Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[adoxograph]

If there is one thing this thread with it's 4500 posts has proven it is that politics and science do not mix at all.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

If there is one thing this thread with it's 4500 posts has proven it is that politics and science do not mix at all.

than history has to be rewritten.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

than history has to be rewritten.

Quite contrary. Politicians and religious leaders were always cherry-picking scientific evidence that suited the prevalent ideology. When dogma or ideology gets involved science get's distorted. They do not mix.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Greenland isn't melting its growing
https://www.skepticalscience.com/gre...aining-ice.htm

As Mr_F pointed out, newhaul has no idea whether he is coming or going.



From your above link we find this chart from Skeptical Science, which shows that not only is Greenland losing ice, but that the rate of loss is accelerating.

...In general, the best available science tells us that Greenland is losing ice extensively (Figure 1) and that these losses have drastically increased since the year 2000.

Figure 1: Estimated Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance changes since 1950 using three different methods (Jiang 2010). Mass Balance Measurement Techniques are discussed here.

The evidence suggested by a multitude of different measurement techniques suggests that not only is Greenland losing ice but that these ice losses are accelerating at a rapid pace (Velicogna 2009). Further evidence suggests that although ice losses have up to this point primarily occurred in the South and Southwest portions of Greenland, these losses are now spreading to the Northwest sector of the ice sheet (Khan et al 2010)...

Originally Posted by newhaul

This is a different link than I posted a few yes ago

I was going to let your first post slide, but since you brought it up again... Here's your other post:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Now just to stir things a bit
Year-long study reveals secret of Greenland's growing ice sheet - Climate Dispatch

Here is the title and first paragraph from that article:

Year-long study reveals secret of Greenland's growing ice sheet

Written by Thomas Richard, Examiner.com on 02 May 2016.

A new study of Greenland's ice sheet shows that very little precipitation on the island's expansive interior is "lost to the atmosphere through evaporation" because of the island's unique thermal "lid." This remarkable thermal lid essentially prevents any snow and ice from escaping the island via evaporation, allowing the ice sheet to continuously build up on the island. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study was published in the open access online-only journal "Science Advances." This is more evidence that Greenland's ice sheet is robust and stable, even though computer models claimed it would be the first casualty in a warming world.[...]

The author has concluded that Greenland's ice sheet is "robust and stable", and in fact is a "growing ice sheet". The first reference that he provides to support his conclusion is IS NOT from a reputable scientific source, but is instead from another obscure online journal, azocleantech.com. Here is the title and lead paragraph from AzoCleanTech:

Study Uncovers Mystery of How Much Snow Piles Up on Greenland Ice Sheet
Published on May 2, 2016 at 6:42 AM
Although the coastal regions of the Greenland Ice Sheet are experiencing rapid melting, a significant portion of the interior of that ice sheet has remained stable – but a new study suggests that stability may not continue.[...]

Huh?!?! The two titles and lead paragraphs don't seem to be saying the same thing. newhaul's article says that Greenland's ice sheet is growing; the AzoCleanTech article talks about the mechanism by which the ice sheet has remained stable for a long time, but "suggests that stability may not continue"!

So which of the two articles is correct? Here is the abstract from the original scientific article:

Surface-atmosphere decoupling limits accumulation at Summit, Greenland | Science Advances

Abstract

Despite rapid melting in the coastal regions of the Greenland Ice Sheet, a significant area (~40%) of the ice sheet rarely experiences surface melting. In these regions, the controls on annual accumulation are poorly constrained owing to surface conditions (for example, surface clouds, blowing snow, and surface inversions), which render moisture flux estimates from myriad approaches (that is, eddy covariance, remote sensing, and direct observations) highly uncertain. Accumulation is partially determined by the temperature dependence of saturation vapor pressure, which influences the maximum humidity of air parcels reaching the ice sheet interior. However, independent proxies for surface temperature and accumulation from ice cores show that the response of accumulation to temperature is variable and not generally consistent with a purely thermodynamic control. Using three years of stable water vapor isotope profiles from a high altitude site on the Greenland Ice Sheet, we show that as the boundary layer becomes increasingly stable, a decoupling between the ice sheet and atmosphere occurs. The limited interaction between the ice sheet surface and free tropospheric air reduces the capacity for surface condensation to achieve the rate set by the humidity of the air parcels reaching interior Greenland. The isolation of the surface also acts to recycle sublimated moisture by recondensing it onto fog particles, which returns the moisture back to the surface through gravitational settling. The observations highlight a unique mechanism by which ice sheet mass is conserved, which has implications for understanding both past and future changes in accumulation rate and the isotopic signal in ice cores from Greenland.

My conclusion is that the AzoCleanTech article correctly reported the conclusions of the Science Advances article, but that the author of newhaul's article had no idea what he was writing about, and so wrote an error-filled article to support his opinion of what would play well in the denier blogosphere.

[Delfin]

Some good questions, mixed in with your usual level of snottiness intended to mask insecurity, but that's ok.

Originally Posted by mr_f

You know, it's funny, but only one of us was using the short term deep ocean results from these papers to make a decision about whether future sea level rise was a concern.

Do you feel analyzing a short a short-term linear trend in thermal expansion in part of the ocean is the best way to measure risk?

Can you think of any other reasons besides sea level rise that it might be important to understand changes to heat content in the deeper ocean? (Hint, it was why those papers were brought up in the first place.)

Do you feel when calculating a total, it is best to add just one part, or include all the parts?

Do you feel that surface heating is instantly transported to ocean depths, so these depths have experienced all the changes that they will from any recent warming?

You may also want to read up on whether a linear trend is appropriate over century scales for this problem.

You rather seem to be missing the point, or perhaps avoiding it as other warmists have been consistently doing. The point is that warmists and skeptics can agree on the following, which makes your questions just more pedantic drivel:

1. The earth has been warming consistently since a couple hundred years following the little ice age, which in turn followed a few centuries of warming equal to what we have today and all without help from humanity. Little Ice Age (LIA) | geochronology | Britannica.com

2. The current trend of warming, with the exception of naturally occurring El Nino events has stalled while anthropogenic carbon emissions have increased.



3. IPCC models have failed to account for this stall, although warmists have argued that the heat that hasn't found its way to the surface someone found its way into the mid ocean and is hiding there.

Is Global Heating Hiding Out in the Oceans? - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

4. The Paris Accords, which were hailed as the agreement that would 'save the earth' by Mr. Obama, would, if all promises were kept, reduce total carbon emissions by 31 gigatonnes between now and 2100. This is 1% of the amount required to reduce temperatures materially. Feed that reduction into the IPCC Magicc model and you get less than 1/5th of a degree impact on temps vs. doing nothing.

5. Implementing the Paris Accords will cost trillions. If implementing the actions that will reduce temps by 1/5th of a degree costs trillions, how much will we have to spend to reduce temps by 2 degrees? Hundreds of trillions perhaps?

6. So far, at least, carbon fertilization appears to be almost exclusively beneficial. The Sahel is greening, earth productivity is increasing, warmer weather is nicer than cold weather, tropical storms are not increasing in frequency or intensity, sea levels are not rising as predicted, acidification of the oceans is apparently more than offset by natural buffering in the ocean, etc.

So Mr F, you can wrap yourself around an axle quoting snippets from warmists propaganda but that really doesn't change the essential reality - those telling us the sky is falling have been invariably wrong; the process of warming they are telling us is all about humanity has happened before without humanity's impact, and even if warmist tripe was accurate, we can't do anything material to impact the warming this side of killing 75% of humanity.

So do carry on, but please spare us the pontificating. It is tedious, as well as wildly irrelevant to that which you say you care about - what can be done about humanity's impact on warming, which is a question that can be rationally be answered quite simply with the statement "why bother?".

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

My conclusion is that the AzoCleanTech article correctly reported the conclusions of the Science Advances article, but that the author of newhaul's article had no idea what he was writing about, and so wrote an error-filled article to support his opinion of what would play well in the denier blogosphere.

Your conclusion? Seriously, SO, your conclusion is the Dr. Berkelhammer doesn't know anything about this subject?

I think your post should be exhibit A in any case to be made that when you boil it down, warmists simply will believe what they will believe and anyone who disagrees with them will be alleged to be a buffoon. I don't have your list of journal articles, but I can reference the lead author of this study, who according to you publishes a journal piece "full of errors":

Selected Publications:
AP Williams, R. Seager, M. Berkelhammer, AK. Macalady, and others. Causes and implications of extreme atmospheric moisture demand during the record- breaking 2011 wildfire season in the southwest United States. (2014) Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. DOI: 10.1175/jamc-d-14-0053.1

M. Berkelhammer, D. Asaf, D. Yakir, C. Still, S. Montzka, D. Noone. (2014) Constraining surface carbon fluxes using in situ measurements of carbonyl sulfide and carbon dioxide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. DOI:10.1002/2013GB004644.

M. Berkelhammer, A. Bailey, D. Noone, C. Still, H. Barnard (2013) The nocturnal water cycle in an open canopy forest. JGR-Atmospheres. DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50701

S. McCabe-Glynn, K. Johnson, C. Strong, M. Berkelhammer and others. (2013) Variable North Pacific influence on drought in southwestern North America since AD 854. Nature Geosciences. DOI:10.1038/ngeo1862

M. Berkelhammer, L. Stott. K. Yoshimura and K. Johnson. (2012). Synoptic and mesoscale controls on the isotopic composition of precipitation in the western United States. Climate Dynamics. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1262-3

M. Berkelhammer and L. Stott. (2012) Secular temperature trends in the southern Rocky Mountains for the last five centuries. Geophysical Research Letters. DOI: 10.1029/2012GL052447

M. Berkelhammer, C. Risi, N, Kurita and D. Noone (2012) The moisture source sequence for the Madden Julian Oscillation derived from satellite HDO retrievals. Journal of Geophysical Research. DOI: 10.1029/2011jd016803

M. Berkelhammer, A. Sinha, L. Stott, H. Cheng, F. Pausata and K. Yoshimura (2012) An abrupt shift in the Indian Monsoon 4000 Years ago. Climate, Landscapes, and Civilization. AGU Monograph. DOI: 10.1029/2012gm/001207

Sinha, M. Berkelhammer, L. Stott, M. Mudelsee, H. Cheng, J. Biswas (2011) The leading mode of Indian Summer Monsoon precipitation variability during the last millennium. Geophysical Research Letters. DOI: 10.1029/2012GL052447

M. Berkelhammer, A Sinha, M. Mudelsee, H. Cheng, R. Edwards and K. Cannariato (2010) Persistent multidecadal power of the Indian Summer Monsoon. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.017


Could you grace us with you cv please? And while you're at it, perhaps get mr. F to do the same thing?

p.s. best go back to simple cut and paste. When you add your two cents it is kind of embarrassing.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And yes, we're emitting more methane. And the EPA rule will cost a great deal of money and will reduce global temps by 5/1000th of a degree by the end of the century. If 100,000 people agree not to exercise for six months we'd have about the same effect at no cost at all.

So now you agree that the US is emitting more methane. Which implies that you have repudiated your earlier post which said that methane emissions are falling.

Originally Posted by Delfin

EPA's Methane Rule Won't Slow Warming, Will Increase CO2 | The Daily Caller

[...]A report by the firm ICF International, which cited 75 scientific studies and EPA reports, concluded that methane emissions are declining in both absolute terms and per unit of natural gas produced, despite an enormous increase in the amount of gas produced. Absolute methane emissions from natural gas fell by 15 percent between 1990 and 2014, and emissions per unit of natural gas produced dropped by 43 percent over the same period.[...]

Since we both agree that the methane emission statistics of the Daily Caller article are incorrect, would it be reasonable to assume that the conclusions of the Daily Caller article are also incorrect?

The agency does not list the amount of temperature increases adverted in the rule’s press release, even though the rule exists just to limit global warming. Industry groups estimate the rule would only cause a temperature drop of 0.0047 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn’t even be detected.

[Christian Ho]

I wonder, was this nice lady born in Chernobyl???

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

So now you agree that the US is emitting more methane. Which implies that you have repudiated your earlier post which said that methane emissions are falling.

Since we both agree that the methane emission statistics of the Daily Caller article are incorrect, would it be reasonable to assume that the conclusions of the Daily Caller article are also incorrect?

Do try to keep up. A reference to an EPA rule that will have no effect on the thing the EPA wants - reduction in carbon - and that at great expense is not the same as thinking that methane emissions are not rising.

You're so confused....

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Your conclusion? Seriously, SO, your conclusion is the Dr. Berkelhammer doesn't know anything about this subject?

I think your post should be exhibit A in any case to be made that when you boil it down, warmists simply will believe what they will believe and anyone who disagrees with them will be alleged to be a buffoon. I don't have your list of journal articles, but I can reference the lead author of this study, who according to you publishes a journal piece "full of errors":

[I]Selected Publications:
AP Williams, R. Seager, M. Berkelhammer, AK. Macalady, and others. Causes and implications of extreme atmospheric moisture demand during the record- breaking 2011 wildfire season in the southwest United States. (2014) Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. DOI: 10.1175/jamc-d-14-0053.1[...]

I agree with Dr Berkelhammer et al. I disagree with the author of newhaul's article, Thomas Richard, when he mis-represents Dr Berkelhammer's study by stating that Greenland has a "growing ice sheet" (it doesn't), and by mis-stating that "Greenland's ice sheet is robust and stable" (it isn't).

Once again you claim that black is white, and up is down. I think you will soon be helping a chiropractor make his yacht payments.

[fatherchronica]

Stephan Hawkings and a group of scientists released a letter in the past year wherein they say that mankind will be extinct in about a thousand years. I have no doubt that is true. I think that is why so many want to get all they can now with no regard to future generations.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

From your above link we find this chart from Skeptical Science, which shows that not only is Greenland losing ice, but that the rate of loss is accelerating.

Right-o. The cartoonist's web site. Thanks for that. Yet according to Dr. Berkelhammer: "Climate models suggest that as temperatures increase, more precipitation may actually fall in Greenland because warmer air can hold more water. Taken by itself, that could indicate that parts of the ice sheet may grow. However, if the lid becomes increasingly leaky, the evaporation process has become more effective and moisture will escape to the atmosphere. The fate of the ice sheet is in the balance,” Noone said. “It becomes a question of which influence is stronger.”"

Hmm, cartoonist says rate of ice loss in Greenland is accelerating, and an actual scientist in Greenland studying the problem says it may grow, but maybe it won't. Gosh, tough choice on whose opinion to respect.

Originally Posted by SailOar

The author has concluded that Greenland's ice sheet is "robust and stable", and in fact is a "growing ice sheet". The first reference that he provides to support his conclusion is IS NOT from a reputable scientific source, but is instead from another obscure online journal, azocleantech.com.

So, because the online journal is obscure the direct quotes from the authors of the study referenced become suspect? I'm not sure you understand how journalism works....

Well, perhaps you'd prefer to read the same things in a more reputable online source, like this one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504122212.htm

So, ice is melting on the edges of Greenland and gaining ice in some places or is stable in the center, where by the way, almost all the ice in Greenland can be found because it is up to 2 miles thick. It is not 2 miles thick on the coasts. Perhaps that is why the journalist characterized the Greenland ice sheet as being "robust and stable", which would be true if the ice weren't appreciably melting, which the study shows is the case.

Hope that clears up your confusion....

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

[...]So, ice is melting on the edges of Greenland and gaining ice in some places or is stable in the center, where by the way, almost all the ice in Greenland can be found because it is up to 2 miles thick. It is not 2 miles thick on the coasts. Perhaps that is why the journalist characterized the Greenland ice sheet as being "robust and stable", which would be true if the ice weren't appreciably melting, which the study shows is the case.[...]

Maybe you should pull your head out of the fact-free cloud it's stuck in.

Greenland sees record-smashing early ice sheet melt | Climate Home

April 12, 2016
Polar researchers thought their models were broken when they first saw the results.

Almost 12% of Greenland’s ice sheet was melting on Monday, according to data crunched by the Danish Meteorological Institute.

It beat by almost a month the previous record for a melt of more than 10%, on 5 May 2010.

“We had to check that our models were still working properly,” Peter Langen, climate scientist at DMI, told blog Polar Portal.

Temperature readings on the ice were in line with the numbers, however, exceeding 10C in some places.

Even a weather station 1840 metres above sea level recorded a maximum of 3.1C, which data analysts said would be warm for July, let alone April.

Greenland’s usual melt season runs from early June to September. “Too much. Too early,” tweeted the World Meteorological Organisation.


Left: Maps showing areas where melting has taken place within the last two days. Right: The percentage of the total area of the ice where the melting occurred from 1 January until 11 May (in blue). The dark grey curve represents the 1990-2013 average (Source: Polar Portal/Danish Meteorological Institute)

[jackdale]

Just finishing a 48 hour non-stop voyage. Thought I would share this

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...hange-and-lost


Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

1. The earth has been warming consistently since a couple hundred years following the little ice age, which in turn followed a few centuries of warming equal to what we have today and all without help from humanity. Little Ice Age (LIA) | geochronology | Britannica.com

Look at the graph in your link.


Note how all the lines start showing less individual variation, and start to converge from 1800, and from 1900 there's a pronounced dominant upward trend that is swamping out even a significant normal variance in the mid 20th century. Do you not see that?

2. The current trend of warming, with the exception of naturally occurring El Nino events has stalled while anthropogenic carbon emissions have increased.

The current short-term trend of ATMOSPHERIC warming has apparently stalled. Similar to the mid-20th century ripple above, this could be natural temperature variance overlaid on the AGW warming; perhaps this hiatus really should have been a natural cooling rather than a levelling of temperature.

Ten or fifteen years is just a blip on the timescale that this will play out over. We'll know more in a few more years, won't we?

3. IPCC models have failed to account for this stall, although warmists have argued that the heat that hasn't found its way to the surface someone found its way into the mid ocean and is hiding there.

Is Global Heating Hiding Out in the Oceans? - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

Water is used to cool engines, and to store and distribute heat in hydronic heating systems. We live near a Great Lake; it keeps us cooler in the summer and moderates the extremes of cold in the winter. Why is it inconceivable that the oceans wouldn't be acquiring and storing heat?

4. The Paris Accords, which were hailed as the agreement that would 'save the earth' by Mr. Obama, would, if all promises were kept, reduce total carbon emissions by 31 gigatonnes between now and 2100. This is 1% of the amount required to reduce temperatures materially. Feed that reduction into the IPCC Magicc model and you get less than 1/5th of a degree impact on temps vs. doing nothing.

This has NO bearing on whether there's a warming problem or not.

Reducing CO2 emissions does not reduce temperature; only the actions of the normal carbon cycle will remove CO2... and that takes hundreds of years. Also there's roughly a 40 year delay as the climate attempts to balance around the elevated CO2 level (meaning we haven't yet felt the full impact of the emissions already up there).

It does not make sense to keep throwing ever-increasing amounts of CO2 up there, when we have yet to stabilize around the current amount.

5. Implementing the Paris Accords will cost trillions. If implementing the actions that will reduce temps by 1/5th of a degree costs trillions, how much will we have to spend to reduce temps by 2 degrees? Hundreds of trillions perhaps?

This also has NO bearing on whether there's a warming problem or not. And you already know that the "spending" of trillions is not a foregone conclusion.

6. So far, at least, carbon fertilization appears to be almost exclusively beneficial. The Sahel is greening, earth productivity is increasing, warmer weather is nicer than cold weather, tropical storms are not increasing in frequency or intensity, sea levels are not rising as predicted, acidification of the oceans is apparently more than offset by natural buffering in the ocean, etc.

"So far, at least"... Well, tell you what - hold the climate at this exact point, and I'll agree with you.

Drowning often starts out as a pleasant swim; falling off a building begins as a nice view, a refreshing breeze and a feeling of weightlessness.

Science and common sense are not on your team.