Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

[lektrode]

Re: christy on heat islands

....warmer nights could be caused by human land use changes---more pavement, more buildings, etc, which cause more mixing of the atmospheric layers.

one only has to note diff tween in-town temps and the burbs to accept this - its quite striking out here and immediately noticeable, esp on calm nights, when one goes even 5miles out of town, aka the concrete jungle

[santafe2]

Re: AGW and polar ice

This from NASA Earth Observatory

"Some of the most dramatic changes in recent years have occurred at Hektoria and Green glaciers, tributaries on the northern edge of Larsen B drainage basin. Between 2002 and 2006, the two glaciers lost an average of 4.2 gigatons of ice per year; between 2006 and 2011, they lost 5.6 gigatons per year. In their lower reaches, the two glaciers have lost about 220 meters (720 feet) of vertical thickness since 2002"

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79493

Thanks Chris. These glaciers exist on the West Antarctic Peninsula and this portion of Antactica is warming more quickly than the rest of the continent. And, it's not helpful that the Larsen ice shelf and its tributary glaciers are out on the edge of the Antarctic Circle. One should not extrapolate melt activity on the peninsula with that on the remainder of the continent. East Antarctica is much colder than the Western Antarctic Peninsula partly because it's much higher. The surface is often 2 miles above sea level.

[Chris Coles]

Re: AGW and polar ice

One small point, it is surely not melt that has so affected those two glaciers; but that with the Larsen Shelves now depleted; it is glacier flow rate increase that drives the loss?

[santafe2]

Re: christy on heat islands

Christy gets into this in an interesting way.

My favorite point in that presentation: Point 5; CO2 is good for you.

[c1ue]

Re: Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

It has sped up. Whether you believe the data is sufficient to prove anthropogenic effect is irrelevant As someone who lives near the ocean in the northeastern US, I can tell you that there is water where the volleyball courts were but a few years ago. And it's the same way up and down the coast around here. If you don't go for linear regression, but for a better non-linear fit (and anyone who tells you atmospheric phenomena are linear is wrong), you find a steep increase in the last decade and change.

Sure, the data is noisy. But ask any old yankee with salt in their veins. They'll let you know. The drink's coming.

The problem is - is the speedup due primarily or even substantially due to anthropogenic CO2?

We're in an ice age recovery, and the odds are we're headed for a cooldown.

Secondly, if in fact CO2 is the problem - is there any solution which will in fact slow down or stop the problem?

Thirdly, if a solution to item 2) above exists, is this solution cheaper than just mitigation and adaptation?

Fourthly, even if we have a solution which is cost effective - can it be implemented in a world of a few energy haves and a multitude of energy have nots?

The answer to all of the above, IMO, is no.

My own view on climate change is: there are definitely human impacts on the environment. However, the case for almost all the impact being due to CO2 is specious at best. Over and over again popular CO2 memes have been crushed by the weight of reality:

1) CO2 leads temperature rises. Categorically disproven
2) CO2 leads to more storms. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
3) CO2 leads to temperature increases. For well over a decade, CO2 has been rising but temperatures have not.

I could go on and on, but it is easier to just look into the Climate Change section.

While climate models aren't perfect, they do an excellent job of characterizing our climate's path.

That sounds nice, but means very little.

From my view, a climate model which has shown zero predictive capability for both short (0-10) and medium (10 to 25) year intervals, plus still fails to be able to mimic even past anomalous behavior, has little to no credibility in predicting a 100 year path.

Clearly you disagree.

[santafe2]

Re: AGW and polar ice

One small point, it is surely not melt that has so affected those two glaciers; but that with the Larsen Shelves now depleted; it is glacier flow rate increase that drives the loss?

Correct. In that area, melt is the effect and loss of the ice shelves is the cause for increased glacial flow. We should not characterize Larsen as "depleted". The largest and most southern ice shelf, Larsen C, is still stable.

[santafe2]

Re: Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

The problem is - is the speedup due primarily or even substantially due to anthropogenic CO2?

Both primary and substantial.

We're in an ice age recovery, and the odds are we're headed for a cooldown.

A new ice age is possibly coming in 20-30,000 years. If you have serious peer reviewed papers to submit on this subject, let's discuss.

Secondly, if in fact CO2 is the problem - is there any solution which will in fact slow down or stop the problem?

Deny, deny, then wring hands. Repeat. Conflating science denial and policy angst is not useful to anyone.

Thirdly, if a solution to item 2) above exists, is this solution cheaper than just mitigation and adaptation?

It's not the science it's the money. Let's toss everything against the wall and see what sticks.

Fourthly, even if we have a solution which is cost effective - can it be implemented in a world of a few energy haves and a multitude of energy have nots?
The answer to all of the above, IMO, is no.

Classic. We cannot propose a solution because the proletariet will not be helped. It is 100% of the people or none of the people.

My own view on climate change is: there are definitely human impacts on the environment. However, the case for almost all the impact being due to CO2 is specious at best. Over and over again popular CO2 memes have been crushed by the weight of reality:

At least we're attempting to talk about the science again. The case has not just been made, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Over and over again popular denier memes have been crushed by the weight of science.

1) CO2 leads temperature rises. Categorically disproven

Ah, the old paleo warming canard that since warming lead CO2 at the end of ice ages, it can't possibly be leading today. No interglacial period has experienced CO2 levels above 300ppm. We'll be at 400ppm in 2014. The ocean has great capacity for CO2 uptake and release. As the world warms CO2 is released from the ocean over long time periods. There's a serious CO2 bomb in the ocean that will begin releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and add to our current issues. Released just like it has been in all of the interglacial periods but this time the primer was not the earth's tilt, wobble and travel around the sun, it's AGM.

2) CO2 leads to more storms. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'll give you one very small and narrow point here. The storms of course have a lot more power because a warmer world provides more atmospheric energy. Is this where you argue against thermodynamics?

3) CO2 leads to temperature increases. For well over a decade, CO2 has been rising but temperatures have not.

Yup, let's go down the up escalator. There are periods where natural variation is almost equal to CO2 forcing. It's happened several times in the last few decades. No serious person would deny your statement but anyone who understands the science knows your point is deceitful. When temperature is moving up again, you'll pull some new canard out of your pocket.

That sounds nice, but means very little.

From my view, a climate model which has shown zero predictive capability for both short (0-10) and medium (10 to 25) year intervals, plus still fails to be able to mimic even past anomalous behavior, has little to no credibility in predicting a 100 year path.

Clearly you disagree.

Of course I do. You're massively incorrect regarding models. First, they are not intended to predict, they project. It's science not a ouija board. Projecting over sub decadal periods is not possible. And since they don't predict, anomolous behavior cannot be projected. And since you misunderstand the purpose of models you find them without credibility.

I'm happy to have a meaningful discussion with you if you want to pick a meaningful topic that will matter to the iTulip community but this post is your usual shotgun nonsense. When we were earlier on talking about iTulip as a fairly useless place to have a climate discussion, it was you we were lamenting. It's impossible to talk about this subject in a meaningful way with you shouting over the top.

And more importantly, if we don't get past the "is it happening" phase quickly and on to some policy issues, we're most likely screwed. And the longer we wait to discuss policy, the worse that policy will be. On that point, we may agree.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

And more importantly, if we don't get past the "is it happening" phase quickly and on to some policy issues, we're most likely screwed. And the longer we wait to discuss policy, the worse that policy will be. On that point, we may agree.

And this is by far the most important point here. For the record, I am NOT a climate scientist, but I have indeed made known, this week, in a small report to local and UK national government; regarding my own concerns of what the short term consequences may be for continuing observations made this last summer in the Arctic.

C1ue, may I suggest that you buy a copy of this weeks New Scientist. the one with an Orange cover and the words: "Climate Change. Five years ago we feared the worst. But it's looking even worse than that." - and read it. We are WELL past the points you raise. Now the debate must turn to the consequences.

[BadJuju]

Re: Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

I like you, c1ue, but honestly, at this point I think you have some skin in the game to be such a vehement denier of climate change when all signs say yes it is happening and it is happening because of humans.

[Polish_Silver]

Data vs more extreme weather & sea level

I'll give you one very small and narrow point here. The storms of course have a lot more power because a warmer world provides more atmospheric energy. Is this where you argue against thermodynamics?

Storms are driven by temperature differences, not by mean temperatures. Unless you think the 1950 temperature was optimum, why would a 1C change higher or lower from that cause more storms? The earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now.

As for data, on Christy page 33, it shows the sea level has risen about 8" in the last century, barely noticeable relative to waves and tides. There are places where the ground is sinking.

As for extreme weather, page 3 shows that extreme high or low temperatures are less common now in in the 1930's. Likewise for droughts and floods.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/chris..._EP_110308.pdf


As for computer models, they seem to overestimate warming by 2X, as shown on page 13

[shiny!]

Re: Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

I'm happy to have a meaningful discussion with you if you want to pick a meaningful topic that will matter to the iTulip community but this post is your usual shotgun nonsense. When we were earlier on talking about iTulip as a fairly useless place to have a climate discussion, it was you we were lamenting. It's impossible to talk about this subject in a meaningful way with you shouting over the top.

You and I must have different definitions of "shouting". With all due respect, the only post in this discussion that resembled shouting was yours.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
by Thomas Hedges

There is no debate on climate change in Germany. The temperature for the past 10 months has been three degrees above average and we’re again on course for the warmest year on record. There’s no dispute among Germans as to whether this change is man-made, or that we contribute to it and need to stop accelerating the process.

Since 2000, Germany has converted 25 percent of its power grid to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. The architects of the clean energy movement Energiewende, which translates to “energy transformation,” estimate that from 80 percent to 100 percent of Germany’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2050.

Germans are baffled that the United States has not taken the same path. Not only is the U.S. the wealthiest nation in the world, but it’s also credited with jump-starting Germany’s green movement 40 years ago.

“This is a very American idea,” Arne Jungjohann, a director at the Heinrich Boll Stiftung Foundation (HBSF), said at a press conference Tuesday morning in Washington, D.C. “We got this from Jimmy Carter.”

Germany adopted and continued Carter’s push for energy conservation while the U.S. abandoned further efforts. The death of an American Energiewende solidified when President Ronald Reagan ripped down the solar panels atop the White House that Carter had installed.

Since then, Germany has created strong incentives for the public to invest in renewable energy. It pays people to generate electricity from solar panels on their houses. The effort to turn more consumers into producers is accelerated through feed-in tariffs, which are 20-year contracts that ensure a fixed price the government will pay. Germany lowers the price every year, so there’s good reason to sign one as soon as possible, before compensation falls further.

The money the government uses to pay producers comes from a monthly surcharge on utility bills that everyone pays, similar to a rebate. Ratepayers pay an additional cost for the renewable energy fund and then get that money back from the government, at a profit, if they are producing their own energy.

In the end, ratepayers control the program, not the government. This adds consistency, Davidson says. If the government itself paid, it would be easy for a new finance minister to cut the program upon taking office. Funding is not at the whim of politicians as it is in the U.S.

“Everyone has skin in the game,” says writer Osha Gray Davidson. “The movement is decentralized and democratized, and that’s why it works. Anybody in Germany can be a utility.”

The press conference the foundation organized with InsideClimate News comes two weeks after one of the biggest storms in U.S. history and sits in the shadow of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would unlock the world’s second-largest oil reserve in Canada. The event also comes one day after a report that says that the U.S. is on track to become the leading oil and gas producer by 2020, which suggests that the U.S. has the capability to match Germany’s green movement, but is instead using its resources to deepen its dependency on fossil fuels.

Many community organizers have given up on government and are moving to spark a green movement in the U.S. through energy cooperatives.

Anya Schoolman is a D.C. organizer who has started many co-ops in the district although she began with no experience. She says that converting to renewable energy one person at a time would not work in the U.S. because of legal complexities and tax laws that discourage people from investing in clean energy.

Grid managers in the U.S., she explains, often require households to turn off wind turbines at night, a practice called “curtailment.”

“It’s a favor to the utility companies,” she says, which don’t hold as much power in Germany as they do in the United States.

Individuals and cooperatives own 65 percent of Germany’s renewable energy capacity. In the U.S. they own 2 percent. The rest is privately controlled.

The largest difference, panelists said, between Germany and the U.S. is how reactive the government is to its citizens. Democracy in Germany has meant keeping and strengthening regulatory agencies while forming policies that put public ownership ahead of private ownership.

“In the end,” says Davidson, who spent a month in Germany studying the Energiewende, “it isn’t about making money. It’s about quality of life.”

[santafe2]

Re: Data vs more extreme weather & sea level

Storms are driven by temperature differences, not by mean temperatures. Unless you think the 1950 temperature was optimum, why would a 1C change higher or lower from that cause more storms? The earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now.

For the record, I was agreeing, that for now there is no consensus that storm frequency is increasing. And I agree with your point that there is 1C, (actually only .8C) average warming and with your point that the earth has been both warmer and colder. So on these points, I don't believe we have any disagreement. As for the document, this was Christy talking his book. Nothing wrong with that, everyone needs funding but this is not serious science.

[santafe2]

Re: Polar Ice: Crushed or Cubed

You and I must have different definitions of "shouting". With all due respect, the only post in this discussion that resembled shouting was yours.

We may. In this thread, I've attempted to be specific and stick to the science. When another poster offers a litany of weak, incorrect and off topic arguments by mixing social issues, policy issues and issues of science in a confused and disorderly jumble, with all due respect, it's a lot like shouting.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Data vs more extreme weather & sea level

For the record, I was agreeing, that for now there is no consensus that storm frequency is increasing. And I agree with your point that there is 1C, (actually only .8C) average warming and with your point that the earth has been both warmer and colder. So on these points, I don't believe we have any disagreement. As for the document, this was Christy talking his book. Nothing wrong with that, everyone needs funding but this is not serious science.

Neither of you is correct; you need to live up here in the Northern Hemisphere. Here in the UK we definitely are experiencing much heavier rainfall; I have heard and can see no reason to disbelieve; rainfall has increased at least by 25% over the last couple of decades. When you have sat, looking out of the window at rainfall for more than 100 days, (in 2000, it was 90 days), as we have and looking at the reports this November alone of more than a months rain inside three days, with another storm coming in tomorrow, you can bet your life; we believe it here.

We used to have very benign weather between end summer and winter, which would arrive sometime after Christmas; that was a well known feature of our location on the edge of the Atlantic most affected by the warm waters flowing up from the tropics. Today, we have got very used indeed to regular storms bringing torrential rainfall.

Your viewpoint is decidedly defined by your location; in semi arid desert.