Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

The NWS has also quietly changed the frost and freeze criteria. All of those frost and freeze advisories and warnings that were near constant through April [and have been common in recent years] would NOT have been issued in past decades because the growing season was not considered to have begun by that point in these areas. A lot of NWS offices now just use the amorphous phrase "during the growing season" but there is still some residual evidence of the traditional criteria. You see all the frost and freeze warnings, and think "wow, it must be cold this spring. Never seen so many frost warnings." BUT that's because these events would have all been unwarned in the past.

Here's the traditional criteria for some NWS offices:

CTP

The traditional growing season [and issuance of frost/freeze products] does not start until May 21 in the northwest mountains and would have just begun May 11 in the second tier of counties. There were numerous frost/freeze products issued in April in these areas.

IWX

Source: Northern Indiana Watch, Warning and Advisory Criteria (weather.gov)

Note - issued only between May 1 and October 20, yet these products were issued numerous times by IWX this April.

[LibertyBell]

59 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Most of this is not due to any sort of "strange disconnect" but due to people's perception of what is normal being warped. It used to be perfectly normal for Lake Erie to be covered in ice (or at least substantial ice coverage) at Buffalo, New York, well into May. This year, the water temperature is 52F, one shy of the record for the date set in 2012 & 2000.

Source: Lake Erie May Temperatures Buffalo (weather.gov)

Just scanning through this, you can see ice [as signified by underlying water at the freezing point] was present through at least May 10, 1928; May 1, 1930; May 16, 1936; May 6, 1939; May 10, 1940; May 12, 1943; May 15, 1947 [thermometer appears to be reading 1F warm this year]; May 9, 1959; May 11, 1963; May 12, 1965; May 23, 1971; May 2, 1972; May 12, 1978; May 7, 1982; May 2, 1996; and May 1, 2014. In this data, we can see the first shift to a new climate regime following the 1982-1983 Super El Nino event. While prior to that El Nino event, ice was commonplace in the month of May, it is now exceptionally rare. Ice past the middle of May, as occurred in 1936 & 1971, is almost unfathomable today. I mean 2014 was regarded as exceptionally cold, but came nowhere near reproducing that effect.

We can substantial ice was present on the east end of Lake Erie deep into May 1936, while some icebergs remained through May 31, 1936. This during the so-called hottest summer on record. Funny how we're told how hot it was in the 1930s & 1940s, yet that heat doesn't show up in water.

Probably because it was extremely cold in the winter, so the water takes much more time to warm up.

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

The NWS has also quietly changed the frost and freeze criteria. All of those frost and freeze advisories and warnings that were near constant through April [and have been common in recent years] would NOT have been issued in past decades because the growing season was not considered to have begun by that point in these areas. A lot of NWS offices now just use the amorphous phrase "during the growing season" but there is still some residual evidence of the traditional criteria. You see all the frost and freeze warnings, and think "wow, it must be cold this spring. Never seen so many frost warnings." BUT that's because these events would have all been unwarned in the past.

Here's the traditional criteria for some NWS offices:

CTP

The traditional growing season [and issuance of frost/freeze products] does not start until May 21 in the northwest mountains and would have just begun May 11 in the second tier of counties. There were numerous frost/freeze products issued in April in these areas.

IWX

Source: Northern Indiana Watch, Warning and Advisory Criteria (weather.gov)

Note - issued only between May 1 and October 20, yet these products were issued numerous times by IWX this April.

This is due to spring arriving earlier and the last freeze of the season holding more steady over time. We notice this around the NYC Metro area. The first 70° of the year is a month earlier than it was in 1950. So the plants are blooming a month earlier than they used to. But the last freeze of the season has been holding steady.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-sweltering-asia-climate.html

[LibertyBell]

16 hours ago, bluewave said:

This is due to spring arriving earlier and the last freeze of the season holding more steady over time. We notice this around the NYC Metro area. The first 70° of the year is a month earlier than it was in 1950. So the plants are blooming a month earlier than they used to. But the last freeze of the season has been holding steady.

 

what I want to know is why are we getting so much blocking in spring now?

[LibertyBell]

 

[bluewave]

23 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

 

People want to know when the nations of the world will finally start addressing climate change. The answer is when the cost of business as usual gets too high. My guess is that between now and 2040 the damages from climate change to the economy will result in a shift in consciousness about the environment. While we are probably committed to +2C to +3C of warming, I think we can still avoid a PETM +5C to +8C scenario.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

Yesterday, Fort Lauderdale had a minimum temperature of 85°. That set a new May record and tied the all-time mark. All three prior cases had occurred in August.

The average minimum temperature in May has warmed dramatically from 70.1° during 1961-1990 to 73.2° during 1991-2020. Excessive ocean warmth has played an important role, with climate change having increased the frequency, magnitude, and duration of marine heatwaves.

 

[LibertyBell]

22 minutes ago, bluewave said:

People want to know when the nations of the world will finally start addressing climate change. The answer is when the cost of business as usual gets too high. My guess is that between now and 2040 the damages from climate change to the economy will result in a shift in consciousness about the environment. While we are probably committed to +2C to +3C of warming, I think we can still avoid a PETM +5C to +8C scenario.

 

 

Doesn't this mean that coastal cities like New York are toast and there will have to a mass migration away from the coast into the center of all continents?

 

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

 

Folks should curl up with a cup of coffee and a slow and discerned reading of Yuval Noah Harari's wonder-history, "Sapiens"  The book is fantastically simplified for proletariat consumption -ha, meaning, it's not in PHD verse, but is in a language that's accessible to most.  it about 450 pages, starting some 700,000 years ago ... it spans the entire spectrum of our evolution, elaborating both explicitly and implicitly how feed backs from innovation along the course of evolution changed our destiny - qualitatively, the verdict still not settled seems tongue-in-cheek, too.

Among a spectrum of aspects, one will take away a pretty strong intuitive understanding, and of the fact, that economics is not indigenous to nature.  It is merely endemic to humanity - it is ( at this point ...as we all know ) but a social construct with no intrinsic value or physical connection to those forces that construct reality - i.e, physics..., like E-MC2, PV=NRT, Quantum Field Theory, nor the principale of the greater overall Mathematical compendium used to describe reality.   

It is, for lack of better phrase, a fantastic delusion.  Harari uses the invention of religion as a means to demonstrate how/why economics actually can exist, such that humans 'successfully' carry on with it.  The 'faith in the dollar' is the same in California, as it is in Massachusetts, and all interstices activities in between, binds the entirety of the 300,000,000+ souls considered to be a part of the America dream and census; thus, all may function in relative cooperation.  But it is, in end, all based upon an arbitrary agreement of value.

And most importantly, an ability among all humans to do so that came about really just inside the last 10,000 of evolution. Oh the rudiments of capacity to do so ... probably had arrived on the genetic road map long before; as those things go ... circumstance would come about that favored tapping into the ability.   He goes on about the Sumerian civilization and the first cuneiform ledgers, the earliest known physical recordings of economic transactions - hugely primitive compared to AI -driven triggers on Wall Street some 4,500 years later, no doubt.

My point to all this is that, economics is a very, very recent innovation in human evolution.  Whenever the rudiments of that capacity to engage in the necessary group psychology of economic values came about, that is less important to the innovation of systemic codification. Driving ultimately the mechanization of profligate extraction of natural resources.  Not until almost immediately aft of present day Sapiens existence did that take place -

For that... despite al conceits, from pleb hardship to country court yard lilac blossoms and everything in between that we afflict on our selves in the name of it, economics is an experiment.  not when considering that human paleo leap that began 700,000 years ago, and would take 99% of that time just to get us to Sumeria ... and .0009% of that time to get us to the Industrial Revolution ... ultimately, today's ways and means. There's no way any feed back from the innovation of anything, let along the invention of economics, has been sent through the crucible of evolution.  Mind you ...  light skin variants of SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, roots of caucasoid, were only present in Anatolia by ~ 10,000 years ago. Part of the so-called Neolithic Revolution.  

And we're still struggling with race to this day.

 

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Folks should curl up with a cup of coffee and a slow and discerned reading of Yuval Noah Harari's wonder-history, "Sapiens"  The book is fantastically simplified for proletariat consumption -ha, meaning, it's not in PHD verse, but is in a language that's accessible to most.  it about 500 pages, staring some 70,000 years ago ... it spans the entire spectrum of our evolution, elaborating both explicitly and implicitly, how feed backs from innovation on the course of evolution.

From that ... one will take away a pretty strong intuitive understanding, and of the fact, that economics is not indigenous to nature.  It is merely endemic to humanity - it is ( at this point ...as we all know ) but a social construct with no intrinsic value or physical connection to those forces that construct reality - i.e, physics..., like E-MC2, PV=NRT, Quantum Field Theory, nor the principale of the greater overall Mathematical compendium used to describe reality.   

It is, for lack of better phrase, a fantastic delusion.  Harari uses the invention of religion as a means to demonstrate how/why economics actually can exist the humans carry on with it.  The 'faith in the dollar' is the same in California, as it is in Massachusetts, and all interstices activities in between, binds the entirety of the 300,000,000+ souls considered to be a part of the America dream and census; thus, all may function in relative cooperation.  But it is, in end, all based upon an arbitrary agreement of value.

And most importantly, an ability among all humans to do so that came about really just inside the last 10,000 of evolution. Oh the rudiments of capacity to do so ... probably had arrived on the genetic road map long before; as those things go ... circumstance would come about that favored tapping into the ability.   He goes on about the Sumerian civilization and the first cuneiform ledgers, the earliest known physical recordings of economic transactions - hugely primitive compared to AI -driven triggers on Wall Street some 4,500 years later, no doubt.

My point to all this is that, economics is a very, very recent innovation in human evolution.  Whenever the rudiments of that capacity to engage in the necessary group psychology of economic values came about, that is less important to the innovation of systemically codification. Not until almost immediately aft of present day Sapiens existence did that take place -

For that... despite al conceits, from pleb hardship to country court yard lilac blossoms and everything in between that we afflict on our selves in the name of it, economics is an experiment.  not when considering that human paleo leap that began 700,000 years ago, and would take 99% of that time just to get us to Sumeria ... and .0009% of that time to get us to the Industrial Revolution ... ultimately, today's ways and means. There's no way any feed back from the innovation of anything, let along the invention of economics, has been sent through the crucible of evolution.  Mind you ... t light skin variants of SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, roots of caucasoid, were only present in Anatolia by ~ 10,00 years ago. Part of the so-called Neolithic Revolution.  

And we're still struggling with race to this day.

 

This is exactly why I never liked and never was interested in economics, it's an artificial construct.  It's why quantum theory was always much more fascinating to me-- learning the basic nature of reality.  Some that is fundamental to EVERYTHING.

Race is also a construct, when you read biology and realize that the differences between individuals in the same population is vastly greater than the differences between different populations you understand that humanity really is one, there really is no such thing as race or even ethnic group-- let alone even more artificial constructs like religion, which are all cults.

 

[bluewave]

23 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Doesn't this mean that coastal cities like New York are toast and there will have to a mass migration away from the coast into the center of all continents?

 

Yeah, a +2C to +3C increase would lock in much higher sea levels. But the key is how long it would take for this to occur. If we were to ever get the expected 200 years of sea level rise in just 20 years in coming decades, then it would set off mass migrations across the planet away from the coastal zones. Not sure if we would get much advanced notice of a rapid melt pulse since our current batch of models are still incomplete. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/ice-sheets-collapse-far-faster-than-feared-study-climate-crisis

Ice sheets can collapse into the ocean in spurts of up to 600 metres (2,000 feet) a day, a study has found, far faster than recorded before.

Scientists said the finding, based on sea floor sediment formations from the last ice age, was a “warning from the past” for today’s world in which the climate crisis is eroding ice sheets.

 

They said the discovery shows that some ice sheets in Antarctica, including the “Doomsday” Thwaites glacier, could suffer periods of rapid collapse in the near future, further accelerating the rise of sea level.

The rising oceans are among the greatest long-term impacts of global heating because hundreds of major cities around the world are on coastlines and are increasingly vulnerable to storm surges and flooding. The West Antarctic ice sheet may already have passed the point at which major losses are unstoppable, which will lead eventually to metres of sea level rise.

“Our research provides a warning from the past about the speeds that ice sheets are physically capable of retreating at,” said Dr Christine Batchelor at Newcastle University in the UK, who led the research. “It shows that pulses of rapid retreat can be far quicker than anything we’ve seen so far.”

These pulses translate into sea level rise and could be really important for sea defences,” she said. The rate of loss was critical if, for example, a rise expected over 200 years could actually occur in 20 years, Batchelor said. The research could also be used to enable computer models to make better predictions about future ice loss.

[Typhoon Tip]

20 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

This is exactly why I never liked and never was interested in economics, it's an artificial construct.  It's why quantum theory was always much more fascinating to me-- learning the basic nature of reality.  Some that is fundamental to EVERYTHING.

Race is also a construct, when you read biology and realize that the differences between individuals in the same population is vastly greater than the differences between different populations you understand that humanity really is one, there really is no such thing as race or even ethnic group-- let alone even more artificial constructs like religion, which are all cults.

 

heh.... humans as dogs - tongue in cheek analog that offends some people. I actually read an article that outlined why ours differential, coming off as more important.  Just sounded like 'prominence righteous'  ultimately rationalized bullshit, missing the bigger point

Cocker Spaniels to Dobermanns, to Poodles, the Boxers, Terriers ... Retrievers

Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid, within which there are no doubt sub-classes that our species' (also) charming ability for hyper-classification gets all offended if you don't give credit to - proving their own 'racism' for reacting ...

But they are ultimately just subtle genotypic and phenotypic variations, like that which makes a Poodle look different than a Retriever.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, a +2C to +3C increase would lock in much higher sea levels. But the key is how long it would take for this to occur. If we were to ever get the expected 200 years of sea level rise in just 20 years in coming decades, then it would set off mass migrations across the planet away from the coastal zones. Not sure if we would get much advanced notice of a rapid melt pulse since our current batch of models are still incomplete. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/ice-sheets-collapse-far-faster-than-feared-study-climate-crisis

Ice sheets can collapse into the ocean in spurts of up to 600 metres (2,000 feet) a day, a study has found, far faster than recorded before.

Scientists said the finding, based on sea floor sediment formations from the last ice age, was a “warning from the past” for today’s world in which the climate crisis is eroding ice sheets.

 

They said the discovery shows that some ice sheets in Antarctica, including the “Doomsday” Thwaites glacier, could suffer periods of rapid collapse in the near future, further accelerating the rise of sea level.

The rising oceans are among the greatest long-term impacts of global heating because hundreds of major cities around the world are on coastlines and are increasingly vulnerable to storm surges and flooding. The West Antarctic ice sheet may already have passed the point at which major losses are unstoppable, which will lead eventually to metres of sea level rise.

“Our research provides a warning from the past about the speeds that ice sheets are physically capable of retreating at,” said Dr Christine Batchelor at Newcastle University in the UK, who led the research. “It shows that pulses of rapid retreat can be far quicker than anything we’ve seen so far.”

These pulses translate into sea level rise and could be really important for sea defences,” she said. The rate of loss was critical if, for example, a rise expected over 200 years could actually occur in 20 years, Batchelor said. The research could also be used to enable computer models to make better predictions about future ice loss.

One thing I've seen is that our climate models have been conservative, if anything.  So if the climate models are setting off alarm bells, you can bet that reality will be worse.

 

[bdgwx]

I see Ryan Maue's bashing the paper on his Twitter account. I'm not saying the research doesn't have flaws, but Ryan's Maue's specific criticism is...quite frankly...bizarre since it has zero technical merit and is in the category of what I call a "nuh-uh" argument. Honestly, since it has mockery slant to it I might even be willing to go as far as to say he is trying to gaslight anyone that would defend the research. 

The authors explain exactly why the correlation is stronger between damages and global shocks vs local shocks. And BTW...it should be rather intuitive to anyone that understands the interplay of averaging on smaller scales vs large scales. At a fundamental level it is not unlike the difference between weather and climate. One region may be experiencing a damage causing extreme event due to a local shock. Sure, that's bad for that region, but it doesn't necessarily equate to damage in all of the other regions. Contrast this with a global shock in which many regions experience damage causing extreme events in tandem. Furthermore, like global shocks cause persistent changes in the global circulation pattern. Local shocks do not do that. It should be obviously why the correlation with the global shock is much stronger. I think if Ryan could figure out a way to suppress his confirmation bias he'd realize the folly of his criticism.

 

[LibertyBell]

11 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

heh.... humans as dogs - tongue in cheek analog that offends some people. I actually read an article that outlined why ours differential, coming off as more important.  Just sounded like 'prominence righteous'  ultimately rationalized bullshit, missing the bigger point

Cocker Spaniels to Dobermanns, to Poodles, the Boxers, Terriers ... Retrievers

Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid, within which there are no doubt sub-classes that our species' (also) charming ability for hyper-classification gets all offended if you don't give credit to - proving their own 'racism' for reacting ...

But they are ultimately just subtle genotypic and phenotypic variations, like that which makes a Poodle look different than a Retriever.

 

 

Yep, look back at the ridiculousness of the 1920s when "scientists" were classifying people by the shape of their skulls (and even worse rating a person's intelligence by the shape of their skulls.)  You see the remnants of that today with an inherent racial bias in many people.  By the way as you and everyone else knows, just because there are no such things as races doesn't mean racism doesn't exist-- of course it does, humans always want to create an us vs them narrative because it makes it easier to scapegoat people who they think are different from themselves.

 

[GaWx]

24 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Doesn't this mean that coastal cities like New York are toast and there will have to a mass migration away from the coast into the center of all continents?

 

 The sinking of the land (subsidence) largely due to a combination of the weight of buildings and groundwater usage is compounding the sea level rise problem in many big coastal cities such as NYC. So, these cities have the double whammy of independent factors of sea level rise and falling land level:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2023/06/15/new-york-city-is-sinking-under-the-weight-of-its-own-buildings/?sh=541e3df62898

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

I see Ryan Maue's bashing the paper on his Twitter account. I'm not saying the research doesn't have flaws, but Ryan's Maue's specific criticism is...quite frankly...bizarre since it has zero technical merit and is in the category of what I call a "nuh-uh" argument.

The authors explain exactly why the correlation is stronger between damages and global shocks vs local shocks. And BTW...it should be rather intuitive to anyone that understands the interplay of averaging on smaller scales vs large scales. At a fundamental level it is not unlike the difference between weather and climate. One region may be experiencing a damage causing extreme event due to a local shock. Sure, that's bad for that region, but it doesn't necessarily equate to damage in all of the other regions. Contrast this with a global shock in which many regions experience damage causing extreme events in tandem. Furthermore, like global shocks cause persistent changes in the global circulation pattern. Local shocks do not do that. It should be obviously why the correlation with the global shock is much stronger. I think if Ryan could figure out a way to suppress his confirmation bias he'd realize the folly of his criticism.

 

Ryan Maue is the one who should be quiet, the total heat content change of a global  system with a small temperature variation is MUCH larger than the same  small temperature variation in a local system.  It's only common sense!

[LibertyBell]

Just now, GaWx said:

 The sinking of the land (subsidence) largely due to a combination of the weight of buildings and groundwater usage is compounding the sea level rise problem in many big coastal cities such as NYC. So, these cities have the double whammy of independent factors of sea level rise and falling land level:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2023/06/15/new-york-city-is-sinking-under-the-weight-of-its-own-buildings/?sh=541e3df62898

and these other factors are not even applied to our climate models =\

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

I see Ryan Maue's bashing the paper on his Twitter account. I'm not saying the research doesn't have flaws, but Ryan's Maue's specific criticism is...quite frankly...bizarre since it has zero technical merit and is in the category of what I call a "nuh-uh" argument.

The authors explain exactly why the correlation is stronger between damages and global shocks vs local shocks. And BTW...it should be rather intuitive to anyone that understands the interplay of averaging on smaller scales vs large scales. At a fundamental level it is not unlike the difference between weather and climate. One region may be experiencing a damage causing extreme event due to a local shock. Sure, that's bad for that region, but it doesn't necessarily equate to damage in all of the other regions. Contrast this with a global shock in which many regions experience damage causing extreme events in tandem. Furthermore, like global shocks cause persistent changes in the global circulation pattern. Local shocks do not do that. It should be obviously why the correlation with the global shock is much stronger. I think if Ryan could figure out a way to suppress his confirmation bias he'd realize the folly of his criticism.

 

and this kind of stupid response

 

 

[bluewave]

32 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

One thing I've seen is that our climate models have been conservative, if anything.  So if the climate models are setting off alarm bells, you can bet that reality will be worse.

 

Another issue as a global society is that we tend to think linearly about about important topics like climate change. But the challenge is non-linear shifts are part of climate change. Our models aren’t good at detecting these details. These important threshold temperatures at which we can see an abrupt shifts aren’t well forecast ahead of time. It’s usually after they have occurred that we take notice of them. 

[LibertyBell]

8 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Another issue as a global society is that we tend to think linearly about about important topics like climate change. But the challenge is non-linear shifts are part of climate change. Our models aren’t good at detecting these details. These important threshold temperatures at which we can see an abrupt shifts aren’t well forecast ahead of time. It’s usually after they have occurred that we take notice of them. 

not knowing what these tipping points are or when these thresholds will be reached is why we're always behind the 8 ball.

we aren't proactive, we are reactive.

 

[FPizz]

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

not knowing what these tipping points are or when these thresholds will be reached is why we're always behind the 8 ball.

we aren't proactive, we are reactive.

 

"Tipping Point" is a term used to scare people.  We have no clue what that might be.  For all we know we can warm another 10 degrees worldwide and be fine.  I'm pretty sure the world will adapt just like they have since we've been on it.  The hysterics and failed claims/predictions (ice free by 2013 for example) ruin it for the alarmists.  Then you all want the gov to fix things when the vast majority of you that post here don't trust the gov for anything (see OT for all the shit posts about the gov by many of you).  It is quite funny actually to read it.  

[bluewave]

57 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 The sinking of the land (subsidence) largely due to a combination of the weight of buildings and groundwater usage is compounding the sea level rise problem in many big coastal cities such as NYC. So, these cities have the double whammy of independent factors of sea level rise and falling land level:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2023/06/15/new-york-city-is-sinking-under-the-weight-of-its-own-buildings/?sh=541e3df62898

Similar to the way that people moving into higher risk areas compounds the damages caused by the increased extreme weather with climate change.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, FPizz said:

"Tipping Point" is a term used to scare people.  We have no clue what that might be.  For all we know we can warm another 10 degrees worldwide and be fine.  I'm pretty sure the world will adapt just like they have since we've been on it.  The hysterics and failed claims/predictions (ice free by 2013 for example) ruin it for the alarmists.  Then you all want the gov to fix things when the vast majority of you that post here don't trust the gov for anything (see OT for all the shit posts about the gov by many of you).  It is quite funny actually to read it.  

they're not "shit" posts they're all true, the government wastes our tax money on military rather than spending it where it should be spent-- which is universal healthcare, education and climate change.

Not only that, the polls show this is what the vast majority of people want.

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Similar to the way that people moving into higher risk areas compounds the damages caused by the increased extreme weather with climate change.

 

 

at some point we will have to start restricting where people can move to-- you know it and I know it.  This illusion of unlimited freedom will have to be disposed of.

 

[bluewave]

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

at some point we will have to start restricting where people can move to-- you know it and I know it.  This illusion of unlimited freedom will have to be dispensed with.

 

The biggest restrictions on where people can afford to live are being governed by insurance companies rapidly increasing rates in the highest risk areas. 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The biggest restrictions on where people can afford to live are being governed by insurance companies rapidly increasing rates in the highest risk areas. 

That works but another thing (which nature seems to be working out on its own) is stopping rapid population growth and stabilizing global population.  Current projections say that 11 billion humans is the carrying capacity of the planet and we'll likely stabilize somewhere around there.

 

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, FPizz said:

The hysterics and failed claims/predictions (ice free by 2013 for example) ruin it for the alarmists.

The regime shift occurred in 2007 to a much thinner sea ice state and was not forecast ahead of time. The ice free extent forecast by 2013 was an outlier that most agencies like the NSIDC never bought into. Remember there was no alarm in the early 2000s before the major shift in 2007. Complacency turned out to be the greater risk as the thickness and age of the ice has not recovered to pre-2007 levels. 
 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05686-x

Manifestations of climate change are often shown as gradual changes in physical or biogeochemical properties¹. Components of the climate system, however, can show stepwise shifts from one regime to another, as a nonlinear response of the system to a changing forcing². Here we show that the Arctic sea ice regime shifted in 2007 from thicker and deformed to thinner and more uniform ice cover. Continuous sea ice monitoring in the Fram Strait over the last three decades revealed the shift. After the shift, the fraction of thick and deformed ice dropped by half and has not recovered to date. The timing of the shift was preceded by a two-step reduction in residence time of sea ice in the Arctic Basin, initiated first in 2005 and followed by 2007. We demonstrate that a simple model describing the stochastic process of dynamic sea ice thickening explains the observed ice thickness changes as a result of the reduced residence time. Our study highlights the long-lasting impact of climate change on the Arctic sea ice through reduced residence time and its connection to the coupled ocean–sea ice processes in the adjacent marginal seas and shelves of the Arctic Ocean.

Our analysis demonstrates the long-lasting impact of climate change on Arctic sea ice through reduced residence time, suggesting an irreversible response of Arctic sea ice thickness connected to an increase of ocean heat content in areas of ice formation. The large reduction of summer ice extent in the Alaskan and Siberian sectors in 2005 and 2007 triggered intensive ice–albedo feedback^42,45 and initiated the perennial increase of ocean heat content in these areas⁴⁴. This resulted in the stepwise reduction of residence time of sea ice in the Siberian sector of the Arctic, and hence a nonlinear response of the system.

[ChescoWx]

In my continuing review of after the fact NCEI temperature adjustments for Chester County PA I have reviewed the detailed monthly NCEI average temperatures for all 1,548 months since January 1895. For the first 1,271 months from January 1895 through November 2000. NCEI applied a post hoc chilling adjustment to the reported average temperatures for every single month for each and every year. So for all of those months the average reported temperatures as reported by the NWS Cooperative stations were chilled to an adjusted lower temperature. Since NCEI stopped these non-stop chilling adjustments starting in December 2000... they have now reversed gears and are now applying warming adjustments in 208 of the last 277 months or 75.1% of all available months between December 2000 and December 2023.

Also of note is that in every single summer month between June and September since way back in June 2006 and continuing through last September 2023....for each of those last 72 consecutive summertime months they have warmed each and every month. Cooling the past and warming the more recent and current years....that will get us to the answer.