Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, etudiant said:

I have no expertise on the topic, but the uncertainties are indeed massive. Consequently it is questionable whether the researcher quoted in The Guardian can credibly assert that the oceans cannot absorb the needed amount of CO2. Of course, this also reinforces your other point, about the known and unknown risks inherent in any geoengineering effort.

 

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

[etudiant]

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

Agree 100%, but of course the concern is that humans are already geoengineering the globe, with massive distortions in soil, water and air management due to agriculture, industry and settlement. So the threshold for intervention is correspondingly much lower, even though the uncertainties are as large as ever.

[donsutherland1]

The high temperatures at Yakutat, Alaska for the past three days and for today (preliminary value) were:

December 13: 56° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 14: 58° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 15: 61° (old record: 48°, 2005)
December 16: 57° (old record: 50°, 2005)

All four days exceeded the previous December record high temperature of 52°, which had been set on December 8, 1960. The 61° temperature yesterday broke the meteorological winter record of 58°, which was set on January 19, 1930 and tied on December 14, 2019 and was also above the November monthly record of 59°, which was set on November 1, 1947. Prior to yesterday, the latest 60° temperature on record occurred on October 13, 1969 when the temperature reached 60°. Daily records go back to May 1, 1917.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/16/2019 at 7:26 AM, etudiant said:

Agree 100%, but of course the concern is that humans are already geoengineering the globe, with massive distortions in soil, water and air management due to agriculture, industry and settlement. So the threshold for intervention is correspondingly much lower, even though the uncertainties are as large as ever.

what happened to the climate shifts thread?

[LibertyBell]

On 12/15/2019 at 9:30 PM, etudiant said:

I have no expertise on the topic, but the uncertainties are indeed massive. Consequently it is questionable whether the researcher quoted in The Guardian can credibly assert that the oceans cannot absorb the needed amount of CO2. Of course, this also reinforces your other point, about the known and unknown risks inherent in any geoengineering effort.

 

at some point humanity will need to attempt climate regulation.  There is no way around it.  In every other science (except for astronomy of course, since we cant reach the stars yet), we are more than just observers, we are experimenters.  Climatology is no different.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/15/2019 at 5:10 PM, etudiant said:

Transitions are not so easy. Just ask the Federal Reserve, trying to unblow the current zero interest bubble. That said, I think you overestimate the difficulties.

I think that populations are already under control in the industrialized world, with Europe, China, Japan and the US all under replacement fertility, leaving immigration to offset the decline.

Only Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia still have high birth rates, largely driven by poverty. That can be cured within a generation, as China demonstrated.

Separately, I do not think CO2 capture is a serious problem. The experiments in seeding the southern oceans with iron sulfate were hugely successful and underscore the late John Martins claim 'give me a half tanker of iron sulfate and I'll give you an ice age'.

Population "stability" isn't enough, the earth is already overpopulated with humans.  They're destroying essential tropical rain forests, polluting and crapping on the environment and driving the mass extinctions of other species.  Add to that bad land usage with chemical fertilizers and pesticides and animal farming and you have a crisis on your hands.

As John Kerry and Arnold said, climate change isn't a strong enough argument to convince most people- they dont care what's going on in the Arctic and dont care about sea level rises unless they live near a coastline.  You need to use the pollution argument- look at how polluted the air in Delhi, India is (as an example.)  There is a strong pollution argument to be made for why to stop using fossil fuels.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/15/2019 at 2:19 PM, donsutherland1 said:

In 1987, humanity was confronted with a growing ozone hole over the Southern Hemisphere and the implication of an inevitable and dramatic rise in skin cancer cases. The world's leaders at that time, even while taking on an existential Cold War struggle, came together in Montreal to adopt a solution to address the problem. A binding commitment to completely phase out the use of CFCs and halons was agreed. That treaty was universally ratified. Since then, much progress has been made.

NASA recently revealed:

Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

Then, science carried the day. Political leaders made the kind of decisions that fall with responsible leadership. They made no excuses. They did not embrace defeatist conclusions that acting would be economically harmful, much less that nothing could be done. They did not descend into "denialism" or conspiracy theories aimed at alleviating accountability from their shoulders. They acted with conviction. They put the world on a better path.

Just three decades later, when confronted by another global challenge--that of anthropogenic climate change--the world's leaders abdicated their responsibility in Madrid. They proved unable to summon the courage, foresight, and leadership to tackle the global challenge of the contemporary era. They chose timidity at a time when no great struggle comparable to the Cold War is raging.

Put simply, they failed the test of leadership. They demonstrated that although they hold positions of authority, they lack the capacity and qualities necessary to lead. Instead, they chose to remain passive bystanders to history.

They failed as leaders. They failed as people.

In their enormous failure to lead, they have substantially magnified the burden they have already left to today's youth and future generations to come. In doing so, they have defined their generation as arguably the most short-sighted one in modern history.

They chose to leave the world a worse place than they inherited. Given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and range of tools available to launch a credible effort to curb then reverse greenhouse gas emissions, their fateful choice is a deliberate one. Ignorance is not a valid defense. At the same time, they have unequivocally made clear to today's youth that the concerns and futures of those youth are to be sacrificed for the preservation of the short-sighted status quo.

Given the urgency and gravity of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, this is a most sad outcome. Urgent problems aren't punted to the future year after year. Great problems are not routinely ignored, much less cloaked in the packaging of brave words disconnected from concrete and credible measures to evade responsibility.

Fortunately, as time passes, those who occupy today's positions of leadership will gradually depart those positions. In their wake, future generations will be left with a tremendous mess.

The passage of time will determine whether leadership capacity on the global stage merely skipped today's generation of global leaders or whether the absence of leadership capacity is a new and persistent problem. Considering that human nature has changed remarkably little since the emergence of Homo Sapiens, the odds are still high that the contemporary leadership deficit is merely a temporary phenomenon.

you need an effective world government that usurps the authorities of ignorant leaders like the "president" of Brazil. Economic sanctions can be used as a way to make them be more sustainable.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/15/2019 at 5:12 PM, Vice-Regent said:

By the time populations stabilize the damage will already be inflicted and there will be a mass die-off. That would be a failure to transition.

Dangerous mentality. Climate change will save us from capitalism. it's the consumption per person that is killing us right now. I only want to reduce it so we can keep our current standard of living without adverse effects. It's not enough to stabilize where we are and we are far from that holding steady on population.

The population will infact never stabilize. It will rapidly collapse. It will look like a bell-curve on population charts. So i'm not sure if it matters at this point what we do in first-world nations.

actually population collapse would be a good thing and I too believe that will happen in the future.  I dont mean that in a cataclysmic sort of way, but more in the sense that fertility rates will drop (they are dropping already.)

The earth's human population needs to stabilize around 1 billion, not tens of billions.  That's for the health of humanity as well as the rest of our environment.

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/15/2019 at 8:28 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I'm not as pessimistic, though I have worries given how impotent and unwilling today's generation of leaders (political and business) are in addressing the challenge of anthropogenic climate change.

Addressing climate change should not require "phasing out civilization." It does entail some significant changes. Among those changes are a transition to cleaner fuels, increased energy efficiency, a carbon tax/elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, etc. In my view, were the same leaders involved in tackling the problem of anthropogenic climate change today, credible, binding, and concrete commitments would have been undertaken. They understood what today's leaders don't, namely that today's choices have consequences for tomorrow. Consequently, they were not paralyzed by the suffocating short-term thinking that defines today's leaders.

Don, it's not about phasing out civilization but living in a much more sustainable way.  I look at the native americans and how they lived much more in sync with the environment and did not drive other species to extinction the way the white man did.  They were far more civilized.

An example is all the toxic chemicals being used on our farms that are now polluting the waters of the GOM and our oceans and killing off sea life by depleting oxygen levels.

 

 

[rclab]

On 12/15/2019 at 10:50 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

The neophyte hoarder begins by filling all the invisible places available. Drawers, closets, cellar, attic, garage. When all the spaces fill the invisible becomes visible and the twisted taffy of rationalization takes over. Everything is indispensable. The hoarder needs it all and cannot live without any of it. Eventually as the hoarder moves within  the created canyons of indispensability, one column may collapse or an errant spark may take hold. The hoarder is gone and the space occupied is forever changed. As always .... 

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Don, it's not about phasing out civilization but living in a much more sustainable way.  I look at the native americans and how they lived much more in sync with the environment and did not drive other species to extinction the way the white man did.  They were far more civilized.

An example is all the toxic chemicals being used on our farms that are now polluting the waters of the GOM and our oceans and killing off sea life by depleting oxygen levels.

 

 

I believe I was quoting Vice Regent. We agree about living in a more sustainable way. The former almost certainly won't be broadly supported. The latter could and should be.

 

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

you need an effective world government that usurps the authorities of ignorant leaders like the "president" of Brazil. Economic sanctions can be used as a way to make them be more sustainable.

 

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

[GaWx]

On 12/16/2019 at 4:21 PM, donsutherland1 said:

The high temperatures at Yakutat, Alaska for the past three days and for today (preliminary value) were:

December 13: 56° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 14: 58° (old record: 49°, 2017)
December 15: 61° (old record: 48°, 2005)
December 16: 57° (old record: 50°, 2005)

All four days exceeded the previous December record high temperature of 52°, which had been set on December 8, 1960. The 61° temperature yesterday broke the meteorological winter record of 58°, which was set on January 19, 1930 and tied on December 14, 2019 and was also above the November monthly record of 59°, which was set on November 1, 1947. Prior to yesterday, the latest 60° temperature on record occurred on October 13, 1969 when the temperature reached 60°. Daily records go back to May 1, 1917.

 

Hi Don,

 I respect you immensely and therefore feel the need to tell you that it looks like there’s a major problem with the Yakutat temperature sensor. Please check out this link to hourlies for the last few days:

https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/PAYA.html

 

a t e	Time (akst)	Wind (mph)	Vis. (mi.)	Weather	Sky Cond.	Temperature (ºF)				Relative Humidity	Wind Chill (°F)	Heat Index (°F)	Pressure		Precipitation (in.)
						Air	Dwpt	6 hour					altimeter (in)	sea level (mb)	1 hr	3 hr	6 hr
								Max.	Min.
17	17:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	BKN037 OVC055	36	29			76%	32	NA	29.33	993.3
17	16:53	NE 7	10.00	A Few Clouds	FEW029	35	28			76%	29	NA	29.34	993.6
17	15:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	SCT030 SCT040 BKN050	36	30			79%	NA	NA	29.35	993.8
17	14:53	E 9	10.00	Overcast	OVC036	36	30			79%	29	NA	29.36	994.2
17	13:53	E 8	10.00	Light Rain	OVC040	36	30			79%	30	NA	29.37	994.6
17	12:53	E 6	10.00	Light Rain	FEW027 BKN040 OVC055	35	32			89%	30	NA	29.37	994.5
17	11:53	Calm	10.00	Light Rain	BKN038 OVC045	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.36	994.4
17	10:53	Calm	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	SCT046 BKN055	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.35	994.1
17	09:53	NE 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN050	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.35	994.1
17	08:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT085	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.33	993.4
17	07:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT120	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.33	993.4
17	06:53	Calm	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN110	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.34	993.7
17	05:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT110	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.36	994.4
17	04:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT100	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.38	995.1
17	03:53	NE 5	10.00	A Few Clouds	FEW038	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.41	996.1
17	02:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN044	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.44	997.1			0.01
17	01:53	NE 5	10.00	Overcast	SCT034 OVC042	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.47	998.1
17	00:53	E 5	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN028	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.50	999.1
16	23:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	BKN026 OVC033	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.54	1000.5	0.01	0.01
16	22:53	NE 8	10.00	Overcast	BKN023 BKN036 OVC044	NA	NA			NA	-14	NA	29.57	1001.5
16	21:53	E 9	10.00	Overcast	OVC021	NA	NA			NA	-15	NA	29.58	1001.8
16	20:53	E 8	10.00	Overcast	BKN020 BKN025 OVC033	NA	NA			NA	-14	NA	29.60	1002.5			0.07
16	19:53	NE 7	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	FEW018 SCT025 BKN120	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.61	1002.9
16	18:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	FEW021 BKN055 OVC110	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.62	1003.2
16	17:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	SCT018 OVC120	NA	NA			NA	-12	NA	29.64	1003.9	0.01	0.07
16	16:53	Calm	5.00	Light Rain	BKN017 OVC023	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.65	1004.2	0.04
16	15:53	E 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC011	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.66	1004.6	0.02
16	14:53	E 5	4.00	Rain	BKN009 OVC013	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.67	1004.9	0.08		0.24
16	13:53	E 10	8.00	Light Rain	OVC008	NA	NA			NA	-16	NA	29.66	1004.6
16	12:53	E 8	10.00	Overcast	OVC006	NA	NA			NA	-14	NA	29.66	1004.6	0.07
16	11:53	E 9	3.00	Light Rain	FEW008 BKN013 OVC023	48	38			68%	44	NA	29.64	1003.7	0.06	0.09
16	10:53	E 9	3.00	Light Rain	OVC012	52	37			57%	NA	NA	29.63	1003.3	0.03
16	09:53	E 8	3.00	Light Rain Fog/Mist	OVC016	37	36			96%	31	NA	29.61	1002.7
16	08:53	E 10	10.00	Light Rain	OVC033	37	35	57	37	93%	30	NA	29.59	1002.1	0.04		0.13
16	07:53	E 8	9.00	Light Rain	OVC027	37	35			93%	31	NA	29.58	1001.8	0.04
16	06:53	E 5	10.00	Light Rain	OVC026	48	35			61%	46	NA	29.58	1001.8	0.02
16	05:53	SE 3	10.00	Light Rain	OVC030	51	33			50%	NA	NA	29.58	1001.5	0.01	0.03
16	04:53	SE 7	10.00	Light Rain	OVC034	55	32			42%	NA	NA	29.57	1001.3	0.01
16	03:53	SE 7	10.00	Light Rain	OVC034	55	34			45%	NA	NA	29.55	1000.7	0.01
16	02:53	E 9	10.00	Light Rain	OVC048	56	33	61	42	42%	NA	NA	29.52	999.8
16	01:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC046	50	28			43%	48	NA	29.53	1000.0
16	00:53	NE 6	10.00	Light Rain	OVC050	55	27			34%	NA	NA	29.53	1000.0
15	23:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC050	53	27			37%	NA	NA	29.54	1000.4
15	22:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC060	53	25			34%	NA	NA	29.55	1000.7
15	21:53	E 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC060	49	25			39%	46	NA	29.56	1001.0
15	20:53	NE 12	10.00	Overcast	BKN070 OVC090	51	24	60	36	35%	NA	NA	29.58	1001.6
15	19:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW055 BKN070 OVC100	58	26			29%	NA	NA	29.61	1002.8
15	18:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC055	51	27			39%	NA	NA	29.64	1003.6
15	17:53	E 5	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN055	49	28			44%	47	NA	29.65	1004.2
15	16:53	SE 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC055	54	29			38%	NA	NA	29.68	1005.0
15	15:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	FEW050 BKN060 BKN075	37	30			76%	NA	NA	29.70	1005.9
15	14:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT046	40	29	56	40	65%	NA	NA	29.73	1006.7
15	13:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW049 OVC065	49	30			48%	46	NA	29.76	1007.8
15	12:53	NE 8	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN035 BKN046	43	30			60%	38	NA	29.78	1008.5
15	11:53	NE 8	10.00	Overcast	SCT033 BKN040 OVC047	52	31			45%	NA	NA	29.81	1009.4
15	10:53	E 9	10.00	Overcast	BKN040 OVC048	56	29			36%	NA	NA	29.83	1010.0
15	09:53	E 6	10.00	Light Rain	OVC041	54	29			38%	NA	NA	29.84	1010.4
15	08:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW033 BKN046 OVC060	51	30	54	41	45%	NA	NA	29.84	1010.4
15	07:53	E 6	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN048 BKN065	51	30			45%	NA	NA	29.84	1010.6
15	06:53	NE 8	10.00	Overcast	OVC048	46	30			54%	42	NA	29.86	1011.0
15	05:53	NE 9	10.00	Overcast	OVC046	47	31			54%	43	NA	29.87	1011.6
15	04:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC044	47	31			54%	44	NA	29.89	1012.1
15	03:53	NE 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC043	47	31			54%	44	NA	29.90	1012.5
15	02:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC046	49	31	51	38	50%	46	NA	29.91	1012.7
15	01:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC048	43	31			63%	40	NA	29.92	1013.3
15	00:53	NE 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC048	46	31			56%	43	NA	29.93	1013.6
14	23:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC047	46	32			58%	44	NA	29.94	1013.7
14	22:53	E 3	10.00	Overcast	FEW024 BKN039 OVC049	46	32			58%	NA	NA	29.94	1013.7
14	21:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW026 SCT037 OVC047	50	32			50%	48	NA	29.94	1013.7
14	20:53	E 3	10.00	Overcast	OVC034	50	32	55	39	50%	NA	NA	29.94	1013.9
14	19:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN120	55	32			42%	NA	NA	29.94	1014.0
14	18:53	NE 6	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN038	46	34			63%	43	NA	29.95	1014.3
D a t e	Time (akst)	Wind (mph)	Vis. (mi.)	Weather	Sky Cond.	Air	Dwpt	Max.	Min.	Relative Humidity	Wind Chill (°F)	Heat Index (°F)	altimeter (in

Don, here are just 2 examples of hourlies that look bogus:

1. 16:53 on 12/15 is at 54 F, a rise of a whopping 17 in one hour from the 37 the previous hour while overcast?? That can’t be. And the winds didn’t change much. Light E to light SE. So, no major warm front/airmass change it would appear.

 

2. At 9:53 on Dec 16th it was 37 and it then rose a whopping 15 in one hour under light rain to 52 with continued light E winds.

 

 I may post more later about the problems with this station when time permits.

 

 

 

 

[Vice-Regent]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

actually population collapse would be a good thing and I too believe that will happen in the future.  I dont mean that in a cataclysmic sort of way, but more in the sense that fertility rates will drop (they are dropping already.)

The earth's human population needs to stabilize around 1 billion, not tens of billions.  That's for the health of humanity as well as the rest of our environment.

 

 

 

Collapse or grow is where we are now and going forward. You're not understanding that climate change will kill at least 6-7x more people than the holocaust and world wars combined.

We are not the "good guys".

Not saying there was ever a cohort of good guys. Just various factions looking out for their self-interest.

[Vice-Regent]

45 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

Such a world setup would of been a reality if either Nazi Germany or the USSR conquered all of Europe. I am with you on this one in that it's non-functional in the long-run.

The system of exploitation is inherently tainted. Whatever you wish to call it. Capitalism is a piece of it.

Try putting China in charge of the world and see how far you get. You may even collapse faster.

[donsutherland1]

53 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Hi Don,

 I respect you immensely and therefore feel the need to tell you that it looks like there’s a major problem with the Yakutat temperature sensor. Please check out this link to hourlies for the last few days:

https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/PAYA.html

 

a t e	Time (akst)	Wind (mph)	Vis. (mi.)	Weather	Sky Cond.	Temperature (ºF)				Relative Humidity	Wind Chill (°F)	Heat Index (°F)	Pressure		Precipitation (in.)
						Air	Dwpt	6 hour					altimeter (in)	sea level (mb)	1 hr	3 hr	6 hr
								Max.	Min.
17	17:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	BKN037 OVC055	36	29			76%	32	NA	29.33	993.3
17	16:53	NE 7	10.00	A Few Clouds	FEW029	35	28			76%	29	NA	29.34	993.6
17	15:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	SCT030 SCT040 BKN050	36	30			79%	NA	NA	29.35	993.8
17	14:53	E 9	10.00	Overcast	OVC036	36	30			79%	29	NA	29.36	994.2
17	13:53	E 8	10.00	Light Rain	OVC040	36	30			79%	30	NA	29.37	994.6
17	12:53	E 6	10.00	Light Rain	FEW027 BKN040 OVC055	35	32			89%	30	NA	29.37	994.5
17	11:53	Calm	10.00	Light Rain	BKN038 OVC045	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.36	994.4
17	10:53	Calm	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	SCT046 BKN055	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.35	994.1
17	09:53	NE 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN050	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.35	994.1
17	08:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT085	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.33	993.4
17	07:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT120	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.33	993.4
17	06:53	Calm	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN110	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.34	993.7
17	05:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT110	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.36	994.4
17	04:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT100	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.38	995.1
17	03:53	NE 5	10.00	A Few Clouds	FEW038	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.41	996.1
17	02:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN044	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.44	997.1			0.01
17	01:53	NE 5	10.00	Overcast	SCT034 OVC042	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.47	998.1
17	00:53	E 5	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN028	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.50	999.1
16	23:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	BKN026 OVC033	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.54	1000.5	0.01	0.01
16	22:53	NE 8	10.00	Overcast	BKN023 BKN036 OVC044	NA	NA			NA	-14	NA	29.57	1001.5
16	21:53	E 9	10.00	Overcast	OVC021	NA	NA			NA	-15	NA	29.58	1001.8
16	20:53	E 8	10.00	Overcast	BKN020 BKN025 OVC033	NA	NA			NA	-14	NA	29.60	1002.5			0.07
16	19:53	NE 7	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	FEW018 SCT025 BKN120	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.61	1002.9
16	18:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	FEW021 BKN055 OVC110	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.62	1003.2
16	17:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	SCT018 OVC120	NA	NA			NA	-12	NA	29.64	1003.9	0.01	0.07
16	16:53	Calm	5.00	Light Rain	BKN017 OVC023	NA	NA			NA	NA	NA	29.65	1004.2	0.04
16	15:53	E 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC011	NA	NA			NA	-13	NA	29.66	1004.6	0.02
16	14:53	E 5	4.00	Rain	BKN009 OVC013	NA	NA			NA	-11	NA	29.67	1004.9	0.08		0.24
16	13:53	E 10	8.00	Light Rain	OVC008	NA	NA			NA	-16	NA	29.66	1004.6
16	12:53	E 8	10.00	Overcast	OVC006	NA	NA			NA	-14	NA	29.66	1004.6	0.07
16	11:53	E 9	3.00	Light Rain	FEW008 BKN013 OVC023	48	38			68%	44	NA	29.64	1003.7	0.06	0.09
16	10:53	E 9	3.00	Light Rain	OVC012	52	37			57%	NA	NA	29.63	1003.3	0.03
16	09:53	E 8	3.00	Light Rain Fog/Mist	OVC016	37	36			96%	31	NA	29.61	1002.7
16	08:53	E 10	10.00	Light Rain	OVC033	37	35	57	37	93%	30	NA	29.59	1002.1	0.04		0.13
16	07:53	E 8	9.00	Light Rain	OVC027	37	35			93%	31	NA	29.58	1001.8	0.04
16	06:53	E 5	10.00	Light Rain	OVC026	48	35			61%	46	NA	29.58	1001.8	0.02
16	05:53	SE 3	10.00	Light Rain	OVC030	51	33			50%	NA	NA	29.58	1001.5	0.01	0.03
16	04:53	SE 7	10.00	Light Rain	OVC034	55	32			42%	NA	NA	29.57	1001.3	0.01
16	03:53	SE 7	10.00	Light Rain	OVC034	55	34			45%	NA	NA	29.55	1000.7	0.01
16	02:53	E 9	10.00	Light Rain	OVC048	56	33	61	42	42%	NA	NA	29.52	999.8
16	01:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC046	50	28			43%	48	NA	29.53	1000.0
16	00:53	NE 6	10.00	Light Rain	OVC050	55	27			34%	NA	NA	29.53	1000.0
15	23:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC050	53	27			37%	NA	NA	29.54	1000.4
15	22:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC060	53	25			34%	NA	NA	29.55	1000.7
15	21:53	E 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC060	49	25			39%	46	NA	29.56	1001.0
15	20:53	NE 12	10.00	Overcast	BKN070 OVC090	51	24	60	36	35%	NA	NA	29.58	1001.6
15	19:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW055 BKN070 OVC100	58	26			29%	NA	NA	29.61	1002.8
15	18:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC055	51	27			39%	NA	NA	29.64	1003.6
15	17:53	E 5	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN055	49	28			44%	47	NA	29.65	1004.2
15	16:53	SE 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC055	54	29			38%	NA	NA	29.68	1005.0
15	15:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	FEW050 BKN060 BKN075	37	30			76%	NA	NA	29.70	1005.9
15	14:53	Calm	10.00	Partly Cloudy	SCT046	40	29	56	40	65%	NA	NA	29.73	1006.7
15	13:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW049 OVC065	49	30			48%	46	NA	29.76	1007.8
15	12:53	NE 8	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN035 BKN046	43	30			60%	38	NA	29.78	1008.5
15	11:53	NE 8	10.00	Overcast	SCT033 BKN040 OVC047	52	31			45%	NA	NA	29.81	1009.4
15	10:53	E 9	10.00	Overcast	BKN040 OVC048	56	29			36%	NA	NA	29.83	1010.0
15	09:53	E 6	10.00	Light Rain	OVC041	54	29			38%	NA	NA	29.84	1010.4
15	08:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW033 BKN046 OVC060	51	30	54	41	45%	NA	NA	29.84	1010.4
15	07:53	E 6	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN048 BKN065	51	30			45%	NA	NA	29.84	1010.6
15	06:53	NE 8	10.00	Overcast	OVC048	46	30			54%	42	NA	29.86	1011.0
15	05:53	NE 9	10.00	Overcast	OVC046	47	31			54%	43	NA	29.87	1011.6
15	04:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC044	47	31			54%	44	NA	29.89	1012.1
15	03:53	NE 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC043	47	31			54%	44	NA	29.90	1012.5
15	02:53	NE 7	10.00	Overcast	OVC046	49	31	51	38	50%	46	NA	29.91	1012.7
15	01:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC048	43	31			63%	40	NA	29.92	1013.3
15	00:53	NE 6	10.00	Overcast	OVC048	46	31			56%	43	NA	29.93	1013.6
14	23:53	E 5	10.00	Overcast	OVC047	46	32			58%	44	NA	29.94	1013.7
14	22:53	E 3	10.00	Overcast	FEW024 BKN039 OVC049	46	32			58%	NA	NA	29.94	1013.7
14	21:53	E 6	10.00	Overcast	FEW026 SCT037 OVC047	50	32			50%	48	NA	29.94	1013.7
14	20:53	E 3	10.00	Overcast	OVC034	50	32	55	39	50%	NA	NA	29.94	1013.9
14	19:53	E 3	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN120	55	32			42%	NA	NA	29.94	1014.0
14	18:53	NE 6	10.00	Mostly Cloudy	BKN038	46	34			63%	43	NA	29.95	1014.3
D a t e	Time (akst)	Wind (mph)	Vis. (mi.)	Weather	Sky Cond.	Air	Dwpt	Max.	Min.	Relative Humidity	Wind Chill (°F)	Heat Index (°F)	altimeter (in

Don, here are just 2 examples of hourlies that look bogus:

1. 16:53 on 12/15 is at 54 F, a rise of a whopping 17 in one hour from the 37 the previous hour while overcast?? That can’t be. And the winds didn’t change much. Light E to light SE. So, no major warm front/airmass change it would appear.

 

2. At 9:53 on Dec 16th it was 37 and it then rose a whopping 15 in one hour under light rain to 52 with continued light E winds.

 

 I may post more later about the problems with this station when time permits.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this information. The 12/13-16 data has now been pulled and replaced by "M."  Given the temperatures at Sitka, I suspect based on what you found and the lower temperatures there than a few days ago, the sensor was, in fact, malfunctioning.

[donsutherland1]

24 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Such a world setup would of been a reality if either Nazi Germany or the USSR conquered all of Europe. I am with you on this one in that it's non-functional in the long-run.

The system of exploitation is inherently tainted. Whatever you wish to call it. Capitalism is a piece of it.

Try putting China in charge of the world and see how far you get. You may even collapse faster.

It's a difficult situation. Externalities e.g., the cost of carbon emissions and their consequences, aren't captured in the pricing mechanism of fossil fuels. That's part of the reason at least some economists favor a carbon tax. In addition, certain governments have little or no meaningful commitment to addressing the great challenge of climate change (or even recognition of the science). Yet, the time left to avoid making what amounts to an almost irrevocable commitment via emissions to temperature increases above 2.0 degrees C or 1.5 degrees C is shrinking.

[Vice-Regent]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

It's a difficult situation. Externalities e.g., the cost of carbon emissions and their consequences, aren't captured in the pricing mechanism of fossil fuels. That's part of the reason at least some economists favor a carbon tax. In addition, certain governments have little or no meaningful commitment to addressing the great challenge of climate change (or even recognition of the science). Yet, the time left to avoid making what amounts to an almost irrevocable commitment via emissions to temperature increases above 2.0 degrees C or 1.5 degrees C is shrinking.

So true. We live in dire times that demand extreme measures but if you know that global warming will eliminate everything but sub-lethal carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 then there's reason to be complacent. Yes it's a less than ideal situation but we will take what we can get.

Geoengineering is the only thing that scares me to be honest. I think Dane Wigington is right on the "money". The difference between me and Dane is that I don't believe there is an active aerosol injection program ongoing. All current aerosol emissions are unintentional. (a byproduct of global industrial civilization)

[etudiant]

5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

So true. We live in dire times that demand extreme measures but if you know that global warming will eliminate everything but sub-lethal carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 then there's reason to be complacent. Yes it's a less than ideal situation but we will take what we can get.

Geoengineering is the only thing that scares me to be honest. I think Dane Wigington is right on the "money". The difference between me and Dane is that I don't believe there is an active aerosol injection program ongoing. All current aerosol emissions are unintentional. (a byproduct of global industrial civilization)

Perhaps it would be easier if we accept that humans are in fact geoengineering right now. That may help put the risk of deliberate geoengineering into perspective.

[Vice-Regent]

3 hours ago, etudiant said:

Perhaps it would be easier if we accept that humans are in fact geoengineering right now. That may help put the risk of deliberate geoengineering into perspective.

Exactly but I don't quite see it in the same light. It's a convincing argument but as it stands now humans are not separate from the natural processes.

[etudiant]

6 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Exactly but I don't quite see it in the same light. It's a convincing argument but as it stands now humans are not separate from the natural processes.

I think we're basically in violent agreement, but really all you need to do is to fly over the western US.

The landscape is blighted as far as the eye can see from 35000 feet by 1000 foot diameter irrigated fields, cooling the atmosphere and draining the aquifers to produce crops no one wants.

I cannot see that as a natural process, no matter how hard I try.

[Vice-Regent]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

I think we're basically in violent agreement, but really all you need to do is to fly over the western US.

The landscape is blighted as far as the eye can see from 35000 feet by 1000 foot diameter irrigated fields, cooling the atmosphere and draining the aquifers to produce crops no one wants.

I cannot see that as a natural process, no matter how hard I try.

Nature is rife with examples of self-destruction. As distasteful as it may be it is only ephemeral.

[LibertyBell]

On 12/17/2019 at 10:16 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

yes and the president of Brazil letting the Amazon burn for more farmland.

[LibertyBell]

On 12/17/2019 at 10:41 PM, Vice-Regent said:

Collapse or grow is where we are now and going forward. You're not understanding that climate change will kill at least 6-7x more people than the holocaust and world wars combined.

We are not the "good guys".

Not saying there was ever a cohort of good guys. Just various factions looking out for their self-interest.

People always think the population problem is overblown and yet......

NOAA scientists said that overpopulation is the major reason why we face a climate change crisis and the best way to reduce your carbon footprint has been listed as having one less child.  It's also a great way to lower pollution (as an example, Delhi was recently enveloped in so much smog that people couldn't breathe.)

This is a pretty progressive point, as it's also been mentioned in the NY Times and Wa Po.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about

 

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

By Sid PerkinsJul. 11, 2017 , 4:30 PM

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.

[LibertyBell]

19 hours ago, etudiant said:

I think we're basically in violent agreement, but really all you need to do is to fly over the western US.

The landscape is blighted as far as the eye can see from 35000 feet by 1000 foot diameter irrigated fields, cooling the atmosphere and draining the aquifers to produce crops no one wants.

I cannot see that as a natural process, no matter how hard I try.

Not to mention all the toxic chemicals from the farms being drained into large bodies of waters and causing a massive die off.  FYI these are also toxic to humans and are now being found in local lakes and aquifers where we get our drinking water from.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/18/2019 at 10:08 AM, Vice-Regent said:

Exactly but I don't quite see it in the same light. It's a convincing argument but as it stands now humans are not separate from the natural processes.

thats correct, but there are lots of natural processes that are highly destructive.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 12/17/2019 at 11:11 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Thanks for this information. The 12/13-16 data has now been pulled and replaced by "M."  Given the temperatures at Sitka, I suspect based on what you found and the lower temperatures there than a few days ago, the sensor was, in fact, malfunctioning.

Don, in place of Yatutat you can use Verhoyansk or Omjakon.  Those three locations are often cited as the three coldest locations in the Northern Hemisphere and they are in the same geographical area.

Also, I heard that Australia beat its hottest temp ever recorded (beating the record from last year), is this true and what is the new record?  Is it 120 recorded at Forrest?

 

[donsutherland1]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Don, in place of Yatutat you can use Verhoyansk or Omjakon.  Those three locations are often cited as the three coldest locations in the Northern Hemisphere and they are in the same geographical area.

Also, I heard that Australia beat its hottest temp ever recorded (beating the record from last year), is this true and what is the new record?  Is it 120 recorded at Forrest?

 

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology reported regarding yesterday:

Based on preliminary analysis, yesterday, Australia recorded its hottest day on record. The nationally-averaged maximum daytime temp was 41.9 °C exceeding the record set on Tuesday, 40.9 ºC.

40.9°C is 105.6°F.
41.9°C is 107.4°F.

The highest temperature anywhere in Australia yesterday was 47.7°C (117.9° F) at Birdsville Airport. The national December record is 49.5°C (121.1°F), which was set on December 24, 1972 at Birdsville Police Station.

Australia's hottest temperature on record is 50.7°C (123.3°F), which was set on January 2, 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport.

[chubbs]

The article below provides a good summary of how recent energy trends are impacting IPCC emission scenarios. While I am even more pessimistic about the science of climate than I was a decade ago, I have become much more optimistic about non-fossil energy technology and natural gas vs coal. Limited policy and luck has improved the "worst-case" considerably vs CMIP5 IPCC scenarios. Unfortunately though, we haven't made any progress on the "best" case due to inaction/denial. Recent experience shows that improved climate policy and support for renewable energy technology could have enormous long-term pay-back.

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world

[LibertyBell]

23 hours ago, chubbs said:

The article below provides a good summary of how recent energy trends are impacting IPCC emission scenarios. While I am even more pessimistic about the science of climate than I was a decade ago, I have become much more optimistic about non-fossil energy technology and natural gas vs coal. Limited policy and luck has improved the "worst-case" considerably vs CMIP5 IPCC scenarios. Unfortunately though, we haven't made any progress on the "best" case due to inaction/denial. Recent experience shows that improved climate policy and support for renewable energy technology could have enormous long-term pay-back.

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world

What do you think of this new commercial being put out by the industry about greenhouse gas emissions being half of what they were a generation ago?

I oppose natural gas (it's really methane) because of fracking and pipelines, thankfully we have placed a moratorium on them here in NY and are going with wind, solar and hydro.

I'd rather have nuclear, but we also had a lot of problems with the Shoreham plant on Long Island, and the power company was eventually charged with racketeering.  The rates got extremely high when LILCO was trying to build that plant.  The Indian Point power plant was also shut down recently because of issues.  These plants shouldn't be near big cities or near fault lines, as Fukushima demonstrated.