by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye the past 7(!) weeks.
The future of the carbon cycle in a changing climate [link]
Trends in weather ‘pleasantness’ [link]
Misconceptions of global catastrophe [link]
Over 15-30 years, internal variability dominates temperature trends. pure.mpg.de/rest/items/ite
How Atmospheric Rivers trigger Greenland Ice Sheet melt [link]
Do clouds warm or cool the Greenland Ice Sheet enhancing or reducing its mass loss? It all depends on the season and location. doi.org/10.1029/2020GL
Decadal sea level variability in Pacific tied to land H2O storage in key areas across globe nature.com/articles/s4159
Anthropogenic land cover change impact on climate extremes during the 21st century doi.org/10.1088/1748-9
Global land cover trends: “Overall, global area of forest increases significantly from 1982 to 2015… shrubland… shows a significant increasing trend … grassland, tundra, barren land & [permanent] snow/ice significantly decreases” earth-syst-sci-data.net/12/1217/2020/
External Forcing Explains Recent Decadal Variability of the Ocean Carbon Sink agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20
Forest carbon stocks appear to be resilient to temperature increases, at least up to moderate levels of warming. [link]
“Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6”. earth-syst-dynam.net/11/491/2020/es
Tim Palmer: Can short term tests validate long-term estimates of climate change? [link]
Are we seeing a new ocean starting to form in Africa? [link]
Quantifying the irreducible uncertainty in near‐term climate projections onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10
Scientists Discover That Coral Reefs Can Adapt To Warming Ocean Temps [link]
Tiny plankton drive processes in the ocean that capture twice as much carbon as scientists thought [link]
Koutsoyiannis: “Revisiting global hydrological cycle: Is it intensifying?” hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/hess-2020-120/
‘Raw data’ is an oxymoron [link]
Carbon-cycle feedbacks could already be making the prospect of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius — the target agreed to in the Paris climate accord in 2015 — all but impossible. [link]
Weighting climate models by their ability to reproduce recent temperature trends substantially reduces the upper bound of projected warming over the 21st century [link]
WMO Monsoons Climate Change Assessment. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.117
“Increasing heavy rainfall events in South India due to changing land use land cover” rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100
The effect of urban heat island on climate warming in China [link]
Temperature trends in Antarctica sciencedirect.com/science/articl
Paper on Geothermal Heat Flow in Antarctica – a summary of everything you wanted to know about GHF! scar.org/scar-news/serc
Resolution, tropical convection and their link to atmospheric waves are important sources of uncertainty in climate models: [link]
Is Climate Variability Organized? eos.org/editors-vox/is
Policy and technology
Who’s to blame for climate change? [link]
Michael Kelly: until we get a roadmap, net zero is a goal without a plan [link]
From Robert Pindyck: Luminously clear (and provocative) paper on what we know and don’t know about climate change. Lessons: There are irreversibilities from both action & inaction, and major uncertainties are everywhere. nber.org/papers/w27304
Systematic misuse of scenarios in climate research and assessment [link]
How people learn to become resilient [link]
Floridians would have been spared $480 million in property damage from Hurricane Irma if the state’s coastal wetlands hadn’t shrunk. [link]
“it is not possible for scientists to give frank advice if they feel that they will be made the scapegoats for difficult policy decisions” [link]
IPCC baseline scenarios overproject CO2 emissions and economic growth [link]
11 cognitive biases that influence political outcomes [link]
“Steel, Hydrogen And Renewables: Strange Bedfellows? Maybe Not…” forbes.com/sites/thebaker
The world is getting better at adapting to the damages caused by hurricanes. All except America, which isn’t adapting at all journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.108
New publication in the MAGIC project takes a critical look at the circular economy [link]
Chinese dams have altered the flow of the Mekong river, with grim consequences for farmers and fishermen downstream [link]
Turning manure into money: Farmers and utilities are burning methane for energy — and curtailing a powerful greenhouse gas washingtonpost.com/climate-soluti
An intriguing approach to boosting crops’ ability to adapt to increasingly unpredictable weather without #GMO technology [link]
Understanding and Managing Connected Extremes” explores extreme weather and climate change in the context of physical drivers & societal forces. [link]
Does this tiny island off the coast of Maine hold the answer to the future of electricity? ensia.com/features/isle-
About science and scientists.
War against climate science, waged by Washington’s rank and file [link] JC note: reverse happened under the Obama administration.
Einstein’s Lost Hypothesis – Is a third-act twist to nuclear energy at hand? [link]
Science without validation in a world without meaning [link]
Individuals with higher cognitive abilities tend to be more supportive of freedom of speech, even for groups they dislike [link]
The importance of red teams [link]
The rogue experimenters [link
People who confidently overestimated their level of intelligence felt better and were more sociable, while those who were more accurate were more conscientious – and more intelligent. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111
‘Raw data’ is an oxymoron [link]
An Orwellexicon for bias and dysfunction in academia [link]
The American press is destroying itself [link]
Is there still room for debate? [link]
They wrote:
Over 15-30 years, internal variability dominates temperature trends.
I write:
Over time since the beginning, internal variability dominated temperature trends.
This is a Water Planet and the properties of water and the abundance of water and how it responds to external forcing is what matters most!
War against climate science, waged by Washington’s rank and file [link] JC note: reverse happened under the Obama administration.
Alex Pope Note: What the Obama administration called climate science was not any kind of science.
I posted this before even reading the information linked to.
I will read and see if I was wrong.
JC note: reverse happened under the Obama administration.
The Obama administration never missed any chance to promote more alarmism. Nothing to do with science.
GWPF Report: ‘Reassessing radiation safety’.
The report explains why the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) hypothesis is false. It is an eye-opener on the lack of integrity of the involved scientists and government agencies and on what their ideological beliefs, dishonesty and misdemeanours have cost the world.
The report can be read and downloaded here: https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Calabrese-Paunio-2020.pdf
Contents
Foreword by Lord Lilley
About the authors
Precaution and Assumption and the Deceits of Corrupted Science
Introduction
Prelude
How the LNT assumption came to be
BEARS and BEIR
The LNT’s downfall
Conclusions
A final thought
Black Rain and the Fall of the LNT Hypothesis
Summary
The Life Span Study
The LNT and overregulation
The fall of the LSS
Conclusions
I followed the links and read a little. That is nothing about any kind of science. That is just about promoting alarmism.
We know that climate change is caused by human activity, but pinning down exactly who is responsible is trickier than it might seem.
What we know is that climate change has happened for billions of years and the humans on earth have not figured out how it even worked. There is no way that humans caused it. They cannot pin down exactly who is responsible because it did not and is not and will not happen.
The climate system works the way it always happened, humans did not take over.
Are we seeing a new ocean starting to form in Africa? [link]
A beautiful speculation. Be sure to read comments.
I notice that the new grid on Isle au Haut isn’t actually working yet and the power will cost 32c/ unit plus a connection charge. Be interesting to see what happens over the next year or so, and how often the diesel generator runs.
The first three articles under the Policy and technology section header dance around the accepted assumption that humans are controlling the climate and need to fix that so nature can heal. They mostly explore how difficult it is to know how bad we have made it and how much worse it might get.
How would these authors respond if they read Dr. Ed Berry’s
latest work? (https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/ ) He states that his work falsifies the three part core hypothesis of the IPCC used to support the assumption of human controlled climate.
A Natural carbon emissions remained constant after 1750.
B Natural carbon emissions support a CO2 level of 280 ppm.
C Human carbon emissions caused all the CO2 increase above 280PPM. Having studied it I doubt these authors could refute it in any way.
“Historians of the future will have a hard time figuring out how so many organized groups of strident jackasses succeeded in leading us around by the nose and morally intimidating the majority into silence.”
Thomas Sowell
Palmer and Kelly pieces both good value.
Re: The Yangtse Delta where 37% to 78% of the total rise in average T over several decades is attributed to UHI in 41 very large cities. This is consistent with my work from Australia as reported on WUWT a year or so ago, but it is a clearer effect in the Yangtse because of the city size and large UHI trends, like 0.58 deg C per decade for Shanghai, whose population approaches that of all Australia.
It is past time for a global assessment of the magnitude of global warming after correction for UHI that is more realistic than has been mostly done so far.
The Rocklov paper on global catstrophe relating to the human comfort of clmate in different residential locations is completely at odds with actual experiences of self and family. Rocklov asserts that people migrate to more friendly climes. We are now in residence number 12 in 56 years of marriage. We have lived in hot tropical Townsville to moderate Sydney to the cold winters of Melbourne, but every move was dictated solely by the needs of employment, with zero regard to what the weather was like. If such is the case for most people, then the hypothesis fails.
A big black mark for both the author and Nature rag for the quote that a part of the study is robust because it accounts for the projection of 35 climate model studies. This is a bit rich when no 2 climate models seem to agree with each other, (but that comment of mine is exaggerated.). Geoff S
for probably 99% of people who ever lived, “employment” was farming or hunting, and they moved as needed to better locations for their “employment”
it’s only in the last century and a bit that “employment” has meant anything else for any significant number of people
Orwellexicon for bias and dysfunction in academia. … hilarious and on point, especially since Psychology Today removed it. It doesn’t pertain only to academia though, which makes it more frightening and sad, than funny. The mentality has permeated popular culture. It’s ubiquitous.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.“
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.“
“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”
“The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.”
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.“
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”
“Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing.”
From a post mortem on the Eskimo Pie to cleaning up a statue of Gandhi to firing a professor for doing research on intelligence to the NYT staff having a mass tantrum about an Op Ed to being traumatized by someone holding the American flag, it has infected our thinking. Ol’ George knew his stuff.
Misconceptions of global catastrophe: On page 357 of this issue, Egan and Mullin1 report a study that might help to explain why. From an analysis of domestic human-migration patterns in the United States, the authors conclude that the net effects of climate change up to now are perceived by Americans to have been positive.
Did the writer not learn that there is no such entity as catastrophic global warming?
Put differently,
May we now assert that CAGW has been defined in Nature?
Scientists Discover That Coral Reefs Can Adapt To Warming Ocean Temps
Awesome: large populations of tiny rapidly reproducing organisms produce some progeny that survive in a changing environment. Where have we heard that before?
There is little doubt, at least among those who understand the science, that climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing humans in the coming decades. However, the extent to which unchecked climate change would prove catastrophic rests on processes that are poorly understood.
First he asserts lack of doubt “among those who understand the science”, then expresses the reasons for doubt “among those who understand” that there are important processes that are poorly understood.
But to repeat: However, the extent to which unchecked climate change would prove catastrophic rests on processes that are poorly understood.
That admission is a step forward. And it is another admission that CAGW is not an empty phrase used by climate nihilists.
There is always doubt.
No doubt about that.
Geoff S
The “who’s to blame” article is terrible. Spoiler alert- it’s capitalism and cars because coal is unimportant given that communists are currently the biggest coal burners in global history.
” She says there was a point in the late 1970s when oil companies in the US like Exxon appeared to be embracing renewables and increasingly viewing themselves energy companies, rather than just oil companies. But this mindset had changed completely by the early 1990s due to a series of oil crises and changing leadership, she says. “There was this real sort of shift in mindset from ‘If we have a seat at the table, we can help to shape the regulations,’ to ‘We need to stop any kind of regulation happening.’”’
Hmmm what else was happening in the 1970s? Well, two things- globally nations were switching from coal to nuclear power at a furious rate with promises of energy abundance that would be “too cheap to meter” and completely CO2 (and most other pollutants) free. And there were oil shocks caused by OPEC’s little reminder that it isn’t good to rely on one region for the world’s supply of energy.
If that transformation to nuclear had been allowed to take place, a significant percentage of the last 40 years’ worth of coal emissions in western nations would never have happened, electric cars (and their emissions savings) would be much further along, and we would be discussing whether renewables can replace nuclear.
“Who’s to blame” for global warming is quite obvious, which is why those responsible are so eager to point their fingers elsewhere.
The low from Texas, it generates tropical depression in the Gulf of Mexico.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atlpac-wide&product=ir
More waves of tropical moisture are flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. It will be because of the high in the area of Nino 1.2.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Tim Palmer: Can short term tests validate long-term estimates of climate change?
No. Short-term tests can not test accuracy of models of long-term effects of slowly changing CO2 concentrations (or other slowly changing variables.)
There may be a problem where we look for things that confirm our view about climate science. The video make a similar point in the first few minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGs4l6JxLQw
So the climate change debate is polarized. Any wonder?
Chance you’ll like the video is 60%.
Mentions Shut Down Stem. Something to watch out for.
“Temperature stations along the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula indicate “marked statistically significant cooling” has occurred since 1991, with the Larsen Ice Shelf cooling at a rate of -1.1°C per decade.”
A huge ‘heat sink’ of no heat…!
“Bonanno said. In research at Columbia, the neuroscientist Kevin Ochsner has shown that teaching people to think of stimuli in different ways—to reframe them in positive terms when the initial response is negative, or in a less emotional way when the initial response is emotionally “hot”—changes how they experience and react to the stimulus. You can train people to better regulate their emotions, and the training seems to have lasting effects.”
That’s resilience. A good deal. We see the reframing. They want to infantilize us. Maybe not, but it seems that way.
It’s that you go to someone for help, and they want to sell you something. And make sure you need help from them for the next 20 years.
“it is not possible for scientists to give frank advice if they feel that they will be made the scapegoats for difficult policy decisions”
That is the usual justification for “executive privilege”. When did scientists become uniquely immune to being held responsible for their mistakes?
As new evidence emerges, [scientists] must be frank about admitting the inevitable mistakes, and be willing to learn from them. They must try to avoid the groupthink that is common to all enterprises and make sure that internal debate is robust. And they must be open about their evidence and conclusions, so that they can be scrutinised.
To suggest one should be listened to goes hand in hand with being responsible. Some of us give advice while taking responsibility for decisions that result from that.
My letter in today’s Australian newspaper: The main impact of emissions reductions by Western democracies will be a shift in wealth and power to China, India and other countries which continue to increase emissions and have relatively rapid economic growth (“Labor bid to end carbon wars,” 24/6). Australia’s reduction policies will foster this while damaging our economy, with no impact whatsoever on whether or not the world’s climate warms. The only sensible agreement between the Coalition and the ALP would be to abandon all emissions-reduction programmes and to foster economic growth.
Again, the impact is felt by labor. The changes are not felt by the well off as much as by others.
In the physical world, mathematics is not the absolute truth. Observations and experiments are.
My cup runneth over. Thank you again for these (many and time-consuming) readings!
https://medium.com/analyticaper/covid-19-what-the-data-tells-us-3a08e42ee36f
“Per Nate Silver, a world renowned Statistician, the average person might as well ignore the cases being reported, it’s apples and oranges.”
“Fatality: According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.3%, which is about ten times lower than originally assumed by the WHO. As of 5/20/2020 the CDC is now estimating ~0.26% in the U.S.”
“Fatality in Context (i.e. Risk): The risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account. i.e. we’re capturing most of the deaths but only 5–10% of the infections. Risk varies by age significantly. For kids (particularly toddlers), they are ~20X’s more likely to die from the Flu or Pneumonia than Covid. For those over age 70, the risk of fatality is ~2.5% — this is much higher for those in poor health.”
Interesting. Everything is Okay. You are Okay. You will be fine.
Yep this ain’t no flu and yet many (most?) of those who get really sick but don’t die have long term complications that can significantly shorten their lives. I don’t care how young and healthy you are you just don’t want to catch this.
https://youtu.be/HM2xKdfTehE
Another view of COVID-19 long term side effects. The data is not conclusive but expands on the wide range of various types of organ damage.
https://youtu.be/3Yg-5qnBrIM
Life is dangerous. Can’t change that. But what is the plan here? Isolation looks like a losing game. You have to keep others away, or keep yourself away. That’s Trump. That’s walls. That’s controlling the border. Various Democrat Governors are now mini-Trumps. But eventually, you’re exposed.
“The risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work.”
A sense of proportion. A magnitude. 2 magnitudes. Not reacting to every threat, large and small to the point of self destruction. C’mon Man.
Ragnaar: Interesting. Everything is Okay. You are Okay. You will be fine.
That is not what he said. More nearly, except for sick and elderly, the risk is approximately equal to the risk of measles before the vaccine was invented.
You are correct. I said those things. I don’t know if any particular person will be Okay. But I think we should act as if we will. The alternative is bad. There is a way of looking at life and death that has exerted itself in the past 3 or 4 months.
“Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6”.
Uncertainty in model projections is considerable. Probably easier to accept this result than Pat Frank’s uncertainty propagation, but message is similar: because of uncertainty in parameter estimates, model projections are uncertain. This paper tests parameters in groups.
Why do you think that climate model variability says anything at all about the physical uncertainty of their projections, Matthew?
Pat Frank: Why do you think that climate model variability says anything at all about the physical uncertainty of their projections, Matthew?
What do you mean by “physical uncertainty”?
My claim was that their result would be easier to accept than yours, not that it was different. Variability in climate projections that follows random sampling of parameter values produces results concordant with uncertainty of model projections that follows error propagation. Uncertainty in model forecasts that follows uncertainty in parameter values does not “say” anything about “physical” uncertainty.
Some of the commenters on your paper didn’t understand the difference between propagating a particular error and propagating uncertainty. The cited paper illustrates propagating many hypothetical errors drawn from a distribution to generate the distribution of compatible projections. If the uncertainty in the parameter estimate results from the sampling of measurement errors in the measurement process, then the approaches ought to agree. if the uncertainty in the parameter estimate is a purely subjective opinion (represented in the Bayesian manner by a probability distribution across believable values or belief states), then the two approaches are not necessarily concordant.
“What do you mean by “physical uncertainty”?”
A calibration error statistic. A limit of instrumental or model resolution. A measurement of systematic error.
Those all represent physical uncertainty in a measurement or a result — an extended range somewhere within which the physically correct value lays. And not at all necessarily at the uncertainty mean.
Varying parameters yields physical uncertainty if and only if the model is physically complete.
Otherwise, varying parameters within a model of unknown physical fidelity does not yield physical uncertainty. It yields only a measure of model precision. The physically correct value may lay arbitrarily far from the range of model parameter variability.
You wrote, “ If the uncertainty in the parameter estimate results from the sampling of measurement errors in the measurement process, then the approaches ought to agree.”
Not if the calculation is iterative.
Pat Frank: Otherwise, varying parameters within a model of unknown physical fidelity does not yield physical uncertainty.
Both approaches show that if you represent the uncertainty of a parameter estimate by a distribution of a random variable, then the uncertainty of the model projection is great — so great that the model projection has little information. The authors’ approach and your approach produce concordant results, yours by a mathematical calculation, theirs by Monte Carlo. My opinion was/is that the Monte Carlo method is easier for most people to accept.
Which reminds me: I hope that your paper has been published. It had an important result.
I understand your point, Matthew. However, propagation of calibration error through an iterative calculation is not concordant with the distribution of a random variable, nor with a Monte Carlo calculation of model variability about a mean.
But I really don’t want to argue the difference any more. It’s very old ground.
Thanks for asking. Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections is open access and has been published, here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full.
The reviewers were two very strong climate system physicists.
A violent attack was launched against the paper almost immediately at PubPeer. But none of the critics showed any understanding of error propagation, or of the difference between a statistical model and a physical model. Same old thing, really. Climate modelers don’t seem to have any training in any of that.
Here’s the abstract: The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an annual average ±4 Wm^–2 uncertainty into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm^–2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm^–2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.
PatFrank01, congratulations! It’s good, solid work.
Thank-you, Matthew. Your critical approval means a lot to me. Really and truly.
Scientists Discover That Coral Reefs Can Adapt To Warming Ocean Temps
Corals evolved in the Cambrian, 600 or so million years ago. Since then they have survived and thrived through many climates including the near global Saharan-Andean end-Ordovician glaciation and the Triassic hothouse 15 degrees hotter than now. That’s real climate change.
So let’s get this straight. Corals adaptation to current minuscule barely detectable warming is … what, something new??
Is this “new” the new new?
“Corals evolved in the Cambrian, 600 or so million years ago. Since then they have survived and thrived through many climates including the near global Saharan-Andean end-Ordovician glaciation and the Triassic hothouse 15 degrees hotter than now. That’s real climate change.”
I agree, but a few corrections to details:
Cambrian period: 542-485 Ma ago
Corals survived through colder and much hotter times than now. The coldest times in the Carboniferous-Permian ice age were colder than the coldest periods during the Pleistocene and Holocene ice age.
GMST reached 36.3 °C (21.1 °C higher than now) and average tropical temperature reached 43 °C (17 °C higher than now) during the Triassic hothouse.
Source: Scotese 2016, chart page 3: in download here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years/related
Conclusion: ecosystems are not threatened by global warming. We are in and ice age and the glacial – interglacial cycles will continue for millions of years. Global warming is beneficial, not harmful for ecosystems globally.
Exactly.
Thanks for correcting my mistake of placing the Cambrian in the Cryogenian.
Several million bats are killed every year in the USA alone by wind turbines. A high price for our virtue signalling from the hilltops.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/06/25/green-carnage-study-in-2019-us-wind-turbines-killed-3-7-million-bats-and-this-is-a-gross-underestimate/
“Raw data is an oxymoron”.
Try explaining that to the GLP (good laboratory practice) auditor of a pharmaceutical clinical trial of a drug. The foundation of protection from faked clinical data is the GLP-QA quality auditing system. And the core of this is proving that the important observations are not adjusted or otherwise meddled with.
In GLP (which is still law in the USA and UK) requires raw data to be 100% traceable and 0% adjusted. For climate data those two percentages are switched around. Quality auditing and good laboratory practice are clearly going rapidly out of political fashion. Climate scientists can rotate temperature series with impunity to give journalists jump-scare graphics.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/06/23/systemic-data-tampering-nasa-giss-alters-us-southeast-data-changes-cooling-to-warming/
And taking their lead from them, Surgispheres can totally make up a whole clinical study on covid19 to fictitiously discredit the drug HCQ that Trump promoted. And remain the darlings of academia and media.
What NASA are doing to raw climate data is the same thing the Lannisters did to Robert Baratheon’s bastard children in Kings Landing (in Game of Thrones) – hunting them to extinction.
Is Climate Variability Organized?
“Furthermore, the likelihood of an event to happen is also found to decrease the more intense the event is. This is similar to the Richter law for earthquakes, which says that small earthquakes happen very often while very big earthquakes occur rarely.”
The likelihood of extreme events is determined by solar variability, they are drivers and not products of climate variability.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/
‘External Forcing Explains Recent Decadal Variability of the Ocean Carbon Sink’
Solar variability explains the AMO, it is warmer when the solar wind is weaker, and a warmer North Atlantic greatly reduces CO2 uptake. Which should be why the Beck chemical CO2 measurements show higher CO2 levels during each warm AMO phase. This response is ideal for increasing plant life drought resistance during the warm ocean phase periods.
Quantifying the role of internal variability in the temperature we expect to observe in the coming decades:
“Due to the difficulty in communicating what internal variability is and its importance in driving the climate that we observe, we have created maps to visualise both the maximum and minimum global and point-wise future trends that could occur on both the short and mid-term time-scales.”
The AMO is not internal variability, it functions as a negative feedback to indirect solar variability, and is amplified by changes in cloud cover and water vapour.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons/
This important new Richard Lindzen paper:
https://notrickszone.com/2020/06/15/mits-dr-lindzen-pokes-fun-at-the-naive-well-funded-scientific-reasoning-that-1-factor-co2-controls-climate/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00471-z
is also worth a mention (unless I missed it above).
Pingback: Etelämantereen geotermisestä vuosta | Roskasaitti
I don’t see anything beside my one mention of Shutdown STEM. What do we think of that?
Something to do with Critical Theory.
Bret Weinstein appeared on Rogan’s podcast and discussed this. 5 million views.
“Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) stemming from human activities are rapidly and dramatically altering Earth’s climate”
When the declared uncertainties in carbon cycle flows are ignored, this mass balance can be carried out and we can derive the effect of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric composition. When the uncertainties are not ignored, we can’t. Please see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/18/12479/
chaamjamal, thank you for the link.
A more complete analysis of fossil fuel emissions
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/18/12479/
Guckenheimer, Timmermann, Dijkstra, Roberts on “(Un)predictability of strong El Nino Events”:
https://www.academia.edu/36135215/Un_predictability_of_strong_El_Ni%C3%B1o_events?email_work_card=view-paper
“In this engaging and well-researched treatise, Michael Shellenberger exposes the environmental movement’s hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms while steadfastly working against nuclear power, the one green energy source whose implementation could feasibly avoid the worst climate risks. Disinformation from the Left has replaced deception from the Right as the greatest obstacle to mitigating climate change.”
— Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
http://environmentalprogress.org/praise-for-apocalypse-never
We have the good and the bad. Emanuel calls out the Left and appears to favor nuclear power. To the extent the Right deceives, we should call that out. Trace gas and not us for the CO2 increase. Please. Stop trying to help.
So, we seem to have the Left fighting itself again. Assume we have to agree 100% with Emanuel on everything. I am going to guess he has the ECS at 3.5 C or above. Yet assume he’s pro-nuclear. It’s policy that impacts us and our country. Which is more important to you? His ECS number or his support of nuclear power?
About the Chinese dams on the Mekong River. UNDP ties reduced river flow and higher salinity to climate change saying the answer is climate action.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2010/07/18/vietnam-faces-a-huge-challenge-from-climate-change/
More about the UNDP
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/03/06/sdg/
Peer review is not working:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLb5hZLw44s
1:30:00
From the Left.
Does Our Vision of Diversity Include Social Conservatives?
“If our largely liberal community decides not to rub shoulders with conservatives, we will be poorly prepared to translate our science to the public, lobby legislators to increase research funding, and effectively inform the creation and application of policy.”
Yep.
Trump.
No money for what you want.
Try a better argument than, ‘Trump.’
Make things better.
On the other hand, we have to do better than hating liberals. Goes both ways.
On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the climate scare
Climate change is real but it’s not the end of the world
It’s not even our most important environmental problem
I am delivering my apology in the form of a book
I hope you accept it
Michael Shellenberger
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1277380835532877824
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Air pollution and carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for 50 years
Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/06/28/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/#58029d781fa8
A Winning Trifecta for Climate Science and Rationality
First there was Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans, then came Bjorn Lomborg’s False Alarm, and now Michael Schellenberger’s Apocalypse Never. All three authors sound the common theme that the hyper-green environmental activists who have captured, politicized, and monetized the concern for the environment have, as Lomborg explains, created a false climate alarm which has “costs us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet.” To varying degrees, all three authors come from a strong environmental activist background, which observation makes their public revelations even more noteworthy.
Snip
He reflects upon his early devotion to environmentalism as a manifestation of an “underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.” It became a quasi-religion offering “emotional relief” and “spiritual satisfaction” for those, like him, who may have lost the guidance of traditional spiritual faiths.
Schellenberg concludes with the observation that “the trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/06/a_winning_trifecta_for_climate_science_and_rationality_.html
Schellenberg concludes with the observation that “the trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating.”
——————————–
We’re doing good. We can concede his bias on the science. Assume he thinks the ECS is 3.0 C. We can live with that if we win on policy.
I frequently am wrong. We can let them try to drive the policy truck off of a cliff. Like Germany. They will up the policy stakes again. They are splitting and have been splitting. We need to help their defectors. Which means accepting people like Schellenberg.
Schellenberg’s new religion is technology. I’m also a member of the church of the technium (See Kevin Kelly’s book “What Technology Wants”).
Sometimes it’s hard to tell if science drives technology or is it the other way around?
New Report: Tech Could Fuel an Age of Freedom—or Make Civilization Collapse
https://singularityhub.com/2020/06/29/new-report-tech-could-fuel-an-age-of-freedom-or-make-civilization-collapse/
“At the core of their argument is the fact that since the first large human settlements appeared 10,000 years ago, civilization has been built on the back of our ability to extract resources from nature, be they food, energy, or materials. This led to a competitive landscape where the governing logic is grow or die, which has driven all civilizations to date.
That could be about to change thanks to emerging technologies that will fundamentally disrupt the five foundational sectors underpinning society: information, energy, food, transportation, and materials. They predict that across all five, costs will fall by 10 times or more, while production processes will become 10 times more efficient and will use 90 percent fewer natural resources with 10 to 100 times less waste.”
Famous for being chased off of Evergreen campus by students with baseball bats, Weinstein’s best work:
The reserve-capacity hypothesis: evolutionary origins and modern implications of the trade-off between tumor-suppression and tissue-repair
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0531556502000128
He has a lot to say about science and today’s students. Rogan is helping him say it. Which is where our host may wish to spend some time. With Rogan.
I haven’t watched all Joe’s stuff to know if he’s clued in more. However in this clip with Candace Owens, Joe leans heavily on the “Consensus/Appeal to Authority” ; the bogus 97% argument that we all know so well.
Candace’s instincts are good but she hasn’t marshalled evidence for this argument.
This clip has been referenced quite often by alarmists
The 97% argument is better addressed in his three hour format. To change Rogan’s position to moderate would be an accomplishment with weight. There’s Lomborg as well.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation: Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The planet’s surface the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
When solar irradiated, planet’s surface always has a certain the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
It happens so because those are different mechanism energy transfer processes.
The incoming solar energy is one a pure radiative energy.
When solar irradiation interacting with the planet’s surface there are two different physics phenomena take place.
The by the surface instant IR emission and by the surface heat accumulation (conduction).
And it is observed that when the surface’s temperature is higher, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
Consequently when rotating slower and having a lower cp the planet’s surface gets hotter and the planet’s surface emits more and accumulates less.
And the opposite, It is observed that when the surface’s temperature is lower, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
Consequently when rotating faster and having a higher cp the planet’s surface warms less and the planet’s surface emits less and accumulates more.
Why? How can it be explained?
It can be explained by the difference in energy transfer by radiation vs energy transfer by conduction.
The energy transfer by radiation is in fourth power of the surface’s absolute temperature.
The energy transfer by conduction is linear of the surfaces absolute temperature.
Example:
Let’s have a planet’s surface T = 100 K
Jemission = σT⁴ = σ*100.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*100
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*100.000.000 /c*100 = 1.000.000*σ /c
Let’s have a planet’s surface T = 200 K
Jemission = σT⁴ = σ*1.600.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*200
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*1.600.000.000 /c*200 = 8.000.000*σ /c
Thus in this simple example we have illustrated that when a planet’s surface gets warmed at higher temperatures, everything equals, the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
The planet’s surface accumulates less.
And when a planet’s surface gets warmed at lower temperatures, everything equals the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
The planet’s surface accumulates more.
That is why sea accumulates much more heat than land.
That is why, when we have Earth and Moon having the same solar flux of So = 1361 W/m2 Moon rotating slower and having a lower cp, at daytime is getting hotter and having a higher the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Moon’s surface accumulates less.
Earth rotating faster and having a higher cp, at daytime getting less warm and having a lower the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Earth’s surface accumulates more.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Renowned physicist Lawrence Krauss talks to Jonathan Kay about his Quillette essay Racism Is Real. But Science Isn’t the Problem and explains why he expressed skepticism about the sincerity of the #strike4blacklives campaign supported by so many science organisations.”
https://quillette.com/2020/07/04/podcast-98-physicist-lawrence-krauss-on-why-identity-politics-should-be-kept-out-of-science/
This is the time to be scientist. Don’t cower under your desk. You worked so hard it this, and then you’ll give it all away to bunch of whatever. You didn’t grow up learning to throw other people under the bus to save yourself.
Making Sense with Sam Harris #207 – Can We Pull Back From The Brink?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmgxtcbc4iU
Not sure this applies. Lockdowns cause what?
While the Republicans cower, Sam Harris does their job. You should draft him.
The planet’s faster rotation benefits in favor of surface accumulation process
From my previous note:
the energy Emission /Accumulation ratio:
“Earth rotating faster and having a higher cp, at daytime getting less warm and having a lower the energy Emission /Accumulation ratio. So Earth’s surface accumulates more”.
The planet’s faster rotation benefits in favor of surface accumulation process.
During the long 29,5*24hours /2 = 354 hours of insolation lunar day the Moon’s surface gets the same exactly amount solar energy as Earth’s surface (which differs only due to the different albedo) gets during these 29,5*24hours /2 = 354 hours of insolation…
The major difference for Earth is that Earth’s surface “passes” 29,5 times under the sun and has 29,5 intervalls of non insolating the surface nights.
Earth’s surface is given 29,5 times more time to accumulate energy…
The energy emission and accumulation procesess are time dependent actions.
The longer is the accumulation process – the bigger is the amount of accumulated energy.
Yes, but Earth’s and Moon’s surfaces are solar irradiated the same exactly hours…
Naturally, but the Emission /Accumulation ratio is smaller for Earth, so Earth in a unit of time is capable to accumulate more…
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is not any measurable greenhouse effect on the Earth’s surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.”
Letter on Justice and Open Debate
97%. Denier. I believe in Science.
What a failed approach you Einsteins. I noticed a similarity of that to our current issues. Everyone keeps their head down and cowers. An approach based on fear. Good job.
Very interesting!
Mars and Moon satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparison:
210 K and 220 K
Let’s see what we have here:
Planet or Tsat.mean
moon measured
Mercury 340 K
Earth 288 K
Moon 220 Κ
Mars 210 K
Let’s compare then:
Moon:
Tsat.moon = 220K
Moon’s albedo is amoon = 0,11
What is left to absorb is (1 – amoon) = (1- 0,11) = 0,89
Mars:
Tsat.mars = 210 K
Mars’ albedo is amars = 0,25
What is left to absorb is (1 – amars) = (1 – 0,25) = 0,75
Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison:
Tsat.mars /Tsat.moon = 210 K /220 K = 0,9545
Mars /Moon what is left to absorb (which relates in ¼ powers) comparison, or in other words the Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorption ability:
( 0,75 /0,89 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,8427 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9581
Conclusions:
1. Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison
Tsat.mars /Tsat.moon = 210 K /220 K = 0,9545
( 0,9545 ) is almost identical with the
Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorption ability
( 0,75 /0,89 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,8427 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9581
( 0,9581 )
2. If Mars and Moon had the same exactly albedo, their satellites measured mean surface temperatures would have been exactly the same.
And this is very interesting !
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
3. Mars and Moon have two major differences which equate each other:
The first major difference is the distance from the sun both Mars and Moon have.
Moon is at R = 1 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is So = 1.362 W/m² ( it is called the Solar constant).
Mars is at 1,524 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is S = So*(1/R²) = So*(1/1,524²) = So*1/2,32 .
(1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth and Moon have.
Consequently the solar flux on the Mar’s top is 2,32 times weaker than that on the Moon.
The second major difference is the sidereal rotation period both Mars and Moon have.
Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days.
Mars performs 1 rotation every ( 24,622hours / 24hours/day ) = 1,026 day.
Consequently Mars rotates 29,531 /1,026 = 28,783 times faster than Moon does.
So Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
And… for the same albedo, Mars and Moon have the same satellite measured mean temperatures.
Let’s take out the calculator now and make simple calculations:
The rotation difference’s fourth root is
(28,783)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,3162
And the irradiating /rotating comparison
2,32 /(28,783)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,32 /2,3162 = 1,001625
It is only 0,1625% difference
When rounded the difference is 0,16 %
It is obvious now, the Mars’ 28,783 times faster rotation equates the Moon’s 2,32 times higher solar irradiation.
That is why the 28,783 times faster rotating Mars has almost the same satellite measured mean surface temperature as the 2,32 times stronger solar irradiated Moon.
Thus we are coming here again to the same conclusion:
The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Higher is the Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature.
And It is the confirmation that the planet’s axial spin (rotations per day) “N” should be considered in the fourth root in the ( Tmean ) planet’s mean surface temperature equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Professor Eric Kaufmann on America’s Maoist Moment
https://quillette.com/2020/06/28/podcast-97-professor-eric-kaufmann-on-americas-maoist-moment/
Here’s what I took from it. Another replay of the oppressor and oppressed game where it’s only that dimension. Everything is viewed that way.
CO2 and what it does. GHGs and what they do. Oil companies and what they do. The rich countries and what they do. The rich and what they do. Whites and what they do.
The control knob is one dimension. As is the global average surface temperature. As it the world wide sea level.
The idea is the package it simply so it sells. And who it sells to is the revolutionaries. I believe in science is one dimension. And it’s a binary split or sold that way. And as some of found, there’s push to make it binary. That goes against someone like Lomborg who goes against the binary split and the one dimension. But they get portrayed in the binary framework as the message doesn’t know what to do with them. They garble the message. And we will see if the message can adapt to such people, steamroll them, or fail.
So some take the right position. Re-enforcing the binary portrayal. Is that playing into the left’s strengths? The left should starve the moderate, rather than admit they exist. Or the left should adopt their message.
Seems to me that happened from a certain person holed up in bunker.
2. Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.moon
Satellite measured:
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin………..100.K…220.K…390.K
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Moon’s albedo: amoon = 0,11
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day
Moon is a rocky planet, Moon’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φmoon = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r²*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC, moon’s surface is considered as a dry soil
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.moon:
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.362 W/m² [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 2.490.304.405,86 )¹∕ ⁴ = 223,39 K
Tmean.moon = 223,39 Κ
The calculated Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature differs only by 1,54% from that measured by satellites!
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Oh no, Again a polar bear extinction climate model made it to the peer review…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0818-9
And an apt analysis by Susan Crockford:
https://polarbearscience.com/2020/07/20/new-model-of-predicted-polar-bear-extinction-is-not-scientifically-plausible/
Need a new science thread.
Thinking out aloud I am pondering a paradox.
Glaciers presumably move faster when there is a lot of size, I.e. height and weight behind them.
The smaller they get the slower they should flow..
Part of the confusion in my thinking relates to the front of the glaciers when they are in retreat.
How can something run faster, seemingly advancing, and yet retreat seemingly slowing at the same time?
–
Will organise my thoughts a bit more and write again but does anyone else see a paradox in faster glacier movement being a sign of warming rather than freezing.
The terminus position of a glacier is in it self a good indication of air temperature e.g. in the alps, speed is a complex function of mass balance. The terminus position of a sea glacier will be dominated by sea water temperature fluctuations.
Low Arctic ice lowish Antarctic ice. Hopeful La NIna on watch but SOI dropping. NCEP negative for only second time, only 1 day and minuscule at -0.014C.
A colder July, perhaps?
Is this taking the sting out of the recent hurricanes, Judith?
Victoria Australia in for a week of cold
Will the world catch it?
This could have been the warmest year on record; February pundits.
Now Hansen says only 2nd warmest.
Where is JCH To provide the correct view?
Hi Angech,
Still no new “Week in Review”?
The latest PIOMAS data is out. Not far off “lowest for the date”, and Arctic sea ice extent is still “lowest in the satellite records”:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2020/#Aug-06
And the Northwest Passage is about to open even as we speak:
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NWP-Aqua-721-2020-06-05-1536×1084.jpg
“the Northwest Passage is about to open even as we speak:”
Looks imminent, as you say not getting much traction.
“The latest PIOMAS data is out. Not far off “lowest for the date”,
4th lowest?
About to have a massive spring back in the next 6 months. May take a few months for the current cooling to really kick in.
Good to see you out and about. In lock-down in Victoria. Freezing cold at 10c max today but I guess that is summer to NH types.
Tasmania had a record low of -14.2 C two days ago.
Previous about 13.1 C.
BOM blaming a failure of their monitoring mechanisms to prevent recording of temperatures dropping below 12 C is the cause [sarc].
If you’re predicting a “a massive spring back in the next 6 months” then it sounds as though you’re also predicting a new “lowest in the satellite era” minimum extent in a few weeks!
The Northwest Passage is still not quite “open”:
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CIS-Conc-Maud-202008071800-1123×1536.jpg
“If you’re predicting a “a massive spring back in the next 6 months” then it sounds as though you’re also predicting a new “lowest in the satellite era” minimum extent in a few weeks!”
–
No.
Three factors would be against that.
The drop in global temperatures over the last 3 months will mean slightly colder currents reaching the Arctic now which should result in a much slower rate of ice loss over the next 6 weeks.
PIOMAS is not at it’s lowest.
The ice loss this year is very even which means there are no large intrusions into the central mass making it much harder to break down.
All’ conducive to a very big rebound from whatever minimum it gets down to.
PIOMAS was close to its lowest for the date at the end of July, and it is only a model after all!
Regarding “large intrusions into the central mass”, have you looked between Greenland and the North Pole recently? If not see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2020/#Aug-09
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Wandel-Terra-721-2020-06-08.jpg
Yes, happened last year as well.
Did you notice the massive extra ice in the Aleutians island chain 8 years ago?
I thought so.
The presence or absence of ice in any one area of the Arctic in any one year or years is extremely variable.
As you well know.
To highlight a specific area of loss as an excuse for the lack of Wadham’s loss is understandable.
To do it for different areas each year hints of desperation.
You are on a winning wicket at the moment.
I am glad that you are using innuendo and not dipping into the sophistry that some others at this site have persistently* used.
No angech, it didn’t happen last year:
https://go.nasa.gov/3anmDbH
You said “there are no large intrusions into the central mass”. I showed you one in the making. Between northern Greenland and the North Pole!
You also said “To highlight a specific area of loss as an excuse for the lack of Wadham’s loss is understandable.”
What on Earth has Prof. Wadhams got to do with it? I highlighted this particular “specific area of loss” because it is extremely unusual. Click my link above then find me another year when there were gaping holes in the sea ice cover in the same area at the same time of year.
TIA
If you look at Antarctica you will see a massive polynya, the Cape Darnley Polynya, East Antarctica.
It will close shortly causing a boost to the Antarctic sea ice extent.
The Polyana adjacent to Greenland has to have a cause or causes.
The currents, undersea volcanos, a warming world, Neptune swimming with his nymphs.
It will naturally recur or disappear in time
See my comment above. Look much further north than the polynya to which you refer.
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2020/#Aug-10
What do you suppose is the cause of the “gaping holes in the sea ice cover” to which I refer? Here’s a close up for you:
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CAB-Aqua-721-2020-08-08.png
Note the latitude.
Perhaps a a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event?
“Although Arctic sea ice cover experiences large seasonal variability, the area off the northern coast of Greenland tends to be more stable, due to thicker and often older (multi-year) ice. This is especially true during the winter months. However, in 2018, a region of open water (a ‘polynya’) formed within the ice pack. This is the first year since the start of satellite observations that such a phenomenon has occurred during winter.
In this region, known as the Wandel Sea, polynyas are sometimes seen during summer. In August and September 2018, for example, there was a “broad and widely unexpected” opening of the sea ice. However, such events had never previously been recorded during the winter months.”
As I suggested, “Look much further north than the polynya to which you refer”. Around 88N perchance? FYI re the summer 2018 event:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2018/08/could-northabout-circumnavigate-greenland-in-2018/
Where did you get that quotation from? I ask in part because I recorded this image for posterity in March 2013:
http://econnexus.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013-03-20_MorrisJesup.png
Jim, Your article was the time I saw the opening up above Greenland , not 2019 though I think it did a little that year as well.
” Could Northabout Circumnavigate Greenland in 2018? August 20, 2018″
–
“Sea ice opening north of Greenland | Copernicus
climate.copernicus.eu › sea-ice-opening-north-greenland”
Full bit in quotes Should take you to the article
Found it thanks:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-opening-north-greenland
Perhaps they classified the 2013 event as a “giant but short lived flaw lead” instead of a “polynya”? However it was undoubtedly “an area of open water”!
Alternatively perhaps they don’t have such long memories as “Snow White”?
Don’t always agree with your take on things but do enjoy your enthusiasm and presentations.
Life would be boring otherwise.
Hope we have either a massive freeze or a massive cyclone to shake the figures up a bit more.
Sophistry Major
“the cover would piss off one side and the last chapter would piss off the other side.
we quite literally discussed this, basically how to throw some red meat to the skeptics and
keep them reading until the last chapter.”
Sophistry? Quoi?
Sophistry? Quoi?
A little throw away line at ATTP by a Tom Fuller sidekick.
Wish I could do a smiley emoji.
Hello again angech,
Still no new “Week in review” yet? You’ll no doubt be overjoyed to discover that the mid month PIOMAS Arctic sea ice gridded thickness data has just been published:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2020/#Aug-19
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PIOMAS-thick-aug15-2020.jpg
Modelled volume is currently 3rd lowest by a long fat whisker. Meanwhile JAXA extent is currently still dropping like the proverbial stone:
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/JAXA-2020-08-18.png
The denizens over at WUWT kept on urging all and sundry to “take the bet!”, but suddenly went very quiet when it came to taking the other side of my wager that at the minimum “NSIDC Charctic 2020 Arctic sea ice minimum extent [will be] below 4.115 million km²”!
Jim, there’s no evidence any of that is due to human CO2 emissions. Absent that, where’s the cosmic significance of Arctic ice retreat? It’s just evidence of the natural warming that has followed the end of the LIA. Interesting, is all.
Hi Pat,
We can agree that the Arctic is “interesting” at least! In the Chinese sense?!
I’ll raise you the North Pole:
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1296189982034534404