Topic: The Warming Climate

[Jáchym]

One thing that I dont understand is this:

none of us has primary data. We all base our opinions on data available.

Yes you are right some scientists will give you evidence that GW is not happening. But as it was mentioned earlier, 97% will say there is indeed GW going on.

My question therefore is - either side could be right and either side provides arguments.

Why do you choose to believe 3 people rather than 97. And arguments like "thats what they want us to believe" etc. I dont take since I can say the exact same thing about oil companies and similar.

You can of course find some evidences that something that scientists said will happen regarding GW did not, but again, you are choosing one specific thing and there is dozens of other things that they predicted and did happen.

So the point is - for each argument for, you will find one against and vice versa. And so we are back to the original question - 97 people are on one side and 3 on the other.... some people choose to believe the 3, which I dont quite get. Only reason I can think of is that it makes their life easier (for now...)

[Jáchym]

Well at least some slightly positive news from Europe...
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/france-shut-down-coal-power-plants-2023/

[Scalphunter]

And what ice charts are you looking at Ken? Our state wide weather here shows new shore fast ice growing to close the gap with the sea ice in fact  by the Alcan east of Prudhoe Bay it is closed up.  Along the Bering Straits ice is forming in all the Sounds down to the Chain.

[WheatonRon]

The bottom line to this climate change argument is you can find any study to support your position whatever it may be. Unfortunate but that is the reality of this issue. And, very few minds on either side of this issue will change his or her position or belief based on a new study or posting in this Forum!

[waiukuweather]

good read here about what's currently happening at the north pole:

"This is the second year in a row that temperatures near the North Pole have risen to freakishly warm levels. During 2015's final days, the temperature near the Pole spiked to the melting point thanks to a massive storm that pumped warm air into the region.

So what's going on here?

"It's about 20C (36 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia," Jennifer Francis, an Arctic specialist at Rutgers University, said by email Wednesday.

"The Arctic warmth is the result of a combination of record-low sea-ice extent for this time of year, probably very thin ice, and plenty of warm/moist air from lower latitudes being driven northward by a very wavy jet stream."

Francis has published research suggesting that the jet stream, which travels from west to east across the Northern Hemisphere in the mid-latitudes, is becoming more wavy and elongated as the Arctic warms faster than the equator does.

"It will be fascinating to see if the stratospheric polar vortex continues to be as weak as it is now, which favors a negative Arctic Oscillation and probably a cold mid/late winter to continue over central and eastern Asia and eastern North America. The extreme behavior of the Arctic in 2016 seems to be in no hurry to quit," Francis continued.

Francis cited the work of Judah Cohen, a forecaster with Atmospheric and Environmental Research, who has linked odd jet stream behavior with cold air over Siberia.

Indeed, another Arctic expert, James Overland with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that the jet stream at the moment is well configured to transport warmth northward into the Arctic. "There is strong warm advection into the Arctic, especially northern-central Canada, in through the Atlantic, and east Siberian/Chukchi Sea," Overland said.

The whole situation is pretty extreme, several experts agreed.

"Both the persistence and magnitude of these temperature anomalies are quite unusual," Labe added by email. "Large variability in temperatures are common in the Arctic (especially during the cold-season), but the duration of this warm Arctic - cold Siberia pattern is unusual and quite an impressive crysophere/sea ice feedback." (The "cryosphere" refers to that part of the Earth's system that is made up of ice.)

Abnormally warm air has flooded the Arctic since October. Richard James, a meteorologist who pens a blog on Alaska weather, analyzed 19 weather stations surrounding the Arctic Ocean and found that the average temperature was about 4 degrees (2 Celsius) above the record set in 1998.

Since November, temperatures have risen even higher. "It is amazing to see that the warmth has become even more pronounced since the end of October," James wrote on his blog.

Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, agrees that something odd is going on. Not only are air temperatures unusually warm, but water temperatures are as well. "There's some areas in the Arctic ocean that are as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit above average now," Serreze said. "It's pretty crazy."

What's happening, he explains, is sort of a "double whammy." On the one hand, there is a "very warm underlying ocean" due to the lack of sea ice forming above it. But, at the same time, kinks in the jet stream have allowed warm air to flow northward and frigid Arctic air to descend over Siberia.

"The sea ice is at a record low right now, for this time of year, that's one thing," Serreze said. "And why it's so low - again, there's so much heat in the upper ocean in these ice free areas, the ice just can't form right now. The ocean's just got to get rid of this heat somehow, and it's having a hard time doing so."

The situation this winter could set the Arctic's ice up for very thin conditions and a possible record low next year, Serreze said, although it's too soon to say.

The weather in the Arctic can change swiftly. Temperatures could cool and the ice could rebound.

But the record-low sea ice extent and unprecedented warmth in the region fit in well with recent trends and portend even more profound changes in the coming years."

[WheatonRon]

good read here about what's currently happening at the north pole:

"This is the second year in a row that temperatures near the North Pole have risen to freakishly warm levels. During 2015's final days, the temperature near the Pole spiked to the melting point thanks to a massive storm that pumped warm air into the region.

So what's going on here?

...

Since November, temperatures have risen even higher. "It is amazing to see that the warmth has become even more pronounced since the end of October," James wrote on his blog.

Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, agrees that something odd is going on. Not only are air temperatures unusually warm, but water temperatures are as well. "There's some areas in the Arctic ocean that are as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit above average now," Serreze said. "It's pretty crazy."

What's happening, he explains, is sort of a "double whammy." On the one

But the record-low sea ice extent and unprecedented warmth in the region fit in well with recent trends and portend even more profound changes in the coming years."

I stand by my prior post, this "study" isn't going to change any minds on the topic of climate change!

[waiukuweather]

people should have open minds and be able to change your mind
unless you think you happen to know more than the experts that is

[nincehelser]

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

[waiukuweather]

reading that article, it seems to mix things up alot
one sentence is reads

in the past decade, a slowdown in the rate of warming on global respiration

so this article is refering to global respiration as a component of global warming

then next sentence

during the recent slowdown in global warming

but that slow down is well and truely over
also its important to note the article re refering to growth rates of co2 slowing..but that co2 levels are still going up..as you still have a positive rate..its just that the rate of increase has decreased...and this article atributes that to increased plant growth due to more co2...so a bit of negative feedback going on there (negative in that the more co2 in the atmosphere is making plants grow faster which means they are taking up more co2...but 
that is not making co2 levels stop increasing..just slowing down that increase a bit...so does that mean you carry on emitting co2 a bit more?)

i.e be carefull to not miss the point that a pause in growth rate of CO2 does not mean CO2 levels have stopped going up..they are still going up..at the current growth rate....is just that the rate of increase (of the growth rate) is not increasing all the time..which is a good thing..

[nincehelser]

It doesn't mix things up at all.

One big problem is that not all the feedback loops involved in climate are well understood, or even known.

[tbrasel]

Yes, very nice approach. So if we decide here that we will blow of a nuclear power plant (located here) you won´t care either right?

Not really, since Chernobyl is 5,306 km closer to my house than your nuclear power plant(s).

[saratogaWX]

And what ice charts are you looking at Ken? Our state wide weather here shows new shore fast ice growing to close the gap with the sea ice in fact  by the Alcan east of Prudhoe Bay it is closed up.  Along the Bering Straits ice is forming in all the Sounds down to the Chain.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/2016-arctic-sea-ice-wintertime-extent-hits-another-record-low

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/arctic-sea-ice-annual-minimum-ties-second-lowest-on-record

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[waiukuweather]

One big problem is that not all the feedback loops involved in climate are well understood, or even known.

true
which is why more research ..and funds are still needed
there is a theory that the oceans are now starting to take in in less CO2 (ie they are getting to saturation point)...so the above article about the biomass slowing down the rate of increase might be only temporary

so the article does not provide any reason to not try and not reduce green gas emissions if you ask me

[waiukuweather]

that last link you put up Ken sums things up nicely about the low ice extent at both poles now

[Jáchym]

One big problem is that not all the feedback loops involved in climate are well understood, or even known.

true
which is why more research ..and funds are still needed
there is a theory that the oceans are now starting to take in in less CO2 (ie they are getting to saturation point)...so the above article about the biomass slowing down the rate of increase might be only temporary

so the article does not provide any reason to not try and not reduce green gas emissions if you ask me

Spot on Brian.

We dont know, the problem is: if we dont do anything and later discover we should have done something, it might be too late. Or we find out that it actually is not a problem in which case we will be ok too. So we have nothing to lose if we investigate further and try to take precaution measures.
If we dont do anything and it turns out to indeed be a problem, we are doomed.

[nincehelser]

One big problem is that not all the feedback loops involved in climate are well understood, or even known.

true
which is why more research ..and funds are still needed
there is a theory that the oceans are now starting to take in in less CO2 (ie they are getting to saturation point)...so the above article about the biomass slowing down the rate of increase might be only temporary

so the article does not provide any reason to not try and not reduce green gas emissions if you ask me

But it does show the science is not "settled" and politicians should stop trying to use it as a means of control.

And, of course, there's always this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rise-in-global-carbon-emissions-slows/

Everyone's looking for "answers" to support their "argument".

And then there's this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/index.html

The world is a complex place, and the science is far from settled.

[Jáchym]

Yes, so in the end we do agree that more research is necessary AND that until we know it is better to take precation measures (just in case) ...

[waiukuweather]

re the Texas oil discovery nincehelser
if you read the article, its too expensive to get out of the ground at the current oil prices, even it is it technicly possible
so not sure what the point of posting that article is , in relation to this thread?

[nincehelser]

Yes, so in the end we do agree that more research is necessary AND that until we know it is better to take precation measures (just in case) ...

That would depend on the price of those "precautionary measures".

[nincehelser]

re the Texas oil discovery nincehelser
if you read the article, its too expensive to get out of the ground at the current oil prices, even it is it technicly possible
so not sure what the point of posting that article is , in relation to this thread?

Yeah, I read the article, but I'm getting the impression you aren't too familiar with the energy industry.

The connection is that folks are going to use the cheapest energy available.  This looks to be a huge reserve without all the issues of foreign politics or pipelines across "sensitive" areas.  If and when it is needed, it will be tapped.  That is unless a better source of energy comes along.

[Jáchym]

Really?

Not that much would actually be necessary if you put it into perspective with other expenses like military etc. And IF it turns out we should have taken them and we did not, everything else will then become irrelevant. Well true that both of us probably dont have to worry, but then the thing is - Im not hostile towards what is going to happen to my grandchildren, various species etc.

[Jáchym]

re the Texas oil discovery nincehelser
if you read the article, its too expensive to get out of the ground at the current oil prices, even it is it technicly possible
so not sure what the point of posting that article is , in relation to this thread?

Yeah, I read the article, but I'm getting the impression you aren't too familiar with the energy industry.

The connection is that folks are going to use the cheapest energy available.  This looks to be a huge reserve without all the issues of foreign politics or pipelines across "sensitive" areas.  If and when it is needed, it will be tapped.  That is unless a better source of energy comes along.

Many people think that renewable sources are useless if you want to cover more than just a few % of total energy requirements, but did you know that for example an area of Spain covered with solar panels would satisfy world's total energy requirements? And of course solar is not the only renewable source, so it is actually not as much as people think and the expenses are also not so high.

And last but not least - you said "it depends on how much it would be" - but your new president wants to completely stop the research, withdraw from all agreements. Which is going to have big effect because other nations such as China are going to say well why should we care if they dont. It took so much effort to get there and we finally managed it last yr...

[graculus]

Which is going to have big effect because other nations such as China are going to say well why should we care if they dont. It took so much effort to get there and we finally managed it last yr...

What exactly did China commit to in Paris?

[Jáchym]

China has announced its ratification of the Paris climate change agreement, paving the way for a hotly anticipated joint US-China statement on the fight against global warming later on Saturday.

China and the US together account for about 38% of global emissions. So if they ratify the agree

In order to fulfill its obligations under the Paris agreement Xinhua said China would need to cut carbon emissions by 60-65% per unit of GDP by 2030, compared with 2005 levels, and boost its use of non-fossil fuels so they accounted for 20% of its energy consumption.

It is sad that countries like the Czech Republic care a lot (people here either support this or they dont care, but I dont know of anyone - and Im dead serious - anyone who would say this is not happening), while the country that has a huge responsibility for this due to its size and population now wants to boycot this.

[graculus]

It was a serious question to which I haven't found a good answer. According to the NY Times the reality is

China’s commitments, first made in 2014, have been less a concession to American pressure than a restatement of its own goals. They include a promise for China’s carbon emissions to reach a plateau or decline “around 2030,” but without any specific target for reductions like those Mr. Obama pledged for the United States (between 26 and 28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025). That means China has plenty of room to continue burning fossil fuels to power its economy.