Global warming

[pbrower2a]

Image for contemplation:

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-02-2017, 03:17 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-01-2017, 01:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-01-2017, 11:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It seems your graph confirms my picture regarding the post-glacial melting. There is no debate that sea levels have risen in the past few decades, and this is accelerating. Measurements conducted by many scientific agencies are less subject to debate that just about anything. I think the figure is 8 inches. Let's see:

"Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years."
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/enviro...evel-rise/
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4700

The measurement period referenced by those papers is too short to conclude much of anything. The rate varies considerably. There is a lot of noise in the system.

In any case, even without AGW, eventually, Miami will be inundated. AGW accelerates the inevitable. But, the activist factions within the scientific community will not emphasize that. They have an agenda, similar to yours. The (false) notion that sea level rise was 0mm per year or nearly so .... until .... A ... G ... W... is a powerful mental model. While I do not deny that AGW is a component of the equation, and, it does exacerbate sea level rise, it is not solely accountable for sea level rise. How much effort do we put in? When do we invest the effort? It is not cut and dried.

If you say so. I say it's pretty cut and dried. Stop fossil fuel use as fast as politically possible (since politics is what drags the transition and ONLY politics).

I'm not sure what sea level rise was before 1900, but if it existed, it was miniscule. I'm not sure how well it could have been measured between 1900 back to 10,000 years ago, but they know more or less, since they know the sea was lower 10,000 years ago. The coast of CA extended out a lot further, and the Bay as we know it didn't even exist before then. They seem to know that much.

The continents are moving up and down a bit, at roughly the same speed as the sea level changes.  Much of the continental US is moving upwards, which negates rising sea level a bit.  It isn't that hard to figure out, but that's where some of the discrepancy comes from.

[Eric the Green]

(09-08-2017, 01:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Image for contemplation:

Or cover your bases. Do both.

[Eric the Green]

Maybe Rags should do that

[Kinser79]

(09-08-2017, 10:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 04:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 01:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Image for contemplation:

Or cover your bases. Do both.

I'm partying like it's 1935 (only a few weather geeks will get that joke).

Not true.  This Floridian gets it...the Unnamed Labor Day storm of 1935 which slammed into South Florida was reportedly a category 5 hurricane.  Hurricanes hit FL and would if not a single person had ever existed.

[Eric the Green]

Current global warming is much greater than anything in 1935. From what I've seen, there was an uptick in the WWII period, but that is dwarfed by today's numbers. You need to look at data, not speculations from skeptics. And certainly nothing that Kinser says deserves any comment.

[Kinser79]

(09-15-2017, 12:26 PM)Eric the Ignoramus Wrote: global warming is much greater than anything in 1935. From what I've seen, there was an uptick in the WWII period, but that is dwarfed by today's numbers. You need to look at data, not speculations from skeptics. And certainly nothing that Kinser says deserves any comment.

1.  There is no hard proof that the globe is actually warming.  And even if it is there is even less proof that it is due to human activity.

2.  Tropical cyclones are weather events.  We have every reason to expect that weather events happen without the presence of humans.  After all Jupiter has weather patterns and it not only doesn't have humans, as far as we can tell it doesn't even have a surface.

3.  Accurate human records only go back to about the 1880s.  Prior to that our instruments simply were not good enough to accurately record meteorological data and ice core and tree ring data are guesses at best.

4.  Its good to see your KDS is still strong.  After all should you agree with me I usually have to re-examine my position.

[Kinser79]

(09-15-2017, 11:01 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-14-2017, 07:18 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 10:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 04:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 01:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Image for contemplation:

Or cover your bases. Do both.

I'm partying like it's 1935 (only a few weather geeks will get that joke).

Not true.  This Floridian gets it...the Unnamed Labor Day storm of 1935 which slammed into South Florida was reportedly a category 5 hurricane.  Hurricanes hit FL and would if not a single person had ever existed.

You actually did get it (I think).

1935 was part of the "Warm 1930s." That such a period existed is only slightly more of an "incovenient truth" for climate alarmists than were the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Holocene Climate Optimum / Sea Level High Stand.

Well it is true that the 1930s were unusually warm with the dust bowl and peak hurricane cycles.  Down here the Labor Day storm is still remembered vividly by those who went through it.  There aren't many of those left, and mostly they were kids when it happened.  In the Keys it is reported that people literally tied their kids to Flagler's railroad tracks to keep them from blowing away.

As for the MWP and Holocene Climate Optimum both are serious problems for the climate alarmists.  And that is before we even get into the geological evidence for much higher temperatures on the planet in pre-hominid epochs.  Not to mention the Global Greening that is occurring due to larger concentrations of CO2.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/201...ning-earth

[Eric the Green]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...51916.html

India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.

Analyst Tim Buckley said the shift away from the dirtiest fossil fuel and towards solar in India would have “profound” implications on global energy markets.

According to his article on the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis’s website, 13.7GW of planned coal power projects have been cancelled so far this month – in a stark indication of the pace of change.

In January last year, Finnish company Fortum agreed to generate electricity in Rajasthan with a record low tariff, or guaranteed price, of 4.34 rupees per kilowatt-hour (about 5p).

Mr Buckley, director of energy finance studies at the IEEFA, said that at the time analysts said this price was so low would never be repeated.

But, 16 months later, an auction for a 500-megawatt solar facility resulted in a tariff of just 2.44 rupees – compared to the wholesale price charged by a major coal-power utility of 3.2 rupees (about 31 per cent higher).

“For the first time solar is cheaper than coal in India and the implications this has for transforming global energy markets is profound,” Mr Buckley said.

“Measures taken by the Indian Government to improve energy efficiency coupled with ambitious renewable energy targets and the plummeting cost of solar has had an impact on existing as well as proposed coal fired power plants, rendering an increasing number as financially unviable.


READ MORE
Solar power 'becoming world's cheapest form of electricity'

“India’s solar tariffs have literally been free falling in recent months.”

He said about it has been accepted that some £6.9bn-worth of existing coal power plants at Mundra in Gujarat were “no longer viable because of the prohibitively high cost of imported coal relative to the long-term electricity supply contracts”.

This, Mr Buckley added, was a further indication of the “rise of stranded assets across the Indian power generation sector”.

Investors from all over the world were showing an interest in India’s burgeoning solar sector.

“The caliber of the global financial institutions who are bidding into India’s solar power infrastructure tenders is a strong endorsement of India’s leadership in this energy transformation and will have significant ripple effects into other transforming markets, as is already seen in the UAE, South Africa, Australia, Chile and Mexico,” Mr Buckley said.

[beechnut79]

(09-15-2017, 11:01 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-14-2017, 07:18 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 10:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 04:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 01:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Image for contemplation:

Or cover your bases. Do both.

I'm partying like it's 1935 (only a few weather geeks will get that joke).

Not true.  This Floridian gets it...the Unnamed Labor Day storm of 1935 which slammed into South Florida was reportedly a category 5 hurricane.  Hurricanes hit FL and would if not a single person had ever existed.

You actually did get it (I think).

1935 was part of the "Warm 1930s." That such a period existed is only slightly more of an "incovenient truth" for climate alarmists than were the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Holocene Climate Optimum / Sea Level High Stand.

There was also the Great Plains dust bowl the same year, and on a Sunday in April the sky was pitch black at noon and many thought the end of the world was coming. The episode spawned this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v1Lj5E_nVE

[pbrower2a]

Here is a projection of how the world's climatic patterns change over a century:

Starting with 1976-2000, which most of us treat as the norm:





and 2076-2100 with one of the milder projections



Note that this does not make allowances for sea level change, as the Greenland Ice Sheet will shrink dramatically. I expect inundations.

Deserts remain in place (especially those of northern and southern Africa, Arabia, Iran, central Asia, the Gobi, the Thar, the Australian Outback, western North America, and the Atacama) with Patagonia probably becoming more of a desert. The Kalahari expands in Botswana and South Africa, which is not good for people of Botswana and South Africa.  Because the Antarctic Convergence remains in place and shields Antarctica from any warm air masses, Antarctica remains largely entombed in ice.  But boreal climates supplant some tundra in Baffin Island, Greenland, and Novaya Zemlya, as the Arctic region warms significantly.    

Tropical rain forests expand little, but cold air masses do not reach as far south in North America and eastern Asia or as far west in Europe. The line between tropical and subtropical climates moves from about Fort Myers to Tampa-St. Pete in Florida.

The line between an above-freezing January and a below-freezing January goes from Poland to the eastern boundary of Belarus. The freezing-January-non-freezing  January now near St. Louis, Indianapolis, and New York City goes through Chicago, Lansing, Toronto, and roughly Portland, Maine. Ukraine and most of Europe south of Slovakia  goes from having mostly a fire-and-ice climate to having the same hot summers but much milder winters. (Greece, Albania, and the Adriatic coast remain Mediterranean). Does that sound good? There goes the maize crop. Even Helsinki becomes fairly mild in the winter.

Western France and perhaps parts of southern Britain start getting a Mediterranean climate as summer rains start to fail.

People are going to depend upon corn, wheat, and potato crops from Canada. European Russia, Finland, and northern Sweden as those places go from boreal forests to excellent cropland -- except that the soils are rocky and low in nutrients. There will be plenty of cotton from Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

The projection (which still does not make allowances for inundation of what are now prime croplands) would suggest to me that global warming is a dicey phenomenon, not so much for whether it will happen, but instead whether Humanity can adjust. Negative population growth, anyone?

But here's an even more ominous projection based upon higher levels of carbon dioxide:


Warm-temperate, at least seasonally-rainy climates disappear almost completely from the northern and southern tips of Africa, and tropical conditions replace the conditions of warm-temperate south of Brazil (the part of Brazil that really is prosperous). Summer droughts become the norm in northern and western France and southern Britain. Sure, the growing season lengthens, but a part of it becomes really dry. Successful farming in Mediterranean (mid-latitude places with winter rains but summer drought) relies heavily upon irrigation, something for which southern Britain and most of northern and western France is ill-prepared. Savagely-hot deserts appear in central Asia and Xinjiang Province (western China), and you can only imagine how bad the Arabian Peninsula gets. Semi-deserts expand in Spain and appear in the Balkans.

Any Texas-haters here? Texas dries out severely west of about Dallas and Victoria, with semi-desert short-grass prairie supplanting the fertile long-grass prairie zone of central Texas. Western Texas becomes outright desert -- brutal desert much like southern Arizona and southeastern California today. Central and western Oklahoma, southern New Mexico, and northern Mexico get a raw deal, too. Don't mess with Texas -- keep the carbon emissions down and Texas will fare a little better than otherwise.

Any good news? Maine and the Canadian Maritime Provinces get seriously mild.  

Boreal forests start to appear even as far north as Ellesmere Island, northwestern Greenland, and Spitsbergen, suggesting milder temperatures in the Arctic basin, even at 80N. (Antarctica still remains under the grip of ice because the Antarctic Convergence blocks any warm air masses from reaching Antarctica).  But don't be fooled; the Arctic Ocean would likely be an extremely stormy sea.

[Kinser79]

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-thousands-...ctica.html

Well apparently global WARMING means that there will be more ice in the polar regions some how. Never mind the physical properties of water.

It should be noted that sea ice does not form at 0C but at much colder temperatures as formed out of a saline solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice

[pbrower2a]

My 3000th post!

(10-13-2017, 09:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-thousands-...ctica.html

Well apparently global WARMING means that there will be more ice in the polar regions some how.  Never mind the physical properties of water.

It should be noted that sea ice does not form at 0C but at much colder temperatures as formed out of a saline solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice

Of course, Arctic ice has been shrinking since at least 1980, with both seasonal maxima and seasonal minima getting lower in volume every year:




(Graph from Wkipedia on Sea Ice).
[/url]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice#Yearly_freeze_and_melt_cycle]
Maxima in 1980 and 2017 were 33 thousand and 21 thousand square kilometers, and minima were 17 thousand and 5 thousand square kilometers (the latter the late summer of 2016). Note that recent maxima for winter ice are approaching old summer minima for ice.

Of course you may be referring to Antarctic ice, which is far larger and has protection from warm air masses by the Antarctic Convergence, a phenomenon that seems to have been in place for about 40 million years, that effectively keeps warm air masses from reaching Antarctica.  I concede that there is no cause to believe that the Antarctic Convergence that shields Antarctica from warm air masses that would melt huge amounts of ice will disappear.

Most people live in the northern hemisphere, the biggest exception to that pattern in Indonesia. People most likely to feel the effects of global warming are in the northern hemisphere. But let me make a crude regression line.  The ice minima have gone from 17 K km^2 in 1979 to 5 K km^2 in 2016... 12 K km^2 in 37 years gives roughly 1 K km^2 shrinking of Arctic sea ice in every three years -- there might be an ice-free Arctic Ocean (or practically so) in September 2031. Ice maxima are shrinking at a similar rate, so following the regression, the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free year-round in 2080. Sure, this is extrapolating a trend which is a risky proposition as a prediction, but I see no tendency to stop the progression of the trend.

In the Northern hemisphere, the fastest cooling in autumn is on the lands just south of the Arctic Ocean, typically in northern Russia (especially Siberia), Alaska, Canada, and northern Scandinavia and over extant bodies of ice (mostly Greenland and the ice on top of the Arctic Ocean. Open water does not cool as fast. The low albedo and heat capacity of water make reductions of temperature far slower than over ice and snow (almost 100% albedo) or dry land (low heat capacity).

If you have noticed some warm spells with slow-to-end summers (it is close to the middle of October and around here we have yet to have any frost), then this may reflect the slowness of Arctic air masses to flow into the middle latitudes.  October is almost another summer month in Michigan, not that it was such when I was a child.

Winters are getting shorter and milder, and they are not reaching as far south as they once did. This is enough to change climate bands. If you are familiar with the Koeppen classification, then such is enough to have moved Nome, Alaska from ET (tundra) to Dfc (cold winter, short summer boreal). Reykjavik has gone from borderline between Cfc (mild winter with a short cool summer) and ET (tundra) to unambiguously Cfc. The borderline between Cfa (subtropical rainy with mild winters but above-freezing winters) and Dfa (fire-and-ice climates with adequate rainfall all year) as in Iowa or greater Chicago) has moved from Philadelphia through New York City to Boston. Tropical climates (no real winters) that barely grazed the Florida Keys are now at places like Fort Myers and Fort Pierce.

The projections make sense if one looks at shrinking ice in the Arctic Ocean and a shrinking ice cap in Greenland. The Arctic Ocean will still be a chilly sea, but not so chilly that its sea breezes will fully thwart inland locations from warming under the intense sunlight of the Midnight Sun to above 10C for at least a month in the summer, a temperature threshold close to the Arctic, subantarctic, and montane tree lines. Shorter and less intense winters would push mild winters into places like Chicago, Detroit, and Toronto. People will be asking what such antiques as snow plows were used for. Frost-free conditions  will appear as far north as Orlando, Florida (I was tepted to say Tampa-St. Petersburg, bit those places will likely be inundated). 

If you live in Indianapolis, you will not have to go about 300 miles south to find the Cotton Belt. It will have reached you.

[Kinser79]

PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice. After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

[David Horn]

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

H-m-m-m.  Warmer temperatures can easily lead to more ice.  Start with glacial ice melting on a land mass like Greenland.  This melts into the sea, lowering the salinity.  If the sea water is adequately cold, ice can then form.

[Galen]

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

Yes, I am still trying to work out if he can handle Newtonian physics let alone conservation of energy.

I have discovered the more the supporters of a cause try to scare me the more likely that what they are pushing is false and not in my best interests.

[pbrower2a]

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

The ice sheet upon the Arctic Ocean can melt with little influence upon the sea level. It may be expansive, but it is also thin.  The Greenland ice cap is much deeper even if it looks less impressive on the map. But there is much water in the ice, and it is not in equilibrium with current conditions. In short, as it disappears it will disappear permanently.

The Antarctic ice cap is the vast majority of the world's ice -- and fresh water. The maps show that Antarctica can evade deglaciation as the Greenland Ice Cap shrinks and as the ice sheet atop the Arctic Ocean largely disappears. As it is, the bulk of the ice in Antarctica is in East Antarctica, that is the larger share of the continent that lies due south of Africa, the Indian Ocean, and Antarctica. Ice has been melting in West Antarctica (the comparatively small part of Antarctica south of the Americas) but East Antarctica has been getting even more precipitation. That precipitation is ice. The ice cap of East Antarctica seems to be getting thicker.

In any event, the Antarctic Convergence that separates cool mid-latitude waters from the colder waters of the Antarctic shows no sign of going away. Less ice in the Arctic will put more water vapor in the air, and some of that water vapor will still reach East Antarctica and precipitate as ice.

[pbrower2a]

(10-14-2017, 07:34 PM)Galen Wrote:

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

Yes, I am still trying to work out if he can handle Newtonian physics let alone conservation of energy.

I have discovered the more the supporters of a cause try to scare me the more likely that what they are pushing is false and not in my best interests.

Those insults do not merit discussion.

[Kinser79]

(10-14-2017, 09:15 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

H-m-m-m.  Warmer temperatures can easily lead to more ice.  Start with glacial ice melting on a land mass like Greenland.  This melts into the sea, lowering the salinity.  If the sea water is adequately cold, ice can then form.

Good to see that Mr. Horn doesn't understand that the ocean is not a stagnant body of water.

[Kinser79]

(10-14-2017, 07:34 PM)Galen Wrote:

(10-13-2017, 10:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, I know you claim to have autism but even you have to understand that warmer temperatures do not result in more ice.  After all, you're not Eric whose scientific understanding seems to be stuck in the seventeenth century.

Yes, I am still trying to work out if he can handle Newtonian physics let alone conservation of energy.

I have discovered the more the supporters of a cause try to scare me the more likely that what they are pushing is false and not in my best interests.

Well I know Eric has difficulty understanding Newtonian physics.  Among other things, but I don't think that is really a bone of contention here.  Bear in mind that PBR here claims to be of more or less normal intelligence, though he also claims to have a fictitious psychological condition.  While conveniently ignoring the recognized mental disorder he has--namely liberalism.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008...st_co.html

As to scare tactics and shilling I have also found this to be the case.