Years of Living Dangerously

[Jonger]

Arctic amplification is already making an impact on the Northern Hemisphere very noticeably in November.

 

 

As fall sea ice and snow cover start to struggle to recover as upper lat ocean temps keep warming 30-60N it will delay the onset of winter.

 

By 2100 this will probably be more like 2.5-4C higher on average. 

 

 

 

That map looks brutal, until you realize its only 2C and the pole is exaggerated on that map type to fit it in on a flat image.

 

November has been the most above normal month, November 2012 was +1.5 above normal for Fargo IIRC, despite record low sea ice extents. Cold mostly originates over the dark land area of Canada, not the pole.

[AvantHiatus]

That map looks brutal, until you realize its only 2C and the pole is exaggerated on that map type to fit it in on a flat image.

 

November has been the most above normal month, November 2012 was +1.5 above normal for Fargo. Cold mostly originates over the dark land area of Canada, not the pole.

I think arctic amplification is not about cold source depletion but more or less a re-distribution of upper-level winds. Some years Fargo will blowtorch and other years it will be in a deep freeze, depending on where the crest of the ridge sets up.

 

Worldwide, the overwhelming trend would be a northward expansion of the hadley cells and subtropical high.

 

 

 

There is some evidence that the expansion of the Hadley cells is related to climate change.^[2] The majority of earth's driest and arid regions are located in the areas underneath the descending branches of the Hadley circulation around 30 degrees latitude.^[3] Both idealised and more realistic climate model experiments show that the Hadley cell expands with increased global mean temperature (perhaps by 2 degrees latitude over the 21st century ^[4]); this can lead to large changes in precipitation in the latitudes at the edge of the cells.^[3] Scientists fear that the ongoing presence of global warming might bring changes to the ecosystems in the deep tropics and that the deserts will become drier and expand.^[4]As the areas around 30 degrees latitude become drier, those inhabiting that region will see less rainfall than traditionally expected, which could cause major problems with food supplies and livability.^[5]

[Jonger]

I think arctic amplification is not about cold source depletion but more or less a re-distribution of upper-level winds. Some years Fargo will blowtorch and other years it will be in a deep freeze, depending on where the crest of the ridge sets up.

 

Worldwide, the overwhelming trend would be a northward expansion of the hadley cells and subtropical high.

 

I did edit my post since I made it... Fargo was 1.5F above average, not below for 2012... Gotta be accurate.

[nflwxman]

Perhaps it could be worth contacting the producers to see what their source of information was?  It does seems suspect.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think as we go along.  Like we have seen down here in the STL area and places like DC that snowfall won't decrease but the snow will melt because warm intrusions will become  more frequent.

 

Especially the closer you are to the Rockies.

 

The NNE, SE Canada, upper lakes probably won't be effected as much.

[Msalgado]

Perhaps it could be worth contacting the producers to see what their source of information was?  It does seems suspect.

 

Actually not a bad idea.  Not sure if we'd get a response, but we likely would if I go back and find out who the scientist speaking at that time was.  

[Msalgado]

Unfortunately, after rewatching it appears the statement is made by a computer scientist with Google who has no climate expertise.  Its unfortunate that it made the final cut and it is likely something that should have been caught by whoever is doing their fact checking/science editing because I don't think anyone with the appropriate background is going to say that the climate at Fargo is going to be like Phoenix.  

She didn't put a time frame on it, though, so perhaps she meant eventually (centuries down the line?) which I don't see as far fetched but still a very poor statement.

[ORH_wxman]

Unfortunately, after rewatching it appears the statement is made by a computer scientist with Google who has no climate expertise.  Its unfortunate that it made the final cut and it is likely something that should have been caught by whoever is doing their fact checking/science editing because I don't think anyone with the appropriate background is going to say that the climate at Fargo is going to be like Phoenix.  

She didn't put a time frame on it, though, so perhaps she meant eventually (centuries down the line?) which I don't see as far fetched but still a very poor statement.

 

 

It appeared the image in the backround that she was showing to Harrison Ford was what July max temp climatology would be in 2100 (it had been animating into the future for the seconds leading up to that image from a start point of 1950)...and then started to make the comparison of Fargo turning into Phoenix in the summer.

 

It certainly seemed as if they were discussing 2100 conditions. If that isn't what she meant, then that is a terrible editing job by the film makers considering it is supposed to be a science-based documentary.

 

Neither sheds very good light on the piece...either incompetent editing or scientifically inaccurate information.

[blizznd]

Fargo is a in great spot for big time down-slope warming coming off the Rockies.

 

In that regard if the inter mountain West gets drier and warmer. 

 

We could see times when those heat pulses come off the Mountains and really horse torch the region.

 

But that would be weekly, monthly, and at most seasonal.

 

The other thing would be snow cover.

 

If snow cover days say dropped in half the anomalies would be inherently much much larger,

 

I live near Fargo and forecast for Fargo and the Red River valley.....   Fargo is in a great position for downslope warming off the Rockies.   You do realize where Fargo is at I assume?    You are incorrect in that.....

[blizznd]

You completely missed the point...2011-2012's warm winter also had nothing to due with climate change, yet when we get media stories blaming it on climate change, a frigid winter confuses the general public. Of course natural variability completely overwhelms climate change in any given location and year. But you don't hear much about natural variability in mainstream media....only in the peer reviewed literature.

 

 

The Phoenix climate reference was an example of the most extreme/alamrist type scenario being showcased in a film...yet one that is overwhelmingly unlikely. But you wouldn't come away feeling that way after being presented those extreme scenarios.

Having forecasted for the Red River valley for over 15 years I completely agree.   We are in an area of high variability year to year...season to season....day to day sometimes....but most often all within the realm of "normal"   .     I did an interview on CTV News Channel based in Toronto on this years "Polar Vortex" and unusual cold in the Midwest and they wanted to tie in Global Climate Change which is ridiculous because our area has seen winters like this past one's in the past (78-79 being about the last time in many locations in ND/MN)   and we will again.   Same with warm winters...    Each seasonal temp variation is not a result of climate change but all part of natural short term cilmate variability.    

[blizznd]

IIRC they compare average July maximum in 1950 Phoenix to average July maximum in Fargo ND. It starts just after minute 9 on the tape so we don't really have to guess what metric is being used.

 

Friv

If we consider that Arctic Amplification is happening, that Fargo is far from moderating influences & that thus far summer temperatures in North Dakota are leading at least the contiguous states the numbers don't seem too much of a stretch. Fargo may  suffer more from rising water levels well before that time though.

 

Terry

 

How will Fargo have higher water levels?    As you know Fargo and Red obviously are impacted by spring snow melt and runoff....so in heavy precipitation winters with lots of snow rivers can get high, esp provided you get storms at the time of the melt.    But more precip would continue our green and heavy reliance on crops in our region and evapotranspiration would add moisture to the air and not necessarily cause temps to rise more but dew points to rise.  We need less rain and less snow over time so that our ground dries out and vegetation turns brown and crops go away so our land can heat up a lot more (ie. like the drought of the mid 30s.).  

[skierinvermont]

I should have said "Likely" instead of at worst.

 

The 'likely' BAU figure is more like like 8F by 2100 for July. More than that in winter.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I live near Fargo and forecast for Fargo and the Red River valley.....   Fargo is in a great position for downslope warming off the Rockies.   You do realize where Fargo is at I assume?    You are incorrect in that.....

 

 

 

 

[blizznd]

 

Thank you for that great map  I know very well where I live.     In winter time when the chinook flow is more pronounced for warming....they can bring much warmer weather to Williston to Dickinson and even to Bismarck with the west wind shift...    but the chinook flow dampens out greatly as you go east.   That is how Bismarck can get 40F in winter and Fargo sits at 15-20F   often too the snowcover is quite thick most of the winter esp Minot-Jamestown eastward....    definite differences between that Williston-Bismarck region west and then eastern ND.....    eastern ND is not in the chinook zone.  

 

Dan

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thank you for that great map  I know very well where I live.     In winter time when the chinook flow is more pronounced for warming....they can bring much warmer weather to Williston to Dickinson and even to Bismarck with the west wind shift...    but the chinook flow dampens out greatly as you go east.   That is how Bismarck can get 40F in winter and Fargo sits at 15-20F   often too the snowcover is quite thick most of the winter esp Minot-Jamestown eastward....    definite differences between that Williston-Bismarck region west and then eastern ND.....    eastern ND is not in the chinook zone.  

 

Dan

 

There should be some warming I would think.

 

There is warming at times along I70 in MO just North of the Ozarks.  As well as East of the Ozarks along the Mississippi.  But maybe that is just because elvation is lower.  But I always assumed there was some local. 

[TerryM]

For all of those who believe that science has it wrong and that the film industry is doing their bidding. Hope is on the way with an upcoming blockbuster that will set the record straight.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_25523416/kate-mulgrew-narrating-film-claiming-sun-revolves-

 

With star power and a script that I'm sure will amaze, this has the possibility of surpassing even Reefer Madness when it comes to proving beyond doubt that science has it wrong. The evil scientific community that for centuries has conspired to keep us in ignorance will no doubt be exposed as pre-Copernican thought once again is embraced by the masses.

 

Terry

[blizznd]

There should be some warming I would think.

 

There is warming at times along I70 in MO just North of the Ozarks.  As well as East of the Ozarks along the Mississippi.  But maybe that is just because elvation is lower.  But I always assumed there was some local. 

 

It may be a warmer airmass  not not chnook as what is commonly is called.    When we have a low tracking from northern Alberta into Manitoba and then into northeastern Minnesota often westerly chinook winds will develop over the central Rockies and spread into eastern Montana pretty easily.    It takes a strong low to drop southeast east of the region to bring that chinook air more east into the southwestern half of ND.   As it moves east the airmass is modified greatly and looses its real chinook characteristics...but yes you do have an area of warmer air aloft at 850 mb that is normally south and west of the surface low dropping southeast.   Often in the Red River valley the cold air settles in the valley floor itself and the winds remain southerly while west and east of the valley they are more southwest or west and a bit warmer.....  then as the low passes by winds turn northwest in cold advection but due to the airmass at 850 mb being initially the northwest wind will help mix down the air to the valley floor.   Thus in winter our warmest temps are often just right after a cold front passage....as there is some downslope if you will from the western edge of the RRV valley ridge which is about 300 ft or so higher than the valley floor.   

 

Anyhow  dont know how this idea of Fargo getting a chinook even was brought up.....very odd.

[scottmartin49]

For all of those who believe that science has it wrong and that the film industry is doing their bidding. Hope is on the way with an upcoming blockbuster that will set the record straight.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_25523416/kate-mulgrew-narrating-film-claiming-sun-revolves-

 

With star power and a script that I'm sure will amaze, this has the possibility of surpassing even Reefer Madness when it comes to proving beyond doubt that science has it wrong. The evil scientific community that for centuries has conspired to keep us in ignorance will no doubt be exposed as pre-Copernican thought once again is embraced by the masses.

 

Terry

 I nominate all the deniers for first in line at the 'Soylent Corp.' reprocessing facility. That's a lazy way of saying 'thanks for the dead-weight intellectual loss'. On the other hand, it'll be nice to see Jennifer Francis pickup her Nobel...

[WXheights]

 I nominate all the deniers for first in line at the 'Soylent Corp.' reprocessing facility. That's a lazy way of saying 'thanks for the dead-weight intellectual loss'. On the other hand, it'll be nice to see Jennifer Francis pickup her Nobel...

There'd be waaaay too long a line for some, so they would just come back here omitting dismissing

[The_Global_Warmer]

Hypothetically lets presume the 2014 and 2015 global temps set records.

How will the denier camp survive.

You can't spin that.

I've always thought the Anthony Watts of the world knew it would end there.

But their sheep don't believe it's coming

[StudentOfClimatology]

Hypothetically lets presume the 2014 and 2015 global temps set records.

How will the denier camp survive.

You can't spin that.

I've always thought the Anthony Watts of the world knew it would end there.

But their sheep don't believe it's coming

They'll claim the data was "adjusted" or something along those lines.

[AvantHiatus]

Hypothetically lets presume the 2014 and 2015 global temps set records.

How will the denier camp survive.

You can't spin that.

I've always thought the Anthony Watts of the world knew it would end there.

But their sheep don't believe it's coming

As far as I'm concerned, the denier camp in its original form is dead. Since there is proof that climate change is affecting us at only 0.85C. Unfortunately, you can't 100% verify science but there is at least some footprint in there and that is enough.

 

I think "modern" deniers are more concerned about the extent of impacts and the effects upon the economy instead of claiming the Earth has not warmed. God bless anyone who still believes global warming is not real, that is just loltastic.

[StudentOfClimatology]

As far as I'm concerned, the denier camp in its original form is dead. Since there is proof that climate change is affecting us at only 0.85C. Unfortunately, you can't 100% verify science but there is at least some footprint in there and that is enough.

I think "modern" deniers are more concerned about the extent of impacts and the effects upon the economy instead of claiming the Earth has not warmed. God bless anyone who still believes global warming is not real, that is just loltastic.

I'd say there are 5 camps. I'd put myself in camp #2..though in sure anyone would say that..

(1) Deniers, influenced by political and/or religious views

(2) Mainstreamers, who predict 3-5K of warming for a doubling of CO2

(3) Extremists (folks who claim earth will turn into Venus), also influenced by their political views

(4) Legitimate Skeptics, who question some of the theoretical physics involved, including the debate Loschmidt and Maxwell+Boltzmann had on thermodynamics.

(5) Lukewarmers, who presume a weaker feedback response to a doubling of CO2.

[Jonger]

Hypothetically lets presume the 2014 and 2015 global temps set records.

How will the denier camp survive.

You can't spin that.

I've always thought the Anthony Watts of the world knew it would end there.

But their sheep don't believe it's coming

 

I thought 2010 set the most recent record, what happened after that? Oh, that's right, it was another sub-par micro up tick in global temps. Most sites I visit expect 2015 to set the record and we expect your side of the extreme to be happy about it and you will be. Will this be anything more that the continual temp rise we have seen since the early 1800's, nope.

 

I know you want headlines, thinking it will change the world, its not going to do anymore to speed up a post-fossil fuel world than high energy prices already are accomplishing.

[Jonger]

I'd say there are 5 camps. I'd put myself in camp #2..though in sure anyone would say that..

(1) Deniers, influenced by political and/or religious views

(2) Mainstreamers, who predict 3-5K of warming for a doubling of CO2

(3) Extremists (folks who claim earth will turn into Venus), also influenced by their political views

(4) Legitimate Skeptics, who question some of the theoretical physics involved, including the debate Loschmidt and Maxwell+Boltzmann had on thermodynamics.

(5) Lukewarmers, who presume a weaker feedback response to a doubling of CO2.

 

Your list could use a realignment, from one end of the spectrum to the other. I left your numbering for reference, this is like the 50th time we have done this.

 

 

(1) Deniers, influenced by political and/or religious views

(4) Legitimate Skeptics, who question some of the theoretical physics involved, including the debate Loschmidt and Maxwell+Boltzmann had on thermodynamics.

 

(5) Lukewarmers, who presume a weaker feedback response to a doubling of CO2. (Myself)

 

The Middle Ground General Public

 

(2) Self Proclaimed 97%, who predict 3-5K of warming for a doubling of CO2

 

(3) Extremists (folks who claim earth will turn into Venus), also influenced by their political views

[SVT450R]

Hypothetically lets presume the 2014 and 2015 global temps set records.

How will the denier camp survive.

You can't spin that.

I've always thought the Anthony Watts of the world knew it would end there.

But their sheep don't believe it's coming

At least to me it's more important the rate of change in which temperatures undergo over say a 10 year average then breaking single year records when the earth is at it's warmest era in modern observations.

[The_Global_Warmer]

At least to me it's more important the rate of change in which temperatures undergo over say a 10 year average then breaking single year records when the earth is at it's warmest era in modern observations.

 

Yeah but your just skeptical that climate change will be a world wide catastrophe.

 

Full out deniers don't believe it's warming.

 

 

After a -PDO and the solar plummet the last thing should be more record warmth.

 

 

Based on current OHC trends and ENSO projections it's likely after this the baseline will be moved again to where years like 2013 are towards the coolest it will be over the next 5-7 years during a nina.

 

I am also very interested in how the rate of warming will go the rest of the decade after the next 12-18 month bump.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I thought 2010 set the most recent record, what happened after that? Oh, that's right, it was another sub-par micro up tick in global temps. Most sites I visit expect 2015 to set the record and we expect your side of the extreme to be happy about it and you will be. Will this be anything more that the continual temp rise we have seen since the early 1800's, nope.

 

I know you want headlines, thinking it will change the world, its not going to do anymore to speed up a post-fossil fuel world than high energy prices already are accomplishing.

 

 

No one is happy about global warming.

 

We are happy that our science got it right.

[JC-CT]

Your list could use a realignment, from one end of the spectrum to the other. I left your numbering for reference, this is like the 50th time we have done this.

(1) Deniers, influenced by political and/or religious views

(4) Legitimate Skeptics, who question some of the theoretical physics involved, including the debate Loschmidt and Maxwell+Boltzmann had on thermodynamics.

(5) Lukewarmers, who presume a weaker feedback response to a doubling of CO2. (Myself)

The Middle Ground General Public

(2) Self Proclaimed 97%, who predict 3-5K of warming for a doubling of CO2

(3) Extremists (folks who claim earth will turn into Venus), also influenced by their political views

Also, there should be a place, on a completely different list, for the 99% of the actual people in the world, who don't often think about, or particularly care about, global warming or anything to do with a time period so far out into the future that they have little to no chance of being alive to actually be significantly affected by it.

We all know, even if we choose not to acknowledge it, that for our grandchildren, their grandchildren, and their grandchildren's grandchildren, they are screwed either way.

If global warming occurs like the proponents predict, then what will 2150 look like? Or 2200? And beyond that? Of course, if the skeptics are proven correct, then there will no longer be the immediate urgency to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Most of that conversation has taken a back seat to AWG, under the assumption that we would burn through our atmosphere before we could ever burn through our fossil fuels.

The likely truth is that we will burn through at least one of the two in the next few hundred years.

Also, if the skeptics of AWG are correct due to the fact that the earth's climate is changing primarily due to natural variability, we could be left with a continued dependence on a finite supply of fossil fuels, while at the same time also having to adapt to the unknown consequences of a rapidly changing climate, regardless of the cause.

Of course, I don't really care because it doesn't affect my daily life in ways where I can easily connect the dots. Additionally, I, like 99.9% of the general public, didn't watch whatever film everybody is up in arms over in here. That is the true majority.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The thing that gets me is that it's already assured baring a massive natural or technological intervention the entire GIS ice cap, all land ice and eventually most of or all of Antarctica is going to melt at the rate we are going now.

 

 

If it's 100, 500, 1000, 5000 years how is that ok?

 

 

The arctic is expected to warm 6-9C by 2100.

 

GIS could easily be losing 5000-10000KM3 a year by then.

 

How can we pretend that is ok?