|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on May 13, 2015 22:55:23 GMT
This is the first time I have heard of fatalities on one of those AGW "science" expeditions. On one hand, I'm surprised it has taken this long. On the other hand, I doubt it will be the last. coldfacts.org/news
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 15, 2015 2:10:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on May 15, 2015 21:50:19 GMT
This is the first time I have heard of fatalities on one of those AGW "science" expeditions. On one hand, I'm surprised it has taken this long. On the other hand, I doubt it will be the last. coldfacts.org/news Interesting story. I will be interested to find out how the two individuals perished but not the dog. If they can even determine that level of information. It's harsh up there to say the least (as you would know!).
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 17, 2015 8:48:59 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/16/headline-indications-arctic-may-become-temperate-zone/1922 This article was transcribed from a newspaper clipping sent to me, it predicts a long term dramatic change may be possible in the Arctic, describing “unheard of temperatures reported in the Arctic zone”. Further, reports indicate “great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones” indicating glacier retreat. The report goes on to say that “At many points, well known glaciers have entirely disappeared” and “Everywhere, rocks are exposed that never before have been touched by the sun’s rays, and some large snow fields presumably everlasting, have disappeared entirely. OMG....this has been going on longer then we thought, even more unprecedented....er, hang on....just a minute....
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on May 17, 2015 12:00:21 GMT
Well we know the thousand year cooling came to an end, and reversed, by the turn of last century and you guys are keen on telling us about the 1930's warmth so where is the issue?
We certainly did not predict , in 1922, the post war explosion in fossil fuel use nor the impacts that would have as we 'dirtied' the atmosphere with particulates and sulphates ( resulting in the dimming we record from the 40's 'till our 'Western' clean air acts began reversing the impacts.
In 1922 we also did not understand the wider 'natural' climate oscillations so the impacts of it , and dimming, could not realistically have been seen on the horizon. Had warming continued uninterrupted then where would we be today? Seasonally ice free? Greenland putting another foot on sea levels? Shrub growth across the permafrost ( lowering albedo there)?
As it is we have a more interesting thing to watch this year and that is the ingress , via the Alaskan current, of warmed water from 'the blob' ( reinforced by last springs mammoth KW that pushed out in Feb) on the ice in Beaufort and East Siberian sectors ( on top of seasonal melt).
Currently ( and forecast for the next week at a min) we see Alaska/Beaufort under the blow torch and McKenzie delta is already ice free and the river in full spate as the Straights become ice free.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 17, 2015 13:52:07 GMT
Not at home, so briefly. ..CO2 increases after 1945, aerosol theory being thrown out by those who theorised it, 1922 likely natural variation. ...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 17, 2015 17:51:43 GMT
Well we know the thousand year cooling came to an end, and reversed, by the turn of last century and you guys are keen on telling us about the 1930's warmth so where is the issue? We certainly did not predict , in 1922, the post war explosion in fossil fuel use nor the impacts that would have as we 'dirtied' the atmosphere with particulates and sulphates ( resulting in the dimming we record from the 40's 'till our 'Western' clean air acts began reversing the impacts. In 1922 we also did not understand the wider 'natural' climate oscillations so the impacts of it , and dimming, could not realistically have been seen on the horizon. Had warming continued uninterrupted then where would we be today? Seasonally ice free? Greenland putting another foot on sea levels? Shrub growth across the permafrost ( lowering albedo there)? As it is we have a more interesting thing to watch this year and that is the ingress , via the Alaskan current, of warmed water from 'the blob' ( reinforced by last springs mammoth KW that pushed out in Feb) on the ice in Beaufort and East Siberian sectors ( on top of seasonal melt). Currently ( and forecast for the next week at a min) we see Alaska/Beaufort under the blow torch and McKenzie delta is already ice free and the river in full spate as the Straights become ice free. Graywolf: You are a smart feller. Most of us knew that Hansen was all wet when he used aerosols as the reason for the last "interruption" in warming. There is a long term cycle, which you indicated. The question becomes, what would be considered the normal parameters of temps in these cycles? The last one, the MWP appears to have peaked approx 1200AD. We all know that 1,000 years is an average with a +- of couple of hundred years. We also know that the earth's atmosphere has been cleaning out since 1993, via satellite observations. So with these short term influences taken in mind, can you really get very excited about our slight rise in temps? What to you think the apex period temps will be? Based on past observations, looks like we have another 1.2 to 1.4C to go from current temps. After that, things would get interesting as normal long term actual CLIMATE questions could be asked. As far as the Arctic, I just can't get excited about it. A lot of folks want to use 1979, the last apex of ice area, as the basis for alarm. Well, I still have that rusty copy of Capt Larsen's log. And for him to sail days and see NO ice, in what is today an ice covered area, just brings me back to the reality that a few years of satellite observation in a remote area means squat in regards to the long term picture.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 17, 2015 18:12:23 GMT
Well we know the thousand year cooling came to an end, and reversed, by the turn of last century and you guys are keen on telling us about the 1930's warmth so where is the issue? We certainly did not predict , in 1922, the post war explosion in fossil fuel use nor the impacts that would have as we 'dirtied' the atmosphere with particulates and sulphates ( resulting in the dimming we record from the 40's 'till our 'Western' clean air acts began reversing the impacts. In 1922 we also did not understand the wider 'natural' climate oscillations so the impacts of it , and dimming, could not realistically have been seen on the horizon. Had warming continued uninterrupted then where would we be today? Seasonally ice free? Greenland putting another foot on sea levels? Shrub growth across the permafrost ( lowering albedo there)? As it is we have a more interesting thing to watch this year and that is the ingress , via the Alaskan current, of warmed water from 'the blob' ( reinforced by last springs mammoth KW that pushed out in Feb) on the ice in Beaufort and East Siberian sectors ( on top of seasonal melt). Currently ( and forecast for the next week at a min) we see Alaska/Beaufort under the blow torch and McKenzie delta is already ice free and the river in full spate as the Straights become ice free. Graywolf, for someone from northern England you occasionally sound like someone from Islington. The current temperatures would have to increase hugely to get to even the Roman optimun and that was way below the Minoan optimum. Note that these temperatures were achieved well before any kind of industrialization and look further back and they are higher still.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 17, 2015 18:24:26 GMT
Nautonnier: Your graph is a perfect representation of prior interglacial periods. Warm periods interlaced with cool periods. NO one knows why this happens, as in reality they are dramatic step changes.
Looking at the Eemian, as an example, one should fully expect a rebound to at least RWP temps, and the potential to hit Minoan temps.
With higher CO2 levels, we should get a long period of HCO (Halocene Climate Optimum) temps.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 17, 2015 20:40:35 GMT
Nautonnier: Your graph is a perfect representation of prior interglacial periods. Warm periods interlaced with cool periods. NO one knows why this happens, as in reality they are dramatic step changes. Looking at the the previous temperatures back to the Eocene, one should fully expect a rebound to at least RWP temps, and the potential to hit Minoan temps. With higher CO2 levels, we should get a long period of HCO (Halocene Climate Optimum) temps. Unfortunately, that is not my reading of events. If people would just work back to the warmer times they would see the Earth is in a continuing descent to colder. I have seen no evidence that in the real atmosphere CO2 has made any difference at all. The atmosphere is nothing like shining infra red through a closed tube. Look at this graph and where we are on it. Look at Antarctic glaciation then Greenland glaciation... sure there are ups and downs but the general pattern is descent to lower temperatures. The variance has nothing to do with CO2, green house gases are about as scientific as phlogiston.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 18, 2015 0:36:13 GMT
Nautonnier, what is the source of that graph?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 18, 2015 5:53:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on May 18, 2015 8:01:27 GMT
Headline today in The Daily Telegraph:
[After 10,000 years giant Antarctic ice-shelf will be gone by 2020, Nasa report says New Nasa studies warn of "bad news for our planet" as looming crack threatens to shatter Larsen B ice-shelf into pieces]
I would be surprised that a giant ice shelf would "disappear'' in five years.
I was under the impression that giant icebergs hung around for a long time, especially in a cooling Antarctic where much of the surrounding water must be at -2degC.
Presumably, the three input glaciers will work hard to start the rebuilding process, not to mention old-fashioned freezing of the inlet..
One perverse effect might be to slightly accelerate cooling of Antarctica, as the albedo of the freed iceberg will be quite substantial.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 18, 2015 11:11:26 GMT
Headline today in The Daily Telegraph: [After 10,000 years giant Antarctic ice-shelf will be gone by 2020, Nasa report says New Nasa studies warn of "bad news for our planet" as looming crack threatens to shatter Larsen B ice-shelf into pieces] I would be surprised that a giant ice shelf would "disappear'' in five years. I was under the impression that giant icebergs hung around for a long time, especially in a cooling Antarctic where much of the surrounding water must be at -2degC. Presumably, the three input glaciers will work hard to start the rebuilding process, not to mention old-fashioned freezing of the inlet.. One perverse effect might be to slightly accelerate cooling of Antarctica, as the albedo of the freed iceberg will be quite substantial. It is another one of those 'giant' not quite meaning what it says. Yes it is large compared to say Melbourne - but in terms of size compared to the continent of Antarctica it is minute.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on May 18, 2015 17:20:56 GMT
Meanwhile , back in the Arctic........
Seen the temps across Alaska and N.Canada recently ?( remembering the month). Seen the models for the next 7 days across the basin?
|
|