Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

You read the scientific research carefully and analyze the uncertainties and inaccuracies. Once you realize that the only rational conclusion is NOT alarmism and mitigation but cost-effective adaptation as required.

When CO2 rises and temperatures do not then you rethink all the fuss about carbon footprints etc.

[mike777]

So, you prefer mob rule over a representative form of government?

 

1) I don't equate capitalism and markets with mob rule..I see you do...ok

2) I don't define representative form of government with having economic and political power in the exact same few hands...if you do ...ok. You do thus the discussion.

[PassedOut]

So, you prefer mob rule over a representative form of government?

In the future, as the effects of climate change continue to worsen, the very people who oppose government action now will blame the government for not doing enough to stop the carbon polluters. That's always the way it goes...

[mike777]

In the future, as the effects of climate change continue to worsen, the very people who oppose government action now will blame the government for not doing enough to stop the carbon polluters. That's always the way it goes...

 

 

Yes that is a comment we often hear. The actions/methods of those who prefer a more limited Washington DC are in fact resulting in just the opposite, more and more economic power flowing into the hands of political power in DC.

[Al_U_Card]

Much like the Montreal protocol concerning CFCs and the ozone hole ( natural cycle so no need to spend trillions on UN bureaucracy and refrigerant changeovers...)

Those fearsome climate changes caused by our energy use have so far resulted in? Greening of the biosphere. Energy availability to the 3rd world.

All for a supposed .7C rise and steady sea level rise.

[y66]

There would be far less push back if the coal industry was destroyed via the decisions of tens of millions of consumers in the marketplace.

No doubt. In Bizarro World they call this the tragedy of the commons.

[Winstonm]

1) I don't equate capitalism and markets with mob rule..I see you do...ok

2) I don't define representative form of government with having economic and political power in the exact same few hands...if you do ...ok. You do thus the discussion.

 

Sorry. I did not realize that you advocated anarchy and total marketplace rule.

 

Question: with no representative form of government, i.e., no rules, who has the political power when more and more companies are consolidated into giant conglomerates via mega-mergers? In other words, when there are only a handful of companies?

[mike777]

Sorry. I did not realize that you advocated anarchy and total marketplace rule.

 

Question: with no representative form of government, i.e., no rules, who has the political power when more and more companies are consolidated into giant conglomerates via mega-mergers? In other words, when there are only a handful of companies?

 

Of course if you read what I wrote I said just the opposite....sigh

 

You seem to want to concentrate more and more power in DC. This is what some people fear.

 

You equate capitalism and markets with anarchy.... no rules...no role for government ...sigh ok...

 

You don't seem to understand how markets can and have destroyed mega corporations that you advocate for. You envision a world with no rules...no destruction...no govt and rule by a cabal.

[Winstonm]

Of course if you read what I wrote I said just the opposite....sigh

 

You seem to want to concentrate more and more power in DC. This is what some people fear.

 

You equate capitalism and markets with anarchy.... no rules...no role for government ...sigh ok...

 

You don't seem to understand how markets can and have destroyed mega corporations that you advocate for. You envision a world with no rules...no destruction...no govt and rule by a cabal.

 

Mike,

 

I simply try to decipher what you write. It is you who seems to advocate anarchy in favor of markets.

[Al_U_Card]

This just in from the Greater Whiter North

 

Haas et al GRL

 

"In 2014 more ice survived the summer as MYI than in the nine most recent years but slightly less than during 1968–2015 on average (Figure S5). Between November 2014 and April 2015, winter air temperatures were between −0.5°C and −1.5°C colder than during 1980–2010 which could have led to slightly thicker level ice than average, notwithstanding snow effects (Figure S4). Our results show that modal thicknesses were 0.4 to 0.6 m less than observed prior to the 1990s in regions farther north [brown and Cote, 1992; Melling, 2002], with reductions in deformed ice thickness more difficult to judge. This apparent thinning could be a direct consequence of the observed climate warming in the CAA. However, by all means the observed thicknesses and amount of deformed ice still indicate serious ice conditions which can persist throughout the summers and provide ample potential for encounters with hazardous ice. Even in recent years, the CAA remains a source for locally grown MYI and a sink for Arctic Ocean MYI [Howell et al., 2015]; and therefore, shipping through the NWP should not be taken lightly. These conclusions also support results of Smith and Stephenson [2013] who suggested that the NWP will not become easily navigable for another 40 years or so.

[Daniel1960]

This just in from the Greater Whiter North

 

Haas et al GRL

 

"In 2014 more ice survived the summer as MYI than in the nine most recent years but slightly less than during 1968–2015 on average (Figure S5). Between November 2014 and April 2015, winter air temperatures were between −0.5°C and −1.5°C colder than during 1980–2010 which could have led to slightly thicker level ice than average, notwithstanding snow effects (Figure S4). Our results show that modal thicknesses were 0.4 to 0.6 m less than observed prior to the 1990s in regions farther north [brown and Cote, 1992; Melling, 2002], with reductions in deformed ice thickness more difficult to judge. This apparent thinning could be a direct consequence of the observed climate warming in the CAA. However, by all means the observed thicknesses and amount of deformed ice still indicate serious ice conditions which can persist throughout the summers and provide ample potential for encounters with hazardous ice. Even in recent years, the CAA remains a source for locally grown MYI and a sink for Arctic Ocean MYI [Howell et al., 2015]; and therefore, shipping through the NWP should not be taken lightly. These conclusions also support results of Smith and Stephenson [2013] who suggested that the NWP will not become easily navigable for another 40 years or so.

 

Yes, to paraphrase Mark Twain, "the reports of the death of Arctic sea ice have been greatly exaggerated." While the 2015 Arctic summer ice minimum was lower than 2014, and the fifth lowest on record, sea ice has grown substantially since, surpassing last year's extent. More evidence that short-term changes should not be emphasized over long term trends.

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

[PassedOut]

While the 2015 Arctic summer ice minimum was lower than 2014, and the fifth lowest on record, sea ice has grown substantially since, surpassing last year's extent. More evidence that short-term changes should not be emphasized over long term trends.

And yet, that is exactly what you do here, and with rising sea levels.

[Al_U_Card]

Just watching actual results as opposed to modeled studies. Just like the latest info confirms that Antarctica is gaining ice mass. Models running on CO2 powered AlGorerithms projected the opposite of observations. What was it that Feynmann said about theories and observations? Nevermind....

[Daniel1960]

And yet, that is exactly what you do here, and with rising sea levels.

Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I have been arguing against using short-term changes (for temperatures, Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, etc.), and constantly refer to long term trends. Sea level rises have been relatively constant throughout the past century.

[PassedOut]

Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I have been arguing against using short-term changes (for temperatures, Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, etc.), and constantly refer to long term trends. Sea level rises have been relatively constant throughout the past century.

Wrong.

 

How much is sea level rising?

 

From 1880 to the early 1900's, sea level was rising at around 1mm per year. Throughout most of the 20th century, sea levels have been rising at around 2mm per year. In the latter 20th century, it's reached 3mm per year.

3 > 2 > 1. Acceleration.

[Daniel1960]

Wrong.

 

How much is sea level rising?

 

 

3 > 2 > 1. Acceleration.

 

Let's see, sea level rise from 1860-1910 was ~2.4 mm/yr. The rise slowed down to nearly stagnate for the next 20 years, before resuming its rise. The rise since 1930 has been ~2.4. No acceleration.

 

http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/Jevrejevaetal2013GPChange.pdf

 

This paper found a similar 2.4 mm/yr SLR in recent decades, that was not significantly different from previous decades.

 

http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2005JC003229.pdf

 

From the following, " The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of global mean sea level rise was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing."

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

 

This study found a slight, but insignificant, deceleration in sea level rise

 

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

 

Finally, this study shows the acceleration that the previous studies found that occurred around 1920, and also the deceleration of the previous study around 1960.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1771/abstract

 

While sea level rise did increase from the rates during the 19th century, no such acceleration has been observed since.

[PassedOut]

We know that sea level is rising a bit more than 3mm per year now. If that rate had been constant from the 1880s, sea levels in the 1880s would have been significantly lower than the levels actually measured.

 

Do you contend that the floats from the tide gauges of the time were "floating" in the air above the water? Didn't happen. :P

 

3 > 2 > 1. Acceleration.

 

That's the long term trend. Of course one can find shorter term results that vary.

[Zelandakh]

Between November 2014 and April 2015, winter air temperatures were between −0.5°C and −1.5°C colder than during 1980–2010 which could have led to slightly thicker level ice than average, notwithstanding snow effects.

How about showing us what happened between May and August 2015? How about an examination of ice extents after the 2015 melting season? Given that temperatures at the start of the year were so cool, we should expect record ice extent levels, no?

[Al_U_Card]

How about showing us what happened between May and August 2015? How about an examination of ice extents after the 2015 melting season? Given that temperatures at the start of the year were so cool, we should expect record ice extent levels, no?

Despite their equivocation, the info from the actual measurements shows clearly that there is no clear link to CO2 rise and climate doom. At least from Antarctic meltdown... Too bad for all the alarmists, what with the Paris extravaganza on its way.

[Daniel1960]

We know that sea level is rising a bit more than 3mm per year now. If that rate had been constant from the 1880s, sea levels in the 1880s would have been significantly lower than the levels actually measured.

 

Do you contend that the floats from the tide gauges of the time were "floating" in the air above the water? Didn't happen. :P

 

3 > 2 > 1. Acceleration.

 

That's the long term trend. Of course one can find shorter term results that vary.

 

DO you have any evidence of recent acceleration? I have linked to several papers showing that the acceleration occurred almost a century ago, and is not occurring today.

[hrothgar]

DO you have any evidence of recent acceleration? I have linked to several papers showing that the acceleration occurred almost a century ago, and is not occurring today.

 

I find it telling that you were able to find and cite the 2011 Journal of Coastal Review article by Houston and Dean but are apparently too incompetent to cite any of the many rebuttals to that article that were posted in the same Journal. For example, see http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_vermeer_2011.pdf

 

You are a biased source of information

You do not argue in good faith

You are a liar and an ideologue

[Daniel1960]

I find it telling that you were able to find and cite the 2011 Journal of Coastal Review article by Houston and Dean but are apparently too incompetent to cite any of the many rebuttals to that article that were posted in the same Journal. For example, see http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_vermeer_2011.pdf

 

You are a biased source of information

You do not argue in good faith

You are a liar and an ideologue

 

Actually those rebuttals reinforce my claims. Specifically that sea level rise accelerated from the 19th century until 1930, but no acceleration has occurred since. The other links corroborated these particular time frames. All the papers [that I have found] show that sea level stopped dropping at the end of the Little Ice Age, and started rising, sometime in the 19th century, when temperatures started to rise. This is when the acceleration occurred.

 

Your posts would be better received, if they addressed the issues at hand, and you refrained from posting insults, which are blatantly false.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar,

 

See the NASA link to sea level rise. Notice the inflexion in sea level rise just before 1930? The satellite data show no change in rise over its entire monitoring period. Both datasets show small blips in the overall rate, but no signs of acceleration.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[hrothgar]

Actually those rebuttals reinforce my claims. Specifically that sea level rise accelerated from the 19th century until 1930, but no acceleration has occurred since. The other links corroborated these particular time frames. All the papers [that I have found] show that sea level stopped dropping at the end of the Little Ice Age, and started rising, sometime in the 19th century, when temperatures started to rise. This is when the acceleration occurred.

 

Your posts would be better received, if they addressed the issues at hand, and you refrained from posting insults, which are blatantly false.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Rahmstorf and Vermeer (the authors of the article I cited) specifically wrote the article to refute one of the article that you cite.

And now you claim this as support for your position.

 

And you act surprised that you get insulted...

[Daniel1960]

Unbelievable.

 

Rahmstorf and Vermeer (the authors of the article I cited) specifically wrote the article to refute one of the article that you cite.

And now you claim this as support for your position.

 

And you act surprised that you get insulted...

 

Obviously, you have not read either the posts or the linked articles very well. Try again, and perhaps you will begin to understand how your link supports my contention. I am not surprised by your insults. You seem to prefer that method of argument, rather than presenting evidence to support your stance.