« Don't forget the ASIG | Main | PIOMAS June 2015 »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kevin O'Neill

Osteopop says: "show us the proof"

Um, I already gave you a link to the Summary for Policymakers. Here it is again since you apparently missed it the first time around.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

Page 14, 2nd bullet point under "D.2 Quantification of Climate System Responses"

"The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)."

Difference between you and I is that I don't make shit up. You do. I don't intentionally mislead. You do.

D_C_S

Ostepop1000:

Regarding your statement "Here on this forum, people are cheering on the ice to melt as soon as possible.", note my comment earlier under this blog article which reads "I'm hoping for a slow melt season."

wayne

Chris, well deduced indeed, I can see why they are somewhat faulty, but you have mentally figured it out.

Very likely heat traveling up and down the thermistor pipe, this also goes during the dark season. Optical observations, fewer because of darkness, but numerous enough, have never confirmed a deep horizon adiabatic profile. There was always a raised horizon implicating strong Long Wave originating from the sea penetrating thinner ice. Warm air advection may make the top of ice/snow warmer, and there can be very shallow adiabatic profiles, but none high enough to be seen.

I still think buoys give us good sonar data and surface temperatures. But thermistor string temps are hard to know when accurate. There should be very little temperature difference between top of snow to surface temperatures, that is the only thing I go by to judge if the data may be probably acceptable.

Kris

From the US NWS (National Weather Service) which never can't be taken to serious:

Fairbanks public announcement

Do read the article (click onto the bold as always.

Kris

Meanwhile, what we do know are the differences between each year from 2003 on.

Do have a look at the 1st Juin parade.

BTW, it looks to me as if our friend Cincinattus made his re-appearance. Nothing wrong with that, Gods and Divinities reveal in many occurances. Only, they should learn to make a better use af translation machines. :-)

Neven

Hey, everyone, I'm back again. The past 10 days have been interesting it seems, had to adjust my IJIS SIE chart. I'm going over to the ASIF now to read up.

Neven

Update 2 should be up before the week is out.

D_C_S

Ostepop1000:

... and the comment that immediately follows that comment of mine reads in part "I'm with you, D_C_S", and the comment that immediately follows that seems to concur.

Bill Fothergill

Hi Neven,

Hope you enjoyed the hols, welcome back.

NSIDC have posted the provisional monthly averages. See...
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

The average extent for May 2015 (10.65 million sq kms) is 3rd lowest in their dataset, just behind 2006 (10.61) and 2004 (10.58). That's every month this year in the bottom three.

As regards area, 2015 (10.78) was 5th lowest. The bottom four were: 1995 (10.76), 2007 (10.7), 2011 (10.67) and 2006 (10.38). We can certainly expect to see 1995 slip rapidly down the rankings in the forthcoming months. One cannot speak with such certitude about 2006, except to say that every year since has had a lower average area come September.

Meanwhile, in the SH, the area and extent figures for May 2015 have replaced their 2014 equivalents as the highest values seen thus far.

To some, this represents some kind of global yin-yang. On the other hand, knowing a bit of physics is always useful, and therefore some of us are aware of the Coriolis deflection concomitant with an increase in the strength of the circumpolar Westerlies down there.

cheers bill f

Chris Reynolds

Osteopop,

Boring.

"Show us the proof."

1) Read Working Group 1, The scientific basis.

2) Read the references of Working Group 1, The scientific basis.

3) Do so with an open mind.

4) er...

5) that's it.

opensheart

As I understand, The human threat detection and response system is built a certain way. Humans will make a quick evaluation of the situation. If it detects Immediate Life Threatening danger and knows a response it will go over the top to execute the response. If the threat does not warrant that level of response, the human mind will discredit the threat. Perhaps putting an “Ignore” post-it note on it.

The Human mind is not programmed to correctly respond to a more general, longer term threat, especially if the threat is not personal enough.

Thus it is not human nature to correctly understand and believe the threat/response level for something like climate change, Arctic Sea Ice decline, etc. The human mind wants to say it is either not an issue, or it wants to make it worthy of triggering one’s personal engagement threshold.

Now we humans have some understanding of our own responses. We know when someone is on this personal edge with an issue, it can be fun to poke them just enough to trigger an emotional response.

Hence the reoccurrence of troll behavior. Go into an area where people chosen to be on edge for something they personally believe is that important and then pick a fight.

I would suggest this behavior occurs on both sides of issues that fall into the middle ground of human responses. Issues that are important and serious, but not Immediately Life Threatening or that are larger than a personal Emergency Evasive Maneuver. Where some people can see the threat warrants personal and social engagement, but the larger society does not. Where our social programming has has not yet evolved to handle things correctly.

For those who may be reading this or other similar threads, trying to understand the ‘truth’ of Climate Change and feeling lost or confused, Please understand the truth is that things are serious, very serious. It is a Long, Slow, serious. It would make a really boring disaster movie. But just because it is moving slower than our expected pace of drama, does not mean it is not moving.

Think about a movie scene about being caught in a room where the walls are moving in to crush the occupants. You can see the walls move. You can appreciate the real and present danger the characters are in. Now slow the movement of the walls down. Down to the point where you can’t see them moving. Down to the point where you have to measure it a year apart to see that the walls are moving inward. Even if the characters figure it out, what’s the big deal, they will be long gone before the walls meet. So they (and you) can ignore it.

Except that every inch lost is an inch less space for our grandchildren to live in. Every inch lost to sea level rise, every inch lost to desertification, pollution, etc, is less space for future people to live in. Every area that can no longer support crops, or tress is less food and resources for generations to come. Do you want them to live their lives in a room the size of a planet? With plenty of room to move around int. or in a phone booth? What ever habitable space is left? At some point we need to care about how much living space, livable climate, our descendants will have to live in.

We are programmed to expect that some heroic human action can save the day in a very short time. The parent or authority that solves a problem. The sports player that wins the game.

The solutions to Climate Change do not fit into our solution expectations. If the problem has been brewing for well over 100 years, the solutions may take another 100 years. And that is just too long of a timeframe for humans to care about correctly.

Thus discussion about such issues frequently devolve into name-calling, and other discrediting tactics. The discreditor’s have invested their personhood into their position. They will tear down any attempt to convince them otherwise. While the believers are seriously scared for the future, including the personal future of the individual discreditor. Thus they want to convince the other that it is indeed a threat to them personally. Since Personal threat is well, personal, such discussions are not winnable. As frustration rises, the conversation devolves.

Educating someone to understand the threat correctly, and what we as a society should do about it, is VERY, VERY Difficult. To correctly understand it, we have to build new mental constructs. We need ways of thinking about the future of the general population that are at least equal to our thinking of our own future. That something is a long term threat or at least infringement to our species and that we need a multi-generational focus and commitment to change things we personally will never live to see.

So if you’re reading this, don’t like the verbal jabs back and forth to blind you to the fact that there is something real and serious slowly unfurling in the Arctic. And that it will have consequences for everyone for generations to come. And that we should support broad, long term action for the sake of the generations to come.

NeilT

Denialists are easy to spot. They change to another argument as soon as you destroy the current one. Witness one idiot on WUWT stating "One inch per year of sea level rise. I can walk faster than that".

When pointed out that he may be able to walk but where is he going to walk to as it is already owned. Who is he going to take it from as his own wealth and property will be valueless, inundated with the sea. Never acknowledged, just moving on to another angle of attack. A continuous game of whack a Mole.

To my mind their biggest danger is in allowing the vast majority of the apathetic to believe there is no immediate danger to face.

To my mind and my understanding the problem is systemic.

We have a society where we talk about inalienable rights such as human rights or the right to personal liberty.

In fact, nothing is further from the truth. We have chosen to give up our rights in order to form into communities. These communities, having taken our freedom, give back peace, stability, food, wealth and health.

There is no Human "Right" here. There is a benefit of communal society from the sacrifice we have given.

Implicit in this is the role of government. Which is where I see this problem as systemic.

We gather together in our societies and give power and money to the society in the form of government so that they can tackle the big things which we, alone, cannot tackle. Roads, Sewers, clean water, power.. In short all the utilities which make our lives comfortable and possible.

However Climate Change is something no single person can tackle. It requires fundamental changes in these utilities and the basic infrastructure we live within.

That is the role of Government. That is where Government is falling down. That is the problem and that is who should be responsible.

There is a saying from Robert Heinlein which I like to remember.

"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost" .

Personally I have pretty much given up hope of any activity which will allow us to avoid the worst of the impact coming. I am firmly moving into mitigation of the impact in my personal and family life, rather than trying to influence people who already know what they have to do but refuse to act.

I won't shut up though....

NeilT

I did forget to say though as I posted instead of editing, that the reason I want to see a sudden sharp decline in Arctic ice, with the attendant impact on weather etc, is that this is the only likely way to wake up the apathetic and make strides.

Should this happen, then we could, just, possibly, see enough action to allow the ice to recover.

If it takes another 20 to 30 years, we can forget it. By then it will be far, far, too late to take the action.

Paddy

We had a sudden, sharp decline in Arctic ice in 2012. I didn't see many apathetic people wake up then.

UltraVerified

Looking at http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/ there's a very large dominating low coming in late this week. Really big, and sitting right at the Pole. I can't imagine the winds associated with it are going help reduce the ice loss in the Basin.

Colorado Bob

Scientists finally have an explanation for why huge lakes atop Greenland are vanishing

Back in the summer of 2006, scientists studying the vast and in some places mile-thick Greenland ice sheet observed something that can only be called breathtaking.

Due to meltwater, lakes form atop the ice sheet in the summer – scientists call them “supraglacial lakes” — and they can grow to be quite large. And in July 2006, one large lake, over 2 square miles in area, suddenly vanished. It lost most of its water in under two hours – researchers calculated that the rate of drainage “exceeded the average flow rate over Niagara Falls.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/03/scientists-finally-have-an-explanation-for-why-huge-lakes-atop-greenland-are-vanishing/

Can anyone say "Feed back loop" ?

That Greenland paper is real depressing , it speaks to an ice sheet that is turning into Swiss cheese. And every a time a lake drains, it's melt water carries more heat into the ice. Making more voids where water can travel . That water jacks up the ice cracks it, and adds to the ice flow . All of which is transporting heat deep into ice sheet .

We are melting Greenland top, bottom, and middle.

A-Team

Walls slowly closely in ... a refreshing change from frog in stove pot.

Not to worry:

316,205,000 anti-anxiety drug prescriptions in 2013 in the US alone; in order of popularity Xanax, Zoloft, Celexa, Prozac, Ativan, Desyrel, Lexapro, Cymbalta, Wellbutrin XL, Effexor ER, Valium, Paxil. And that is just a start on soothing medications in daily use.

It will take an impactful event to rouse them. If that.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/top-25-psychiatric-medication-prescriptions-for-2013/

VaughnA

Colorado Bob, I made a mention of this factor some time back on this blog. Tremendous numbers of joules going deep into the ice. If liquid water is making it to bedrock it is starting to lubricate and float the ice. If it refreezes in deep cracks then it is splitting old ice apart much like water freezing in a crack in a rock splits it apart.

The results should be increasingly interesting to say the least. From what I am reading about Greenland on the ASIF the increased speed of numerous glaciers and associated calvings indicate the water is already affecting the ice in a non linear fashion.

Bill Fothergill

@ opensheart...

"Denialists are easy to spot. They change to another argument as soon as you destroy the current one..."

I have just had to hunt out a quote I wanted to employ in a recent SkS posting. As a consequence, there is an old copy (April 2010) of our local Parish magazine on my desk at present. Contained within a single article in the magazine are approximately 2 dozen unrelated myths/memes/bollox all taken from either WUWT or some of Rupert Murdoch's rags. Basically it's a case of "Chuck enough muck, and some of it will stick".

@ NeilT

" ... a sudden sharp decline in Arctic ice ... is the only likely way to wake up the apathetic and make strides...

That happens to be my (forlorn?) hope as well: the Arctic could well be our "canary in a cage". However, as Paddy pointed out ...

"We had a sudden, sharp decline in Arctic ice in 2012. I didn't see many apathetic people wake up then."

The above mentioned 2010 Parish magazine article was not written by an idiot, but was written instead by someone who took the time to point out that they had spent "over 30 years as an academic computer scientist". Here's a small quote relevant to the Arctic...

"The arctic ice did indeed go low in 2007 (most likely due to unusual wind patterns) but we don't hear that it grew significantly in 2008 and again in 2009. Nor did anyone trumpet the fact that according to the DMI satellite data the winter 30% ice extent has just reached its highest level since that satellite record started five years ago. Also, incidentally, polar bear populations are double their numbers from 50 years ago and are increasing rather than decreasing. Oh, and damaging hurricanes are at a 30-year low." [Sic][Possibly that should read "sick" instead.]

On this forum during 2015, we've had the usual suspects claiming that there has been a rebound for two years, and that everything is just hunky-dory. Perhaps they might care to reflect on the above quote, and then have a long hard look in the mirror. (Of course, that isn't going to happen, is it?)

At least back when that article was written, the Arctic September extent had risen for two consecutive years - albeit in much the same way as it had from 1981-83, 1990-92 and 1999-2001. However, this time around, 2014 had a lower minimum (and lower annual average) than 2013.

It appears that in la-la land, "rebound" is synonymous with "not a record".

I fear that the only hope of the "caged canary" functioning, is when 2012 is eclipsed on a regular basis. Whether or not that is in time remains to be seen.

cheers bill f

Susan Anderson

I see this has already been mentioned (ColoradoBob at Washington Post). Nice graphics from WHOI article about melt pond dynamics:

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/scientists-find-trigger-that-cracks-lakes

Susan Anderson

Actually, not quite the same thing. Please do look at the graphics.

A-Team

In some ways, they are just kicking the can down the road by saying this particular melt lake didn't initiate a hydro-fracture on its own, but needed an established moulin nearby to buckle the melt lake region via hydrostatic pressure from underneath.

How then did that first moulin form with nothing to trigger IT? It seems hydro-fractures can and do form on their own, as indeed proposed in ref 8 cited by this paper (1973, J Weertman). So how many ab initio moulins form each year and are they limited/favored by increasing elevation?

As CB notes above, rapid draining is unfavorable for Greenland melt in three ways: first, the meltwater quickly exits the glacier without warming up the interior via latent heat, second by helping establish efficient sub-glacial tunneling that will prevent later melt water from jacking up other melt lakes and third, providing widespread sliding lubrication.

Retained meltwater that warms either surface firn or the deep interior, (exacerbating creep) would contribute more to overall acceleration of the ice sheet. The question is how this stacks up compared to early season inefficient drainage lubrication from melt lake drainage.

Note non-subscribers have free access to full size figures and legends -- open in new browser tab or you will just get a thumbnail. It is a very nice study in terms of quantitating tensional changes during the event.

Bill Fothergill

el Nino watch:

NOAA have just posted the monthly Nino 3.4 figure for May, and it is 28.82 degrees C. This is the highest 3.4 temp recorded since Jan 1998. The dataset runs from 1950, and this figure ranks 13th overall.

The monthly anomaly (0.91C) is the highest in any month since March 2010.

The rolling 3 month (March-May) is not out yet, but it will be +0.7C when it does appear.

It still hasn't made its mind up whether or not to be seriously big, but...

The comments to this entry are closed.