is that there is a lot of oil and gas money (Koch Brothers anyone?) being spent to spread disinformation, and this disinformation is much more comforting to believe than the reality of the crisis we face. And since this disinformation comes predominantly from the red side of the political equation, it has been turned into a red/blue controversy rather than a rational analysis of the facts. There is a segment of the population that refuses to believe any information that comes from the blue side simply as a matter of principle.

 

[Theo520]

My guess as to why people deny the science of climate change is that there is a lot of oil and gas money (Koch Brothers anyone?) being spent to spread disinformation, and this disinformation is much more comforting to believe than the reality of the crisis we face. And since this disinformation comes predominantly from the red side of the political equation, it has been turned into a red/blue controversy rather than a rational analysis of the facts. There is a segment of the population that refuses to believe any information that comes from the blue side simply as a matter of principle.

How about an example of this disinformation being pushed by petro dollars?
We don’t want everyone to think it’s just another conspiracy story.

 

[Theo520]

but science says we have pushed our climate to a prolonged interglacial period which prevents us for the foreseeable future going into a glacial period. If it weren’t for man made climate change, we likely would be back into an ice age already.

of course we could see temporary servere cold snaps in the future given the amount of glacial meltdown occurring in greenland which will stop the gulf stream current.

Research shows the gulf stream current only plays a minor role in climate

ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

 

[lynnvinc]

That is at best an assumption.

We’ve experienced these severe cold snaps off and on for several years now. I don’t think they are that temporary. It’s been interesting watching the MMGW’ers contort these episodes as facts supporting their thesis.

I’ve covered this many times here at CAF.

Less arctic ice has also been linked to Rossby waves (cold arctic weather coming southward in parts of the US) and worse storms, as opposed to the typical west-east pattern. These Rossby waves (related to negative arctic oscillations, polar vortex) are natural and occasionally happen. What GW may be doing is making them more frequent and severe or linger longer.

I myself was perplexed by the cold snaps in the Rio Grande Valley when we moved there and people told us they got killing freezes only about once in 7 years or so. We had a series of these year after year, so I starting thinking maybe CC was behind it – I looked up the research and found I was tentatively right. It is cutting edge science and not all specialists in that area are convinced.

A study from last year concludes that “Polar vortex shifting due to climate change, extending winter, study finds” at Global warming could be making winters in eastern North America even longer, according to a new study. washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/10/31/polar-vortex-shifting-due-to-climate-change-extending-winter-study-finds/?utm_term=.8900dae6a1ce

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

 

[lynnvinc]

Research shows the gulf stream current only plays a minor role in climate

ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

Not only that, but bec of the warming, it probably wouldn’t be too severely cold in NE US and Europe if it did stop.

However, if it did stop, that would leave all the really hot water and temps here in the Rio Grande Valley.

Thanks a lot!!!

 

[lynnvinc]

My guess as to why people deny the science of climate change is that there is a lot of oil and gas money (Koch Brothers anyone?) being spent to spread disinformation, and this disinformation is much more comforting to believe than the reality of the crisis we face. And since this disinformation comes predominantly from the red side of the political equation, it has been turned into a red/blue controversy rather than a rational analysis of the facts. There is a segment of the population that refuses to believe any information that comes from the blue side simply as a matter of principle.

Exactly.

But there’s more to it. The red side has cornered the anti-abortion plank and people. When such people vote they would probably like to vote for a fully pro-life candidate – which means he/she should not only be against abortion but against harming and killing thru CC and other env problems.

Alas, alack, it seems there are no such candidates. Either they are anti-abortion and CC denialist or pro-choice and CC-concerned.

This creates cognitive dissonance for the more fully pro-life voters and to reduce the psychological pain of cognitive dissonance they have to downplay either the abortion issue or the CC issue.

As Catholics, who know we can offer up our pains and problem to God, it would be a good idea, as a sacrifice for God and His kingdom, to live in the psychological suffering and pain of cognitive dissonance, and offer it up.

That is, if we vote red due to the abortion issue, then do not deny CC, but do all we can to mitigate it and get our politicians to do so. If we vote blue due to the CC issue, then not to deny abortion is an anti-life issue and work to reduce it and get our politicians to do so. And understand and admit we voted for a candidate who is only partly pro-life – whether that candidate be red or blue.

But you are also right CC is neither a red nor blue issue. It is a green issue that all should be concerned about regardless of political persuasion, religion, class, holdings in oil companies, etc

Afterall, our greatest pro-environment presidents – Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon – were Republican. CC is not a political issue, it is a human issue, it is a God’s creation issue.

 

[lynnvinc]

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-28-at-5.45.44-AM-1.gif

don’t be fooled by bogus denialist sites like realclimatescience. They may have good-sounding names but have nothing to so with real science.

If you want to understand the data adjustments, here are some helpful links:
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q208

on some, the adjustments actually show less warming. See:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/smith-and-reynolds-2002-001.jpg

 

[qui_est_ce]

Agreed.

Always be wary of those who’s “solution” to global warming/climate change is socialism, more government and more taxes.

This!

 

[Theo520]

Lynn, try to respond to the points raised.
My chart was for the US Temp record and is accurate.

Your chart appears to be global for specific latitudes, and not including the latest adjustments

don’t be fooled by bogus denialist sites like realclimatescience. They may have good-sounding names but have nothing to so with real science.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Lynn, try to respond to the points raised.
My chart was for the US Temp record and is accurate.

The only point I saw was the unsupported claim that the homogeneity adjustments were made falsely. But the claim was not supported because they did not even look at the reasons for the adjustment, which by the way are completely public. The fact that raw, uncalibrated readings show something different from the corrected values is irrelevant. But that’s what realclimatescience is good at - focussing on irrelevancies.

 

[faithsmind]

I’ve covered this many times here at CAF.

Less arctic ice has also been linked to Rossby waves (cold arctic weather coming southward in parts of the US) and worse storms, as opposed to the typical west-east pattern. These Rossby waves (related to negative arctic oscillations, polar vortex) are natural and occasionally happen. What GW may be doing is making them more frequent and severe or linger longer.

I myself was perplexed by the cold snaps in the Rio Grande Valley when we moved there and people told us they got killing freezes only about once in 7 years or so. We had a series of these year after year, so I starting thinking maybe CC was behind it – I looked up the research and found I was tentatively right. It is cutting edge science and not all specialists in that area are convinced.

A study from last year concludes that “Polar vortex shifting due to climate change, extending winter, study finds” at Global warming could be making winters in eastern North America even longer, according to a new study. washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/10/31/polar-vortex-shifting-due-to-climate-change-extending-winter-study-finds/?utm_term=.8900dae6a1ce

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

While I don’t disagree with your general concern for the environment, I feel ill-equipped to make a strong stand on interpretation of the data. I don’t have time to try and understand, honestly.

I visited a site last night to try and get a grasp of this. The sites I immediately came across had very general ideas and seemed to have a very strong political bent, which makes me extremely suspicious. Even this concept of reducing your footprint has connotations that human footprints are bad, in general.

Example:
davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/

One thing I also didn’t understand was the large concern of methane release from cattle poop… I frankly can’t see issues with fertilizer. Again, I’m not a scientist, and I don’t have enough trust of what seems like a politically-motivated website to blindly follow their advice. It reminds me of issues with people mistakenly putting out all forest fires–as a result, there was overgrowth of underbrush, and now this underbrush is the cause of uncontrollable wildfires all over Yellowstone and the southwest US.

At the same time, it does seem to make sense that there should be care in handling large scale chemical processes that are unnatural. Im one for developing land and using resources, but common sense regulation is needed. It’s hard to find a middle ground, politically, unfortunately. There are many different and dangerous agendas involved because of greed, misunderstandings, and desire for political power.

And then you hear about these super volcanoes…

 

[Theo520]

The only point I saw was the unsupported claim that the homogeneity adjustments were made falsely. But the claim was not supported because they did not even look at the reasons for the adjustment, which by the way are completely public. The fact that raw, uncalibrated readings show something different from the corrected values is irrelevant. But that’s what realclimatescience is good at - focussing on irrelevancies.

So you agree that the chart accurately represents the before/after data, but you believe all the changes are correct. Fair enough, the chart raises questions but isn’t definitive proof of anything.

 

[stevegravy]

I usually avoid these threads because so many people don’t know of what they speak. Then along comes a cartoonist with a comment I would like to share with the avid posters.

blog.dilbert.com/post/155073242136/the-climate-science-challenge

“there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.”

And from the commenter section I like this one;

My job title is “scientist”. I work for the Federal Government (DOI). I mostly work on air quality and climate change analysis. You can take this to the bank: every single climate model trotted out there to “prove” dangerous global climate change runs hot. What this means is the models are over-predicting by a large margin the influence of greenhouse gases on global warming. This is primarily because the people making these models are trying to prove their hypothesis, not understand reality. Almost every single apocalyptic climate change prediction is based on the upper end of these faulty models. The bottom line: there is no actual evidence - none, nadda , zip - that human generated greenhouse gases are negatively influencing global climate. There is however a whole lot of wishful thinking that it were so. Why the people pushing this would wish for the disastrous future they so adamantly predict is a topic for another day.

Oh well enjoy!

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Research shows the gulf stream current only plays a minor role in climate

at the very least it has an effect, likely in combination with atmospheric circulation, but the point is that when you warm the planet, you would expect negative feedback effects to occur. they may be identified in ice cores as cooling events following the end of the last ice age.

if you want a good laugh, read about the debate concerning the origin of the younger dryas: some scientist say they find irrefutable evidence of a impact event, others now say that’s all nonesence and they are completely misrepresenting their data. the lesson here is to be cautious of reading into data what you want to see rather than being objective and allowing for self criticism and appreciation of the uncertainty, which is an inherent part of most geologic data and models.

models, like religion, are all wrong–some may be useful. some say the geologist who is the loudests wins the debate. i can certainly say with first hand experience that personality goes a long way in promoting geologic stories.

 

[vz71]

What I don’t understand is why so many people are opposed to the science on this when they are given the real facts about it –

Because people like yourself exaggerate to a ridiculous degree.

When I, with no statistical training or advanced math degree, can look at charts and see the flaw, there is a problem.
When I, with little science training can see that the claims made exceed the science available, there is a problem.
When I am accused of murder, there is a problem.

One lie too many.
And now my first response is a strong disagreement.

 

[lynnvinc]

While I don’t disagree with your general concern for the environment, I feel ill-equipped to make a strong stand on interpretation of the data. I don’t have time to try and understand, honestly.

I visited a site last night to try and get a grasp of this. The sites I immediately came across had very general ideas and seemed to have a very strong political bent, which makes me extremely suspicious. Even this concept of reducing your footprint has connotations that human footprints are bad, in general.

Example:
davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/

I suggest you try Pope Francis’s Laudato Si, which is a good Catholic response to important env problems, and gives a lot of explanation of these problems, with a strong focus on CC. see w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

It is a long read & and took me several sittings, but is well worth it. I’d advise not reading interpretations of it, which may be slanted in a similar way to the denialist sites, like using quotes out of context & giving a wrong impression of the meaning.

One thing I also didn’t understand was the large concern of methane release from cattle poop… I frankly can’t see issues with fertilizer.

I don’t think anyone has problems with manure used as fertilizer – it is much better than synthetic fertilizers for several reasons. IF that manure is being used for fertilizer or converted into gas (with the byproduct frm that a better fertilizer). My understanding is that much of it generated by the meat industry ends up as local pollution, causing health problems & emitting methane into the atmosphere – which is a greenhouse gas, contributing to CC.

So they say it’s good to reduce meat consumption, which we had to do anyway for health reasons. Or I understand grass-fed beef is not as bad for env or health (as long as it does not involve destroying rain forests for grazing lands). I think a good idea would be for Catholics to get back to meatless Fridays, and may pick one other day to go meatless – maybe Tues, since that is also the Sorrowful Mysteries.

However, I think the problem with methane (CH4) is more with natural gas, which tends to leak during extraction, piping, & use, and the fracking process to get it causes lots of local pollution problems as well. We can reduce our cooking/heating needs for that without sacrificing our living standards in various ways.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Basic grade school math.
Significant digits refers to the accuracy in a calculation being no greater then the least accurate number involved.

There are two problems with your analysis.

1. Historical temperature measurements have more resolution than you imagine. The technology has gradually improved over the years, but a very accurate sensor is based on an electrical RTD device, which today has accuracy to about 0.03 C, and resolution limited only by the resolution of the measurement of resistance, which can be quite precise using a bridge circuit. Remember that for the purposes of development temperate change data over time, resolution is more important than accuracy. As long as changes over time can be measured, It is worthwhile noting the the RTD effect was discovered in 1821. And resistive bridge circuits go back further than that.
2. For the purposes of measuring changes in temperature, the precision of an average is greater than the precision of the individual data points. This can be illustrated by a hypothetical example. Suppose there are 1,000 temperature sensors deployed at monitoring stations, and suppose each sensor is read to a resolution of 1.0 C. It does not matter if the method is rounding to the nearest whole number or truncating any fractional part. Further suppose that the actual temperature is 22.000 C. And suppose that due to errors in the sensors, we get the following readings:

21 C reported by 200 stations
22 C reported by 300 stations
23 C reported by 500 stations

The average of all 1,000 stations would be 22.300 C. Not accurate, but precise. Now suppose the actual temperature increases by 0.01 C. It is likely that we will get the following readings:

21 C reported by 196 stations
22 C reported by 298 stations
23 C reported by 506 stations

which produces an average of 22.31 C. It is still not accurate. But it does precisely indicate the increase of 0.01 C from 22.30 to 22.31

So the average can give you more decimal places than the individual readings have. Your grade-school analysis of the problem is insufficient.

In the actual instrumental temperature record, we do not have this ideal case, of course. We have various temperatures and we have stations with various amounts of calibration error. But with intelligent processing and correlation of the raw data, along with other independent indicators of temperature, it is possible to develop a temperature record the the resolution indicated on the graphs Lynn has been showing. You have not discovered something that all the scientists working with this data have overlooked.

 

[vz71]

So the average can give you more decimal places than the individual readings have. Your grade-school analysis of the problem is insufficient.

Incorrect.
I suggest you review your math.

 

[lynnvinc]

…You can take this to the bank: every single climate model trotted out there to “prove” dangerous global climate change runs hot.

That may or may not be right…for a very limited look at the situation – they cannot predict volcanos, el ninos, or if the solar radiance cycle will go into a deep and long minimum. It could be your DOI scientist quote was at a time when the model predictions were above actual observations, a couple of years ago. They also fall below the observation at other times.

However, climate models do NOT include positive feedbacks from albedo (reduced ice & snow cover) or hydrate & permafrost methane release. I actually contacted some top climate scientists and asked. These positive feedbacks will be increasing over time.

So the models are grossly underestimating the problem, esp in the long run.

We need to keep a holistic view of the situation.