This month’s open thread for climate science topics.
Reader Interactions
163 Responses to "Unforced Variations: May 2021"
Alastair McDonaldsays
Hi Mr Know It All,
Re #4 where you say
“Actually, by definition, if temperatures stay at current levels, the ice extent would stay as-is with normal year to year variability. Am I wrong?”
That is a very interesting point because it seems to be what the climate modellers believe. But, of course it IS wrong. Ice starts melting when the temperature gets above 0 degrees Celsius. It does not stop melting when the temperature stabilises. It continues to melt until it has all become water, unless the temperature falls all the way back to 0.
You can see this if you take an ice cube out of the freezer. It will melt completely even though the new surrounding temperature is stable. Only when you put it back into the freezer does it become frozen again.
In the case of the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, now that temperatures have risen to a levels at which the ice is melting, the only way to stop the melt is to reduce the temperature back down to zero. Stabilising CO2 will not do that. We will have to draw down CO2 out of the atmosphere or create a large heat shield.
In the clip which you linked to, Ocasio-Cortez says:
“The World is going to end in 12 years if we do not address climate change, ..”.
IMHO, what she should have said was:
“The World going to end, if we do not address climate change in 12 years.”
She also said “This is not like World War II …”. I would have said “This is not like a pandemic. We can’t invent a vaccine to solve this problem.”
However, the same scientists, who believe that the ice will stop melting when CO2 stops rising, that are telling us we have 12 years to fix the problem. Can you really believe them?
Mr. Know It Allsays
44 – Kevin McKinney
“Yes, probably. Were it the case that global temperatures stayed flat, that would not necessarily mean that the ice sheets were in thermodynamic equilibrium. As an illustration, consider ice cubes melting in drink–when does the temperature in the glass change rapidly? Only when the ice is gone, or nearly so.”
The water would change temperature most quickly when first put in the drink. At that point, the delta T between ice and drink would be greatest, and the surface area of ice exposed to the drink would be largest.
45 – William B Jackson
“#40 Current temperatures have led to a net loss of ice in the Arctic, their continued existence at that level will lead to further losses. If temperatures rise the rate of loss can be catastrophic in the near future. The hope is that the rate of loss can be reduced or reversed!”
Temperatures in the Arctic have not stayed static. They have risen significantly, resulting in increasingly small sea ice packs. IF temps stay as they are today, sea ice packs will stay about the same as they are today.
48 – MA Rodger
I was replying to comment 36 which was about sea ice, not land ice. From 36: “I can only assume that Dr C.E.P. Brooks’ book, Climate Through the Ages is no longer read, since he showed that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in the Arctic would lead to a complete loss of the sea ice there. This appears to be what is happening now. So maintaining temperatures at their current levels will not prevent the eventual loss of that ice,…..”
I disagree with 36. If the annual “weather” stabilized at today’s temperatures, the sea ice would stay at about the same levels as we have today. Same would be the case with land ice as well. The reason sea ice is decreasing is because the temperature each year is trending warmer. If that stops, so will sea and land ice melt. Physics. Heat Transfer. They don’t call me MKIA for nuffin’!
:)
Incoming in 3, 2, 1………
Mr. Know It Allsays
51 – Alastair McDonald
“In the case of the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, now that temperatures have risen to a levels at which the ice is melting, the only way to stop the melt is to reduce the temperature back down to zero. Stabilising CO2 will not do that. We will have to draw down CO2 out of the atmosphere or create a large heat shield.”
The statement in #36 said if temperatures stay the same, the ice would keep melting. Here is the quote: “So maintaining temperatures at their current levels will not prevent the eventual loss of that ice…”
That is false. IF temperatures stayed at their current levels, then each winter, sea ice would form, and then melt exactly as it does today with the same quantities of ice forming and melting that we have now. The reason the ice is melting more each year is because the temperatures are NOT staying at their current levels – they are rising. I think you meant to write “CO2 concentrations”, not “temperatures”; and in that case you may be correct.
2 points for MKIA.
:)
In other AGW news:
Here we are only 5 weeks or so from the longest day of the year in the NH, and they’re still making ice in the great white north:
yes, what jgnfld said. Post in a civil manner if you want to heard.
There was nothing in my post that was uncivil, hypocrite, yet you, like the other jerk, hypocrtie, take a personal shot at the *object* of a personal comment.
You are the problem. You and the many, many millions of people like you. You say nothing about this: “I know Killian is a little over earnest and can be annoying with it” which was completely unnecessary for her to make her point. It was insulting and rude. You say nothing. But you jump on my back for calling out rudeness?
As I said, hypocrite.
jgnfldsays
@kill #46
Glancing over this (who’d read it in detail? …not me, that’s for sure and I doubt many others) it appears you wanted to provide even more evidence of what I addressed. I must say it appears to be a job well done.
Killian @47,
I did note your comment over at Arctic Neven’s Forum and did think to run some numbers rather than “at least visually”. As you mention it here, perhaps I should report what I found.
Looking at JAXA daily SIE 1990-2021 and the variance of individual days and 3-day averages relative to 10-day averages, over the first 75 days of the year (so over the top of the freeze) there is an odd step change in the variance level from 2003-on (you mention 2013 @Neven’s) from when the variance of the annual numbers increases by 40%. Such a step-change is suggestive of a methodological artifact rather than it having a physical cause. For this early part of the year, 2021 shows no difference from preceding years.
The following 50-day period (the start of the melt) shows no such step-change at 2003 but does show a large increase in variance for 2021, something in the order of 50%. Additionally, the series 1990-2020 shows a decline in variance 1990-2002 which is reversed 2003-2020, within which 2013 saw a peak level of variance but not by any significant amount.
Of course, this is just crunching numbers. A more sensible approach to measuring the wobbliness within Arctic SIE data would be to examine the regional data.
Chucksays
KEVIN L DAVIS says:
3 May 2021 at 5:11 PM
It seems t’me thet yo’ guys don’t pow’ful haf a clue about whut’s pow’ful gwine on wif climate change. Yo’ guys is jest guessin’ at it. Wif all yer studies an’ research no one kin say fo’ sho’nuff one way o’ t’other. Quit ackin’ like yo’ guys haf th’ answers. Bottom line yo’ guys jest don’t knows yer only guessin’ on account o’ no one unnerstan’s this. An’ no one in is lifetimes will be able t’eifer, we does not haf th’ smarts needed t’figger this hyar stuff out yet. Mebbe in t’other couple hundred years we will, ah reckon. YeeHaw!
Chuck Says: Where did this guy come from?I thought KIA was bad but this is off the charts bad.
Piotrsays
– Killian(39) “ Don’t read me if you can’t handle me. Simple, eh?”
– jgnfld(43): “ Trust me on this: Many don’t read you.”
– Killian(46): “ I see you’ve taken a poll… ”
Well, if you insist – let’s have one – ta-daaaam:
======== Real Climate Poll: =============
Q. Be it resolved, that we read Killian posts in detail, find them non-repetitive, well-informed, precise in arguments, and their author – open-minded, able to admit when he was not right, and humble, not rude or arrogant in the least. All who agree say: “Aye!”.
================
For the undecided, a little help:
jgnfld(43): “ It’s not that people cannot “handle” you. It’s much more that you are quite arrogant ”
Killian(46): “ No, I was not. You don’t understand the word. Barking more words.”
Yeah, who of us WOULDN’T be indignant at hearing that they are: “a little over earnest and can be annoying with it, but at least understand our planetary emergency and are trying to address it” [Susan, 31]
Who of us wouldn’t call these words: “insulting and rude” and her author “unethical and stupid”?
Who of us wouldn’t lecture Susan: “Learn some tolerance. The hypocritical irony of your aggressiveness here… Jesus…” ?
Mike(50): “ yes, what jgnfld said. Post in a civil manner if you want to heard.”
Killian (54): “You are the problem. You and the many, many millions of people like you. […] you jump on my back for calling out [Susan’s] rudeness? As I said, hypocrite.”
Both GISTEMP and NOAA have posted their April SAT anomaly. Both report a lower April anomaly than for March and roughly at the Jan-Mar average (GISS a bit lower, NOAA a bit higher).
In GISS, April 2021 is the 10th warmest on record (9th warmest in NOAA, 7th in ERA5 re-analysis, 8th in RSS TLT & 20th in the trend-defying UAH TLT) and the =108th highest GISS monthly anomaly (=79th highest in NOAA, 80th in ERA5, 72nd in RSS & 228th in UAH).
As a start for the year, the GISS Jan-Apr average is the 9th warmest on record (8th in NOAA, =7th in ERA5, 7th in RSS & 12th in UAH), in GISS sitting behind top warmest start-of-years 2016, 2020, 2017, 2019, 2015, 2018, 2010 and 2007 (an identical order in NOAA bar 2010 sits above 2018 & 2021 sits above 2007). Thus in GISS 2021 so-far is cooler than the previous six years and the two El Niño years 2010 & 2007 (which would have a warmer start than end to the year).
A year-on-year graphic of GISTEMP monthly anomalies 1979-to-date is here.
Richard Caldwellsays
Off topic
Book 3 took an amazing twist last night. I was going to give a likely losing speech in court that contrasted my traffic stop, a “parse and punish” stop that ended with the officer apologising, “”I’m just doing my job”.
…This Story is needed to introduce my plan for a new first responders system…
You see, I didn’t match my ride. I’m way white. Bernie levels of white (which used to make one a target, but there’s a fair amount of Karenesque courage in a Bernie. But my temporary junker was outrageously loud and had tinted windows. It screamed, “Color or white trash”.
So, anyway, my appearance wasn’t court but a pleading. They offered dismissal for $49. I lost my soapbox by accepting but it was the right path.
Now my white Camry hybrid is back. We’re White, down to the Bernie cap on the front passenger side headrest.
Last night I accidently did DUI. When it hit me (legal per Nebraska D8 oral THC) I pulled over, dropped the ride I was heading towards, and committed a felony: instead of sitting on the shoulder I drove to a safe place to park.
So the juxtapisition I needed between “Parse and Punish”can and “Serve and Protect” morphed from my planned weak-ass hypothetical to what condenses down to thirteen words:
Driving while White: I confessed to DUI and never had to show identification.
John Pollacksays
Mr. KIA @53 “That is false. IF temperatures stayed at their current levels, then each winter, sea ice would form, and then melt exactly as it does today with the same quantities of ice forming and melting that we have now. The reason the ice is melting more each year is because the temperatures are NOT staying at their current levels – they are rising.”
Sorry, you don’t get to keep your two points. You’ve neglected the oceans, which are also accumulating heat, and transferring it to the Arctic Ocean beneath the surface, assisting in melting the floating ice from below. The ocean is accumulating heat because it is out of equilibrium with rising greenhouse gas levels, and would continue to be out of equilibrium for a very long time as it absorbs more heat. So, you would not only need to stop the warming of the Arctic atmosphere, but magically remove that excess heat from the oceans, and find a way to keep it from accumulating again.
You’ve again referenced some local cooling. Haven’t found anything to match that 54F warm anomaly in Canada last December, have you?
Richard Caldwellsays
To add a bit of science, though my new field, “improbability analysis”, is not accepted by anyone except those who study placebo…
I just described what would be called a “single”. An event that makes one smile and say, “Who’d a thunk it?”
The scenario, the data, the results were essentially entirely out of my control. What are the odds? One in 100,000? A million?
But I don’t do singles. With 7 billion people, even when holding a single individual constant, to drive improbability beyond the lifespan of the observable universe, repeated doubles, triples and quadruples are required. Four simultaneous significant improbabilities says something. Ask BPL.
Then repeat repeatedly, with no intervening misses, of course. Now ask BPL.
This story’s 13 words expand and unfold miraculously. At least a triple with two huge legs. I won’t ruin it (including the largest leg by far) for you. But I’m in awe. Book 3 is unbelievable.
And I’m beginning to get locally a bit famous (and so is my car).
I don’t think I’m heading to Stanford. My work is in Omaha for now.
nigeljsays
Killian @54 implies Mike is uncivil: “There was nothing in my post that was uncivil, hypocrite,” To imply Mike is uncivil is just astounding, gobsmacking. He would probably be the most civil commentator on the entire internet . Not even the Pope could compete. Not one example of his alleged uncivility is stated. (Not to say I agree with all Mikes views on economics.)
Is Killian civil? Decide yourself from this page: “Don’t make your goddamned posts about my personality… It’s unethical and stupid.. You’re an idiot…No, it sure as shit does not. Sorry, but that’s incredibly ignorant. I thought Killian said he was going to be nice. Didn’t last long.
Was Susan Anderson uncivil? Only if you are incredibly sensitive or pedantic.
Killiansays
56 MA Rodger says:
13 May 2021 at 4:05 AM
Killian @47,
I did note your comment over at Arctic Neven’s Forum and did think to run some numbers rather than “at least visually”. As you mention it here, perhaps I should report what I found.
Overall, I think you missed the point of my post.
Looking at JAXA daily SIE 1990-2021 and the variance of individual days and 3-day averages relative to 10-day averages, over the first 75 days of the year (so over the top of the freeze) there is an odd step change in the variance level from 2003-on (you mention 2013 @Neven’s) from when the variance of the annual numbers increases by 40%. Such a step-change is suggestive of a methodological artifact rather than it having a physical cause.
Suggestive is not is. for the record, there have been a number of “step changes” if you look at the data overall. Look at the total year for years in five-year steps, this is exceedingly clear. Looking at 2000~2003 vs 2008~’10 vs ’16~’18, the first two do not overlap *at all* till March 28th. The 2nd and 3rd sets don’t overlap *at all* till May 21st. As we all know, though summer gets all the attention, the actual overall greater changes are occurring in the winter.
But that’s not the subject here.
For this early part of the year, 2021 shows no difference from preceding years.
And that is false. 2021 is more variable internally than any other year in that record *so* far, but that variability is within the range of the immediately preceding years, so there are no extremes present, nothing to jump out. It won’t show up statistically *unless*, perhaps, you are looking at magnitude changes from the average or mean for 2021 itself and do the same for all other years. Even then, signal:noise means it may not show up.
But I seem to recall my point about early exceptional CO2 emissions in Feb, then Jan., a couple years ago met with this same kind of statistical analysis which often fails to see patterns early on that end up being there. Yet, those large excursions have continued which indicates some sort of change we have yet to identify clearly.
The following 50-day period (the start of the melt) shows no such step-change at 2003 but does show a large increase in variance for 2021, something in the order of 50%.
Well, good? Honestly, I don’t think you are measuring what I am talking about…?
Of course, this is just crunching numbers. A more sensible approach to measuring the wobbliness within Arctic SIE data would be to examine the regional data.
More sensible? No. More obvious, yes, as regional variance will smooth out as regions cancel each other out for the entire basin. Please note, however, that ASI variance is well-known which is why yearly predictions are hard but the trend can be predicted by a pet monkey, so maybe the whole-basin view is of use.
But I am *not* a numbers person and am not interested in doing that. I do think the “numbers people” might want to consider this potential shift in variability.
The reason this caught my eye is 2021 has been pretty “normal.” Lots of Fram exit, but that is common this time of year and it is also common for that to slow considerably during the critical Aug/Sept period, which is partly why we did not get a new low yet. 2012 saw such loss through the Fram Strait through the summer – along with the GAC in August that shattered the ice making it more vulnerable to those winds. Why is such a normal winter proving so variable? That is the key question. Is it meaningful? Don’t know. Is it there? Yes.
So, I repeat, the overall ice weakness, early melt from continents, early snow cover melt, etc., is going to make intra-year variability more of a thing:
Year-to-year variability should continue to be expected, but I think we will see more variability, in general, moving forward – as I said some years ago. Undoubtedly many of you have said the same. I think we’re here.
Then again, maybe 2013 is just odd.
Thanks for taking the time even though we disagree on the analysis. I suspected it would not be overly statistically significant yet. Reminder: Consider checking the internal variability in changes in magnitude of changes of each year from their own means/averages.
I have joined Gavin and Lawrence “on the warpath against Steve Koonin’s new book”.
Having covered what Prof. Koonin leaves out of his magnum opus entirely (Arctic sea ice) I’m moving on to a cryospheric topic that he does make mention of, but gets horribly wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet:
Personally I have very high confidence that Professor Koonin had great difficulty cherry picking a Greenland Ice Sheet quote from the IPCC that could be “spun” into supporting his case. Frankly his “southern tip of Greenland” effort smacks of desperation.
Unsettling, is it not?
Piotrsays
John Pollack(61): “ Sorry, you don’t get to keep your two points. You’ve neglected the oceans, which are also accumulating heat
Not only our boy genius does not get to keep his self-awarded “two pints”
(I feel bad for him – since he probably bragged about them to his family and friends – imagine the egg on his face now…), but actually earned negative
points, for missing a more universal problem – one that affects not only ice in ocean but also on land:
– our boy genius thinks that it is the increasing trend air temperature that melts the ice. In reality, it is the temperature being ABOVE the steady-state temperature (the temp. at which forming ice in winter is balance by melting in summer so there is no net change) that melts it. And as long as we are above this steady-state temperature, EVEN the decreasing air temperature trend will be still melting the ice.
And in fact we will still lose ice EVEN below the preindustrial steady-state temperature – for the surplus heat accumulated already in the ocean (that you brought up), plus the already reduced albedo, will cause a hysteresis effect
– so the air temperature would have to fall BELOW the past steady-point level to compensate for this extra heat in the system.
It may be instructive, to can stagger the effects of reduction our CO2 emissions:
i) Stabilizing CO2 in atm. – the ice will still melt and due to the albedo feedback the Earth would still gets warmer, sea level stil rises
ii) Net zero Emissions, which given that some of the natural sinks of CO2 would work would actually slowly reduce CO2 – might stabilize the temps (less heating from CO2 but more heating from still decreasing albedo) – seaice and ice-shelf ice are still melting, sea level still rises
iii) Negative emissions + uptake from natural sink – if ENOUGH of negative emissions to overcome the albedo feedback – the air temp. decrease, but the ice would still melt UNTIL we drop the air temp BELOW the “new” (hysteresis adjusted) ice steady-state temperature. The sea-ice would be stable, however IF the warm ocean destabilized ice shelves enough they may continue their collapse, and the continental glaciers no longer blocked by ice-shelves flow into the ocean unencumbered – so the sea level STILL rises !
So the ice may decline and sealevel continue to rise even with negative emissions. The only question is if they aggressive enough to prevent the collapse of the ice-shelves.
“JAXA” Arctic sea ice extent is but one metric out of many. I suppose it’s the easiest to measure, but perhaps that means it has less explanatory value than other metrics. How about area, thickness, volume, age, velocity etc. etc. ?
I’ve got a feeling embedding images here is non trivial, but what do you make of the merged CryoSat-2/SMOS thickness data visible at:
Here’s what’s behind my disagreement with Killian on economics.
There is a school of economists called the Cornucopians who think that, because humans are just so gosh-darned brilliant, we can always adjust and adapt, and economic growth can continue forever. A representative of this school, Julian L. Simon, bet ecologist Paul Ehrlich in 1980 that any five commodities Ehrlich chose would be cheaper, not more expensive due to scarcity, in 1990. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten, and lost the bet. All were cheaper, in real terms, in 1990.
Of course, the bet was a stunt, and Ehrlich was a fool to take it. It’s very like jumping off the Empire State Building and saying as you pass the 14th floor, “See, I’m fine! And I’ll still be fine when I pass the thirteenth floor!” Because in real life, economic growth cannot continue forever. Our economic system as presently constituted, dependent on annual growth for prosperity, is due for collapse sooner or later, and the climate crisis implies it will be sooner.
This is easiest to demonstrate with population. Population growth is a compound-interest expansion, P = P0 (1 + r)^n, where P0 is the population you start with, r the annual growth rate as a decimal (5% would be 0.05), and n the number of years elapsed. Put it in terms of mass, assuming an average human masses 50 kilograms, and the eight billion people now living mass 4 x 10^11 kg. At a 1% annual growth rate (the present value), the mass of humanity equals the mass of the Earth in 3,049 years. If the observable universe consists of 10^11 galaxies of 10^12 solar masses each, a solar mass being 2 x 10^30 kg, the total mass is 2 x 10^55 kg and we reach that in 10,112 years. In reality, of course, we would run out of resources long before that. We would even run over the speed-of-light limit, trying to expand. So in the long run, the Cornucopian theory is garbage.
Now, not all schools are Cornucopian. There are several other schools of economics, including many attempts to design an economy that would be steady-state, recycling its resources, and yet creating enough prosperity for everyone. Population growth rates are slowing down; annual population growth was 2.2% per year the year I was born (1960), but today is 1.1%, and the UN expects population to top out at some 10 billion around 2050. A steady-state economy is both necessary and desirable.
But Killian contends not only that all schools of economics are Cornucopian, but that the entire science of economics embraces this stupid idea and is therefore illegitimate. He insists that economics is “magic” and not a science at all. In short, he is indulging a classic fallacy of composition. How the hell he managed to pass two econ classes, as he claims, is beyond me–he must simply have regurgitated whatever the professors said while not believing any of it, the way a creationist kid will pass a biology class.
But economics is merely the study of “who gets what and how”–the empirical science of how goods and services are produced and distributed. Prices are real things and so are markets. The behavior of markets is an observable consequence of mass human behavior. Denying this is batshit insane. Thus my disagreement with Killian. He will now respond with a long, obscene rant about what an awful person I am. 3… 2… 1…
Mr. Know It Allsays
63 – nigelj
“I thought Killian said he was going to be nice. Didn’t last long.”
No surprise there. I thought his response to Susan deserved a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order.
nigeljsays
Barton Paul Levenson @68 on economics. Agree totally. While I havent studied economics formally, I’ve read a few texts and books (J Stiglitz is good) and the Economist each week. Killians sweeping condemnation of economics is such an annoying generalisation and so unfounded. However I suspect he is really criticising things like the Chicago school and neoliberalism, that believes the evidence favours small government, free trade, deregulation and endless growth. But as you say this does not define economics as a whole. I’m sceptical of these schools myself but until you get right into the specifics of what they say its all just hand waving. They are wrong about growth, but not necessarily wrong about everything.
But theres another thing. Killian is utterly convinced his ‘simplification’ plan is right and anything not 100% like it gets rubbished. So a lot of economists get criticised. Nobody seems to have the full picture right. I think our best hope is the circular economy because its a realistic idea. And consumption has to decrease sooner or later. But I’m less convinced about all these attempts to emulate communal ownership culture of hunter gatherers. Killian will now respond with a long, obscene rant about what an awful person I am. 3… 2… 1…
nigeljsays
Piotr @66 “So the ice may decline and sealevel continue to rise even with negative emissions. The only question is if they aggressive enough to prevent the collapse of the ice-shelves.”
True. Antarctica is the potential source of the worst sea level rise due to the ice sheets being what they are below sea level and easily destabilised in various ways. I wonder if this creates a case for some form of local geoengineering to reduce local ocean warming, if such a thing is possible. Not a fan of geoengineering for the planet as a whole, too risky, but locally it might make sense.
Piotrsays
Mr. Know It All (69) I thought [Killian] response to Susan deserved a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order.
Aaa, trying to snatch the victory from the jaws of the defeat? ;-)
Here is what Susan said:
“ KIA24 has reached one of his or her regular lows in ignorant dishonesty. I know Killian is a little over earnest and can be annoying with it, but at least he understands our planetary emergency and is trying to address it rather than spread a dressing of phony skepticism over an increasingly obvious reality. Isn’t there a place called the crank shaft for things like [KIA24]?”
So, who came off worse here – Killian or you ?
And what does it tell you if people are so offended ( “insulting”, “rude”, “unethical”, “stupid”) by being mentioned, even favourably!, next to you? ;-)
Jim Hunt @67,
Happenchance that’s a mighty big “perhaps” you serve up!! “JAXA Arctic sea ice extent is but one metric out of many. I suppose it’s the easiest to measure, but perhaps that means it has less explanatory value than other metrics.”
Our ability to measure the wobbliness of daily SIE numbers surely does give us some measure of how much each annual cycle of melt/freeze is being kicked around by other factors, like the weather. If these ‘other factors’ are assumed to average-out through the years to provide a constant level of kicking, any changes in wobbliness of SIE will perhaps indicate a more fragile ice pack. (This is what I assumed Killian was suggesting @47 & @Neven’s with talk of JAXA data and the 2021 season-to-date being “more variable”.)
Of alternative metrics, as you point out there is a bit of a list but none more readily-to-hand for some number crunching than daily Arctic SIE. (Mind, PIOMAS daily data is likewise readily-to-hand but perhaps too subjected to the modelling process and is thus more likely to throw methodological artifacts into the output.)
And all this because the Artic Sea Ice presents an intriguing question. On the one hand, is it as Peter Wadhams has been preaching – the ice is thinning and the summer minimums will thus go suddenly with a rush? Or will AGW leave the summer ice fighting a long drawn-out rearguard action from in those difficult-to-reach regions of the Arctic?
Killiansays
63 nigelj says:
13 May 2021 at 9:25 PM
Killian @54 implies Mike is uncivil: “There was nothing in my post that was uncivil, hypocrite
I implied nothing. He was. It is uncivil to pointlessly make negative comments about someone in a thread you have no part of while engaging in gaslighting. If this was a moral and ehtical group of people, at least one of you would have held Susan accountable. Not one of you have.
You suck as people.
We are back to 2015 with the Peanut Gallery back to their long years of attack and gaslight. Must be Republicans. Now, shut up. You’re wasting this space with your bullshit bullying.
Killiansays
But Killian contends not only that all schools of economics are Cornucopian, but that the entire science of economics embraces this stupid idea and is therefore illegitimate.
This does not belong on this thread.
He will now respond with a long, obscene rant about what an awful person I am.
And, the taunt/lie. Nowhere in my conversation with you on this topic has there been any acrimony. Yet, you start it here
Well, at this time of year I prefer area over extent. I tell myself it gives a better feel for overall Arctic albedo than extent.
If you frequent the Arctic Sea Ice Forum then I assume you are familiar with Wipneus’s AMSR2 based regional area and extent graphs, which sadly I can find no way of displaying in a comment here?
The regional AMSR2 numbers ready for crunching are available for download from:
The “measured” gridded sea ice thickness data I mentioned earlier suggests Prof. Wadhams prophecy may now come true sooner rather than later, dependent as ever on the highly variable Arctic “weather”. Scroll down at my link @67 for the short term prognosis.
nigeljsays
Killian @74 says “It is uncivil to pointlessly make negative comments about someone in a thread you have no part of while engaging in gaslighting.” Mike being apparently uncivil saying “yes, what jgnfld said. Post in a civil manner if you want to heard.” You must be joking. None of that is uncivil. You are very arrogant – a fact- and asking you to post nicely is just advice. Where did Mike gaslight you? My understanding is this is an american terms that means calling someone crazy. I cant see where anyone has done that, let alone Mike. Calm down.
“If this was a moral and ehtical group of people, at least one of you would have held Susan accountable. Not one of you have.”
Because what she said was harmless and actually mostly giving you positive feedback: “a little over earnest and can be annoying with it, but at least understand our planetary emergency and are trying to address it” [Susan, 31]”. If she had said it about me I would have shrugged it off. I wouldn’t have wasted time responding and making an issue out of it.
The only reason I call YOU out is because you are incredibly uncivil, and worse of all you do it to fellow warmists. MAR gets a bit uncivil with name calling with the denialists, although to be honest I probably have myself on occasion. I dont have much sympathy for them. They stick their heads above the parapet like muppets holding a sign saying “hit me” (metaphorically speaking). They get what they ask for. But I think Piotr has it right, so rather than name calling just mock them relentlessly.
Get back to the science.
Mr. Know It Allsays
72 – Piotr
“So, who came off worse here – Killian or you ?
And what does it tell you if people are so offended ( “insulting”, “rude”, “unethical”, “stupid”) by being mentioned, even favourably!, next to you? ;-)”
Sheesh! What a tempest in a teapot. Some people appear to be more interested in their thin skins and finding somebody to blame than in solving problems.
You’re wasting your own and other people’s time and energy. I don’t matter. Lies are more important than who gave offense to whom and when.
– quantifying doublespeak: BETWEEN 1977 AND 2014, 80 percent of ExxonMobil’s internal research supported the idea that human activity was a contributor to climate change. But during that same period, 80 percent of the oil and gas provider’s public statements instead expressed doubt whether climate change was caused by humans—or even real in the first place.
– using word “risk” (as in “risk of climate change”)
– interchanging “fossil fuels” and “energy” – while reiterating that our modern civilization and food production are based on the abundant energy use
– fossil fuels are with us to stay for decades to come
– 2020 Republican platform – the enemy are NOT “fossil fuels”, but “emissions”
– the Paris Treaty does not contain the word “fossil” – I had to go there
(https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
to check it for myself – it does not (nor “oil”, “coal” or “natural gas”).
– shifting the responsibility from politicians and corporations onto individuals – e.g. using the concept of the individual carbon footprint they have brought to public attention with their $100 M a year campaign in 2004-2006, providing the first carbon footprint calculator – with the message: it’s not us, it’s you – we only do what you ask us to do, in fact we actually try to educate you on the need to cut down your need for “energy”
This nicely doves in with the classic denier trope – the “all-or-nothing” fallacy – if you do not use ZERO fossil fuels then you are a hypocrite, i.e. not be trusted and certainly not having a moral rights to criticize others (even if they use 10 times more fossil fuels). And not in a position to criticize the fossil fuel industrial complex that socializes the consequences and privatizes the profits.
Western Hikersays
We tend to compare fire seasons in terms of area burned, which means a sparsely vegetated area like this… https://tinyurl.com/dcss3hd3…. carries the same weight per square acre as for example a square acre of Redwoods. That’s a problem.
Worse, climate change may be creating opposing trends for each. With additional warming and drought the already barren landscape (as above) could potentially end up closer to a place like Death Valley – ewer fires because there’s less and less to burn.
IOW, seems like apples and oranges to combine forest and desert into a singular fire metric.
Yeah, not every acre is equivalent, and yeah, different environments may indeed have different fire trends.
For example, Joshua Tree NM–at the start of the 20th century, that area apparently had considerable expanses of grassland. Now it’s all cactus, and Bill Key’s stockpile of bedsprings and auto parts is still there as part of an outdoor pioneer museum, so sparse the rainfall has become. No conservation effort required…
Pretty much unburnable, I’d think.
Western Hikersays
Kevin McKinney, 83
Yes, nice example.
I think area burned per vegetation type would be useful. Or even a distinction as simple as ‘forest versus brush’ would be a big improvement compared to lumping every sort of fire into one value.
Jim Hunt @73,
Thanks for the links. The first set of data (stretching just 2012-2021 but that shouldn’t be a problem spotting 2021 wobbles) only cover the CAB, Laptev, E Siberian, Chukchi & Beaufort. These bits of ocean are not going to be a part of big wobbles in SIE as they remain frozen over through the early part of the melt we are looking-at and so there are no significant SIE wobbles at all. And looking at the numbers, the 2021 wobbles that do feature are not significant relative to previous years.
Looking at the regional graphs of this data (HERE), the prime suspect for big wobbles in 2021 is Barentz but the data in that second link @73 (which does give the numbers everywhere and all the way back to 1979) is NSIDC and in my understanding that is subject to a lot more smoothing which may result in a very-much muted wobble-signal.
Killiansays
79 Susan Anderson says:
15 May 2021 at 8:13 PM
Sheesh! What a tempest in a teapot. Some people appear to be more interested in their thin skins and finding somebody to blame than in solving problems.
You’re wasting your own and other people’s time and energy. I don’t matter. Lies are more important than who gave offense to whom and when.
RealClimate deserves better.
Then *do* better. Get a clue, eh? It’s not a balanced game here. It’s a fucking dog pile year after year with gaslighting galore. You had NO REASON to mention me, let alone make a negative characterization.
YOU started the problem, ALL the others let your shit slide. And none of THEM needed to respond to a comment between you and I. But they did, and always do.
Get some ethics and own your bullshit.
AS I said, I *proved* all this started with you assholes back in 2015. Six years of constant dogpiling and abuse.
You *caused* this. Own your shit.
Killiansays
67 Jim Hunt says:
14 May 2021 at 12:07 PM
Al@56 & Killian@64
“JAXA” Arctic sea ice extent is but one metric out of many.
Yes, true. But extent is the measurement with the longest and most consistent data set so comparison is easy and easily understood even by the neophyte.
I suppose it’s the easiest to measure, but perhaps that means it has less explanatory value than other metrics.
Yes. I commented long ago that extent would be less reliable as it reduced as the sea ice would become more mobile and likely to spread more easily, thus being less intuitively accurate.
How about area, thickness, volume, age, velocity etc. etc. ?
Age is a proxy for thickness, and so also volume. Both are useful, but far less accurate than extent. Area and volume are the two that would tell us the most if you had to choose just two, but they have considerable error.
what do you make of the merged CryoSat-2/SMOS thickness data visible at
I’ve already commented that this season is the most variable in the satellite record thus far, at least since about mid-February. The relatively low thickness and volume is going to be a problem if we get a 2012-like summer. However, a 2013~2020-like summer should give us final ASI levels about average for the last 5 years or so, I think. My VERY preliminary prediction (I almost never make predictions before early July bc, as you know, the ASI is so variable) is 4`4.5M unless we get strong July/Aug melt conditions/dipoles, etc., then as low as 3.8.
Again, very preliminary as that high variability speaks to me of the overall poor condition of the ice.
Mikesays
How about a 30 day timeout for commenters who go off the deep end? Alternatively, we can collectively just refuse to take the bait and ignore the egregious provocations until the poster says something new and meaningful in an civil manner. We all know that the comments will be full of shrill invective with the second option.
Hey, Moderators, step up please.
back to climate science:
“Based on what we already know about abrupt thaw and wildfire, these feedback loops are likely to substantially exacerbate the permafrost thaw feedback and resulting carbon emissions,” Woodwell researcher and paper co-author Rachael Treharne said in a statement on Monday. “Unless our models account for these anticipated effects, we’ll be missing a major piece of the carbon puzzle.”
Al @85 – My apologies, but I didn’t specify which data file to choose. I suspect the one you’re after is UH_AMSR2_3.125km_Area_Extent-v0.0.txt, as opposed to the “basin” file, which does indeed exclude the peripheral seas. That is by design, to exclude those areas that melt out completely by September in this day and age.
Both those files only include AMSR2 data, and hence only go back to 2012. The JAXA numbers splice together AMSR2, AMSR-E and SSMIS data. I think you’ll find that the NSIDC frown on that sort of thing!
Killiansays
83 Kevin McKinney says:
17 May 2021 at 12:05 PM
#82, Western Hiker–
Yeah, not every acre is equivalent, and yeah, different environments may indeed have different fire trends.
For example, Joshua Tree NM–at the start of the 20th century, that area apparently had considerable expanses of grassland. Now it’s all cactus, and Bill Key’s stockpile of bedsprings and auto parts is still there as part of an outdoor pioneer museum, so sparse the rainfall has become. No conservation effort required…
Pretty much unburnable, I’d think.
Ever heard of creosote? Trust me, it can still, and does, burn.
In reality, the Mojave had been greening rather than becoming drying. There were dunes that had become vegetated between 72 and 79, when we returned to 29 Palms. Those whispy, yellow grasses were still there last time I visited. Ever heard of creosote? Trust me, it can still, and does, burn.
That said, I’ve been in Korea for going on 6 years and the previous drought while I was there and the current dryness may be changing things a bit. That would be expected.
But, yeah, as far as burning goes, creosote, dead Joshua Trees and other stuff will get you a good fire now and then. Lots of dying JT’s.
Killiansays
88 Mike says:
18 May 2021 at 9:55 AM
How about a 30 day timeout for commenters who go off the deep end?
KIA actually responded quite good-naturedly. There was no rancor or attack on my character from them. Had Susan not butted in, it would have ended there. I had no reason to respond to KIA, as is my general policy with the denialists here – even as the rest of you use up a majority of the bandwidth here reinforcing their Big Lies and calling them names and insulting them every step of the way. I guess not following the rules is OK for the Peanut Gallery, right?
Yet, Susan saw fit to call my comments about what *is* a crime against humanity being a, you know, crime against humanity, “over the top” and “irritating.”
Let’s be clear: The denialist merely gets recommended for the Bore Hole, but in defending Earth and humanity against crimes against humanity and ecocide I get called “over the top” and “irritating.”
But in your world, I am at fault. That is the very definition of gaslighting from you and your fellow Peanuts.
And let’s define “the deep end” as needless harassment, insults, aspersions and gaslighting by the core group of posters. Fact is, others here don’t need to “go off” when the Peanut Gallery keeps their damned mouths shut and focus on the science, mitigation and adaptation.
Full comment on the other forum.
jgnfldsays
@86 and kill’s: “You *caused* this.”
Nope. People are not are not mindless robots–or so I would have assumed before seeing this. People are actors. My assumption has always been that kill is a real person, not a bot.
Re. kill as an actor, I have to say that rarely in human history has anyone ever been put through such terrible provocations since 2015.
‘Look what you made me do’ is a rather old and tired method method of attempting deflection of responsibility from the actor. See it all the time with gaslighters of all stripes. Wife beaters, for one example, use it all the time.
K 86: I *proved* all this started with you assholes back in 2015. Six years of constant dogpiling and abuse.
BPL: Killian is as innocent as the day is long. He’s a lamb, a saint on Earth. The rest of us are just vicious, snarling dogs. Why isn’t that obvious to everybody?
nigeljsays
Came across these interesting looking new research papers on another website:
“Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity” (I wonder if KIA will bite with his usual silly climate has changed before dogma)
“Critical slowing down suggests that the western Greenland Ice Sheet is close to a tipping point” ( looks very concerning to me. Does this paper look convincing?)
Killian @91 “Let’s be clear: The denialist merely gets recommended for the Bore Hole, but in defending Earth and humanity against crimes against humanity and ecocide I get called “over the top” and “irritating.”
No. False. IMO you are over the top and irritating for your arrogance, your big ego in an intellectual sense, and your voluminous rants calling people nasty names etc and constantly accusing people of lying or racism (without providing the slightest proof). And your tendency to respond to even the slightest criticism of your commentary, or slightly blunt tone, by massively escalating things. You’re not the only person who does these things, but you stick out like a sore thumb.
Piotrsays
Nigel (94): “Critical slowing down suggests that the western Greenland Ice Sheet is close to a tipping point” ( looks very concerning to me. Does this paper look convincing?) https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2024192118
It probably depends on a definition of the tipping point (TP). For me it is when something changes ENOUGH that there is no coming back. In other words, after TP, the positive feedback CAN NO LONGER work in the backward direction, so no matter what we do, we still move forward.
Guessing from the abstract of the PNAS – the feedback in question is the altitude-melting positive feedback (as the ice melts, altitude drops bringing the top of the ice into warmer temps which melts them more and so on). So the question is: if we have negative emissions large enough to LOWER the air temp. – would it still continue melting. at the same rate
The researchers’ models reveal that melting of the ice sheet is “inevitable beyond a 0.8°C to 3.2°C above pre-industrial levels, with a best estimate of 1.6°C.”
So, essentially this is a done deal, particularly if you assume the worst-case scenario of 0.8C, which is the only sane choice WRT long-tail existential risks. And this on top of similar news about Antarctica. (This is not a shock: We also recently heard the tleconnections between the NH and SH are pretty fast… as someone… ahem… said a good decade or so ago…)
What do the site owners have to say about this?
Piotrsays
Nigel(94) referring to the paper that concludes: “ Earth System Models are not capturing present-day tropical forest carbon dynamics”
Given the simplification one has to do to include them into Earth System Models
I would be shocked if they did. In fact, if they did, it would have meant that all the ecosystem complications … do not really matter for the net in/out carbon fluxes, since we captured their effect with a few boxes and exchange parameters.
But the paper suggest that they don’t, which strengthens my impression that in modeling the future climates, in addition to not knowing what CO2 emission we will have in the future, the other major source of uncertainty lies in the biogeochemistry.
In other words, physical and chemical oceanographers, ice and the atmospheric guys are much closer to the modelling of the real world than biogeochemists/ecologists are. It’s not an a putdown of the latter – it is simply that life may be more complicated and difficult to represent in a computationally-effective manner than the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, ocean mixing, kinetics of air-sea CO2 exchanges, and chemistry of the carbonate system.
This, in turn, means that the good agreement in the inter-model climate sensitivity comparisons may lull us into a false sense of security – they agree relatively well not only because their physico-chemical representation of the world are similar, but also because the biogeochemical component and its feedbacks are either very simplified or not represented at all.
Another problem with those models is that they are parametrized/ tested on the past. But with conditions increasingly b> outside of the conditions seen in the last several million years (temp. and CO2-wise), or even without any precedent at all (the human element), the validity of extrapolation outside of the range on which we trained our models – becomes increasingly problematic.
We could go further and further back in time to find similar high temps and CO2 but means that the ecosystems from that time are getting less and less similar to the today’s.
Adam Leasays
24: “We’re running cool here in the great Pacific Northwest USA. Tied or broke a record cold night a few weeks back – makes me wonder how that is possible with so much CO2 in the atmosphere during this “climate emergency”. Maybe there’s something wrong with the theory?”
We are running cool in the UK too. The lowest April mean minimum temperature since the 1920’s, the sunniest on record, followed by a cool and wet May means we are looking at the highest Spring temperature this year being recorded in March, the only year I know this has happened. It is nothing to do with a breakdown of the theory, but because the UK (and most of Europe) has been stuck under a trough in the jet stream with weeks of winds with a northerly (cool) component. High pressure in April combined with persistent NWly winds resulted in frostiness more normal for a winter month. Everything on my allotment is really slow to get going, crops are nearly a month behind. If there is a trough over the UK, and by the sound of it the Pacific NW USA, there will be a ridge somewhere else where mild air is advected northward bringing warmer than average temperatures. These meanders in the jet stream when they get locked in place don’t significantly change global temperature, they result in cold air moving south and warm air moving north. This sums it up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/05/05/europe-cold-april-2021/
Jim Hunt @89,
For our purpose, the AMSR2 data only goes back to 2013 (as it kicks-off 4/7/12). Without checking (and the JAXA VISHOP data will only do that for the Total Arctic values), this analysis will be making a big assumption that these 2021 wobbles are exceptional at a basin level. But I did also grab the NSIDC numbers back to 1979 and they do show something not dissimilar to the JAXA data despite the presumed NSIDC rounding. Mind, there is a lot of data being processed and, despite the presumed rounding, needing cleaning of duff data. So I will park the NSIDC analysis for the moment.
Following your detailed directions, I now have the AMSR2 data and this does show the elevated wobbliness of 2021 both in SIExtent and (less dramatically) in SIArea. I have uploaded a graphic of this HERE. So in due course I will set about examining which parts of the Arctic Ice are guilty for causing all this wobbliness.
Hi Mr Know It All,
Re #4 where you say
“Actually, by definition, if temperatures stay at current levels, the ice extent would stay as-is with normal year to year variability. Am I wrong?”
That is a very interesting point because it seems to be what the climate modellers believe. But, of course it IS wrong. Ice starts melting when the temperature gets above 0 degrees Celsius. It does not stop melting when the temperature stabilises. It continues to melt until it has all become water, unless the temperature falls all the way back to 0.
You can see this if you take an ice cube out of the freezer. It will melt completely even though the new surrounding temperature is stable. Only when you put it back into the freezer does it become frozen again.
In the case of the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, now that temperatures have risen to a levels at which the ice is melting, the only way to stop the melt is to reduce the temperature back down to zero. Stabilising CO2 will not do that. We will have to draw down CO2 out of the atmosphere or create a large heat shield.
In the clip which you linked to, Ocasio-Cortez says:
“The World is going to end in 12 years if we do not address climate change, ..”.
IMHO, what she should have said was:
“The World going to end, if we do not address climate change in 12 years.”
She also said “This is not like World War II …”. I would have said “This is not like a pandemic. We can’t invent a vaccine to solve this problem.”
However, the same scientists, who believe that the ice will stop melting when CO2 stops rising, that are telling us we have 12 years to fix the problem. Can you really believe them?
44 – Kevin McKinney
“Yes, probably. Were it the case that global temperatures stayed flat, that would not necessarily mean that the ice sheets were in thermodynamic equilibrium. As an illustration, consider ice cubes melting in drink–when does the temperature in the glass change rapidly? Only when the ice is gone, or nearly so.”
The water would change temperature most quickly when first put in the drink. At that point, the delta T between ice and drink would be greatest, and the surface area of ice exposed to the drink would be largest.
45 – William B Jackson
“#40 Current temperatures have led to a net loss of ice in the Arctic, their continued existence at that level will lead to further losses. If temperatures rise the rate of loss can be catastrophic in the near future. The hope is that the rate of loss can be reduced or reversed!”
Temperatures in the Arctic have not stayed static. They have risen significantly, resulting in increasingly small sea ice packs. IF temps stay as they are today, sea ice packs will stay about the same as they are today.
48 – MA Rodger
I was replying to comment 36 which was about sea ice, not land ice. From 36: “I can only assume that Dr C.E.P. Brooks’ book, Climate Through the Ages is no longer read, since he showed that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in the Arctic would lead to a complete loss of the sea ice there. This appears to be what is happening now. So maintaining temperatures at their current levels will not prevent the eventual loss of that ice,…..”
I disagree with 36. If the annual “weather” stabilized at today’s temperatures, the sea ice would stay at about the same levels as we have today. Same would be the case with land ice as well. The reason sea ice is decreasing is because the temperature each year is trending warmer. If that stops, so will sea and land ice melt. Physics. Heat Transfer. They don’t call me MKIA for nuffin’!
:)
Incoming in 3, 2, 1………
51 – Alastair McDonald
“In the case of the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, now that temperatures have risen to a levels at which the ice is melting, the only way to stop the melt is to reduce the temperature back down to zero. Stabilising CO2 will not do that. We will have to draw down CO2 out of the atmosphere or create a large heat shield.”
The statement in #36 said if temperatures stay the same, the ice would keep melting. Here is the quote: “So maintaining temperatures at their current levels will not prevent the eventual loss of that ice…”
That is false. IF temperatures stayed at their current levels, then each winter, sea ice would form, and then melt exactly as it does today with the same quantities of ice forming and melting that we have now. The reason the ice is melting more each year is because the temperatures are NOT staying at their current levels – they are rising. I think you meant to write “CO2 concentrations”, not “temperatures”; and in that case you may be correct.
2 points for MKIA.
:)
In other AGW news:
Here we are only 5 weeks or so from the longest day of the year in the NH, and they’re still making ice in the great white north:
Resolute:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute
Barrow:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/us/ak/utqia%C4%A1vik
;)
50 Mike says:
11 May 2021 at 12:29 PM
yes, what jgnfld said. Post in a civil manner if you want to heard.
There was nothing in my post that was uncivil, hypocrite, yet you, like the other jerk, hypocrtie, take a personal shot at the *object* of a personal comment.
You are the problem. You and the many, many millions of people like you. You say nothing about this: “I know Killian is a little over earnest and can be annoying with it” which was completely unnecessary for her to make her point. It was insulting and rude. You say nothing. But you jump on my back for calling out rudeness?
As I said, hypocrite.
@kill #46
Glancing over this (who’d read it in detail? …not me, that’s for sure and I doubt many others) it appears you wanted to provide even more evidence of what I addressed. I must say it appears to be a job well done.
‘Nuf said.
Killian @47,
I did note your comment over at Arctic Neven’s Forum and did think to run some numbers rather than “at least visually”. As you mention it here, perhaps I should report what I found.
Looking at JAXA daily SIE 1990-2021 and the variance of individual days and 3-day averages relative to 10-day averages, over the first 75 days of the year (so over the top of the freeze) there is an odd step change in the variance level from 2003-on (you mention 2013 @Neven’s) from when the variance of the annual numbers increases by 40%. Such a step-change is suggestive of a methodological artifact rather than it having a physical cause. For this early part of the year, 2021 shows no difference from preceding years.
The following 50-day period (the start of the melt) shows no such step-change at 2003 but does show a large increase in variance for 2021, something in the order of 50%. Additionally, the series 1990-2020 shows a decline in variance 1990-2002 which is reversed 2003-2020, within which 2013 saw a peak level of variance but not by any significant amount.
Of course, this is just crunching numbers. A more sensible approach to measuring the wobbliness within Arctic SIE data would be to examine the regional data.
KEVIN L DAVIS says:
3 May 2021 at 5:11 PM
It seems t’me thet yo’ guys don’t pow’ful haf a clue about whut’s pow’ful gwine on wif climate change. Yo’ guys is jest guessin’ at it. Wif all yer studies an’ research no one kin say fo’ sho’nuff one way o’ t’other. Quit ackin’ like yo’ guys haf th’ answers. Bottom line yo’ guys jest don’t knows yer only guessin’ on account o’ no one unnerstan’s this. An’ no one in is lifetimes will be able t’eifer, we does not haf th’ smarts needed t’figger this hyar stuff out yet. Mebbe in t’other couple hundred years we will, ah reckon. YeeHaw!
Chuck Says: Where did this guy come from?I thought KIA was bad but this is off the charts bad.
– Killian(39) “ Don’t read me if you can’t handle me. Simple, eh?”
– jgnfld(43): “ Trust me on this: Many don’t read you.”
– Killian(46): “ I see you’ve taken a poll… ”
Well, if you insist – let’s have one – ta-daaaam:
======== Real Climate Poll: =============
Q. Be it resolved, that we read Killian posts in detail, find them non-repetitive, well-informed, precise in arguments, and their author – open-minded, able to admit when he was not right, and humble, not rude or arrogant in the least. All who agree say: “Aye!”.
================
For the undecided, a little help:
jgnfld(43): “ It’s not that people cannot “handle” you. It’s much more that you are quite arrogant ”
Killian(46): “ No, I was not. You don’t understand the word. Barking more words.”
Yeah, who of us WOULDN’T be indignant at hearing that they are: “a little over earnest and can be annoying with it, but at least understand our planetary emergency and are trying to address it” [Susan, 31]
Who of us wouldn’t call these words: “insulting and rude” and her author “unethical and stupid”?
Who of us wouldn’t lecture Susan: “Learn some tolerance. The hypocritical irony of your aggressiveness here… Jesus…” ?
Mike(50): “ yes, what jgnfld said. Post in a civil manner if you want to heard.”
Killian (54): “You are the problem. You and the many, many millions of people like you. […] you jump on my back for calling out [Susan’s] rudeness? As I said, hypocrite.”
Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself …
Both GISTEMP and NOAA have posted their April SAT anomaly. Both report a lower April anomaly than for March and roughly at the Jan-Mar average (GISS a bit lower, NOAA a bit higher).
In GISS, April 2021 is the 10th warmest on record (9th warmest in NOAA, 7th in ERA5 re-analysis, 8th in RSS TLT & 20th in the trend-defying UAH TLT) and the =108th highest GISS monthly anomaly (=79th highest in NOAA, 80th in ERA5, 72nd in RSS & 228th in UAH).
As a start for the year, the GISS Jan-Apr average is the 9th warmest on record (8th in NOAA, =7th in ERA5, 7th in RSS & 12th in UAH), in GISS sitting behind top warmest start-of-years 2016, 2020, 2017, 2019, 2015, 2018, 2010 and 2007 (an identical order in NOAA bar 2010 sits above 2018 & 2021 sits above 2007). Thus in GISS 2021 so-far is cooler than the previous six years and the two El Niño years 2010 & 2007 (which would have a warmer start than end to the year).
A year-on-year graphic of GISTEMP monthly anomalies 1979-to-date is here.
Off topic
Book 3 took an amazing twist last night. I was going to give a likely losing speech in court that contrasted my traffic stop, a “parse and punish” stop that ended with the officer apologising, “”I’m just doing my job”.
…This Story is needed to introduce my plan for a new first responders system…
You see, I didn’t match my ride. I’m way white. Bernie levels of white (which used to make one a target, but there’s a fair amount of Karenesque courage in a Bernie. But my temporary junker was outrageously loud and had tinted windows. It screamed, “Color or white trash”.
So, anyway, my appearance wasn’t court but a pleading. They offered dismissal for $49. I lost my soapbox by accepting but it was the right path.
Now my white Camry hybrid is back. We’re White, down to the Bernie cap on the front passenger side headrest.
Last night I accidently did DUI. When it hit me (legal per Nebraska D8 oral THC) I pulled over, dropped the ride I was heading towards, and committed a felony: instead of sitting on the shoulder I drove to a safe place to park.
So the juxtapisition I needed between “Parse and Punish”can and “Serve and Protect” morphed from my planned weak-ass hypothetical to what condenses down to thirteen words:
Driving while White: I confessed to DUI and never had to show identification.
Mr. KIA @53 “That is false. IF temperatures stayed at their current levels, then each winter, sea ice would form, and then melt exactly as it does today with the same quantities of ice forming and melting that we have now. The reason the ice is melting more each year is because the temperatures are NOT staying at their current levels – they are rising.”
Sorry, you don’t get to keep your two points. You’ve neglected the oceans, which are also accumulating heat, and transferring it to the Arctic Ocean beneath the surface, assisting in melting the floating ice from below. The ocean is accumulating heat because it is out of equilibrium with rising greenhouse gas levels, and would continue to be out of equilibrium for a very long time as it absorbs more heat. So, you would not only need to stop the warming of the Arctic atmosphere, but magically remove that excess heat from the oceans, and find a way to keep it from accumulating again.
You’ve again referenced some local cooling. Haven’t found anything to match that 54F warm anomaly in Canada last December, have you?
To add a bit of science, though my new field, “improbability analysis”, is not accepted by anyone except those who study placebo…
I just described what would be called a “single”. An event that makes one smile and say, “Who’d a thunk it?”
The scenario, the data, the results were essentially entirely out of my control. What are the odds? One in 100,000? A million?
But I don’t do singles. With 7 billion people, even when holding a single individual constant, to drive improbability beyond the lifespan of the observable universe, repeated doubles, triples and quadruples are required. Four simultaneous significant improbabilities says something. Ask BPL.
Then repeat repeatedly, with no intervening misses, of course. Now ask BPL.
This story’s 13 words expand and unfold miraculously. At least a triple with two huge legs. I won’t ruin it (including the largest leg by far) for you. But I’m in awe. Book 3 is unbelievable.
And I’m beginning to get locally a bit famous (and so is my car).
I don’t think I’m heading to Stanford. My work is in Omaha for now.
Killian @54 implies Mike is uncivil: “There was nothing in my post that was uncivil, hypocrite,” To imply Mike is uncivil is just astounding, gobsmacking. He would probably be the most civil commentator on the entire internet . Not even the Pope could compete. Not one example of his alleged uncivility is stated. (Not to say I agree with all Mikes views on economics.)
Is Killian civil? Decide yourself from this page: “Don’t make your goddamned posts about my personality… It’s unethical and stupid.. You’re an idiot…No, it sure as shit does not. Sorry, but that’s incredibly ignorant. I thought Killian said he was going to be nice. Didn’t last long.
Was Susan Anderson uncivil? Only if you are incredibly sensitive or pedantic.
56 MA Rodger says:
13 May 2021 at 4:05 AM
Killian @47,
I did note your comment over at Arctic Neven’s Forum and did think to run some numbers rather than “at least visually”. As you mention it here, perhaps I should report what I found.
Overall, I think you missed the point of my post.
Looking at JAXA daily SIE 1990-2021 and the variance of individual days and 3-day averages relative to 10-day averages, over the first 75 days of the year (so over the top of the freeze) there is an odd step change in the variance level from 2003-on (you mention 2013 @Neven’s) from when the variance of the annual numbers increases by 40%. Such a step-change is suggestive of a methodological artifact rather than it having a physical cause.
Suggestive is not is. for the record, there have been a number of “step changes” if you look at the data overall. Look at the total year for years in five-year steps, this is exceedingly clear. Looking at 2000~2003 vs 2008~’10 vs ’16~’18, the first two do not overlap *at all* till March 28th. The 2nd and 3rd sets don’t overlap *at all* till May 21st. As we all know, though summer gets all the attention, the actual overall greater changes are occurring in the winter.
But that’s not the subject here.
For this early part of the year, 2021 shows no difference from preceding years.
And that is false. 2021 is more variable internally than any other year in that record *so* far, but that variability is within the range of the immediately preceding years, so there are no extremes present, nothing to jump out. It won’t show up statistically *unless*, perhaps, you are looking at magnitude changes from the average or mean for 2021 itself and do the same for all other years. Even then, signal:noise means it may not show up.
But I seem to recall my point about early exceptional CO2 emissions in Feb, then Jan., a couple years ago met with this same kind of statistical analysis which often fails to see patterns early on that end up being there. Yet, those large excursions have continued which indicates some sort of change we have yet to identify clearly.
The following 50-day period (the start of the melt) shows no such step-change at 2003 but does show a large increase in variance for 2021, something in the order of 50%.
Well, good? Honestly, I don’t think you are measuring what I am talking about…?
Of course, this is just crunching numbers. A more sensible approach to measuring the wobbliness within Arctic SIE data would be to examine the regional data.
More sensible? No. More obvious, yes, as regional variance will smooth out as regions cancel each other out for the entire basin. Please note, however, that ASI variance is well-known which is why yearly predictions are hard but the trend can be predicted by a pet monkey, so maybe the whole-basin view is of use.
But I am *not* a numbers person and am not interested in doing that. I do think the “numbers people” might want to consider this potential shift in variability.
The reason this caught my eye is 2021 has been pretty “normal.” Lots of Fram exit, but that is common this time of year and it is also common for that to slow considerably during the critical Aug/Sept period, which is partly why we did not get a new low yet. 2012 saw such loss through the Fram Strait through the summer – along with the GAC in August that shattered the ice making it more vulnerable to those winds. Why is such a normal winter proving so variable? That is the key question. Is it meaningful? Don’t know. Is it there? Yes.
So, I repeat, the overall ice weakness, early melt from continents, early snow cover melt, etc., is going to make intra-year variability more of a thing:
Year-to-year variability should continue to be expected, but I think we will see more variability, in general, moving forward – as I said some years ago. Undoubtedly many of you have said the same. I think we’re here.
Then again, maybe 2013 is just odd.
Thanks for taking the time even though we disagree on the analysis. I suspected it would not be overly statistically significant yet. Reminder: Consider checking the internal variability in changes in magnitude of changes of each year from their own means/averages.
Russell@5, Killian@7 & Mal@9,
I have joined Gavin and Lawrence “on the warpath against Steve Koonin’s new book”.
Having covered what Prof. Koonin leaves out of his magnum opus entirely (Arctic sea ice) I’m moving on to a cryospheric topic that he does make mention of, but gets horribly wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/steven-koonins-unsettled-greenland-ice-sheet-science/
Personally I have very high confidence that Professor Koonin had great difficulty cherry picking a Greenland Ice Sheet quote from the IPCC that could be “spun” into supporting his case. Frankly his “southern tip of Greenland” effort smacks of desperation.
Unsettling, is it not?
John Pollack(61): “ Sorry, you don’t get to keep your two points. You’ve neglected the oceans, which are also accumulating heat
Not only our boy genius does not get to keep his self-awarded “two pints”
(I feel bad for him – since he probably bragged about them to his family and friends – imagine the egg on his face now…), but actually earned negative
points, for missing a more universal problem – one that affects not only ice in ocean but also on land:
– our boy genius thinks that it is the increasing trend air temperature that melts the ice. In reality, it is the temperature being ABOVE the steady-state temperature (the temp. at which forming ice in winter is balance by melting in summer so there is no net change) that melts it. And as long as we are above this steady-state temperature, EVEN the decreasing air temperature trend will be still melting the ice.
And in fact we will still lose ice EVEN below the preindustrial steady-state temperature – for the surplus heat accumulated already in the ocean (that you brought up), plus the already reduced albedo, will cause a hysteresis effect
– so the air temperature would have to fall BELOW the past steady-point level to compensate for this extra heat in the system.
It may be instructive, to can stagger the effects of reduction our CO2 emissions:
i) Stabilizing CO2 in atm. – the ice will still melt and due to the albedo feedback the Earth would still gets warmer, sea level stil rises
ii) Net zero Emissions, which given that some of the natural sinks of CO2 would work would actually slowly reduce CO2 – might stabilize the temps (less heating from CO2 but more heating from still decreasing albedo) – seaice and ice-shelf ice are still melting, sea level still rises
iii) Negative emissions + uptake from natural sink – if ENOUGH of negative emissions to overcome the albedo feedback – the air temp. decrease, but the ice would still melt UNTIL we drop the air temp BELOW the “new” (hysteresis adjusted) ice steady-state temperature. The sea-ice would be stable, however IF the warm ocean destabilized ice shelves enough they may continue their collapse, and the continental glaciers no longer blocked by ice-shelves flow into the ocean unencumbered – so the sea level STILL rises !
So the ice may decline and sealevel continue to rise even with negative emissions. The only question is if they aggressive enough to prevent the collapse of the ice-shelves.
Al@56 & Killian@64
“JAXA” Arctic sea ice extent is but one metric out of many. I suppose it’s the easiest to measure, but perhaps that means it has less explanatory value than other metrics. How about area, thickness, volume, age, velocity etc. etc. ?
I’ve got a feeling embedding images here is non trivial, but what do you make of the merged CryoSat-2/SMOS thickness data visible at:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/facts-about-the-arctic-in-may-2021/#May-02
Let’s have a try with that image:
(which looks like a total failure in preview!)
Here’s what’s behind my disagreement with Killian on economics.
There is a school of economists called the Cornucopians who think that, because humans are just so gosh-darned brilliant, we can always adjust and adapt, and economic growth can continue forever. A representative of this school, Julian L. Simon, bet ecologist Paul Ehrlich in 1980 that any five commodities Ehrlich chose would be cheaper, not more expensive due to scarcity, in 1990. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten, and lost the bet. All were cheaper, in real terms, in 1990.
Of course, the bet was a stunt, and Ehrlich was a fool to take it. It’s very like jumping off the Empire State Building and saying as you pass the 14th floor, “See, I’m fine! And I’ll still be fine when I pass the thirteenth floor!” Because in real life, economic growth cannot continue forever. Our economic system as presently constituted, dependent on annual growth for prosperity, is due for collapse sooner or later, and the climate crisis implies it will be sooner.
This is easiest to demonstrate with population. Population growth is a compound-interest expansion, P = P0 (1 + r)^n, where P0 is the population you start with, r the annual growth rate as a decimal (5% would be 0.05), and n the number of years elapsed. Put it in terms of mass, assuming an average human masses 50 kilograms, and the eight billion people now living mass 4 x 10^11 kg. At a 1% annual growth rate (the present value), the mass of humanity equals the mass of the Earth in 3,049 years. If the observable universe consists of 10^11 galaxies of 10^12 solar masses each, a solar mass being 2 x 10^30 kg, the total mass is 2 x 10^55 kg and we reach that in 10,112 years. In reality, of course, we would run out of resources long before that. We would even run over the speed-of-light limit, trying to expand. So in the long run, the Cornucopian theory is garbage.
Now, not all schools are Cornucopian. There are several other schools of economics, including many attempts to design an economy that would be steady-state, recycling its resources, and yet creating enough prosperity for everyone. Population growth rates are slowing down; annual population growth was 2.2% per year the year I was born (1960), but today is 1.1%, and the UN expects population to top out at some 10 billion around 2050. A steady-state economy is both necessary and desirable.
But Killian contends not only that all schools of economics are Cornucopian, but that the entire science of economics embraces this stupid idea and is therefore illegitimate. He insists that economics is “magic” and not a science at all. In short, he is indulging a classic fallacy of composition. How the hell he managed to pass two econ classes, as he claims, is beyond me–he must simply have regurgitated whatever the professors said while not believing any of it, the way a creationist kid will pass a biology class.
But economics is merely the study of “who gets what and how”–the empirical science of how goods and services are produced and distributed. Prices are real things and so are markets. The behavior of markets is an observable consequence of mass human behavior. Denying this is batshit insane. Thus my disagreement with Killian. He will now respond with a long, obscene rant about what an awful person I am. 3… 2… 1…
63 – nigelj
“I thought Killian said he was going to be nice. Didn’t last long.”
No surprise there. I thought his response to Susan deserved a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order.
Barton Paul Levenson @68 on economics. Agree totally. While I havent studied economics formally, I’ve read a few texts and books (J Stiglitz is good) and the Economist each week. Killians sweeping condemnation of economics is such an annoying generalisation and so unfounded. However I suspect he is really criticising things like the Chicago school and neoliberalism, that believes the evidence favours small government, free trade, deregulation and endless growth. But as you say this does not define economics as a whole. I’m sceptical of these schools myself but until you get right into the specifics of what they say its all just hand waving. They are wrong about growth, but not necessarily wrong about everything.
But theres another thing. Killian is utterly convinced his ‘simplification’ plan is right and anything not 100% like it gets rubbished. So a lot of economists get criticised. Nobody seems to have the full picture right. I think our best hope is the circular economy because its a realistic idea. And consumption has to decrease sooner or later. But I’m less convinced about all these attempts to emulate communal ownership culture of hunter gatherers. Killian will now respond with a long, obscene rant about what an awful person I am. 3… 2… 1…
Piotr @66 “So the ice may decline and sealevel continue to rise even with negative emissions. The only question is if they aggressive enough to prevent the collapse of the ice-shelves.”
True. Antarctica is the potential source of the worst sea level rise due to the ice sheets being what they are below sea level and easily destabilised in various ways. I wonder if this creates a case for some form of local geoengineering to reduce local ocean warming, if such a thing is possible. Not a fan of geoengineering for the planet as a whole, too risky, but locally it might make sense.
Mr. Know It All (69) I thought [Killian] response to Susan deserved a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order.
Aaa, trying to snatch the victory from the jaws of the defeat? ;-)
Here is what Susan said:
“ KIA24 has reached one of his or her regular lows in ignorant dishonesty. I know Killian is a little over earnest and can be annoying with it, but at least he understands our planetary emergency and is trying to address it rather than spread a dressing of phony skepticism over an increasingly obvious reality. Isn’t there a place called the crank shaft for things like [KIA24]?”
So, who came off worse here – Killian or you ?
And what does it tell you if people are so offended ( “insulting”, “rude”, “unethical”, “stupid”) by being mentioned, even favourably!, next to you? ;-)
Jim Hunt @67,
Happenchance that’s a mighty big “perhaps” you serve up!! “JAXA Arctic sea ice extent is but one metric out of many. I suppose it’s the easiest to measure, but perhaps that means it has less explanatory value than other metrics.”
Our ability to measure the wobbliness of daily SIE numbers surely does give us some measure of how much each annual cycle of melt/freeze is being kicked around by other factors, like the weather. If these ‘other factors’ are assumed to average-out through the years to provide a constant level of kicking, any changes in wobbliness of SIE will perhaps indicate a more fragile ice pack. (This is what I assumed Killian was suggesting @47 & @Neven’s with talk of JAXA data and the 2021 season-to-date being “more variable”.)
Of alternative metrics, as you point out there is a bit of a list but none more readily-to-hand for some number crunching than daily Arctic SIE. (Mind, PIOMAS daily data is likewise readily-to-hand but perhaps too subjected to the modelling process and is thus more likely to throw methodological artifacts into the output.)
And all this because the Artic Sea Ice presents an intriguing question. On the one hand, is it as Peter Wadhams has been preaching – the ice is thinning and the summer minimums will thus go suddenly with a rush? Or will AGW leave the summer ice fighting a long drawn-out rearguard action from in those difficult-to-reach regions of the Arctic?
63 nigelj says:
13 May 2021 at 9:25 PM
Killian @54 implies Mike is uncivil: “There was nothing in my post that was uncivil, hypocrite
I implied nothing. He was. It is uncivil to pointlessly make negative comments about someone in a thread you have no part of while engaging in gaslighting. If this was a moral and ehtical group of people, at least one of you would have held Susan accountable. Not one of you have.
You suck as people.
We are back to 2015 with the Peanut Gallery back to their long years of attack and gaslight. Must be Republicans. Now, shut up. You’re wasting this space with your bullshit bullying.
But Killian contends not only that all schools of economics are Cornucopian, but that the entire science of economics embraces this stupid idea and is therefore illegitimate.
This does not belong on this thread.
He will now respond with a long, obscene rant about what an awful person I am.
And, the taunt/lie. Nowhere in my conversation with you on this topic has there been any acrimony. Yet, you start it here
Next? The gaslight.
And round and round the bullshit goes…
Al @73,
Well, at this time of year I prefer area over extent. I tell myself it gives a better feel for overall Arctic albedo than extent.
If you frequent the Arctic Sea Ice Forum then I assume you are familiar with Wipneus’s AMSR2 based regional area and extent graphs, which sadly I can find no way of displaying in a comment here?
The regional AMSR2 numbers ready for crunching are available for download from:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/data/
Alternatively the NSIDC regional numbers are in the file nsidc_arc_nt_detail.txt at:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data/
The “measured” gridded sea ice thickness data I mentioned earlier suggests Prof. Wadhams prophecy may now come true sooner rather than later, dependent as ever on the highly variable Arctic “weather”. Scroll down at my link @67 for the short term prognosis.
Killian @74 says “It is uncivil to pointlessly make negative comments about someone in a thread you have no part of while engaging in gaslighting.” Mike being apparently uncivil saying “yes, what jgnfld said. Post in a civil manner if you want to heard.” You must be joking. None of that is uncivil. You are very arrogant – a fact- and asking you to post nicely is just advice. Where did Mike gaslight you? My understanding is this is an american terms that means calling someone crazy. I cant see where anyone has done that, let alone Mike. Calm down.
“If this was a moral and ehtical group of people, at least one of you would have held Susan accountable. Not one of you have.”
Because what she said was harmless and actually mostly giving you positive feedback: “a little over earnest and can be annoying with it, but at least understand our planetary emergency and are trying to address it” [Susan, 31]”. If she had said it about me I would have shrugged it off. I wouldn’t have wasted time responding and making an issue out of it.
The only reason I call YOU out is because you are incredibly uncivil, and worse of all you do it to fellow warmists. MAR gets a bit uncivil with name calling with the denialists, although to be honest I probably have myself on occasion. I dont have much sympathy for them. They stick their heads above the parapet like muppets holding a sign saying “hit me” (metaphorically speaking). They get what they ask for. But I think Piotr has it right, so rather than name calling just mock them relentlessly.
Get back to the science.
72 – Piotr
“So, who came off worse here – Killian or you ?
And what does it tell you if people are so offended ( “insulting”, “rude”, “unethical”, “stupid”) by being mentioned, even favourably!, next to you? ;-)”
Are you through?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px8R4sgPFpE
:)
Sheesh! What a tempest in a teapot. Some people appear to be more interested in their thin skins and finding somebody to blame than in solving problems.
You’re wasting your own and other people’s time and energy. I don’t matter. Lies are more important than who gave offense to whom and when.
RealClimate deserves better.
K 74: You suck as people.
BPL: We’re all devastated.
An interesting article:
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-shows-exxonmobil-downplayed-role-climate-change/
reviewing the main points of a recent AI analysis of Exxon-Mobile methods in the climate change propaganda in:
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdfExtended/S2590-3322(21)00233-5
by Geoffrey Supran, Naomi Oreskes.
There was also an extended interview on CBC radio on May16 – you can listen the podcast at:
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-429-what-on-earth/clip/15843325-from-denial-delay-exxonmobil-language-climate-change
Things I have found interesting:
– quantifying doublespeak: BETWEEN 1977 AND 2014, 80 percent of ExxonMobil’s internal research supported the idea that human activity was a contributor to climate change. But during that same period, 80 percent of the oil and gas provider’s public statements instead expressed doubt whether climate change was caused by humans—or even real in the first place.
– using word “risk” (as in “risk of climate change”)
– interchanging “fossil fuels” and “energy” – while reiterating that our modern civilization and food production are based on the abundant energy use
– fossil fuels are with us to stay for decades to come
– 2020 Republican platform – the enemy are NOT “fossil fuels”, but “emissions”
– the Paris Treaty does not contain the word “fossil” – I had to go there
(https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
to check it for myself – it does not (nor “oil”, “coal” or “natural gas”).
– shifting the responsibility from politicians and corporations onto individuals – e.g. using the concept of the individual carbon footprint they have brought to public attention with their $100 M a year campaign in 2004-2006, providing the first carbon footprint calculator – with the message: it’s not us, it’s you – we only do what you ask us to do, in fact we actually try to educate you on the need to cut down your need for “energy”
This nicely doves in with the classic denier trope – the “all-or-nothing” fallacy – if you do not use ZERO fossil fuels then you are a hypocrite, i.e. not be trusted and certainly not having a moral rights to criticize others (even if they use 10 times more fossil fuels). And not in a position to criticize the fossil fuel industrial complex that socializes the consequences and privatizes the profits.
We tend to compare fire seasons in terms of area burned, which means a sparsely vegetated area like this…
https://tinyurl.com/dcss3hd3…. carries the same weight per square acre as for example a square acre of Redwoods. That’s a problem.
Worse, climate change may be creating opposing trends for each. With additional warming and drought the already barren landscape (as above) could potentially end up closer to a place like Death Valley – ewer fires because there’s less and less to burn.
IOW, seems like apples and oranges to combine forest and desert into a singular fire metric.
#82, Western Hiker–
Yeah, not every acre is equivalent, and yeah, different environments may indeed have different fire trends.
For example, Joshua Tree NM–at the start of the 20th century, that area apparently had considerable expanses of grassland. Now it’s all cactus, and Bill Key’s stockpile of bedsprings and auto parts is still there as part of an outdoor pioneer museum, so sparse the rainfall has become. No conservation effort required…
Pretty much unburnable, I’d think.
Kevin McKinney, 83
Yes, nice example.
I think area burned per vegetation type would be useful. Or even a distinction as simple as ‘forest versus brush’ would be a big improvement compared to lumping every sort of fire into one value.
Jim Hunt @73,
Thanks for the links. The first set of data (stretching just 2012-2021 but that shouldn’t be a problem spotting 2021 wobbles) only cover the CAB, Laptev, E Siberian, Chukchi & Beaufort. These bits of ocean are not going to be a part of big wobbles in SIE as they remain frozen over through the early part of the melt we are looking-at and so there are no significant SIE wobbles at all. And looking at the numbers, the 2021 wobbles that do feature are not significant relative to previous years.
Looking at the regional graphs of this data (HERE), the prime suspect for big wobbles in 2021 is Barentz but the data in that second link @73 (which does give the numbers everywhere and all the way back to 1979) is NSIDC and in my understanding that is subject to a lot more smoothing which may result in a very-much muted wobble-signal.
79 Susan Anderson says:
15 May 2021 at 8:13 PM
Sheesh! What a tempest in a teapot. Some people appear to be more interested in their thin skins and finding somebody to blame than in solving problems.
You’re wasting your own and other people’s time and energy. I don’t matter. Lies are more important than who gave offense to whom and when.
RealClimate deserves better.
Then *do* better. Get a clue, eh? It’s not a balanced game here. It’s a fucking dog pile year after year with gaslighting galore. You had NO REASON to mention me, let alone make a negative characterization.
YOU started the problem, ALL the others let your shit slide. And none of THEM needed to respond to a comment between you and I. But they did, and always do.
Get some ethics and own your bullshit.
AS I said, I *proved* all this started with you assholes back in 2015. Six years of constant dogpiling and abuse.
You *caused* this. Own your shit.
67 Jim Hunt says:
14 May 2021 at 12:07 PM
Al@56 & Killian@64
“JAXA” Arctic sea ice extent is but one metric out of many.
Yes, true. But extent is the measurement with the longest and most consistent data set so comparison is easy and easily understood even by the neophyte.
I suppose it’s the easiest to measure, but perhaps that means it has less explanatory value than other metrics.
Yes. I commented long ago that extent would be less reliable as it reduced as the sea ice would become more mobile and likely to spread more easily, thus being less intuitively accurate.
How about area, thickness, volume, age, velocity etc. etc. ?
Age is a proxy for thickness, and so also volume. Both are useful, but far less accurate than extent. Area and volume are the two that would tell us the most if you had to choose just two, but they have considerable error.
what do you make of the merged CryoSat-2/SMOS thickness data visible at
I’ve already commented that this season is the most variable in the satellite record thus far, at least since about mid-February. The relatively low thickness and volume is going to be a problem if we get a 2012-like summer. However, a 2013~2020-like summer should give us final ASI levels about average for the last 5 years or so, I think. My VERY preliminary prediction (I almost never make predictions before early July bc, as you know, the ASI is so variable) is 4`4.5M unless we get strong July/Aug melt conditions/dipoles, etc., then as low as 3.8.
Again, very preliminary as that high variability speaks to me of the overall poor condition of the ice.
How about a 30 day timeout for commenters who go off the deep end? Alternatively, we can collectively just refuse to take the bait and ignore the egregious provocations until the poster says something new and meaningful in an civil manner. We all know that the comments will be full of shrill invective with the second option.
Hey, Moderators, step up please.
back to climate science:
“Based on what we already know about abrupt thaw and wildfire, these feedback loops are likely to substantially exacerbate the permafrost thaw feedback and resulting carbon emissions,” Woodwell researcher and paper co-author Rachael Treharne said in a statement on Monday. “Unless our models account for these anticipated effects, we’ll be missing a major piece of the carbon puzzle.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/553940-researchers-emissions-goals-must-incorporate-arctic-permafrost?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20210518&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
Some of us have been raising these type of concerns for a long time, it’s not a surprise, but it is kind of a shame.
Cheers
Mike
Al @85 – My apologies, but I didn’t specify which data file to choose. I suspect the one you’re after is UH_AMSR2_3.125km_Area_Extent-v0.0.txt, as opposed to the “basin” file, which does indeed exclude the peripheral seas. That is by design, to exclude those areas that melt out completely by September in this day and age.
Both those files only include AMSR2 data, and hence only go back to 2012. The JAXA numbers splice together AMSR2, AMSR-E and SSMIS data. I think you’ll find that the NSIDC frown on that sort of thing!
83 Kevin McKinney says:
17 May 2021 at 12:05 PM
#82, Western Hiker–
Yeah, not every acre is equivalent, and yeah, different environments may indeed have different fire trends.
For example, Joshua Tree NM–at the start of the 20th century, that area apparently had considerable expanses of grassland. Now it’s all cactus, and Bill Key’s stockpile of bedsprings and auto parts is still there as part of an outdoor pioneer museum, so sparse the rainfall has become. No conservation effort required…
Pretty much unburnable, I’d think.
Ever heard of creosote? Trust me, it can still, and does, burn.
In reality, the Mojave had been greening rather than becoming drying. There were dunes that had become vegetated between 72 and 79, when we returned to 29 Palms. Those whispy, yellow grasses were still there last time I visited. Ever heard of creosote? Trust me, it can still, and does, burn.
That said, I’ve been in Korea for going on 6 years and the previous drought while I was there and the current dryness may be changing things a bit. That would be expected.
But, yeah, as far as burning goes, creosote, dead Joshua Trees and other stuff will get you a good fire now and then. Lots of dying JT’s.
88 Mike says:
18 May 2021 at 9:55 AM
How about a 30 day timeout for commenters who go off the deep end?
KIA actually responded quite good-naturedly. There was no rancor or attack on my character from them. Had Susan not butted in, it would have ended there. I had no reason to respond to KIA, as is my general policy with the denialists here – even as the rest of you use up a majority of the bandwidth here reinforcing their Big Lies and calling them names and insulting them every step of the way. I guess not following the rules is OK for the Peanut Gallery, right?
Yet, Susan saw fit to call my comments about what *is* a crime against humanity being a, you know, crime against humanity, “over the top” and “irritating.”
Let’s be clear: The denialist merely gets recommended for the Bore Hole, but in defending Earth and humanity against crimes against humanity and ecocide I get called “over the top” and “irritating.”
But in your world, I am at fault. That is the very definition of gaslighting from you and your fellow Peanuts.
And let’s define “the deep end” as needless harassment, insults, aspersions and gaslighting by the core group of posters. Fact is, others here don’t need to “go off” when the Peanut Gallery keeps their damned mouths shut and focus on the science, mitigation and adaptation.
Full comment on the other forum.
@86 and kill’s: “You *caused* this.”
Nope. People are not are not mindless robots–or so I would have assumed before seeing this. People are actors. My assumption has always been that kill is a real person, not a bot.
Re. kill as an actor, I have to say that rarely in human history has anyone ever been put through such terrible provocations since 2015.
‘Look what you made me do’ is a rather old and tired method method of attempting deflection of responsibility from the actor. See it all the time with gaslighters of all stripes. Wife beaters, for one example, use it all the time.
“Own your shit.” Yup. Good advice.
K 86: I *proved* all this started with you assholes back in 2015. Six years of constant dogpiling and abuse.
BPL: Killian is as innocent as the day is long. He’s a lamb, a saint on Earth. The rest of us are just vicious, snarling dogs. Why isn’t that obvious to everybody?
Came across these interesting looking new research papers on another website:
“Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity” (I wonder if KIA will bite with his usual silly climate has changed before dogma)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22314-w
“Critical slowing down suggests that the western Greenland Ice Sheet is close to a tipping point” ( looks very concerning to me. Does this paper look convincing?)
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2024192118
“Earth System Models are not capturing present-day tropical forest carbon dynamics”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001874?af=R
Nuclear energy – The solution to climate change? (looks like a no)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330?dgcid=rss_sd_all
Killian @91 “Let’s be clear: The denialist merely gets recommended for the Bore Hole, but in defending Earth and humanity against crimes against humanity and ecocide I get called “over the top” and “irritating.”
No. False. IMO you are over the top and irritating for your arrogance, your big ego in an intellectual sense, and your voluminous rants calling people nasty names etc and constantly accusing people of lying or racism (without providing the slightest proof). And your tendency to respond to even the slightest criticism of your commentary, or slightly blunt tone, by massively escalating things. You’re not the only person who does these things, but you stick out like a sore thumb.
Nigel (94): “Critical slowing down suggests that the western Greenland Ice Sheet is close to a tipping point” ( looks very concerning to me. Does this paper look convincing?) https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2024192118
It probably depends on a definition of the tipping point (TP). For me it is when something changes ENOUGH that there is no coming back. In other words, after TP, the positive feedback CAN NO LONGER work in the backward direction, so no matter what we do, we still move forward.
Guessing from the abstract of the PNAS – the feedback in question is the altitude-melting positive feedback (as the ice melts, altitude drops bringing the top of the ice into warmer temps which melts them more and so on). So the question is: if we have negative emissions large enough to LOWER the air temp. – would it still continue melting. at the same rate
As similar issues was discussed a few days ago at the Climate of Gavin – about the 2020 paper that declared the TP has been already crossed 20 years ago:
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1393174518135459840
https://www.yahoo.com/news/early-warning-signals-alert-greenland-161500999.html
So, essentially this is a done deal, particularly if you assume the worst-case scenario of 0.8C, which is the only sane choice WRT long-tail existential risks. And this on top of similar news about Antarctica. (This is not a shock: We also recently heard the tleconnections between the NH and SH are pretty fast… as someone… ahem… said a good decade or so ago…)
What do the site owners have to say about this?
Nigel(94) referring to the paper that concludes: “ Earth System Models are not capturing present-day tropical forest carbon dynamics”
Given the simplification one has to do to include them into Earth System Models
I would be shocked if they did. In fact, if they did, it would have meant that all the ecosystem complications … do not really matter for the net in/out carbon fluxes, since we captured their effect with a few boxes and exchange parameters.
But the paper suggest that they don’t, which strengthens my impression that in modeling the future climates, in addition to not knowing what CO2 emission we will have in the future, the other major source of uncertainty lies in the biogeochemistry.
In other words, physical and chemical oceanographers, ice and the atmospheric guys are much closer to the modelling of the real world than biogeochemists/ecologists are. It’s not an a putdown of the latter – it is simply that life may be more complicated and difficult to represent in a computationally-effective manner than the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, ocean mixing, kinetics of air-sea CO2 exchanges, and chemistry of the carbonate system.
This, in turn, means that the good agreement in the inter-model climate sensitivity comparisons may lull us into a false sense of security – they agree relatively well not only because their physico-chemical representation of the world are similar, but also because the biogeochemical component and its feedbacks are either very simplified or not represented at all.
Another problem with those models is that they are parametrized/ tested on the past. But with conditions increasingly b> outside of the conditions seen in the last several million years (temp. and CO2-wise), or even without any precedent at all (the human element), the validity of extrapolation outside of the range on which we trained our models – becomes increasingly problematic.
We could go further and further back in time to find similar high temps and CO2 but means that the ecosystems from that time are getting less and less similar to the today’s.
24: “We’re running cool here in the great Pacific Northwest USA. Tied or broke a record cold night a few weeks back – makes me wonder how that is possible with so much CO2 in the atmosphere during this “climate emergency”. Maybe there’s something wrong with the theory?”
We are running cool in the UK too. The lowest April mean minimum temperature since the 1920’s, the sunniest on record, followed by a cool and wet May means we are looking at the highest Spring temperature this year being recorded in March, the only year I know this has happened. It is nothing to do with a breakdown of the theory, but because the UK (and most of Europe) has been stuck under a trough in the jet stream with weeks of winds with a northerly (cool) component. High pressure in April combined with persistent NWly winds resulted in frostiness more normal for a winter month. Everything on my allotment is really slow to get going, crops are nearly a month behind. If there is a trough over the UK, and by the sound of it the Pacific NW USA, there will be a ridge somewhere else where mild air is advected northward bringing warmer than average temperatures. These meanders in the jet stream when they get locked in place don’t significantly change global temperature, they result in cold air moving south and warm air moving north. This sums it up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/05/05/europe-cold-april-2021/
Jim Hunt @89,
For our purpose, the AMSR2 data only goes back to 2013 (as it kicks-off 4/7/12). Without checking (and the JAXA VISHOP data will only do that for the Total Arctic values), this analysis will be making a big assumption that these 2021 wobbles are exceptional at a basin level. But I did also grab the NSIDC numbers back to 1979 and they do show something not dissimilar to the JAXA data despite the presumed NSIDC rounding. Mind, there is a lot of data being processed and, despite the presumed rounding, needing cleaning of duff data. So I will park the NSIDC analysis for the moment.
Following your detailed directions, I now have the AMSR2 data and this does show the elevated wobbliness of 2021 both in SIExtent and (less dramatically) in SIArea. I have uploaded a graphic of this HERE. So in due course I will set about examining which parts of the Arctic Ice are guilty for causing all this wobbliness.