Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:46 PM GMT on September 20, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

The extraordinary decline in Arctic sea ice during 2012 is finally over. Sea ice extent bottomed out on September 16, announced scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on Wednesday. The sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers, breaking the previous all-time low set in 2007 by 18%--despite the fact that this year's weather was cloudier and cooler than in 2007. Nearly half (49%) of the icecap was gone during this year's minimum, compared to the average minimum for the years 1979 - 2000. This is an area approximately 43% of the size of the Contiguous United States. And, for the fifth consecutive year--and fifth time in recorded history--ice-free navigation was possible in the Arctic along the coast of Canada (the Northwest Passage), and along the coast of Russia (the Northeast Passage or Northern Sea Route.) "We are now in uncharted territory," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "While we've long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur. While lots of people talk about opening of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic islands and the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast, twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean."


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice reached its minimum on September 16, 2012, and was at its lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?
We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) shows that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 - 3°C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.


Figure 2. Year-averaged and 3-month averaged Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from Chapman and Walsh (2001), as updated by the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. I've updated their graph to include 2011 plus the first 9 months of 2012.


Figure 3. Late summer Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed from proxy data by Kinnard et al.'s 2011 paper, Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. The solid pink line is a smoothed 40-year average, and the light pink areas shows a 95% confidence interval.  Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, though the extent is not as low as the current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing. More commentary on this graph is available at skepticalscience.com.

When will the Arctic be ice-free in summer?
So, when will Santa's Workshop need to be retrofitted with pontoons to avoid sinking to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean in summer? It's hard to say, since there is a large amount of natural variability in Arctic weather patterns. Day et al. (2012) found that 5 to 31% of the changes in Arctic sea ice could be due to natural causes. However, the sea ice at the summer minimum has been declining at a rate of 12% per decade, far in excess of the worst-case scenario predicted in the 2007 IPCC report. Forecasts of an ice-free Arctic range from 20 - 30 years from now to much sooner. Just this week, Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within four years. A study by Stroeve et al. (2012), using the updated models being run for the 2014 IPCC report, found that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility." Of the 21 models considered, 2022 was the earliest date that complete Arctic sea ice occurred in September.


Video 1. A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds. According to NSIDC, the storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.Video credit: NASA.

But Antarctic sea ice is growing!
It's a sure thing that when Arctic sea ice hits new record lows, global warming contrarians will attempt to draw attention away from the Arctic by talking about sea ice around Antarctica. A case in point is an article that appeared in Forbes on Wednesday by James Taylor. Mr. Taylor wrote, "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low. Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."

This analysis is highly misleading, as it ignores the fact that Antarctica has actually been warming in recent years. In fact, the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed faster than the global trend, and there has been accelerated melting of ocean-terminating Antarctic glaciers in recent years as a result of warmer waters eating away the glaciers. There is great concern among scientists about the stability of two glaciers in West Antarctica (the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers) due the increase in ocean temperatures. These glaciers may suffer rapid retreats that will contribute significantly to global sea level rise.

Despite the warming going on in Antarctica, there has been a modest long-term increase in Antarctic sea ice in recent decades. So, how can more sea ice form on warmer ocean waters? As explained in an excellent article at skepticalscience.com, the reasons are complex. One reason is that the Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). As the planet continues to warm, climate models predict that the growth in Antarctic sea ice will reverse, as the waters become too warm to support so much sea ice.


Figure 4. Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica (top), and sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). Image credit: (Zhang 2007).

Commentary: Earth's attic is on fire
To me, seeing the record Arctic sea ice loss of 2012 is like discovering a growing fire burning in Earth's attic. It is an emergency that requires immediate urgent attention. If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the Contiguous U.S. from the ocean, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. This year's record sea ice loss also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Global warming doubters tell us to pay attention to Earth's basement--the Antarctic--pointing out (incorrectly) that there is no fire burning there. But shouldn't we be paying attention to the steadily growing fire in our attic? The house all of humanity lives on is on fire. The fire is certain to spread, since we've ignored it for too long. It is capable of becoming a raging fire that will burn down our house, crippling civilization, unless we take swift and urgent action to combat it.

References
Funder, S. and K.H. Kjaer, 2007, "A sea-ice free Arctic Ocean?", Geophys. Res. Abstr. 9 (2007), p. 07815.

Kinnard et al., 2011, "Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years".

Walsh, J.E and W.L.Chapman, 2001, "Twentieth-century sea ice variations from observational data", Annals of Glaciology, 33, Number 1, January 2001, pp. 444-448.

Related info
Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog post
Wunderground's Sea Ice page

Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 809 - 759

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

809. MTWX
Quoting E46Pilot:
I have a really hard time believing what man has done in the last 200 years is messing up Earth which has been around 4.5 Billion years. I think what we are seeing is just part of the Earth's natural cycle.


Quick question...

How many species on earth have become extinct directly due to human existance??

Just because the earth is big, doesn't mean it isn't fragile...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LostTomorrows:


As a fan of smooshing words together, I think you should call all of your blob observations "Blobservations".


Not bad. I'll have to give you credit for that, each time I use it though.
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 26527
807. flsky
If you love to watch clouds:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I have a really hard time believing what man has done in the last 200 years is messing up Earth which has been around 4.5 Billion years. I think what we are seeing is just part of the Earth's natural cycle.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
805. MTWX
Quoting clamshell:


Reminds me of that movie quote, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Interesting you should indicate the professors are not paid well. In Florida, there is a data base that shows of the 1800+ professors in Floridas 11 universites, almost 1200 of them make $125,000 per year. And most of them are Associate Professors. Not too shabby by any means.

Be that as it may. The real support for AGW comes from individuals, groups and businesses whose eyes are all aglitter looking to make billions, if not trillions off of AGW. And it would appear they are willing to do whatever is necessary to get there as quickly as possible.




Every school is different, but if you want the national "going rates" (given the data is 5 years old)..

[Academic year] salaries for full-time faculty averaged $73,207. By rank, the average was $98,974 for professors, $69,911 for associate professors, $58,662 for assistant professors, $42,609 for instructors, and $48,289 for lecturers. Faculty in 4-year institutions earn higher salaries, on average, than do those in 2-year schools. In 2006–07, faculty salaries averaged $84,249 in private independent institutions, $71,362 in public institutions, and $66,118 in religiously affiliated private colleges and universities.

Edit: here is some more up to date data.. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
804. flsky
A most interesting website:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Homework/Pop Quiz for tha blog:

What is the effect of the NAO and AO on temps in the Arctic and what trends should we expect to see based on history of these occilations?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting seminolesfan:

Yup, Warm AMO and Cool PDO is the driver of the recent several years' extent issues..IMO. :)
What I take from this is by 2016 onward we will need to watch for any decrease in the activity across the Atlantic to see if we have entered into a quieter period.
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting GTcooliebai:
"Since 1995, the Atlantic has been in a very active phase, so in 15 of the past 18 seasons, we’ve hit the “L” storm. But over a longer averaging period, it’s not so normal. The activity comes and goes in multi-decadal peaks and valleys of favorable conditions."

Link

Yup, Warm AMO and Cool PDO is the driver of the recent several years' extent issues..IMO. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Since 1995, the Atlantic has been in a very active phase, so in 15 of the past 18 seasons, we’ve hit the “L” storm. But over a longer averaging period, it’s not so normal. The activity comes and goes in multi-decadal peaks and valleys of favorable conditions."

Link
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Put in a few plastics, glass materials, and chemicals, and get endless solar energy out....

If an advanced solar panel that was 85% efficient for example were created, and was not too expensive,maybe $100 for a 6x6 square, people would hop it up, as long as it was easy to do.
Companies would pounce on the technology faster than you could think, as it would greatly reduce their expenses.
If a car was made that had a 350 mile electric range, a 4 hour charge time, and costed 25k dollars, and maybe had a gas reserve, people would hop it up, as it would save trememdously on their expenses, and would take them wherever they wanted to go, except on very long road trips, and then imagine a car with a 1000 mile range for 30,000 dollars, that would definitely sell, it would take you on all your road trips you wanted to go on....

The point it, all these things would sell out with MASSIVE demand, even faster than the iPhones sell today, because it would be a wonderful thing for anyone who bought it.
So you CAN have great profit margins, including with mass production lines, low production costs.
I also dont see why you are so set at putting these technologies so far off into the future..


put in some plastics, glass, and expensive (and exotic) materials, as well as tons of energy in the form of heat and electricity, and you get a solar panel with a lifetime of 20 years. which takes quite a while to produce enough energy to make up for the energy it took to extract, purify and assemble all those materials into a panel.

current panels in the lab, made using expensive materials and production methods (and lots of embodied energy), can hit about 40%. they aren't practical for home use tho, home panels are roughly 15% efficient for the nice ones and about 10% for the cheaper ones.

maybe some breakthroughs will increase that number, but that number has been climbing relatively slowly for the last few decades. i have no reason to believe we'll be seeing cheap, easy to produce 85% efficient solar panels any time in my lifetime. that's a fantasy. why not argue for nuclear fusion? as i said, that's been '20 years in the future' for the last 60 years.

Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 681
Quoting Grothar:
Blob observation. Appears to be moving east. Bahamas should be on blob-level 2.



As a fan of smooshing words together, I think you should call all of your blob observations "Blobservations".
Member Since: August 26, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 602
In terms of pressure as well as a pretty impressive appearance, I think Nadine is actually stronger than 50 kt. Again, I think she'll be around for a while.
Member Since: August 26, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 602
Blob observation. Appears to be moving east. Bahamas should be on blob-level 2.

Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 26527
I'm sure it is just an oversight in not including this information about PDO and Arctic border zone temps in the analysis.

Not that 'the team' would ever think of cherry picking data sets or withholding information to cloud the playing field.

That would be crazy...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GTcooliebai:
I noticed the pressure is low for Nadine for being just a Tropical Storm and nice graphics.


thanks...I know the pressure is low... look at the 620 mile diameter of the storm...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Look at 1990 and 1995;
Those two cool bursts sure did make a dent in ice extent didn't they?
Hmmm, the warm phase between sure matches up nicely with the extent gains year-over-previous also shown in Dr. Master's graph in the post.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schwankmoe:


green energy, barring some crazy miracle like fusion (which has been '20 years in the future' for the last 60 years), will never have the profit margin oil had. never. the EROEI of early conventional crude was like 100:1. you put one barrel's worth of energy in and get 100 barrels out of the ground. that's insane. it's highly concentrated, full of useful chemicals and easy to transport and refine. it's literally magic. and, for the most part, it's almost free money for those who extract it.

green energy will never really be easier to use than fossil fuels, except maybe long in the future and only in certain markets like transportation (and it's got a steep hill to climb to catch up). as to other markets like the chemical industry, plastics, pharmaceuticals, agrichemicals, there's no comparison with fossil fuels. as i said, you can't get benzene out of a solar panel.

even assuming a rosy future for green energy, the profit margin for it will never match what oil was able to pull in its heyday.


Put in a few plastics, glass materials, and chemicals, and get endless solar energy out....

If an advanced solar panel that was 85% efficient for example were created, and was not too expensive,maybe $100 for a 6x6 square, people would hop it up, as long as it was easy to do.
Companies would pounce on the technology faster than you could think, as it would greatly reduce their expenses.
If a car was made that had a 350 mile electric range, a 4 hour charge time, and costed 25k dollars, and maybe had a gas reserve, people would hop it up, as it would save trememdously on their expenses, and would take them wherever they wanted to go, except on very long road trips, and then imagine a car with a 1000 mile range for 30,000 dollars, that would definitely sell, it would take you on all your road trips you wanted to go on....

The point it, all these things would sell out with MASSIVE demand, even faster than the iPhones sell today, because it would be a wonderful thing for anyone who bought it.
So you CAN have great profit margins, including with mass production lines, low production costs.
I also dont see why you are so set at putting these technologies so far off into the future..
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9731
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
TROPICAL UPDATE:
hope you like it...
_______________________

Tropical storm Nadine
93E and 94L



virus risk-free bigger pic here...
I noticed the pressure is low for Nadine for being just a Tropical Storm and nice graphics.
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
TROPICAL UPDATE:
hope you like it...
_______________________

Tropical storm Nadine
93E and 94L



virus risk-free bigger pic here...



Nice map.
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 26527
TROPICAL UPDATE:
hope you like it...
_______________________

Tropical storm Nadine
93E and 94L



virus risk-free bigger pic here... about 4x bigger...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting clamshell:


Isn't it interesting that you are willing to, without hesitation, skip over the fact that 'Cap and Trade' is not being presented as a choice but as a governmental regulation/law that forces conformity with its concepts.

When the AGW gang steps back from forcing adherence with their solutions and begins working on actually selling it to the people instead, that is when things will change. Until then, the profit motive on both sides smells to high heaven.

And the longer it will take to actually implement.




cap and trade was a 'gummint regulation/law that forces conformity with its concepts' back when it was implemented regarding acid rain-producing chemicals. and it worked great. besides which, people are idiots when it comes to this subject. half the country thinks climate change is a hoax. 'selling solutions' to people will take so long we'll all be toast by then.

that's why reagan straight-up tightened CFCs when his administration was alerted to the ozone problem - waiting to 'sell' americans on some voluntary market-based system would have take too long and we would have been boned.

we're talking about emissions that are literally ruining our biosphere. saying we should wait for americans to come around voluntarily means we're waiting so long we might as well not even bother.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 681
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting guygee:
This morning is probably the last chance for comments before the Doc blows this popsicle stand.

I think we are looking at the prelude of an ice-free Arctic ocean within a decade, maybe within five years, ignoring some fast ice and ice calving off of Greenland. The picture of waves rolling over the North Pole will shock the civilized world.

The non-civilized neo-liberal pro-corporate globalization denier instigators of today will try to sell it to us as "opportunity" and "progress", as we will have one last area of the Earth to rape and pillage. Maybe they will be offering cruises through the Northwest Passage in 20 years for the elites, with the passengers escorted to the ships in heavily-guarded armored cars with bullet-proof glass.

Food will be very expensive and rationed in the US, poverty will be rampant, and in many other countries there will be mass starvation and war. That is where all of these supposed "pro-economy, anti-environment" people are leading us today.


We gotta melt the ice so we can get to the oil... BP
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JTDailyUpdate:
Morning Everyone, Found an Interesting article I would like to share with the blog

Exclusive: A Peek Inside NASA’s Global Hawk Hangar

Link


Cool, my father is a Wallops Island right now, guessing he's got an instrament on one of them... will have to ask, thanks for the link!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Cool Phase PDO shows tendency to have warm temp anomalies along the North Canadian and North of Bering Landmass Arctic borders.

Combined with the pressures/winds seen this season a big part of the picture is the PDO, a seldom mentioned fact.

EDIT:The left is warm and right is cool. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What Is the True Social Cost of Carbon?

Posted by Tim Profeta of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions,
Duke University on September 20, 2012

A new study in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences contends that the U.S. government significantly underestimated the social cost of carbon in 2010 in its effort to establish a unified cost of carbon for various agencies to use when formulating policy. The government arrived at a cost at $21 per ton of carbon, but the new study argues the "discount rate" was set too high, and that it the true social cost of carbon could be anywhere from $55 to $266 per ton.

Potential greenhouse gas policy, post-November, remains a murky picture. While candidate Mitt Romney has said he opposes a carbon tax, some of his economic advisers embrace the idea (subscription) as a means to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, especially in tight fiscal times. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein frames the carbon pricing debate as a bargain between Democrats and Republicans, and a Slate piece offers that carbon taxes are good not only for the environment, but also for the treasury. Meanwhile, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross argues in The Atlantic that, given the national-security challenges the issue poses for the U.S., Romney and the Republican party are "ceding important ground by tolerating and encouraging denialism" of climate change. Ralph Nader says Obama and the Democrats are "running away from the issue" of climate change.
...

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/2 0/what-is-the-true-social-cost-of-carbon/
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6049
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


what i meant was in comparison to green energy.
Fossil fuels wont sell if green energy is easier to use.
Green energy will also have a good profit margin, supply and demand balances out with competition, so unless there is a monopoly, it is mostly fair.


green energy, barring some crazy miracle like fusion (which has been '20 years in the future' for the last 60 years), will never have the profit margin oil had. never. the EROEI of early conventional crude was like 100:1. you put one barrel's worth of energy in and get 100 barrels out of the ground. that's insane. it's highly concentrated, full of useful chemicals and easy to transport and refine. it's literally magic. and, for the most part, it's almost free money for those who extract it.

green energy will never really be easier to use than fossil fuels, except maybe long in the future and only in certain markets like transportation (and it's got a steep hill to climb to catch up). as to other markets like the chemical industry, plastics, pharmaceuticals, agrichemicals, there's no comparison with fossil fuels. as i said, you can't get benzene out of a solar panel.

even assuming a rosy future for green energy, the profit margin for it will never match what oil was able to pull in its heyday.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 681
Lovely cooling rains - not so sure about the proximity of the lightning though.
Must be part of that Blob S of Cuba or Blobette coming across from Jamaica area.
Whilst I enjoy the rain, also keeping a wary eye open on that "outburst" N of Panama.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
BULLETIN
TROPICAL STORM NADINE INTERMEDIATE ADVISORY NUMBER 41A
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL AL142012
200 PM AST FRI SEP 21 2012

...NADINE MOVING A LITTLE FASTER TOWARD THE SOUTH-SOUTHEAST...


SUMMARY OF 200 PM AST...1800 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...33.6N 27.3W
ABOUT 305 MI...490 KM S OF THE AZORES
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...60 MPH...95 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...SSE OR 155 DEGREES AT 13 MPH...20 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...981 MB...28.97 INCHES
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schwankmoe:


if your assumption is that those who are trying to institute a cap and trade system are only in it for the money (as opposed to also trying to reduce GHGes), then i don't know what to tell you. no offense. i personally don't see cap and trade as anything more than a band-aid, but acting as if all the work Gore et al have done trying to draw attention to climate change is just one long con to make big money on a future carbon credit market is ludicrous.

besides which, if cap and trade works as a means of reducing GHGes, who cares if some people make money at it? nobody is saying that profit is a bad thing, but profiting off of a market that lowers carbon emissions sure is better than profiting off of a product that is literally destroying our environment. i think everyone can agree on that.

some people made money off of the successful 'cap and trade' system we set up decades ago regarding SO2. so what? the important thing is that the system worked and the amount of acid-rain producing chemicals pumped into the atmosphere every year dropped. was it not worth it to set that system up because there may have been some people with dollar signs in their eyes? of course not.


Isn't it interesting that you are willing to, without hesitation, skip over the fact that 'Cap and Trade' is not being presented as a choice but as a governmental regulation/law that forces conformity with its concepts.

When the AGW gang steps back from forcing adherence with their solutions and begins working on actually selling it to the people instead, that is when things will change. Until then, the profit motive on both sides smells to high heaven.

And the longer it will take to actually implement.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Down to 30% for 94L.

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
200 PM EDT FRI SEP 21 2012

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER IS ISSUING ADVISORIES ON TROPICAL
STORM NADINE...LOCATED ABOUT 305 MILES SOUTH OF THE AZORES.

THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE CHANGE WITH A NON-TROPICAL LOW PRESSURE AREA
LOCATED ABOUT 400 MILES EAST OF BERMUDA. SOME DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
LOW IS POSSIBLE TODAY BEFORE IT ENCOUNTERS LESS CONDUCIVE
CONDITIONS THIS WEEKEND. THIS SYSTEM HAS A MEDIUM CHANCE...30
PERCENT...OF BECOMING A SUBTROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48
HOURS AS IT MOVES NORTHWESTWARD AT ABOUT 10 MPH. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ON THIS LOW CAN BE FOUND IN HIGH SEAS FORECASTS ISSUED
BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.

&&
HIGH SEAS FORECASTS ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CAN BE
FOUND UNDER AWIPS HEADER NFDHSFAT1 AND WMO HEADER FZNT01 KWBC.

$$
FORECASTER BLAKE

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Up to 80% for 93E.


TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1100 AM PDT FRI SEP 21 2012

FOR THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC...EAST OF 140 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE..

SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS HAVE INCREASED NEAR A LOW PRESSURE AREA
LOCATED ABOUT 400 MILES SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF MANZANILLO MEXICO.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS APPEAR CONDUCIVE FOR THE FORMATION OF A
TROPICAL DEPRESSION DURING THE NEXT DAY OR SO. THIS SYSTEM HAS A
HIGH CHANCE...80 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING
THE NEXT 48 HOURS AS IT MOVES TOWARD THE WEST OR WEST-NORTHWEST AT
5 TO 10 MPH.

ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.

$$
FORECASTER BLAKE
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
776. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Philippines Atmospheric Geophysical Astronomical Services and Administration
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin #5
TROPICAL STORM LAWIN (JELAWAT)
11:00 PM PhST September 21 2012
==================================

Tropical Storm "LAWIN" has intensified as it moves closer to the Samar-Bicol Area

At 10:00 PM PhSt, Tropical Storm Lawin (Jelawat) [987 hPa] located at 12.4°N 129.7°E or 500 km east of Catarman, Northern Samar has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 65 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving west at 5 knots.

Signal Warnings
================

Signal Warning #1
------------------

Visayas Region
==============

1. Eastern Samar

Additional Information
=====================

Estimated rainfall amount is from 10-25 mm per hour (heavy to intense) within the 600 km diameter of the tropical storm.

Fishing boats and other small seacrafts are advised not to venture out into the eastern seaboard of southern Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao due to big waves generated by Tropical Storm "Lawin".

The public and the disaster coordinating councils concerned are advised to take appropriate actions and watch for the next bulletin to be issued at 5 AM tomorrow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting guygee:
Yeah, that always makes me double over, first in laughter, then in pain...the idea that scientists in academia "make the big bucks". LOL, ouch!.

In universities the promotions end at the "Professor" title, They have to go into administration to get more money. Professors make no money off of research grants or peer reviewed publications.

Where are the big bucks!

Compared to their peers in the private sector, scientists in academia are like starving artists.


Most people would be surprised how low some of the salaries are, even for full professors. Very often a profession with doctorate earns less than a teacher at a a public school. In many fields, people are not bothering to get a doctorate because they would never be able to make enough even in salary to compensate for the cost of the doctorate.

Porfessors at medical schools and law schools usually make a higher salary, but would still not make what they could in the private sector. Most research scientists, especially, cannot see the Russian Embassy from their mansions.
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 26527
Quoting guygee:
Yeah, that always makes me double over, first in laughter, then in pain...the idea that scientists in academia "make the big bucks". LOL, ouch!.

In universities the promotions end at the "Professor" title, They have to go into administration to get more money. Professors make no money off of research grants or peer reviewed publications.

Where are the big bucks?

Compared to their peers in the private sector, scientists in academia are like starving artists.


Reminds me of that movie quote, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Interesting you should indicate the professors are not paid well. In Florida, there is a data base that shows of the 1800+ professors in Floridas 11 universites, almost 1200 of them make $125,000 per year. And most of them are Associate Professors. Not too shabby by any means.

Be that as it may. The real support for AGW comes from individuals, groups and businesses whose eyes are all aglitter looking to make billions, if not trillions off of AGW. And it would appear they are willing to do whatever is necessary to get there as quickly as possible.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
AIR QUALITY ALERT MESSAGE
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
RELAYED BY NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX
208 PM CDT THU SEP 20 2012

...OZONE WATCH ISSUED FOR FRIDAY...

THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY...HAS ISSUED AN
OZONE WATCH FOR THE HOUSTON...GALVESTON...AND BRAZORIA AREAS FOR
FRIDAY...SEPTEMBER 21ST. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED TO
BE FAVORABLE FOR PRODUCING HIGH LEVELS OF OZONE POLLUTION IN THE
HOUSTON...GALVESTON...AND BRAZORIA AREAS.

ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS OF OZONE CAN ACT AS A LUNG IRRITANT.
INDIVIDUALS WITH CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE...SUCH AS ASTHMA AND
EMPHYSEMA...AND THE ELDERLY AND SMALL CHILDREN...ARE PARTICULARLY
SENSITIVE TO OZONE AND SHOULD ATTEMPT TO AVOID EXPOSURE. TO AVOID
EXPOSURE...MINIMIZE EXERTION OUTDOORS DURING THE MID-DAY TO EARLY
EVENING HOURS OR STAY INDOORS IN AN AIR CONDITIONED AREA DURING THIS
TIME.
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 39311
Please do not engage in personal attacks or BICKERING.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting clamshell:


The fact is that the AGW group are also Denialists, in that they refuse to admit that within their midst is a group whose sole desire is to profit from the supposed products that will come from fighting AGW. The 'Cap and Trade' cadre is analogous the big oil cadre.


if your assumption is that those who are trying to institute a cap and trade system are only in it for the money (as opposed to also trying to reduce GHGes), then i don't know what to tell you. no offense. i personally don't see cap and trade as anything more than a band-aid, but acting as if all the work Gore et al have done trying to draw attention to climate change is just one long con to make big money on a future carbon credit market is ludicrous.

besides which, if cap and trade works as a means of reducing GHGes, who cares if some people make money at it? nobody is saying that profit is a bad thing, but profiting off of a market that lowers carbon emissions sure is better than profiting off of a product that is literally destroying our environment. i think everyone can agree on that.

some people made money off of the successful 'cap and trade' system we set up decades ago regarding SO2. so what? the important thing is that the system worked and the amount of acid-rain producing chemicals pumped into the atmosphere every year dropped. was it not worth it to set that system up because there may have been some people with dollar signs in their eyes? of course not.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 681
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9731
................remember this one?..today..boy i remember sweating it out back then, wondering if Hugo was going to cross over florida..had my windows boarded up etc LOL..then he turned towards the Carolina's..whew didnt want That bad boy here by me.
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 39311
Quoting schwankmoe:
nea's entire point was that no, it isn't all about the money on both sides. clearly climate scientists are not in it for the money. even if you're a climatologist and you decide to invest in oil and gas interests, it isn't because you're in an area of employment that makes big bucks to invest.

people keep coughing up this line that climate scientists are in it for the money. what money? since when do climatologists make the big bucks?

Yeah, that always makes me double over, first in laughter, then in pain...the idea that scientists in academia "make the big bucks". LOL, ouch!.

In universities the promotions end at the "Professor" title, They have to go into administration to get more money. Professors make no money off of research grants or peer reviewed publications.

Where are the big bucks?

Compared to their peers in the private sector, scientists in academia are like starving artists.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 39311
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 39311
Quoting schwankmoe:


the profit margin in fossil fuels has nothing to do with how easy it is for people to use. it's merely a matter of the overall cost of extraction vs the selling price.


what i meant was in comparison to green energy.
Fossil fuels wont sell if green energy is easier to use.
Green energy will also have a good profit margin, supply and demand balances out with competition, so unless there is a monopoly, it is mostly fair.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9731
Quoting wxchaser97:
Is it just me or is 94L looking a little better than this morning? At least it seems to be wrapping up more and building some more convection to me.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/94L/imag ery/rbtop-animated.gif
It does look better, we'll see if the NHC bumps its percentage back up, it still has time before it gets absorbed by the front.
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Twin Tropical Cyclones:

Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


I never said there was more profit in green energy now, i always stated that it was only when green energy became easier for people to use than gas/coal/oil etc that it would become more profitable, and i dont see a reason to put it off decades into the future when breakthroughs can happen at any time.


the profit margin in fossil fuels has nothing to do with how easy it is for people to use. it's merely a matter of the overall cost of extraction vs the selling price. fossil fuels have always had a very low cost of extraction. there is a slow, inexorable rise in that cost as the cheapest-to-extract and highest quality materials have been dug up first (witness the disappearance of anthracite coal and the drop in extraction rate of legacy crude), but it's for the most part still cheap.

once conventional crude really starts disappearing, and more and more of our oil has to come from non-conventional expensive-to-extract sources, either the cost per barrel has to rise as well, or the profit margin goes down. even then, it would be a long time before the profit margin for oil or coal drops to the level of green energy.

now, the overall profit takes into account the amount sold. if everyone decides to shift our system to a non-fossil based one, then the profit margin for, say, oil doesn't matter quite so much if the demand plummets. but our infrastructure is based on fossil fuels. likewise, oil for example provides a number of other essential services that solar panels and the like cannot. you can't extract cheap benzene, the basic feedstock of the chemical industry, from a solar panel. likewise wind turbines do not create polymers which are the base material of the plastics industry, or pharmaceutical chemicals or solvents. the list goes on.

we're going to be using lots of fossil fuels for some time. no matter how easy green energy becomes to use. as to 'breakthroughs', our energy system is not defined by magic tech breakthroughs, more by slow refinement of existing technologies and slow adoption of them. i see no reason, outside of a quick unseen (by most) dropoff in fossil fuel production, why any switchover to green energy would not be slowgoing. and if that happens we have some serious chaos on our hands.

but i digress. time for lunch.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 681
GFS at 72 hours...................
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 39311
Quoting schwankmoe:


the people behind anthropogenic global warming are you, me and everyone who pumps excessive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. there is no 'cabal' behind global warming. it's a planet-wide effect, caused by the whole of humanity.

the people who have gone out of their way to make this effect known and how it is working are not 'behind' AGW any more than Newton was 'the guy behind gravity'.


I think you misunderstood what I was commenting on.

The discussion is about the accusation that the big wigs in oil and oil related businesses are fighting AGW tooth and nail because it supposedly threatens their bottom line which is profit. They and those who agree with their premise that AGW in not real are called Denialists.

The same discussion then looks at the other side which says that AGW is real and we are in grave danger if we do not respond to the threat.

The fact is that the AGW group are also Denialists, in that they refuse to admit that within their midst is a group whose sole desire is to profit from the supposed products that will come from fighting AGW. The 'Cap and Trade' cadre is analogous the big oil cadre.

Once you accept the concept that each side is seeing loads of money, the more likely you will be able to participate in making the right decisions regarding AGW, rather than succumbing to the Chicken Little mantra that the sky is falling and we are all going to die.

My son gave his son a book for Christmas that talked about energy and the earth. There was a passage in there that said as a global population we use approximate one ten thousandth the energy in a year that falls on the earth from the sun in the same time period.

Clean energy is at our doorstep. Time for the bullies on both sides to stop and work together to get this done.

Like that movie where the evangelist hollered 'Covert g.. d... it!. No matter the cause, being a bully is just wrong.

Remember the picture that Dr Masters posted when he told us about the change in the world record high temperature? It was of the town in Libya where the reading was taken.

Think about it. Desolation for miles in all directions and those people living there were subjected to terrible heat with little, if any, way to get out of the oven-like temperatures. In 1922 it is unlikely they had electricity.

I thought to myself, if we worked to make sunlight our source of energy pretty soon such places wouldn't have to deal with those terrible harsh conditions.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
Ok apparently this is:

Our last little monsoon event last week as seen from my backyard at sunset, shot with a Canon G11, and no tweaks to the color or exposure

from Christopher Carney of the National Weather Service in Tuscon, Arizona.



amazing pic there.
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 39311

Viewing: 809 - 759

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.