Present conditions in the Arctic

[jc456]

Here is the problem right here

To stand and argue at bay about what you know are lies, is sanctimonious.

You know so such thing. What does that make YOUR statement?

Sure I do fool

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic News


Credit: Rutgers University Global Snow Lab

here we go again. more scary graphs.

what does it look like in context?

starting in 67 rather than 72 includes years with missing data but i'll show that too.

spring is from late march to late june-

it looks like spring is down 12M km^2, and the rest of the year is up 10M. even smaller change if you only use years with full coverage. I finding it hard to get scared over that.

And how much differance does that make in insolation in January? Compared to June? How much differance between the reflective snow over 13 km^2 compared to 6 km^2. That is 7 km^2 more dark earth absorbing sunlight, rather than having the sunlights energy reflected near the time of maximum sunlight. Energy balance is what it is all about. And that dark earth is permafrost loaded with CO2 and CH4.

That is a fair enough question. It does make a difference. Albedo is reduced, more things grow etc.

But that begs the question of when the clathrates and peat were set down. And why everything didn't 'let go' during the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods. You keep making predictions of doom but you fail to realize that they should already have happened! Perhaps if this present warm period continues for hundreds or thousands of years we will move into unprecedented conditions but we are certainly not there yet. Not much farming going on in Greenland this year, eh?

You are too gullible when it comes to all these worst case scenarios. I cannot say for certain that disaster is impossible, just that it is very unlikely. And this is the crux of the matter. It is easy for climate science to admit to the farfetched predictions of doom because there is no penalty to be paid, instead there are rewards by more funding. On the other hand if they pointed out the low probability of disaster they would also be putting themselves out of a job. Rewards for alarmism, penalty for pragmatism. It is easily understandable how we got to this position, it is hard to see how we can get back to to a more realistic view.

Ian, let's say they're right, what is their next step? more money? For what? I'm ok with lstening, but damn present something other than oh we're doomed.

I don't know. It is like asking if we should spend a couple of hundred trillion dollars on the capability to deflect an asteroid from hitting the Earth. If we knew it was coming then it's worth it. And we would either succeed or fail.

Global warming is an unknown risk that is heavily biased towards pointing out the negatives and ignoring the positives. Mitigation of possible problems is easier and cheaper than prevention. And we don't even have the realistic technology for prevention.

Calling bullshit on you, Ian. We do have that technology and are implementing it as we post. Wind is already cheaper than coal, even without considering the externalities of the fossil fuels. Solar will soon be, and the grid scale batteries will make both of these 24/7.

At present, I see no positives to the rapid warming we are seeing. And many of the risks are very well known. The amount of arable land lost for each foot of increased sea level rise is known. The damage for each foot of rise to our seaports is a known factor. Increased variability damages our agriculture at a time we have over 7 billion mouths to feed.

 

[IanC]

here we go again. more scary graphs.

what does it look like in context?

starting in 67 rather than 72 includes years with missing data but i'll show that too.

spring is from late march to late june-

it looks like spring is down 12M km^2, and the rest of the year is up 10M. even smaller change if you only use years with full coverage. I finding it hard to get scared over that.

And how much differance does that make in insolation in January? Compared to June? How much differance between the reflective snow over 13 km^2 compared to 6 km^2. That is 7 km^2 more dark earth absorbing sunlight, rather than having the sunlights energy reflected near the time of maximum sunlight. Energy balance is what it is all about. And that dark earth is permafrost loaded with CO2 and CH4.

That is a fair enough question. It does make a difference. Albedo is reduced, more things grow etc.

But that begs the question of when the clathrates and peat were set down. And why everything didn't 'let go' during the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods. You keep making predictions of doom but you fail to realize that they should already have happened! Perhaps if this present warm period continues for hundreds or thousands of years we will move into unprecedented conditions but we are certainly not there yet. Not much farming going on in Greenland this year, eh?

You are too gullible when it comes to all these worst case scenarios. I cannot say for certain that disaster is impossible, just that it is very unlikely. And this is the crux of the matter. It is easy for climate science to admit to the farfetched predictions of doom because there is no penalty to be paid, instead there are rewards by more funding. On the other hand if they pointed out the low probability of disaster they would also be putting themselves out of a job. Rewards for alarmism, penalty for pragmatism. It is easily understandable how we got to this position, it is hard to see how we can get back to to a more realistic view.

Ian, let's say they're right, what is their next step? more money? For what? I'm ok with lstening, but damn present something other than oh we're doomed.

I don't know. It is like asking if we should spend a couple of hundred trillion dollars on the capability to deflect an asteroid from hitting the Earth. If we knew it was coming then it's worth it. And we would either succeed or fail.

Global warming is an unknown risk that is heavily biased towards pointing out the negatives and ignoring the positives. Mitigation of possible problems is easier and cheaper than prevention. And we don't even have the realistic technology for prevention.

Calling bullshit on you, Ian. We do have that technology and are implementing it as we post. Wind is already cheaper than coal, even without considering the externalities of the fossil fuels. Solar will soon be, and the grid scale batteries will make both of these 24/7.

At present, I see no positives to the rapid warming we are seeing. And many of the risks are very well known. The amount of arable land lost for each foot of increased sea level rise is known. The damage for each foot of rise to our seaports is a known factor. Increased variability damages our agriculture at a time we have over 7 billion mouths to feed.

Obviously we disagree. I think the economics of wind power are biased by unrealistic output and maintenance expectations, and subsidies are the only thing keeping it afloat. solar is worse. gridworthy battery storage is still pie-in-the-sky nonsense even if we could get the inefficiency down. wind and solar need footspace in suitable areas, and will need to be scaled up tremendously. I dont see it as viable at this time but perhaps that will change.

hahahaha, what percentage of arable land is lost to the first foot of sea level rise? zero to a rounding error? how about to the first meter? was the world awash with the 8 inches last century? I will reserve judgment on the 3mm/yr claim for now until coastal tide gauges start matching up with the uncheckable mid ocean rise claimed by the satellite models.

history has shown that mankind prospers in warmth and suffers in cold. god help us if we had to return to the LIA conditions.

 

[Politico]

The important thing is to not give a fuck. Which is the natural stance for most humans to have about the world.

Fuck it. God will handle things right?

The important thing is to remember none of these Leftytoon tree huggers have ever been to the arctic much less out of their basements. I have. They just copy and paste shit on the internets.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Update: Guam is still upright

 

[Old Rocks]

The important thing is to not give a fuck. Which is the natural stance for most humans to have about the world.

Fuck it. God will handle things right?

The important thing is to remember none of these Leftytoon tree huggers have ever been to the arctic much less out of their basements. I have. They just copy and paste shit on the internets.

Important thing to remember is that people like Politico pull statements out of their ass without any evidence for them at all. Yes, I have been to the Arctic.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Without subsidies, low end wind at 3.7 cents, compared to dirty coal at 6.6. Solar at 7.2, and the price still dropping. Geo-thermal, still in development stage, but promises to be as cheap or cheaper than either wind or solar, with useful byproducts.

http://www.economist.com/news/techn...demand-hard-wind-and-solar-power-answer-store

ON OCTOBER 28th a battery factory opened in Concord, North Carolina. That was good for an area which has seen dark economic times, but the event made few headlines. Perhaps it should have made more, though, for this factory’s owner, Alevo, a Swiss company, is not in the business of manufacturing cells for torches, mobile phones or even laptop computers. Rather, it is making batteries that can store serious amounts of electricity—megawatt-hours of it. And it plans to sell them to power-grid operators.

To start with, the new batteries will be used to smooth the consequences of irregular demand through the day by absorbing electricity during troughs and regurgitating it during peaks. If that pans out, it will eliminate the need for gas-powered “peaker” stations which fire up quickly when needed, but are expensive to run. It would also allow non-peaker stations to operate more efficiently. Alevo reckons that if a grid as big as America’s Western interconnection (which supplies the west of the United States and Canada) were to use 18GW-worth of its batteries the grid could save $12 billion a year. Though the company has no North American contract yet, it does have an agreement to deploy its batteries in Guangdong, China.

• [URL='http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21635327-users-should-be-allowed-fiddle-way-consumer-products-work-without'][/URL]

Smoothing the operation of existing grids, however, may be only the beginning. In the longer run, optimists believe, batteries like these, or some equivalent technology, are the key to dealing with the problem not just of irregular demand, but of irregular supply. As the unit cost of solar and wind energy drops ever closer to that of power from fossil fuels, the fact that the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine becomes more and more irksome. It is not just the great power-gap that is night which matters. As the chart below shows, even during the day—and even in deserts—the amount of sunlight can vary from minute to minute. And the wind, of course, is equally fickle.

And we have Tesla on the West Coast also producing grid scale batteries.

 

[Politico]

The important thing is to not give a fuck. Which is the natural stance for most humans to have about the world.

Fuck it. God will handle things right?

The important thing is to remember none of these Leftytoon tree huggers have ever been to the arctic much less out of their basements. I have. They just copy and paste shit on the internets.

Important thing to remember is that people like Politico pull statements out of their ass without any evidence for them at all. Yes, I have been to the Arctic.

Sure you have. Show us the pictures.

 

[Crick]

You first. Then tell us what difference that makes.

 

[Crick]

Seems like God created Mother Nature and she's bad to the bone................and has been throwing people like you for a loop for a long time.....................

Riddle me this....................does plant life grow quicker and larger with higher levels of CO2..........................

It is accepted by all that increased CO2 will cause increased growth in many plant species. The question is whether or not that outweighs the other, somewhat less desirable effects.

 

[mamooth]

Present conditions in the arctic ...

The land-based snow is still melting out way ahead of the normal schedule

Rutgers University Climate Lab Global Snow Lab

A big cyclone over the north pole is winding down now. In 2013, the jet stream kept warm air away from the arctic, so the constant cyclones kept things very cold. This year, there was plenty of nearby warm air for cyclones to tap into, so the cyclones never got cold. Still, it blocked sunlight, so there's some effect. But it did also blow a lot of ice out the Fram Strait, where the current eventually takes it into the Atlantic to melt.

A Greenland high has been keeping Greenland cool, but will keep blowing ice out for the next 5 days. Alaska cools is cool again, but the Canadian islands and Siberia warm up.

Sea ice levels, still below 2 sigma, but about to cross above the 2012 line. So, the forecast is still for a bigger melt this year than 2013 and 2014, but not as big as the record low of 2012.

 

[jc456]

Seems like God created Mother Nature and she's bad to the bone................and has been throwing people like you for a loop for a long time.....................

Riddle me this....................does plant life grow quicker and larger with higher levels of CO2..........................

It is accepted by all that increased CO2 will cause increased growth in many plant species. The question is whether or not that outweighs the other, somewhat less desirable effects.

to which you have never provided any proof exists.

 

[jc456]

Present conditions in the arctic ...

The land-based snow is still melting out way ahead of the normal schedule

Rutgers University Climate Lab Global Snow Lab

A big cyclone over the north pole is winding down now. In 2013, the jet stream kept warm air away from the arctic, so the constant cyclones kept things very cold. This year, there was plenty of nearby warm air for cyclones to tap into, so the cyclones never got cold. Still, it blocked sunlight, so there's some effect. But it did also blow a lot of ice out the Fram Strait, where the current eventually takes it into the Atlantic to melt.

A Greenland high has been keeping Greenland cool, but will keep blowing ice out for the next 5 days. Alaska cools is cool again, but the Canadian islands and Siberia warm up.

Sea ice levels, still below 2 sigma, but about to cross above the 2012 line. So, the forecast is still for a bigger melt this year than 2013 and 2014, but not as big as the record low of 2012.

so the snow is melting normal, thanks for all the fluff,

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, just crazy demonstrates his stupidity. Yep. Snow melts, but the timing of that melt is critical. Just ask the people on the West Coast.

 

[jc456]

Once again, just crazy demonstrates his stupidity. Yep. Snow melts, but the timing of that melt is critical. Just ask the people on the West Coast.

why? there isn't any sea rise coming or are you still under the impression that the sea ice can cause sea rise? What say you?

 

[jc456]

need an el nino

 

[eagle1462010]

Seems like God created Mother Nature and she's bad to the bone................and has been throwing people like you for a loop for a long time.....................

Riddle me this....................does plant life grow quicker and larger with higher levels of CO2..........................

It is accepted by all that increased CO2 will cause increased growth in many plant species. The question is whether or not that outweighs the other, somewhat less desirable effects.

aka you don't know how much is compensated or not.............thanks for playing.

 

[eagle1462010]

Seems like God created Mother Nature and she's bad to the bone................and has been throwing people like you for a loop for a long time.....................

Riddle me this....................does plant life grow quicker and larger with higher levels of CO2..........................

It is accepted by all that increased CO2 will cause increased growth in many plant species. The question is whether or not that outweighs the other, somewhat less desirable effects.

aka you don't know how much is compensated or not.............thanks for playing.

One more point.................see red..........THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED RIGHT?

 

[jc456]

What about that West Coast?

 

[mamooth]

The first half of May was quite cold in the high Arctic (above 80N). It got back to normal in the second half of May, and is a little above normal now, but the freezing was done. And the previous two cold years had left thick ice in the high arctic.

Below 80N, it doesn't matter much. That ice always melts anyways. What doesn't melt is in the small channels between the Canadian islands, and in terms of area, it's not much.

Too much thick ice in the central cap, and not enough melting momentum starting out. A big year needs extensive melt ponds early to absorb the sunlight, and that's not there. So no record melt year like 2012. Still, it will definitely be less ice than 2013 or 2014. The overall trend is definitely down.