Northwest Passage

[SailOar]

Permafrost Is Warming Around the Globe, Study Shows.

Vast areas of permafrost around the world warmed significantly over the past decade, intensifying concerns about accelerated releases of heat-trapping methane and carbon dioxide as microbes decompose the thawing organic soils.

The warming trend is documented in a new study published Wednesday in the journal Nature Communications. Detailed data from a global network of permafrost test sites show that, on average, permafrost regions around the world—in the Arctic, Antarctic and the high mountains—warmed by a half degree Fahrenheit between 2007 and 2016.

The most dramatic warming was found in the Siberian Arctic, where temperatures in the deep permafrost increased by 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit....

The findings in the new paper reinforce results from other recent studies. In 2017, scientists found a huge seasonal surge in greenhouse gas emissions in Alaska during autumn months linked with warming temperatures. Emissions from the October-December period had increased by 73 percent since 1975, and that increase correlated with rising summer temperatures in the region.....

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

It's not that simple "either or" question as they interact. The dilemma is the CO2 level is what drives the AWG (believe or not) and other stuff is affecting on the way.

What comes to ΔT it depends of the container size, radiation, ambient temperature and other "stuff" so there's no single answer or allmost any answer is right just needs the right circumstances.



Here's something explained: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/wea.2072

That is a great paper. It pulls a lot of stuff together and is pretty readable. While it doesn’t help with a lab experiment for Reef, it does explain why CO2 is not saturated and the interplay of water vapor and CO2.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

That is a great paper. It pulls a lot of stuff together and is pretty readable. While it doesn’t help with a lab experiment for Reef, it does explain why CO2 is not saturated and the interplay of water vapor and CO2.

Indeed! I tried to find something simple to understand to avarage Joe.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Following you link, I can understand why you feel that way and why everyone is confused. You say it is other stuff too, the IPCC says it is other stuff including water vapour above 10 000 m in it's radiative forcing calculations (because it's man made whilst the lower altitude stuff isn't, apparently) yet your linked paper says its because CO2 doesn't saturate as physics would have it. Everyone moans about how complex all this stuff is and the need for supercomputers to calculate the results so at the end of the day we're still dealing with theory and "radiative forcing" that has no temperature conversion table so I guess the solution used is to look at the temperature difference from a time when there were few monitoring stations, especially outside that of a handful of countries and definitely no high resolution ocean monitoring stations, a recovery from the LIA in progress, few heat islands, an era when no one really cared too much about temperature extremes, no retrospective temperature adjustments and so on and so on. They then divided it by their computer calculated radiative forcing numbers and Bingo! 2-4 degrees warming.


Personally, I think heating up a chunk of CO2 to see what happens could only help.

The other stuff is also plants. How much they grow and use CO2, how's the climate affecting where those plants grow etc. How changing winds affect CO2 absorption into oceans, and weather the deep circulation grows stronger or weakens. How much methane comes from the melting perma frost..

Your request of ΔT is the same question as asking how warm you feel under a feather duvet..

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Following you link, I can understand why you feel that way and why everyone is confused. You say it is other stuff too, the IPCC says it is other stuff including water vapour above 10 000 m in it's radiative forcing calculations (because it's man made whilst the lower altitude stuff isn't, apparently) yet your linked paper says its because CO2 doesn't saturate as physics would have it. Everyone moans about how complex all this stuff is and the need for supercomputers to calculate the results so at the end of the day we're still dealing with theory and "radiative forcing" that has no temperature conversion table so I guess the solution used is to look at the temperature difference from a time when there were few monitoring stations, especially outside that of a handful of countries and definitely no high resolution ocean monitoring stations, a recovery from the LIA in progress, few heat islands, an era when no one really cared too much about temperature extremes, no retrospective temperature adjustments and so on and so on. They then divided it by their computer calculated radiative forcing numbers and Bingo! 2-4 degrees warming.


Personally, I think heating up a chunk of CO2 to see what happens could only help.

The CO2 has been heated up which is how the Ir spectra for CO2 was deduced. The math and science to go to the next step is also well known but you don’t accept.

I have given some more thought to your “experiment”. Let see if we can agree on some assumptions.

1. The original soda bottle experiment was successful. Which showed 4C rise with the bottle that had 100% CO2 as compared to the bottle with room air.

2. Let’s agree the bottle is 12 inches by 4 inches.

3. You will accept the answer if a bottle has 4% concentration of CO2 as compared to the base case of .03%.

4. If such an experiment yielded a temperature rise as compared to base case, that basis alone would convert you into a card carrying member of warmists society.

Did I misstate anything or miss anything?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Permafrost Is Warming Around the Globe, Study Shows.

and yet another cut and paste. No personal context.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Done so the results are as say, gigo, and the reality reveals the thruth. Even if the models try to exrapolate to the future they can be and are compared to the reality of today. Any such squad is revealed inevabatibly..

change what's going in to get what the boss wants out.


Someone then explain the reason for the difference between the two temperature graphs posted in post #632.

[DeepFrz]

Yesterday July 27, 2019 the Arctic ice extent reached a record low for this date of 6.684 million sq. km . The date for the median extent to reach this level is Sep 2 and an extent of 6.689 million sq. km. Ice melt is now more than one month ahead of the median rate.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Yesterday July 27, 2019 the Arctic ice extent reached a record low for this date of 6.684 million sq. km . The date for the median extent to reach this level is Sep 2 and an extent of 6.689 million sq. km. Ice melt is now more than one month ahead of the median rate.

that 5 thousand sq km wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there is a strong wind blowing out of the south would it??

https://www.windy.com/?74.543,-1.582,3

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

change what's going in to get what the boss wants out.


Someone then explain the reason for the difference between the two temperature graphs posted in post #632.

Please give a description of what I'm looking for and exactly where the source data came from. This seems like a conspiracy theory, that nasa and noaa are cooking the numbers to make us all think that global warming is happening.

[AllenRbrts]

Here is a third party study of the adjustments. Pretty interesting how the data is checked. Before you suggest the data is fudged perhaps you should read the full article. http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/pa...%20Revised.pdf

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well the best solution for you then is to step aside off your soap box and let someone that does have a go.

It seems that person is ...you. Always ask the client for their benchmark of success.

Originally Posted by Exile

The science is contradictory, but it should be no surprise that you're sticking to the script.

I know the difference between scientific complexity, and someone clinging to weak rationalizations and absurdities like a 4 year-old with Mommy's cellphone.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Here is a third party study of the adjustments. Pretty interesting how the data is checked. Before you suggest the data is fudged perhaps you should read the full article. http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/pa...%20Revised.pdf

that doesn't explain the changes in the two graphs that are both from NASA just from different reporting dates for the same data.

In fact it proves my point .

If you don't get the result you want change the data to get the model result you want. To make the boss happy .

But you believe what you want I prefer the truth and the facts from before the ministry of truth ( the intergovernmental panel on climate change )
wonder what the problem is that will need to be changed in the next 14 months to save the planet.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I know the difference between scientific complexity, and someone clinging to weak rationalizations and absurdities like a 4 year-old with Mommy's cellphone.

There's nothing scientifically complex about an honest consideration over how settled the state of the science is. I'm not saying the majority script you can't seem to detach yourself from is necessarily wrong, or even whether the science is necessarily "settled enough," only that your inability or unwillingness to move beyond the script and engage in rational discussion about the skepticism is bizarre. Your beef is not with me, but with the list of scientists who disagree with the majority position. You don't even have to rely on Wiki -- just click on their names for more info. And get this, you can even choose to stay within the climate science field and not pick Spencer. Who knew??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

There's nothing scientifically complex about an honest consideration over how settled the state of the science is. I'm not saying the majority script you can't seem to detach yourself from is necessarily wrong, or even whether the science is necessarily "settled enough," only that your inability or unwillingness to move beyond the script and engage in rational discussion about the skepticism is bizarre.

Just answer this, if it's off-script enough:

It's absurd to claim that warming might be caused by "natural forces" that themselves cannot be quantified or measured. The warming IS a measure, no?

This is an uprecedented warming, coincident with an unprecedented buildup of CO2... we must now allow for an unnamed, unmeasurable "natural" force that is also unprecedented, and just happens to have happened at the same time?