So here the on-going blather @160 then @226 then @339 then @370 continues…..
So far it has been shown that extra AGW feedback due to additional underestimation of lost Arctic Sea Ice will be a lot smaller than the doomy levels we began with up-thread. Yet while the likely value appears something like globally 0.1Wm^-2 under RCP2.6 which is a small value compared with forcing confidence levels, it does represent a positive value from an under-accounted feedback (of which there are many) although we have yet to add assessment of the Snow Cover feedback & the Black Carbon forcing.
It should be said that there are other assessments of this feedback other than Pistone et al (2014) and those who have been paying attention to the literature will be aware of Hansen et al (2005) ‘Efficacy of climate forcings’ which sets out the ‘efficacy’ of forcing for Black Carbon on snow/ice as significantly greater than 1.0 but I think we would be double-accounting to add ‘efficacy’ into our considerations.
Yet there is still the Wadhams hypothesis that, with the ice now so thinned, Arctic Sea Ice will go-with-a-rush and go soon leaving just small amounts of hard-to-melt ice surviving. The alternative is that the remaining ice pack represents that hard-to-melt ice. It is a matter of whether the years 2007, 2008, 2011 & 2012 point the way to the future of Arctic ice, or whether it is 2009, 2010, 2013-18 that points the way. This is all more question-marks than doomy-gloom. Indeed, the NSIDC description of “Sea Ice up close & personal” in this month’s NSIDC update shows there is still much for us to learn about albedo & salinity in the Arctic melt season.
So we still have potentially an additional 0.1Wm^-2 from underestimation. But we also have the impact of the snow cover and the black carbon yet to be considered.
So, to be continued….
On the rolling hills of Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco, one of the country’s oldest wind farms has produced power for more than 30 years.
There, almost 1,500 old turbines were taken down in recent years. Only 82 new ones were installed in their place, but they produce about the same amount of electricity.
Harrumph. The old sailcloth-and-wood mills were good enough for the Dutch, they should be good enough for us.
nigeljsays
Killian
“371 MA Rodger said Carrie-aka-Thomas @360.”
“Stop being an ass. But for the fatalism, their styles are completely different – unless Thomas found an acolyte. Dipshittery should be bore holed.”
No, their styles are identical. Its absolutely obvious.
Joseph O’Sullivansays
At Caveat in NYC a comedy climate science show with… Gavin?!?!?! https://www.caveat.nyc/event/an-inconvenient-talk-show-9-3-18
I’ve been to shows there like the David Attenborough drinking games and the rats vs pigeons debate, and they are a lot of fun.
UAH is reporting August 2018 TLT with an anomaly of +0.19ºC, the second lowest of the year-so-far after the heady heights of July’s +0.32ºC. (Previous 2018 months of 2018 run +0.26ºC, +0.20ºC,+0.24ºC, +0.21ºC,+0.18ºC, +0.21ºC,+0.32ºC.)
It is the 9rd warmest August in UAH TLT below first-placed August 1998 (+0.52ºC) & then 2016, 2017, 2010, 1995, 2001, 2015 & 2007. August 2018 is =115th warmest anomaly on the full all-month UAH TLT record.
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Killian
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Carrie
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Carrie
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Carrie
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Killian
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Killian
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Killian
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Killian
Unforced Variations: Aug 2018: Carrie
ANN ARBOR—Without dramatic reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, most of the planet’s land-based ecosystems—from its forests and grasslands to the deserts and tundra—are at high risk of “major transformation” due to climate change, according to a new study from an international research team.
The researchers used fossil records of global vegetation change that occurred during a period of post-glacial warming to project the magnitude of ecosystem transformations likely in the future under various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.
They found that under a “business as usual” emissions scenario, in which little is done to rein in heat-trapping greenhouse-gas emissions, vegetation changes across the planet’s wild landscapes will likely be more far-reaching and disruptive than earlier studies suggested.
The changes would threaten global biodiversity and derail vital services that nature provides to humanity, such as water security, carbon storage and recreation, according to study co-author Jonathan Overpeck, dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan.
( I think this article is good and of considerable concern, but it doesn’t paint a picture of some of the specific changes that might occur. It needs to do this better, if it’s to communicate effectively with the general public).
Adam Leasays
383: “How many deaths due to anthropogenic climate change do you feel are tolerable?”
This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to emotion. I’ve seen a analogous argument on a cycling forum along the lines of “How many deaths on the road do you find acceptable?”. If you choose to drive a car, does that mean you don’t care, or are in some way responsible for the thousands of deaths and serious injuries on the roads every year? It is not a question that an individual can answer, it is a question that can only be directed at society at large, and the answer is, yes, society does accept that others have to suffer in order that they collectively enjoy a comfortable life, just as society accepts that people die or are seriously on the roads every year because of the collective carelessness of the driving population. No-one, on a population scale, is campaigning to ban private car use, just as no-one, on a population scale is campaigning for an end to capitalism and consumerism, and for big restrictions on energy consumption.
The argument that anthropogenic climate climate change is a bad thing, will very likely get worse in the future if we, in the west, don’t change our ways, and the consequences could be catastrophic, is a solid argument backed up by logic and evidence. You don’t need to resort to logical fallacies, that is what those who oppose this argument have to do because they don’t have a logical counterargument.
Adam Leasays
393: “Why would you bother discussing anything rational, intelligent, empathetic or ethical with xenophobes and bigots?”
Because it is the xenophobes and bigots that the population keep voting into positions of power. Having been voted into those positions of power, all you can do is try to engage with them, because not engaging with them is guarenteed to achieve nothing. I think it may be easier to engage with the few that hold the power to make significant changes, framing the issue along their morality, thatn it is to engage with the population of an entire country to the point where they will all pull in the right direction.
So here the on-going blather @160 then @226 then @339 then @370 continues…..
So far it has been shown that extra AGW feedback due to additional underestimation of lost Arctic Sea Ice will be a lot smaller than the doomy levels we began with up-thread. Yet while the likely value appears something like globally 0.1Wm^-2 under RCP2.6 which is a small value compared with forcing confidence levels, it does represent a positive value from an under-accounted feedback (of which there are many) although we have yet to add assessment of the Snow Cover feedback & the Black Carbon forcing.
It should be said that there are other assessments of this feedback other than Pistone et al (2014) and those who have been paying attention to the literature will be aware of Hansen et al (2005) ‘Efficacy of climate forcings’ which sets out the ‘efficacy’ of forcing for Black Carbon on snow/ice as significantly greater than 1.0 but I think we would be double-accounting to add ‘efficacy’ into our considerations.
Yet there is still the Wadhams hypothesis that, with the ice now so thinned, Arctic Sea Ice will go-with-a-rush and go soon leaving just small amounts of hard-to-melt ice surviving. The alternative is that the remaining ice pack represents that hard-to-melt ice. It is a matter of whether the years 2007, 2008, 2011 & 2012 point the way to the future of Arctic ice, or whether it is 2009, 2010, 2013-18 that points the way. This is all more question-marks than doomy-gloom. Indeed, the NSIDC description of “Sea Ice up close & personal” in this month’s NSIDC update shows there is still much for us to learn about albedo & salinity in the Arctic melt season.
So we still have potentially an additional 0.1Wm^-2 from underestimation. But we also have the impact of the snow cover and the black carbon yet to be considered.
So, to be continued….
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/08/wind-power-is-getting-more-efficientlockquote
Another damned incremental improvement:
Harrumph. The old sailcloth-and-wood mills were good enough for the Dutch, they should be good enough for us.
Killian
“371 MA Rodger said Carrie-aka-Thomas @360.”
“Stop being an ass. But for the fatalism, their styles are completely different – unless Thomas found an acolyte. Dipshittery should be bore holed.”
No, their styles are identical. Its absolutely obvious.
At Caveat in NYC a comedy climate science show with… Gavin?!?!?!
https://www.caveat.nyc/event/an-inconvenient-talk-show-9-3-18
I’ve been to shows there like the David Attenborough drinking games and the rats vs pigeons debate, and they are a lot of fun.
UAH is reporting August 2018 TLT with an anomaly of +0.19ºC, the second lowest of the year-so-far after the heady heights of July’s +0.32ºC. (Previous 2018 months of 2018 run +0.26ºC, +0.20ºC,+0.24ºC, +0.21ºC,+0.18ºC, +0.21ºC,+0.32ºC.)
It is the 9rd warmest August in UAH TLT below first-placed August 1998 (+0.52ºC) & then 2016, 2017, 2010, 1995, 2001, 2015 & 2007. August 2018 is =115th warmest anomaly on the full all-month UAH TLT record.
In the UAH TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 6th (same as it was last month).
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
1998 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2016 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 1st
2010 .. +0.40ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.32ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … … 3rd
2002 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.23ºC
2015 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2007 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 10th
2005 .. +0.20ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … … 7th
2003 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.18ºC … … … 9th
Wondering if there’s a trend emerging
https://news.umich.edu/most-land-based-ecosystems-worldwide-risk-major-transformation-due-to-climate-change/
ANN ARBOR—Without dramatic reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, most of the planet’s land-based ecosystems—from its forests and grasslands to the deserts and tundra—are at high risk of “major transformation” due to climate change, according to a new study from an international research team.
The researchers used fossil records of global vegetation change that occurred during a period of post-glacial warming to project the magnitude of ecosystem transformations likely in the future under various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.
They found that under a “business as usual” emissions scenario, in which little is done to rein in heat-trapping greenhouse-gas emissions, vegetation changes across the planet’s wild landscapes will likely be more far-reaching and disruptive than earlier studies suggested.
The changes would threaten global biodiversity and derail vital services that nature provides to humanity, such as water security, carbon storage and recreation, according to study co-author Jonathan Overpeck, dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan.
( I think this article is good and of considerable concern, but it doesn’t paint a picture of some of the specific changes that might occur. It needs to do this better, if it’s to communicate effectively with the general public).
383: “How many deaths due to anthropogenic climate change do you feel are tolerable?”
This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to emotion. I’ve seen a analogous argument on a cycling forum along the lines of “How many deaths on the road do you find acceptable?”. If you choose to drive a car, does that mean you don’t care, or are in some way responsible for the thousands of deaths and serious injuries on the roads every year? It is not a question that an individual can answer, it is a question that can only be directed at society at large, and the answer is, yes, society does accept that others have to suffer in order that they collectively enjoy a comfortable life, just as society accepts that people die or are seriously on the roads every year because of the collective carelessness of the driving population. No-one, on a population scale, is campaigning to ban private car use, just as no-one, on a population scale is campaigning for an end to capitalism and consumerism, and for big restrictions on energy consumption.
The argument that anthropogenic climate climate change is a bad thing, will very likely get worse in the future if we, in the west, don’t change our ways, and the consequences could be catastrophic, is a solid argument backed up by logic and evidence. You don’t need to resort to logical fallacies, that is what those who oppose this argument have to do because they don’t have a logical counterargument.
393: “Why would you bother discussing anything rational, intelligent, empathetic or ethical with xenophobes and bigots?”
Because it is the xenophobes and bigots that the population keep voting into positions of power. Having been voted into those positions of power, all you can do is try to engage with them, because not engaging with them is guarenteed to achieve nothing. I think it may be easier to engage with the few that hold the power to make significant changes, framing the issue along their morality, thatn it is to engage with the population of an entire country to the point where they will all pull in the right direction.