Global Climate Status Report
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
you're looking at this in terms of a failed linear extrapolation model. The truth is something else.
whenever a system is distorted so that it produces a record event somewhere, you may expect to see a countervailing event of the other extreme somewhere else. This is a a short-term event.
Here is a discussion of this year's polar vortex anomaly.....
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-polar-vortex-climate-change-and-beast-from-the-east
Recent data supports a weak La Nina forecast for the coming months, an event that generally strengthens the polar vortex. This year it broke up, but was still very significant in bringing extreme cold, record cold temps across Europe in the neighborhood of February, as well as in our northern plains.
I am looking for signs of a new ice age. My model for predicting such a grand climate shift requires warmer oceans than we have even now, and a stabilization of the ENSO in the Pacific(with warmer temps and less cold water from the Arctic melts). The Ice Ages we have had have been due to a persistent stabilization of the polar vortex over Hudson Bay, with ice increasing due to extraodinary snow events drawing on the warm Gulf and Pacific. The Great Basin, during these climate events, have literally filled up with rain water, but during the Ice Ages, the ice generally has not increased as much elsewhere in the world as in the northern flats of North America.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
A countervailing event can’t put the methane back in the bottle, dude. And neither should one get religious in their belief of the kind of countervailing move you describe.
I wish this babe character you write through hadn’t taken this kind of literary turn.
Red
Well-Known Member
Actually, I’m just posting an interesting item pertaining to the weather in the Arctic. Seemed like the right thread.
I’m confused. The article is dated March, 2018, and it’s summer 2020 in the Arctic as of yesterday.
I know. Nothing wrong with that. I understand we are in an interglacial period, but we, namely humans, are a contributing factor to climate, at this point in our development, that we were not in earlier interglacials. I see no reason not to believe that that change in our status MAY mean we can alter the pattern of glaciation of the past 2 million years. And permafrost is melting. I see this in the fossil market, oddly enough, where mammoth tusks bring big $$, and local people in Siberia are bringing many to market, as they poke out of the permafrost and can be extracted now.
The changing climate is obviously heightened in the north polar region, and has been so for a number of years now. Ask the natives of the area. Consider the plight of the polar bear. Not in a moral sense, though that helps, IMO. But the obvious physical changes having to do with ice cover in their natural range. Why would I consider this short term when it’s an obvious trend that seems to have to do with warmth, and more of it? (We’ll see what the solar minimum contributes).
Last edited:
In the context of news curently, I didn't notice the 2018 on this story.
This spring, there were record late spring snows and ensuing floods in Michigan. A dam was failing, and either failed or forced engineers to release water precipitously, so that an area was flooded. The site of a big chemical plant, with wastewater ponds and lots of toxics "stored" in the soil generally was flooded.
The fact is, 2020 has been worse than 2018 for a record departure from "normal" behavior for the Arctic Oscillation and Polar Vortex.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...aching-record-strength-thats-not-scary-thing/
I've had some rough winters with long standing record cold air stationed in my area, like -30 F. and I really hate that. County road crews have to dig me outta my snowbank. But when this happens over the Great Basin, it's usually warmer somewhere else, probably a lot warmer. The recent few years, with some higher lattitude areas like Canada and the northern plains and Eastern Europe setting the record cold temps, the most significant departures on the plus side has been Siberia. Rarely does the Polar Vortex settle permanently on the North Pole.
ENSO, the El Nino Southern Oscillation, generally sets up a jet stream that moves stormy weather across the souther tier of US States, and is positively associated with a stabilization of the Polar Vortex over the Northern Rockies or Great Basin, but it is there moderated by warmer air mixing in more strongly.
Siberia has to have those warmer mixing airstreams go over the Caucasus and Tibetian ....lots of high mountains in the Eurasian Divide. I think that is a barrier to centering a long-term pattern of Ice Age proportions there. So it has always happened over the Hudson Bay/Northern Plains where the supply of moisture from the Gulf and Pacific are less impeded.
The recent pattern is Ice Age favorable, but it is about an order of magnitude too weak to do the trick for a serious Ice Age. Oceans not warm enough. Human emissions help, but the solar cycle is on the wrong side extreme.
This pattern generates some fuel for climate worrywarts, but it is neither the
"Global Warming" that socialists are horny for, nor the Ice Age a few contrarian scientists are having wet dreams about.
Last edited:
Well, it is 2020 so you never know.
The methane under the permafrost comes from living photosynthetic plants and living things that eat plants.
During some geologic ages we had a much higher CO2 atmosphere with extreme growth rates in plants, in the Arctic marshes. There was no Arctic ice to speak much of, except maybe on mountains, God only knows. There were no mammoths then.
The wild mammoth tusk rush now going on is because during the last ice age, maybe early on or most likely near the end of it, a lot of mammoths were up there eating the lush plant life, when a sudden cold event more or less froze a lot of them in their tracks.
photosynthesis takes the final end product of methane, CO2, and stores it in plant products. Then the ice comes and traps it all, and freezes it to some depth. This is part of a geologic cycle that has happened multiple times in geologic history, evidenced by carbon dating science.
So you are simply mistaken about the irreversible doomsday crap. Yes, the cycle is long. But no, a polar meltoff is not permanent nor exactly doomsday. If we weren't so damn indoctrinated in socialist bullscrap, we'd be thinking of rathional ways to cope swith real climate change. Be they merely cyclical natural things or anthropogenic.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You seem to think that because something (like methane, which is not a product or by-product of photosynthesis, btw) is the result of a living system, then everything should more-or-less be hunky-dory as far as living is concerned. That’s a weird perspective. A massive rush of methane could literally throw the human food supply into a decade-long turmoil. Is that a significant amount of time when you look at it through a geological lens? Obviously not. Would it be significant in the course of human history? Abso****inglutely yes.
Red
Well-Known Member
Prrsently, the notion that the onset of the last ice age was so rapid, that mammoths actually quick froze in place, instantly, their most recent meal still in their mouths, has been mostly embraced by Creationists( see: https://www.icr.org/article/did-frozen-mammoths-die-flood-or-ice-age). I can’t recall at the moment if it was catastrophist Immanuel Velikovsky who first came up with this theory in “Worlds in Collusion”, or not. I did enjoy reading his books back in the day, since it was basically alternative Earth history, and catastrophism would eventually enter the mainstream anyway, but not via Velikovsky’s theories, but rather via Louis Alvarez and son’s asteroid impact hypothesis for the extinction event that included the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous Period. You won’t find much, if any, support for this notion of an “instantaneous quick freeze” in the scientific community, though. It has been awhile since I perused this notion of quick freeze, but I know very few believe it...
https://creation.com/the-extinction-of-the-woolly-mammoth-was-it-a-quick-freeze
https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/ice-age/were-siberian-mammoths-quick-frozen/
Last edited:
Don't just be an idiot.
I said we have had Actic meltoffs before, and we can carbon date them by the remains of carbon based life remains. On a simple realization that we have found mammoths in the muck, frozen in place while eating lush growth, when there was a dramatic climate change towards the colder patterns. Such meltoffs have occurred I would imagine around previous ice age cycles as well.
Methane is a natural part of the photosynthetic carbon cycle. Every living thing exudes methane. It is possible there is some methane in the crust that is abiotic, but for a gas of that reactivity and vapor behavior, it is likely not much of any deposit near the surface, I imagine.
methane is highly reactive and "burns" when exposed to uv light, with a fairly short "half life" derived from its reactivity in the atmosphere with oxygen under uv light.
you're been literally brainwashed by irresponsible fake science ideology deliberately and deceitfully taught by our current crop of cool ideological morons.
A careful review of the mathematics that have been used in various climate models shows some inaccuracies and exaggerations in the models. It is true enough that "greenhouse gases" favor retention of radiative heat, but I think the most critical factor is neglected or badly represented in the models. The oceans store more heat than the atmosphere can with every 1 degree of warming of not just the surface but the whole depth temperature profile, and it is heat of that magnitude that fuels evaporation increases of the scale that can produce massive ice accumulations in places like the Hudson Bay.
"methanogens" are a fairly speculative unknown, compared to the sheer magnitude of organic decay well known. It doesn't even matter because by that process it's still cycling CO2, maybe on a shorter cycle.
I wouldn't fit the "Creationist" profile very well. I think 10K years is just a very small part of the whole story, let alone the typical "God spake" and it happened inside a day or thousand years even. Some people want to believe in the Bible narrative without allowing for metaphorical or symbolic sorts of simplifications which hardly anyone ever had any clear notion about.
Probably holds equally true for evolutionary ideologues today, in terms of actually having an accurate picture.
I think the frozen in place sort of notion is probably not a generality either, but it happens sometimes, maybe some animal freezes in an early storm every year. But for a lot of foliage to grow in the subArctic probably does equate with the sort of climate changes we are experiencing now, and it has likely happened before. We have also had natural causes provide more CO2 to our atmosphere than our current human contributions.
Any real plan for improving our impacts on our climate needs to involve a preference for local production over global transport, and living close to our work, and changes in our transportation and living practices and infrastructure, plus say some nuclear energy done right.
I reject the global fascism and the depopulation "final solutions" as being in fact worse than a genocidal cretin's "final solution".
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare — Environmental Progress
Climate change is real, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s not even our most important environmental problem.
environmentalprogress.org
Further comments....
Today is June30. Many fairly low valleys reported light frost around the Great Basin. Snow is visible on mountains over 9000 feet, locally demonstrating the sort of anomaly a very strong polar vortex can produce. The northern storm track is stronger here than I've ever seen in my lifetime..
I believe the data still supports a SST about 1K above our experience "normal", but still about 2K below the temps seen in a pre-Ice Age spike, a hort term pattern evidenced in ocean sediments by stuff like seeds and pollen, which can correlate to temps. It is the jpattern of all interglacial warm periods that short-term waves of plus or minus 2K occur. So these kinds of Arctic meltoffs likely occur in every cycle, and maybe six to ten times.
I don't exect a new ice age soon, though I'll feel a bit vindicated if it does. I like rain. The Great Basin becomes a vast land of lakes during Ice Ages. You would need boats rather than trains or cars. And while Salt Lake woud be under ab out 400 feet of water, we can build on the gravels of past shorelines, where mammoth bones are often found.
The glaciers don't really take over here, due to the warm Pacific. The polar vortex settles quite firmly over Hudson Bay, and not Siberia in that weather pattern.
I notice that we have disreputable managers of public information running the webz nowadays. A few months ago, some "mainstream" compliant researchers who had not quite lost their minds yet, reported unexpected outgasing of CO2 over the entire Southern Ocean..... all the way around Antartica. Massive amounts of CO2 coming out of the Ocean waters. They said about twice what could be expected from the warming water from the temperature changes they could access. They said we need to re-think the reality we believe in, because the facts demand another evaluation.
You can't find their article in Google anymore.
In a related story, a long-time progressive activist has today been deplatformed, and his article censored , because he is saying the alarmists are hurting the cause with their dishonesty, with their alarmism. He has a book coming out....."Apocalypse Never". And while I do believe we may be in an apocalyptic time in several respects, I agree with his good sense that cooler heads are needed to deal with the realities.
The Southern Ocean outgassing may be due to a cyclical rise in volcanism, or some other disturbance in Ocean chemistry or currents. The poor true believer scientists are not saying climate change is jfake, they're just saying we need to incorporate some more facts. Maybe adjust our thinking a bit.
I really am concerned about our society in terms of the cycle of perverse poltiical agendas.
The strength of the Polar Vortex is always interdependent with the strength of the southern jet stream. Usually it's either one or the other, rarely both.
What I'm guessing is that with our northern oceans quite generally warmer, we will get a northern track that trends more towards the lower lattitudes say about five degrees off from the usual, which will mean many powerful storms in are mid-California to Virginia latitudes, with more Nor'Easters as well. And more actual snow across southern Canada and the northern tier of States.
The Arctic, which is under conditions we have known in the past few hundred years, is a frozen desert. No, not a frozen dessert. I said "Desert" which means maybe only 4" or water falling from the sky in a year, no more than 8". Under conditions of warmer water everywhere, it will be above that range, unless colder air over land because of something like precesion or solar wind or space "clouds" or geothermal variance on the cooler side or the solar cycle contributes less heat.
So yah, we are on a solar minimum with warm oceans.
Enjoy the snow this winter.
What I'm guessing is that with our northern oceans quite generally warmer, we will get a northern track that trends more towards the lower lattitudes say about five degrees off from the usual, which will mean many powerful storms in are mid-California to Virginia latitudes, with more Nor'Easters as well. And more actual snow across southern Canada and the northern tier of States.
The Arctic, which is under conditions we have known in the past few hundred years, is a frozen desert. No, not a frozen dessert. I said "Desert" which means maybe only 4" or water falling from the sky in a year, no more than 8". Under conditions of warmer water everywhere, it will be above that range, unless colder air over land because of something like precesion or solar wind or space "clouds" or geothermal variance on the cooler side or the solar cycle contributes less heat.
So yah, we are on a solar minimum with warm oceans.
Enjoy the snow this winter.
The BBC is not "science", just as the IPCC is more "political" than "science".
Scientists need to collect data, and do that with accuracy and precisions, minimizing biases of every sort including instrument and any kind of selective screening to achieve an intended result.
I have some serious questions about every sort of motive and measurement we are collecting, but I am glad to have data to throw in the stew for thought.
Nobody has any causitive research on human impacts specific to any event, because events like we are seeing now have also happened before we learned about fire, and our CO2 generation is still small compared to natural cyclical events. We just haven't been collecting data long enough to differentiate this current cycle from other cycles without human contributions.
It is without any question a fact that atmospheric CO2 has a net retentive impact on atmospheric temps. But these charlatan commentators are out of bounds concluding our Siberian excursion today has no other plausible possible cause. We have perhaps as many as five or ten total arctic meltoffs in every interglacial warm period, and it is probable that such events are even necessary to trigger a new ice age.
The little weather gal in the BBC video above cites six basic weather states frequently affecting Britain, saying four of them are Arctic oscillations. I have no reason to question that except to speculate that we will invent more observed patterns and learn to define them by data coincidences and energy transport processes.
But the Arctic Ocean is not very large in terms of surface or volume. It is the first recipient of many rivers that flow mostly during the summer, from watersheds that are frozen most of the year, accumulating ice. If the meltoffs don't happen, and ice is on balance increased from year to year, a lot of water is stored in the Arctic Ice, which for most of our ice age cycles is about 85% of the time. It does require a significant excursion from this "normal" pattern to accomplish a very extensive meltoff.
I don't have the data on Arctic Sea temps on a depth profile handy, but the densest water is 4C water, about 39 degrees F. There is likely a fair depth of water at this temp, and even in a huge meltoff, the surface temp is probably not much above 4C on average. During winter, the surface is likely about -2C where there is any kind of liquid form present, due to the salt melting point depression.
It is also likely that the net effects of Arctic excursions is dominated by water currents. Flows of water from the Arctic Sea into the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, more than air flows from the Arctic. Water carries so much more effect than air.
At the present time, I think the world oceans are about 1C above the normal for the past 100 years. I think it will increase, and possibly reach 4C above normal on the surface and 1C above normal at depth, before we are set for a new Ice Age driven by ocean evaporation and high latitude precipitation.
Clapping seals and guffawing baboons run our media, and know nothing. And our science establishment has bent over real good for the politicians who want to scare us into a new world order endowing them with unlimited power.
I can't say our next Ice Age will start this century, but I think if we care at all about doing something sensible about the world we live in, we should rebuild nuclear power plants safely, and make electricity cheap enough every African village has a refrigerator in every hut.
If we made electricity as cheap as we know we can with nuclear, we could have good electric cars and hybrid systems and save our oil supplies to good effect.
And no, socialism in the hands of fascist cartelists cavorting around the Bangkok and Thai coast hotels is not going to be good for anyone.
But the Arctic Ocean is not very large in terms of surface or volume. It is the first recipient of many rivers that flow mostly during the summer, from watersheds that are frozen most of the year, accumulating ice. If the meltoffs don't happen, and ice is on balance increased from year to year, a lot of water is stored in the Arctic Ice, which for most of our ice age cycles is about 85% of the time. It does require a significant excursion from this "normal" pattern to accomplish a very extensive meltoff.
I don't have the data on Arctic Sea temps on a depth profile handy, but the densest water is 4C water, about 39 degrees F. There is likely a fair depth of water at this temp, and even in a huge meltoff, the surface temp is probably not much above 4C on average. During winter, the surface is likely about -2C where there is any kind of liquid form present, due to the salt melting point depression.
It is also likely that the net effects of Arctic excursions is dominated by water currents. Flows of water from the Arctic Sea into the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, more than air flows from the Arctic. Water carries so much more effect than air.
At the present time, I think the world oceans are about 1C above the normal for the past 100 years. I think it will increase, and possibly reach 4C above normal on the surface and 1C above normal at depth, before we are set for a new Ice Age driven by ocean evaporation and high latitude precipitation.
Clapping seals and guffawing baboons run our media, and know nothing. And our science establishment has bent over real good for the politicians who want to scare us into a new world order endowing them with unlimited power.
I can't say our next Ice Age will start this century, but I think if we care at all about doing something sensible about the world we live in, we should rebuild nuclear power plants safely, and make electricity cheap enough every African village has a refrigerator in every hut.
If we made electricity as cheap as we know we can with nuclear, we could have good electric cars and hybrid systems and save our oil supplies to good effect.
And no, socialism in the hands of fascist cartelists cavorting around the Bangkok and Thai coast hotels is not going to be good for anyone.