Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Apparently you are trying to imply that somebody is cherry picking the data.

This might help you.

https://nsidc.org/nsidc-monthly-high...ecord-turns-40

In 1972, NASA launched an experimental passive microwave instrument, the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR), which operated until 1977. ESMR was a single-frequency instrument that showed potential because it could monitor sea ice in darkness and through clouds, but the resulting data were plagued by technical glitches that were laborious and time-consuming to resolve.

On October 25, 1978, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) began its mission aboard the Nimbus-7 satellite, launching the modern sea ice satellite record.

Sounds like 1979 was a perfectly reasonable place to start.

No I'm not implying anything
https://youtu.be/ykGuOIMGbLI

It is out and out true

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

No I'm not implying anything
https://youtu.be/ykGuOIMGbLI

It is out and out true

Thank you for the informative video on cherry harvesting. I didn't see any info on "cherry picking" (as in selective)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Apparently you are trying to imply that somebody is cherry picking the data.

This might help you.

https://nsidc.org/nsidc-monthly-high...ecord-turns-40

In 1972, NASA launched an experimental passive microwave instrument, the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR), which operated until 1977. ESMR was a single-frequency instrument that showed potential because it could monitor sea ice in darkness and through clouds, but the resulting data were plagued by technical glitches that were laborious and time-consuming to resolve.

On October 25, 1978, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) began its mission aboard the Nimbus-7 satellite, launching the modern sea ice satellite record.

Sounds like 1979 was a perfectly reasonable place to start.

...And yet, average global temperature is compared to 1850.



Perfectly reasonable.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...And yet, average global temperature is compared to 1850.



Perfectly reasonable.

I wasn't aware of satellites in 1850

From the same article "Before the satellite era, remote polar environments made ground- or ship-based research difficult, and sea ice was one of the least understood aspects of Earth’s climate system. Now, sea ice data is literally at our fingertips. The journey to such convenience was not easy.

Beginning in the 1960s, researchers tested satellite and airborne instruments that they hoped could track polar sea ice. Cloud cover and dark polar winters stymied many of these missions, leaving gaps in the data record. "

My point to Newhaul was that the data he showed for 1972-1978 has pretty much the same area under the curve so it wasn't going to change things and there is a rational reason why the data records tend to start in 1979 (new satellite).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I wasn't aware of satellites in 1850

From the same article "Before the satellite era, remote polar environments made ground- or ship-based research difficult, and sea ice was one of the least understood aspects of Earth’s climate system. Now, sea ice data is literally at our fingertips. The journey to such convenience was not easy.

Beginning in the 1960s, researchers tested satellite and airborne instruments that they hoped could track polar sea ice. Cloud cover and dark polar winters stymied many of these missions, leaving gaps in the data record. "

My point to Newhaul was that the data he showed for 1972-1978 has pretty much the same area under the curve so it wasn't going to change things and there is a rational reason why the data records tend to start in 1979 (new satellite).

And yet the Rus vikings and the Dane Vikings along with the modern Danish government have accurate sea ice measurements going back centuries. Not to mention the British navy . Or how about the United States Navy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I wasn't aware of satellites in 1850

From the same article "Before the satellite era, remote polar environments made ground- or ship-based research difficult, and sea ice was one of the least understood aspects of Earth’s climate system. Now, sea ice data is literally at our fingertips. The journey to such convenience was not easy.

Beginning in the 1960s, researchers tested satellite and airborne instruments that they hoped could track polar sea ice. Cloud cover and dark polar winters stymied many of these missions, leaving gaps in the data record. "

My point to Newhaul was that the data he showed for 1972-1978 has pretty much the same area under the curve so it wasn't going to change things and there is a rational reason why the data records tend to start in 1979 (new satellite).

Perhaps you should read the reports again . The ice was lower in 1974 than it is right now according to the US DOE. It's all in the IPCC report as of 1999

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I wasn't aware of satellites in 1850


...

There wasn't. Hence the irony

but the resulting data were plagued by technical glitches that were laborious and time-consuming to resolve.

And yet homogenizing past temperature readings is par for the course.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Freak NA winters linked to Arctic warming


Models suggest that distortions in polar-vortex winds can send chilly air hurtling southwards. But some climate scientists remain unconvinced.

Recent spells of unusually cold winter weather, in the United States, and other parts of the Northern Hemisphere, could be a paradoxical consequence of climate warming, in the Arctic.
A study [1], based on 4 decades of atmospheric observations, shows how rapid Arctic warming can trigger anomalies in the polar vortex [a fast-flowing band of high-altitude winds around the North Pole] with consequences for weather, thousands of kilometres farther south.
It is still unclear whether this represents a long-term trend, that will persist as the world heats up.
And the idea that Arctic warming might be responsible for cold spells, in mid-latitude regions, is still hotly debated among climate scientists.

More about ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02402-z

[1]“Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States” ~ by Judah Cohen et al
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9167

Don't see much evidence for a 'hot debate' given in these links...perhaps my thermostat is faulty...

Originally Posted by GordMay

Even my summarized teasers fail to disclose all the information in the studies - otherwise it wouldn't be a summary.

Which is why I always try to offer links to the PRIMARY sources.

What a difference could be made if deniers everywhere, and of every persuasion, could be taught to follow this one simple, yet crucial, rule of the validation process...

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

The most interesting statement from the webpage linked to above?


"Please also consider disabling ad blockers for electroverse.net, if you use one.

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse.

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times."

https://electroverse.net/uk-fires-up...rom-our-blog_1


Suppose it's just another example of the lively 'discord' promoted by certain members frequently 'discording' 'hear'...

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok this is the article that they based the report on .
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58469238

Sure don't like the facts presented so attempt to slander the source. Typical of the MMGWC don't like the information presented attempt to stop the source from reporting the relevant facts.

Again with the silly insinuations, huh? Don't think I already read the BBC blurb the at-best-pseudo-scientific Electroverse site morphed into 'Headline News'?

Here's the pertinent part (for those with myopic views; more nuanced personalities might realize that the more interesting issue is the part that the 'economic roulette' [among other things] the UK has been playing over the last few years had in this non-story).


"The UK fired up an old coal power plant on Monday to meet its electricity needs.

Warm, still, autumn weather has meant wind farms have not generated as much power as normal, while soaring prices have made it too costly to rely on gas.

As a result, National Grid ESO - which is responsible for balancing the UK's electricity supply - confirmed coal was providing 3% of national power.

It said it asked EDF to fire up West Burton A, which had been on standby.

On Tuesday, the use of coal returned to 2.2% of the UK's electricity generation."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58469238



Put more simply, the UK used, for 1 day, enough coal to make an additional .8 % of its total electricity.



As for the "Typical of the MMGWC" quip, don't you ever tire of embarassing yourself? How, exactly, is copy-and-pasting a direct quote from their website 'slandering' the joke Electroverse organization? And how, exactly, does linking directly to their website "attempt to stop the source from reporting the relevant 'facts' "?

No, if you and your cohorts had a leg to stand on you'd ask questions, not constantly whine and exhibit chronically thin skin about every imaginary, misperceived slight.


For instance, what makes the highlighted section "most interesting"?

Is it the incongruity of asking for funding via Patreon, and then the denial of ever receiving funding?

Or is it the request to "help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times", which is, of course, precisely the message that the actual scientists, economists, politicians, activists and just generally-in-the-know people worldwide are promoting in their AGW warnings?

Or is it something more subtle, say the near-fact that that is almost the only statement on that posting that is not (or is only slightly) manipulative, if not outright false?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your claim that BBC have been misleading is not proven. And there's a difference between a finding being novel vs controversial. Where/what is the controversy?...

Of course it's not proven, because, as any detailed reading of the pertinent articles will reveal, it's not misleading at all.

The article in Nature, which only references the study under discussion, might be construed as 'misleading', because it falsely (to me) exaggerates the degree (haha) of 'debate' involved, and, in addition, fails to realize or recognize that one of the prime issues the 'naysayer', Daniela Matei, has is directly addressed by the new study. It also fails to provide any published counter-argument, from Matei or anyone else, to support this supposed 'hot debate'.



"But the idea that Arctic warming might be responsible for cold spells in mid-latitude regions is still hotly debated among climate scientists. At first glance, it might seem obvious that winters will generally tend to get milder in a warming world. But climate models that are commonly used to study complex links between the different components of the climate system diverge on the issue of how strongly Arctic warming might influence mid-latitude winters, and state-of-the-art models do not accurately replicate observed trends in the behaviour of the polar vortex. It remains to be seen whether the models are missing something, or whether the observations of polar-vortex stretching merely reflect natural climate variability, says Daniela Matei, a climate modeller at the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who was not involved in the study.

The new analysis does not settle these questions, Matei says. Although changes in sea ice and snow cover do seem to have a role in wind anomalies high up above the Arctic, other factors such as decadal variability in sea surface temperatures could also drive wintertime anomalies in the Arctic atmosphere that can lead to unexpectedly cold weather elsewhere, she says. To complicate matters further, there are still significant uncertainties about how Earth’s climate as a whole responds to snow and sea-ice changes.

For now, it remains unclear whether the recent examples of extreme winter cold are precedents for future weather. “Climate change isn’t linear,” Matei says. “What happens in one decade may not apply in the next one.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02402-z



Cold weather disruptions [introduction]

Despite the rapid warming that is the cardinal signature of global climate change, especially in the Arctic, where temperatures are rising much more than elsewhere in the world, the United States and other regions of the Northern Hemisphere have experienced a conspicuous and increasingly frequent number of episodes of extremely cold winter weather over the past four decades. Cohen et al. combined observations [from 1980 through 2021] and models to demonstrate that Arctic change is likely an important cause of a chain of processes involving what they call a stratospheric polar vortex disruption, which ultimately results in periods of extreme cold in northern midlatitudes

Abstract

The Arctic is warming at a rate twice the global average and severe winter weather is reported to be increasing across many heavily populated mid-latitude regions, but there is no agreement on whether a physical link exists between the two phenomena. We use observational analysis to show that a lesser-known stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) disruption that involves wave reflection and stretching of the SPV is linked with extreme cold across parts of Asia and North America, including the recent February 2021 Texas cold wave, and has been increasing over the satellite era. We then use numerical modeling experiments forced with trends in autumn snow cover and Arctic sea ice to establish a physical link between Arctic change and SPV stretching and related surface impacts.


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9167


Whereas the BBC article has an 'only the facts, m'am' feel to it, listing only the findings of the new study.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58425526


This is, of course, the purpose of 'the news'; to report new things, not to issue value judgements about those things (beyond reasonable fact-checking), nor to offer up supposed countervailing theories.

It is a sad 'sign-o'-the-times' that this basic 4th Estate truth has been so hopelessly prostituted...

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Perhaps you should read the reports again . The ice was lower in 1974 than it is right now according to the US DOE. It's all in the IPCC report as of 1999

I'm highly skeptical. Please provide specific references.

Here is a graph showing Arctic sea ice extant. The colored lines at the top of the band are for years 1979-1983. The blue line at the bottom is for this year, 2021. I find it hard to believe that in 1974 ice extent was the same as 2021. And since it is newhaul making the claim, without evidence as is typical of him, I'm even more skeptical.



https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/c...sea-ice-graph/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'm highly skeptical. Please provide specific references.

Here is a graph showing Arctic sea ice extant. The colored lines at the top of the band are for years 1979-1983. The blue line at the bottom is for this year, 2021. I find it hard to believe that in 1974 ice extent was the same as 2021. And since it is newhaul making the claim, without evidence as is typical of him, I'm even more skeptical.



https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/c...sea-ice-graph/

I trust the US DOE reports that are pre al Gore and wrong way Hansen
This is also in the 1999 IPCC climate report that has been scrubbed

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I trust the US DOE reports that are pre al Gore and wrong way Hansen

It appears, to me, that you are presenting/trusting a "YouTube" video, an excellent primary source, chock full of context.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Perhaps you should read the reports again . The ice was lower in 1974 than it is right now according to the US DOE. It's all in the IPCC report as of 1999

Originally Posted by newhaul

I trust the US DOE reports that are pre al Gore and wrong way Hansen
This is also in the 1999 IPCC climate report that has been scrubbed

As I'm sure you noticed, the DOE report copied the graph from the Soviet-era report. The USSR graph shows the extent of arctic sea ice at the end of summer -- which the DOE report doesn't make clear. The range varies between 6 million sq km and 7 million sq km. When compared to the graph from the NISDC that I showed, that range of sea ice area is comparable to 1981-2010 median for minimum sea ice cover.

And as I'm sure you've also noticed, this year's sea ice minimum coverage looks to be around 5 million sq km, which is ~22% less than the 6.4 million sq km shown for 1974. And 2012s record-setting 3.4 million sq km is nearly 50% less than 1974s 6.4 million sq km. So your assertion that arctic sea ice levels today are greater than 1974 levels appears to be false (surprise!, surprise!).

And, of course, you've provided no support for your assertions either that the Soviet-era/DOE graph was included in a 1999 IPCC report, or that that report was subsequently "scrubbed" of the graph.

One wonders if perhaps it's your memory that has been scrubbed?

As you've pointed out before, minimum sea ice cover is not the only important metric. Minimum sea ice volume is also important, as is survival of multi-year sea ice. Both of these other two metrics also indicate a steady loss of arctic sea ice. How odd, considering the Earth is actually cooling, per newhaul.

[GordMay]

Why most kids don’t get severe COVID

One of the few silver linings of the pandemic is that children relatively rarely experience the most severe illness.
This phenomenon is not entirely surprising to immunologists. With other viruses, adults have the advantage of experience: through previous infection or vaccination, their immune systems have been trained to deal with similar-looking pathogens.
But the novelty of SARS-CoV-2 levelled the playing field, and showed that children are naturally better at controlling viral infections.
Scientists are exploring how ‘innate immunity’ might protect children, why some kids still get very ill, and how the Delta variant might change the rules.

More:
“Kids and COVID: why young immune systems are still on top” ~ by Smriti Mallapaty
Innate immunity might be the key to why children have fared better with the virus. But the Delta variant poses fresh unknowns.
Here ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

As you've pointed out before, minimum sea ice cover is not the only important metric. Minimum sea ice volume is also important, as is survival of multi-year sea ice. Both of these other two metrics also indicate a steady loss of arctic sea ice. How odd, considering the Earth is actually cooling, per newhaul.

Looks like sea ice volume is doing just fine for the end of the melt season .

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickn...N_20210907.png

Looks to be normal and inline with the long term .
You asked so I posted.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Looks like sea ice volume is doing just fine for the end of the melt season .

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickn...N_20210907.png

Looks to be normal and inline with the long term .
You asked so I posted.

As your chart shows, the mid-winter ice volume keeps drifting down. And, the amount of multi-year pack ice keeps diminishing.

In March 1985, sea ice that had survived at least four summers comprised 33 percent of the Arctic ice pack at the winter maximum. In March 2019, such long-lasting sea ice comprised just over 1 percent.
—Credit: NOAA Climate.gov, based on the Arctic Report Card: Update for 2019

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/...multiyear.html

I guess the Arctic missed the "cooling" memo you sent out.