Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Singularity

An allegory of two frogs in a pan of water over a small flame.

Frog 1 says "gee, the thermometer says that the temp has gone up 2 degrees."
Frog 2 says "no, you're suffereing from parallax, in fact the temp has gone up only 0.01 degrees."
Both frogs agree that the water feels warmer than just a short while ago.

I submit that both frogs recognize that the flame below the pot is fueled by human development in the developing world, no small amount of which is actually used to feed and pleasure the two frogs as they lounge in the pot. I further submit that both frogs enjoy their thermometer debate more than they enjoy facing the truth of the certain reality that it's practically impossible to turn off the flame, and even if it was possible, that the feed and pleasure of both frogs would be permanently diminished in a manner that both frogs recognize to be non-acceptable to all the other frogs (many of which only "live in the moment" and/or "know they will be in paradise the moment after they cook").

Why else would the frogs be debating the thermometer?
---
What I'd love to see is hard science predictions the proposed policies that are supposed to mitigate the problem in the first place. Even if 101% of people agree that AGW is real what comes next is "so what precisely are we going to do about it, and what is the evidence to support that policy as being both realistic and affordable. I've never seen such a discussion, particularly one that involves detailed real-world solutions in the developing world. We've currently got ~10% of humans starving and we can't even figure that one out.

stop using ancient plants as fuel and within a month 75% of the planet will be starving.
There is no solution that would be universally accepted. Never will be one either. Just a fact of humans.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

An allegory of two frogs in a pan of water over a small flame.

Frog 1 says "gee, the thermometer says that the temp has gone up 2 degrees."
Frog 2 says "no, you're suffereing from parallax, in fact the temp has gone up only 0.01 degrees."
Both frogs agree that the water feels warmer than just a short while ago.

I submit that both frogs recognize that the flame below the pot is fueled by human development in the developing world, no small amount of which is actually used to feed and pleasure the two frogs as they lounge in the pot. I further submit that both frogs enjoy their thermometer debate more than they enjoy facing the truth of the certain reality that it's practically impossible to turn off the flame, and even if it was possible, that the feed and pleasure of both frogs would be permanently diminished in a manner that both frogs recognize to be non-acceptable to all the other frogs (many of which only "live in the moment" and/or "know they will be in paradise the moment after they cook").

Why else would the frogs be debating the thermometer?

If the pot slowly gets close to boiling, do either jump out?

Are the frogs at all worried that their own tadpoles and grand-tads may suffer or at least have an even bigger problem to solve? And that what's heating the pot will run out in the foreseeable future at current usage patterns?

Have you considered that some frogs are less concerned than others because deep down they know they will not suffer because of an accident of birth and/or their acquisition of froggie wealth, and that the plight of less well-situated frogs is simply the natural order of things? (ach. allegory breakdown)

What I'd love to see is hard science predictions the proposed policies that are supposed to mitigate the problem in the first place. Even if 101% of people agree that AGW is real what comes next is "so what precisely are we going to do about it, and what is the evidence to support that policy as being both realistic and affordable. I've never seen such a discussion, particularly one that involves detailed real-world solutions in the developing world. We've currently got ~10% of humans starving and we can't even figure that one out.

Of course the point of denying the problem is to avoid doing ANYTHING about it, including more research. Let alone anything drastic.

The plight of the starving and denial of AGW have a common root: lack of care for the other and disregard for the future. As long as they got theirs (and it's shiny and has a hemi engine), the majority of them won't raise a finger for the poor or threatened.

Denial keeps us from a broader discussion and exploration of what we might be able to do and what each of those would cost. There's lots of things that could make some difference with a minimum of sacrifice, and many of these (eg sustainable power) are the business opportunities of the future. A bit of leadership and R&D by the 1st world could help developing nations grow without making quite the same mess as we have.

Climate change already has a cost; money is already being spent on shoreline hardening, firefighting, disaster recovery preparedness, etc. Businesses, insurers and the military are already pricing it in. Denial means that the bulk of any CC spending will continue to be reactive instead of proactive.


[edit - the majority of mitigation strategies for CC are also the solutions to many other pressing problems - sustainable agriculture and forestry, less pollution and trash, energy conservation, better urban design, etc etc ]

[ImaginaryNumber]

Robust abatement pathways to tolerable climate futures require immediate global action

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0426-8.epdf

Disentangling the relative importance of climate change
abatement policies from the human–Earth system (HES)
uncertainties that determine their performance is challeng-
ing because the two are inexorably linked, and the nature of
this linkage is dynamic, interactive and metric specific. Here,
we demonstrate an approach to quantify the individual and
joint roles that diverse HES uncertainties and our choices in
abatement policy play in determining future climate and eco-
nomic conditions, as simulated by an improved version of the
Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy.
Despite wide-ranging HES uncertainties, the growth rate of
global abatement (a societal choice) is the primary driver of
long-term warming. It is not a question of whether we can
limit warming but whether we choose to do so. Our results
elucidate important long-term HES dynamics that are often
masked by common time-aggregated metrics. Aggressive
near-term abatement will be very costly and do little to
impact near-term warming. Conversely, the warming that will
be experienced by future generations will mostly be driven by
earlier abatement actions. We quantify probabilistic abate-
ment pathways to tolerable climate/economic outcomes,
conditional on the climate sensitivity to the atmospheric CO2
concentration. Even under optimistic assumptions about the
climate sensitivity, pathways to a tolerable climate/economic
future are rapidly narrowing.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the layperson --

Climate study warns of vanishing safety window—here’s why

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...ficult-future/

[newhaul]

And we are cooling :-):-)

[ImaginaryNumber]

More wisdom from the court jester.

Originally Posted by newhaul

And we are cooling :-):-)

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yes the PDO is in a warm phase but the AMOC is in cold phase . Personally I doubt the nwp will be open this year without breaker assistance.

MO IS THROUGH THE ICE!

Posted on August 20, 2019 by Randall

August 19, 2019
1845 local
70 32S 97 27W
Larsen Sound
The Arctic

Just a quick note to report that Mo is through the ice and sailing fast on a N wind for Cambridge Bay, 235 miles SW.

I have been pushing to get to Alioth’s position for two days. She has a busted gear box and can’t make more than three knots under power. She has been hove to at the head of our last major ice plug waiting for an escort as she’d have to sail through, a tricky business.

We’ve all been sweating bullets over this last 30 miles of ice, and for four days I’ve been underway and hand steering for 18 to 20 hours a day through 3 – 5/10ths ice to get here. Only a few hours sleep a night this last week.

As it turns out, today was a piece of cake. We saw huge ice floes the size of city blocks but with wide lanes in between. Alioth and another boat, Mandregore, sailed downwind without trouble with Mo bringing up the rear under power just in case.

We got underway at 2pm and by 6:30pm we were in open water.

One big chapter in the Figure 8 is closed. One long chapter, the 4,000 mile slog home, remains.

Huge thanks to Victor Wejer, our ice guide, for his help and tough-love encouragement these last days. Victor was awake and communicating at all hours of the day–weather in the morning, ice charts in the afternoon and pep talks at 3am. It was a great pleasure to have Victor at my back!

The story will out and so will lots of photos but not today. Today, a beer and some sleep while Mo flies S toward Clarence Islands and around the last ice tongue; then we gybe SW for Cambridge Bay and onward toward home!

MO IS THROUGH THE ICE! – The Figure 8 Voyage

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

More wisdom from the court jester.






MO IS THROUGH THE ICE!

Posted on August 20, 2019 by Randall

August 19, 2019
1845 local
70 32S 97 27W
Larsen Sound
The Arctic

Just a quick note to report that Mo is through the ice and sailing fast on a N wind for Cambridge Bay, 235 miles SW.

I have been pushing to get to Alioth’s position for two days. She has a busted gear box and can’t make more than three knots under power. She has been hove to at the head of our last major ice plug waiting for an escort as she’d have to sail through, a tricky business.

We’ve all been sweating bullets over this last 30 miles of ice, and for four days I’ve been underway and hand steering for 18 to 20 hours a day through 3 – 5/10ths ice to get here. Only a few hours sleep a night this last week.

As it turns out, today was a piece of cake. We saw huge ice floes the size of city blocks but with wide lanes in between. Alioth and another boat, Mandregore, sailed downwind without trouble with Mo bringing up the rear under power just in case.

We got underway at 2pm and by 6:30pm we were in open water.

One big chapter in the Figure 8 is closed. One long chapter, the 4,000 mile slog home, remains.

Huge thanks to Victor Wejer, our ice guide, for his help and tough-love encouragement these last days. Victor was awake and communicating at all hours of the day–weather in the morning, ice charts in the afternoon and pep talks at 3am. It was a great pleasure to have Victor at my back!

The story will out and so will lots of photos but not today. Today, a beer and some sleep while Mo flies S toward Clarence Islands and around the last ice tongue; then we gybe SW for Cambridge Bay and onward toward home!

MO IS THROUGH THE ICE! – The Figure 8 Voyage

I saw that btw you do realise some of what I post is just to spin jack up a bit . Like the parts about the nwp which he has never been .
Nor have I
However have sailed the arctic a long time ago .

[jackdale]

NWP 2 days ago - not much fast ice.

There are still over three weeks in the melt season.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I saw that btw you do realise some of what I post is just to spin jack up a bit . Like the parts about the nwp which he has never been .
Nor have I
However have sailed the arctic a long time ago .

BTW -Now you might know why you are on my ignore list.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW -Now you might know why you are on my ignore list.

then why is it you are constantly trying to refute my postings .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

NWP 2 days ago - not much fast ice.

There are still over three weeks in the melt season.

however the melt seems to have almost stalled out.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If the pot slowly gets close to boiling, do either jump out?

I'll tell you what they don't do: they don't re-arrange the deck chairs.

Are the frogs at all worried that their own tadpoles and grand-tads may suffer or at least have an even bigger problem to solve? And that what's heating the pot will run out in the foreseeable future at current usage patterns?

For sure they do, to the best of their ability. Their response is to change behavior and/or move. If the behavioral change and/or move is inadequate, and the environment can't support them, then they're relegated to the fossil record. But of course animals don't suffer from philosophy, greed, etc.

Have you considered that some frogs are less concerned than others because deep down they know they will not suffer because of an accident of birth and/or their acquisition of froggie wealth, and that the plight of less well-situated frogs is simply the natural order of things?

Suffice it to say that frogs don't need Prozac because frogs expect nothing from nature except nature. In so thinking, frogs perhaps are more in tune with everything in their environment such that they don't need Prozac, which is NOT to say that the frogs are happy with the outcome. [Eastern philosophy, frankly a combination of calculus with hopes/considerations for ~quantum events, acceptance of reality over putative self-deification]

Of course the point of denying the problem is to avoid doing ANYTHING about it, including more research. Let alone anything drastic.

Forgive the gobbledigook cognitive-linguistics review. For pragmatic reasons alone I think it makes zero sense to discuss of things "denial." To begin with, the linguistic content (i.e. cognitive mapping associated with the term denier/denial) of labelling someone as a "denier" is an absolutist-type position that's known largely in Western civilization as being a construct of certain interpretations of Abrahamic religions. For the rest of the world something akin to "it depends, but I think no" or "it depends, but I think yes" is a more traditional reponse to quiries seeking opinions. So while it's true that Anglicization and associated though-mapping spreads with the language...if you're seeking global buy-in to such a thing as AGW policy, sooner or later the narrative is literally going to have to change. [FWIW I studied this phenomenon as part of international relations political science coursework, but it also applies in everyday life if you stop and think about it]

So suffice it to say that people ordinarily do not, if you sit down with them and talk about things...say that something is 100% true or not true. So when I call someone a "denier" I'm tossing them into an imaginary group (a construct), which I've probably already given imaginary undesirable characteristic traits designed to match my pre-conceived methods of denigrating anything they have to say. Such is not a civilized practice, but I recognize that it's how lawyers and politicians put food on the table. Not a position of scientists who ought to know better about such things. Maybe just call them a skeptic and move on....if only for practical reasons (unless one believes, like the politician, that it's more effective to lump people into groups and label them problematic outcasts or something...thus ultimately being more effective in pushing forth an agenda............which clearly isn't working in this case!).

The plight of the starving and denial of AGW have a common root: lack of care for the other and disregard for the future. As long as they got theirs (and it's shiny and has a hemi engine), the majority of them won't raise a finger for the poor or threatened.

100% agreed. I've spent most of my adult life working on stuff sort of like starving people, much time in the developing world. It's quite interesting to see so much interest the topic of climate change coming from people who, I don't know how to put it...have no street credibility when it comes to principally applying one's self to such a greater good. Accordingly, I tend to lump a lot of AGW people into latter-day saints, existential crisis folks, people with regrets that want to cause good...you name it. How many have been vegetarian for how long? How many have lived a lifestyle clearly of service that didn't include a nice big house, routine fresh cars, etc? I genuinely don't mean to knock such people, but the amateur anthropologist in me does want to call attention to the phenomenon. Ordinarily reformed folks are humble with their circumstances while the proselytizer more or less feels like they've lost Pascal's wager already and are doubling-down trying to make up for it. Such folks are quite annoying and problematic for "true believers" trying to work in the field (if that makes any sense in this otherwise long ramble).

Denial keeps us from a broader discussion and exploration of what we might be able to do and what each of those would cost. There's lots of things that could make some difference with a minimum of sacrifice, and many of these (eg sustainable power) are the business opportunities of the future. A bit of leadership and R&D by the 1st world could help developing nations grow without making quite the same mess as we have.

Belaboring the above point...citing "denial" itself is an act that I think keeps us from a broader discussion. It's clearly divisive. A hundred pages all debating if people are believers or not. Look, consider having a discussion where you simply ignore the skeptics when they are being idiotic and answer them when they are being reasonable. Standard conditioning. But if you insult them...it's also conditioning but in the opposite direction from what you're trying to accomplish (again, unless you're doing the divide-and-conquer thing which at least one person on this board is 100% committed to).

To the point of 1st world R&D, leadership, etc. The problem I have is that much of the developed world in recent decades exists in a consumer state borne by the sweat of the developed world, where today much of the developed world plays with Monopoly money and the supermajority of the populations are in debt, ultimately/frequently to certain developing world countries. I just don't see how any of this is economically sustainable. Again, we haven't even figured out the starving bit, while our priorities (i.e. demands of the public) are nearly exclusively consumption. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

Climate change already has a cost; money is already being spent on shoreline hardening, firefighting, disaster recovery preparedness, etc. Businesses, insurers and the military are already pricing it in. Denial means that the bulk of any CC spending will continue to be reactive instead of proactive.

No debate from me here. I appreciate not just the financial cost, but also the temporal opportunity cost. That said, I don't see AGW doing everyone in...I see other things occuring first which will ultimately reduce emissions (e.g. biologic, conflicts, solar weather, etc).

[edit - the majority of mitigation strategies for CC are also the solutions to many other pressing problems - sustainable agriculture and forestry, less pollution and trash, energy conservation, better urban design, etc etc

I hear you. Certainly any time you can kill two birds with one stone, by all means do it. The problem for me is that I'm too old, too jaded, too realistic/pragmatic, etc, to see what is currently going on in the AGW itself as being sustainable. It's just not. If you tell me we can't afford to hold back, the opportunity cost is too high, I'd agree. If you tell me that putting all efforts into mitigating AGW will itself have a substantial long-term impact, then I really need to see the rest of your thought ledger...your imagination...how you conceptualize all the other integral factors that exist in the world that allows you to conclude that the current AGW mitigation strategy is going to be effective where so many other significant human struggles have failed.

The attached list from the Drawdown site are things in principle we ought to be doing anyway, but the payback on many/most of them is a long-term pipe dream while being completely, I mean completely unrealistic to expect out of emerging/developing cultures around the world. I really wonder how much some AGW proselytizers have seen of how many of the currently marginalized 7+ billion people on the planet actually live.

PS: sorry for the old-time narrative talk, but it's how people used to talk if they wanted to convey perspective...

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Good question.

According to a recent study led by Chinese researchers. Results showed that approximately 30 percent, 50 percent and 80 percent of the stations in North America, Europe, and Asia respectively have lost over 30 percent of wind energy resources since 1979.
The study also reveals that global climate models can not simulate long-term trends in wind energy resources, indicating that the estimation of wind energy resources based on global climate models should be used with careful consideration.
“Observed and global climate model based changes in wind power potential over the Northern Hemisphere during 1979–2016" ~ by QunTian et al.
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31X?via%3Dihub

“Global review and synthesis of trends in observed terrestrial near-surface wind speeds: Implications for evaporation” ~ Tim R.McVicar
“... We analysed 148 studies reporting terrestrial u trends from across the globe (with uneven and incomplete spatial distribution and differing periods of measurement) and found that the average trend was −0.014 m s−1 a−1 for studies with more than 30 sites observing data for more than 30 years, which confirmed that stilling was widespread. Assuming a linear trend this constitutes a −0.7 m s−1 change in u over 50 years ...”
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22169411007487

“Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness” ~ by Robert Vautard et al.
“Surface winds have declined in China, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States and Australia over the past few decades1,2,3,4. The precise cause of the stilling is uncertain ...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo979

So lordGord---if winds are declining due to CO2 why are the "believers" yelling about all the hurricanes caused by CO??? Something is not jiving.

[geoleo]

SOOO - if all this teeming humanity of 9 billion peeps have caused CO2 to ruin the world (Isnt this the leftists claim?) AND 9 billion peeps exhale CO2 ( not to mention all the cars, electricity, industrial activity like producing furniture and food and all-let alone flying around in private jet airplanes while going to useless meetings trying to look important)...…. then the ONLY AND FINAL SOLUTION TO SAVE THE PLANET is to severely reduce all the PEEPS (people). Now I welcome suggestions from all the "believers" as to how to reduce (lets face it -KILL OFF) 5 billion people please come out with your 'suggestion' right here and now . Also include if you volunteer to be included in the first of the 5 billion people to be killed.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Good question.

According to a recent study led by Chinese researchers. Results showed that approximately 30 percent, 50 percent and 80 percent of the stations in North America, Europe, and Asia respectively have lost over 30 percent of wind energy resources since 1979.
The study also reveals that global climate models can not simulate long-term trends in wind energy resources, indicating that the estimation of wind energy resources based on global climate models should be used with careful consideration.
“Observed and global climate model based changes in wind power potential over the Northern Hemisphere during 1979–2016" ~ by QunTian et al.
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31X?via%3Dihub

“Global review and synthesis of trends in observed terrestrial near-surface wind speeds: Implications for evaporation” ~ Tim R.McVicar
“... We analysed 148 studies reporting terrestrial u trends from across the globe (with uneven and incomplete spatial distribution and differing periods of measurement) and found that the average trend was −0.014 m s−1 a−1 for studies with more than 30 sites observing data for more than 30 years, which confirmed that stilling was widespread. Assuming a linear trend this constitutes a −0.7 m s−1 change in u over 50 years ...”
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22169411007487

“Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness” ~ by Robert Vautard et al.
“Surface winds have declined in China, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States and Australia over the past few decades1,2,3,4. The precise cause of the stilling is uncertain ...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo979

interesting how the first two articles talk about how the wind have slowed causing commercial wind generators to loose as much as 50% of their capabilities .
And state that causes less evaporation

And how the last one specifically attributes the loss of surface wind speeds to the growth of new additional vegetation . ( Which is dependant on higher co2 levels and additional precipitation as a result of higher evaporation )

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... the majority of mitigation strategies for CC are also the solutions to many other pressing problems - sustainable agriculture and forestry, less pollution and trash, energy conservation, better urban design, etc etc

Indeed.
ie:

Agriculture and food
According to UN Environment’s Emissions Gap Report 2018, food systems from production to consumption have the potential to mitigate up to 6.7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent, which is second only to the energy sector. We need a global food transformation in the next 12 years in which food waste is halved and diets and health are improved through decreased animal protein intake. We also need to incentivize climate-smart and sustainable agriculture and end the current unjust food situation in which over 820 million people are undernourished.

Buildings and cities
Responsible for some 70 per cent of energy use, buildings and construction account for 39 per cent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Vast amounts of urban infrastructure are to be built in the coming 15 years as rural-urban migration accelerates. There are huge opportunities here to retrofit existing buildings, improve building standards, and rethink urban planning such as by providing incentives for mini-grid solutions. We also need to tackle human-induced methane, nitrous oxide and CF11 emissions, and find smarter solutions for cooling, heating and waste management.