skierinvermont

You're mincing words (and doing a poor job of it) to avoid the fact that increased CO2 levels have increased the amount of heat in the atmospheres and the oceans so much that the water in the oceans has expanded (and continues to expand) and that this heat, while it is not the sole cause of any individual heat wave, drought or fire, is the primary cause for the significantly increased frequency of heatwaves, droughts, and fires. You've been making little word mincing posts like this for years now without ever substantively engaging with anybody or anything. Either read the science, or just stop posting about something your refuse to educate yourself on.

This is one picture. It means nothing to me. I’d want to see a controlled experiment.

My guess is you’d need something 100 times that size and also some interspersed water features to have a slightly perceptible effect. A hill would probably be more effective. I’ve seen hills not much wider than a km and considerably shorter than a km that effect weather.

Wasn’t the previous range based on numerous independent sources of evidence and studies? Is this a meta analysis? Will have to read in the morning. edit: just opened it and from the title it looks like a meta analysis! Makes sense now

Any biologist will tell you these are terrible ideas. Nature is far too complex to tinker with and not further contribute to our current mass extinction event.

I pay taxes the feds spend billions on disaster relief.

Maybe you, not me. Sea level rise already costs a lot of money in terms of worse erosion and amplifying storm surge. The foot that sea levels have risen so far could have been the difference between the levies breaking in Katrina and not breaking. I’m not saying it was, but you get the idea. Storm surge costs billions every year and if sea level rise has added 20% that is a lot of money. typical bad surge is 10 feet but most of the costs are associated with the last few feet. So by having 10 feet above historical sea level instead of 9 feet above, you may increase damage by 20 or 30%. If it’s just enough to break a levy, it could be 10000% these costs are rising every year as sea level keeps rising and accelerating

People in cities produce less carbon dioxide per person than in the country. There's just infinitely more people in cities. As someone who has lived in both rural and urban places, I didn't just stop using resources when I moved to a city because there were so many other people around me that our collective actions are actually visible (smog) whereas in some rural areas smog is not a problem. You still have a collective action problem in rural places and cities. People still need to get to to work etc.

I don't understand most of what you are trying to say here but the odds of multi-meter sea level rise in a decade is near-zero.

Don't know how Will is so patient with comments like above. But take a look at the company you keep... scientists have a conspiracy to pretend the ice is gone (easily disproven by satellite picture, airplane and boat traffic) .... and prescription drugs make people more sick... there you have it people... the paranoid American far-right

Maybe read up a bit more from some scientific sources that discuss and explain the contents of that article in detail before posting misinformation

No, the 2007 IPCC report (the definitive scientific consensus on climate change at the time) predicted that near ice free conditions would not occur until the end of the 21st century. The projection was largely based on a modeling study by Zhang and Walsh who are two of the top sea ice researchers (you see their names a lot). That projection has since been moved up to the 2030s in some recent studies based on the unexpectedly fast rate of sea ice volume losses from 2007-2012. Maybe some bloggers and people on this forum predicted sooner, but it is generally better to form one's opinions from peer-reviewed scientific and journalistic sources.

Ranting about how the Russians are punishing us with cold weather is a valid point? Maybe ban this guy too.

Can someone ban this guy? Unreadable.

I know it's nitpicky but that last bar is no where near the line of best fit for that period (07-17). To get a flat trend like that you'd have to go from '10-'17.

Yeah there's a lot of good info and analysis (and some bad analysis too)... you just have to take the predictions with a grain of salt and make your own inferences based on the information.

How long you have been following the arctic sea ice forum? I assume you mean Neven's site? In my experience his site (and probably other similar sites) are way too pessimistic (or optimistic if you notice how giddy some of them get). I haven't really followed that site in a few years, but back around 2012-2014 they were off the charts with their wild predictions. Yeah the ice is "bad" and they do a great job showing pictures of how "bad" it is... but without a lot of aggregate empirical data or sound logic to back up predictions.

When you include 2016, the years after 2007 look to have a slightly bigger area drop after June 30th than the years before 2007. Not sure if it's significant though.

Again, you are making the same mistake I made 10 years ago. Mainstream consensus science has never predicted a "likely" ice free Arctic before the 2020s at earliest. I believe the modeling continues to suggest a most likely timeframe of late 2020s or 2030s or later. There were a few fringe guys who did not publish peer-reviewed papers that predicted ice free in the years following 2012. Few were fooled by them other than AGW-hype bloggers and AGW-deniers looking for strawmen (like yourself). I spend a significant amount of time the last 5 years arguing against these AGW-alarmist types on this forum. Why? Because I follow legitimate peer-reviewed science not internet bloggers. If you pay attention, there is a core group that has studied and published on the arctic for decades. This group was never on board with an ice-free arctic before 2020. At best, a few might have suggested it was possible with bad enough weather (which actually was possible considering how close we got in 2012). Likewise, the mainstream prediction regarding tropical activity has actually always been a low confidence prediction for a net decrease in the # of cyclones and a slight increase in average intensity. It's right there in the IPCC reports. So the examples of a few fringe AGW guys without any real credentials or publishing history making fringe predictions that turn out to be wrong is a lot more akin to the fringe bloggers you are following on the internet. They're both wrong. Likewise I'd like to see a response to Snow Misers clear explanation of why a solar lag cannot exist. When you turn off the stove (the sun) a pot of water will immediately begin to cool (the earth). There is no lag. It doesn't cool down completely immediately. But it begins to cool immediately. In reality, the earth has not started cooling, it has not stopped warming, it hasn't even slowed down its warming. If anything, the data suggests the warming has accelerated.

An excellent and concise explanation of the problem with "solar lag" bloggers.

I think your overall point has some validity. There are a lot of pressing problems facing humanity today. There could be even more in the future, regardless of climate change. But I would suggest reading some more scientific sources about the effects of climate change. Increases in flooding, drought, and sea level will have huge costs to humanity. It affects the entire planet and the problem is not temporary.

I've been listening to people like you say the cooling is coming for over 10 years. In fact, I had a radio show in college 10 years ago where I actually said we could see some cooling and AGW might be greatly exaggerated. Mostly I was overreacting to learning that some news articles, Al Gore, and even some science was skewed towards AGW and I went off too far in the other direction. I learned from my mistakes. Some never do. We've already been through one very weak solar cycle for 10 years now. The earth didn't cool down. It didn't even stop warming.. it warmed a lot the last 10 years. This is where you introduce some magical lag period you read about on some internet blog that doesn't make any logical or physical sense. Let me tell you a secret.. these magical "lag" people were the same ones saying cooling was imminent 10-15 years ago. Then they invented the lag, because instead of the warming reversing or stopping, if anything it actually accelerated.

With our current very low volume we could get an ice free summer if we got a summer weather pattern similar to or worse than 2007 or 2012. (if you use the commonly used convention that 'ice free' = <1,000,000 km2). If we don't see a rebound in volume, ice free could occur any year in the next 10 years with bad enough summer weather. On the other hand, we might not see an extreme summer weather pattern in the next 10 years. By the 2030s even a modestly bad summer weather pattern would likely put us over the edge. To get really statistical about it I'd put the odds like below. I think my odds are pretty consistent with CaWx's estimate above (maybe bumped back 5 years). A lot depends on weather and trends but it will probably be somewhere between 2020-2035. <1,000,000km2 15% chance before 2020 35% chance before 2025 55% chance before 2030 80% chance before 2040. If you define it more strictly as <200,000km2 (basically a few icebergs and bays that got filled with ice by the wind) I think the odds drop. Because of currents and winds, there's always a pretty good area of thick ice blown near Ellesmere and Greenland and you'd have to melt pretty much all of that (other than some that gets blown into bays) to get below 200,000km2 5% chance before 2020 20% chance before 2025 35% chance before 2030 60% chance before 2040 These odds factor in the reality that the earth will very likely warm significantly over the next 25 years (very likely 0.45C+/-0.2C). The arctic will likely warm 1C+/-1C.

It looks to me like most of the ice is thicker than last year. It's just the ice north of Greenland and Ellesmere that is much thinner but that ice never melts out anyways. The only important area that looks thinner is the Laptev which looks a little thinner. That could get things going early there. But the Chuchki, Beaufort, Barents, Kara and East Siberian all look thicker overall. Especially the northern Beaufort and northern Chuchki which look much thicker. And those two areas are critical in August/September.

Yeah except the ice is barely half as thick. Be quiet until you learn something. Some of us have been following this thread for a decade. We've seen arrogant newbies like you come and go. A few stay and learn something. But nobody that's been around the block would say something as foolish as what you've just said.