Global sea ice

[Muhammed]

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Or, are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds shove up your brainwashed ass?

Or what?


Put up or shut up, jackass.

 

[westwall]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall.

Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin

That is an up to date graph of the global sea ice from 1978 to present. Are you ever going to learn not to lie about something so easy to demonstrate?

I was referring to this graph you posted, dumbass. See, 1980 to 2014. Now go piss up a rope, clown boy.

Well now, here is a graph from Swiss Re;

Number of weather-related catastrophes, 1970–2013 (Swiss RE)

I think you had better be checked for advanced senility.

Yeah insurance companies don't exactly fill me with confidence about their honesty.

 

[Old Rocks]

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Or, are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds shove up your brainwashed ass?

Or what?


Put up or shut up, jackass.

OK, you silly little shit, here you go.

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Image 4 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[Old Rocks]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall.

Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin

That is an up to date graph of the global sea ice from 1978 to present. Are you ever going to learn not to lie about something so easy to demonstrate?

I was referring to this graph you posted, dumbass. See, 1980 to 2014. Now go piss up a rope, clown boy.

Well now, here is a graph from Swiss Re;

Number of weather-related catastrophes, 1970–2013 (Swiss RE)

I think you had better be checked for advanced senility.

Yeah insurance companies don't exactly fill me with confidence about their honesty.

Increase of extreme events in a warming world

1. Stefan Rahmstorf1 and
2. Dim Coumou

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 27, 2011 (received for review February 2, 2011)
   Abstract
   We develop a theoretical approach to quantify the effect of long-term trends on the expected number of extremes in generic time series, using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations. We apply our method to study the effect of warming trends on heat records. We find that the number of record-breaking events increases approximately in proportion to the ratio of warming trend to short-term standard deviation. Short-term variability thus decreases the number of heat extremes, whereas a climatic warming increases it. For extremes exceeding a predefined threshold, the dependence on the warming trend is highly nonlinear. We further find that the sum of warm plus cold extremes increases with any climate change, whether warming or cooling. We estimate that climatic warming has increased the number of new global-mean temperature records expected in the last decade from 0.1 to 2.8. For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming.

Increase of extreme events in a warming world

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
Authors Jennifer Francis, Steven Vavrus

First published: 17 March 2012Full publication history

Abstract
[1] Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere – is evident in lower-tropospheric temperatures and in 1000-to-500 hPa thicknesses. Daily fields of 500 hPa heights from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Reanalysis are analyzed over N. America and the N. Atlantic to assess changes in north-south (Rossby) wave characteristics associated with AA and the relaxation of poleward thickness gradients. Two effects are identified that each contribute to a slower eastward progression of Rossby waves in the upper-level flow: 1) weakened zonal winds, and 2) increased wave amplitude. These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss, but are also apparent in summer, possibly related to earlier snow melt on high-latitude land. Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid‐latitudes

Both articles can be had in their entirety at the links.

 

[RollingThunder]

Wrong on both counts, bozo.

If the Nazis and Imperial Japan had won WWII, there would be no 'United States' today......and the outcome of the war could easily have gone the other way if wrong decisions had been made by the Allied leadership at certain crucial points in the war.

The United States was very fortunate to have had excellent leadership who were willing to spend whatever it took to win the war. For example, In the middle of a World War that had the USA financially strained to the max, President Roosevelt started the Manhattan Project, which was entirely experimental, trying desperately to develop a new and radically different weapons technology, with absolutely no assurance of that they would be successful. Eventually, the Manhattan Project employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion US Dollars (equivalent to $23 billion in 2007 dollars).

The current climate change crisis is much more of a threat to America and the American people (and to the whole world) than a fascist triumph in WWII would have been. Now though, we have traitors to the human race trying to confuse people about the severity of the threat the world is facing so that they can continue to make more profit selling the stuff that is destroying our world.

Hyperbolic predictions concerning the threat is the reason many people have taking climate change seriously.

The scientific predictions of the consequences to the Earth's biosphere and ecology if the human race continues to add 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (and the oceans) every year are not hyperbole, you poor bamboozled fool. The real reasons many people are not taking climate change seriously have to do with the fossil fuel industry's massively funded propaganda campaign that plays on rightwingnut anti-government, anti-science political and economic ideologies to deceive people about this threat.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm hearing your answer the question of how much is too much to spend is that no amount is too much regardless of the actual threat.

OK....you are wrong!

You have been deceived into believing that anthropogenic climate change is no real threat, in spite of the overwhelming consensus by the world scientific community that it is an enormous threat to the peace and stability of our civilizations, to the Earth's biosphere, to our agricultural systems and food supplies, and to our very survival.

"The actual threat" to our only world and to the human race is so enormous that there is indeed NO amount of money that is "too much to spend" to try to deal with it.

Too bad you no longer live in the real world because you are so brainwashed by the fraudulent propaganda and lies pushed by the fossil fuel industry.

And you're having trouble understanding why people don't take you seriously? Worry less about the climate and more about becoming self-aware.

Typical rightwingnut response when your clueless drivel gets debunked.....ignore the issues you raised and moronically attack the person doing the debunking. Way to go, fnuccer.

 

[Muhammed]

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Or, are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds shove up your brainwashed ass?

Or what?


Put up or shut up, jackass.

OK, you silly little shit, here you go.

That is not an argument.

Put up or shut up.

 

[RollingThunder]

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Or, are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds shove up your brainwashed ass?

Or what?

Put up or shut up, jackass.

OK, you silly little shit, here you go.

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Image 4 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

That is not an argument.
Put up or shut up.

Of course it's not "an argument", moron. Who would want to try to actually argue with a clueless retard like you?

No you poor halfwit, what he posted is called 'evidence', something you apparently have never heard of. It doesn't' involve "logical reasoning" or "argument", numbnuts. Those graphs from the NSIDC speak for themselves to anyone with more than half a brain.

As does the info from the NSIDC that I posted earlier supporting Old Rocks' OP, which you moronically ignored...

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center.....

On March 7, 2017, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.42 million square kilometers (5.57 million square miles), the lowest in the 38-year satellite record. This year’s maximum extent is 1.22 million square kilometers (471,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum of 15.64 million square kilometers (6.04 million square miles) and 97,000 square kilometers (37,000 square miles) below the previous lowest maximum that occurred on February 25, 2015. This year’s maximum is 100,000 square kilometers (39,000 square miles) below the 2016 maximum, which is now third lowest. (In 2016, we reported that year’s maximum as the lowest and 2015 the second lowest. An update to the Sea Ice Index last summer has changed our numbers slightly.)

It was a very warm autumn and winter. Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) over the five months spanning October 2016 through February 2017 were more than 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the entire Arctic Ocean, and greater than 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over large parts of the northern Chukchi and Barents Seas. These overall warm conditions were punctuated by a series of extreme heat waves over the Arctic Ocean.

In the Southern Hemisphere, sea ice likely reached its minimum extent for the year on March 3, at 2.11 million square kilometers (815,000 square miles). This year’s minimum extent was the lowest in the satellite record, continuing a period of satellite-era record low daily extents that began in early November.

 

[westwall]

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall.

Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin

That is an up to date graph of the global sea ice from 1978 to present. Are you ever going to learn not to lie about something so easy to demonstrate?

I was referring to this graph you posted, dumbass. See, 1980 to 2014. Now go piss up a rope, clown boy.

Well now, here is a graph from Swiss Re;

Number of weather-related catastrophes, 1970–2013 (Swiss RE)

I think you had better be checked for advanced senility.

Yeah insurance companies don't exactly fill me with confidence about their honesty.

Increase of extreme events in a warming world

1. Stefan Rahmstorf1 and
2. Dim Coumou

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 27, 2011 (received for review February 2, 2011)
   Abstract
   We develop a theoretical approach to quantify the effect of long-term trends on the expected number of extremes in generic time series, using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations. We apply our method to study the effect of warming trends on heat records. We find that the number of record-breaking events increases approximately in proportion to the ratio of warming trend to short-term standard deviation. Short-term variability thus decreases the number of heat extremes, whereas a climatic warming increases it. For extremes exceeding a predefined threshold, the dependence on the warming trend is highly nonlinear. We further find that the sum of warm plus cold extremes increases with any climate change, whether warming or cooling. We estimate that climatic warming has increased the number of new global-mean temperature records expected in the last decade from 0.1 to 2.8. For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming.

Increase of extreme events in a warming world

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
Authors Jennifer Francis, Steven Vavrus

First published: 17 March 2012Full publication history

Abstract
[1] Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere – is evident in lower-tropospheric temperatures and in 1000-to-500 hPa thicknesses. Daily fields of 500 hPa heights from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Reanalysis are analyzed over N. America and the N. Atlantic to assess changes in north-south (Rossby) wave characteristics associated with AA and the relaxation of poleward thickness gradients. Two effects are identified that each contribute to a slower eastward progression of Rossby waves in the upper-level flow: 1) weakened zonal winds, and 2) increased wave amplitude. These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss, but are also apparent in summer, possibly related to earlier snow melt on high-latitude land. Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid‐latitudes

Both articles can be had in their entirety at the links.

Yeah, but the reality is there HSA been no increase. In fact, there has been a decrease in extreme weather events since the 1950's. THAT is the reality. Thus my comment about an insurance company not telling the truth.

 

[fncceo]

Who would want to try to actually argue with a clueless retard like you?

Way to get your argument across. No fair being so charming.

 

[Old Rocks]

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Or, are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds shove up your brainwashed ass?

Or what?


Put up or shut up, jackass.

OK, you silly little shit, here you go.

That is not an argument.

Put up or shut up.

In other words you are too fucking stupid to read a simple graph.

 

[Old Rocks]

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall.

Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin

That is an up to date graph of the global sea ice from 1978 to present. Are you ever going to learn not to lie about something so easy to demonstrate?

I was referring to this graph you posted, dumbass. See, 1980 to 2014. Now go piss up a rope, clown boy.

Well now, here is a graph from Swiss Re;

Number of weather-related catastrophes, 1970–2013 (Swiss RE)

I think you had better be checked for advanced senility.

Yeah insurance companies don't exactly fill me with confidence about their honesty.

Increase of extreme events in a warming world

1. Stefan Rahmstorf1 and
2. Dim Coumou

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 27, 2011 (received for review February 2, 2011)
   Abstract
   We develop a theoretical approach to quantify the effect of long-term trends on the expected number of extremes in generic time series, using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations. We apply our method to study the effect of warming trends on heat records. We find that the number of record-breaking events increases approximately in proportion to the ratio of warming trend to short-term standard deviation. Short-term variability thus decreases the number of heat extremes, whereas a climatic warming increases it. For extremes exceeding a predefined threshold, the dependence on the warming trend is highly nonlinear. We further find that the sum of warm plus cold extremes increases with any climate change, whether warming or cooling. We estimate that climatic warming has increased the number of new global-mean temperature records expected in the last decade from 0.1 to 2.8. For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming.

Increase of extreme events in a warming world

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
Authors Jennifer Francis, Steven Vavrus

First published: 17 March 2012Full publication history

Abstract
[1] Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere – is evident in lower-tropospheric temperatures and in 1000-to-500 hPa thicknesses. Daily fields of 500 hPa heights from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Reanalysis are analyzed over N. America and the N. Atlantic to assess changes in north-south (Rossby) wave characteristics associated with AA and the relaxation of poleward thickness gradients. Two effects are identified that each contribute to a slower eastward progression of Rossby waves in the upper-level flow: 1) weakened zonal winds, and 2) increased wave amplitude. These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss, but are also apparent in summer, possibly related to earlier snow melt on high-latitude land. Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid‐latitudes

Both articles can be had in their entirety at the links.

Yeah, but the reality is there HSA been no increase. In fact, there has been a decrease in extreme weather events since the 1950's. THAT is the reality. Thus my comment about an insurance company not telling the truth.

More flap yap from a source known for telling lies. I gave links to sources, now how about you doing the same.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who would want to try to actually argue with a clueless retard like you?

Way to get your argument across. No fair being so charming.

Charming is not the way to deal with people being purposely obtuse.

 

[fncceo]

Charming is not the way to deal with people being purposely obtuse

I gave you a chance to layout your plan for dealing with this impending doom you predict.

You chose to ignore that question.

So, I'm going to assume you have no plan or are afraid to articulate it for fear of ridicule.

Either way, if you don't have an executable plan, what use are the prognostications?

 

[Old Rocks]

Very simple, cease adding GHGs to the atmosphere. Replace fossil fuels with renewables. Not only do we have the means to do that, the renewables are cheaper now, as measured by the kw/hr produced, than fossil fuels, and far cheaper than nuclear.

As for the prognostication, we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise, we will be seeing more extreme weather events, and agriculture will be adversly affected, with a world population still growing.

 

[fncceo]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

It would seem to be very good for humans on the whole.

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim?

If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

 

[fncceo]

I'm very much in favour of this renewable energy source.

 

[RollingThunder]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is the EnviroMarixts need to redistribute wealth.

 

[RollingThunder]

All we know for certain is the EnviroMarixts need to redistribute wealth.

All you know for certain, CrazyFruitcake, is the exact shape and feel of the inside of your rectum, where your head is lodged.

As for everything else, you are completely clueless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have no idea if redistributing wealth will alter the climate, in fact, we know that it won't. All we know is that Progressives need to take wealth by any means possible