Melting Arctic Sea Ice May Be To Blame For Endless Winter: Scientists It's an increas

[15444]

Out of Grand Forks weather station yesterday - this is 9th longest winter on record. 1979 was longest. 1974 was 5th longest.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

This explanation actually does sound quite plausible, and was proposed as a possible effect long ago, by many of the same people who also said winter and snow were a thing of the past, but that is just hedging their bets, so I won't get hung up on small inconsistencies.

dml or chuck, can you help me with some information? I have no time, but would like to do an energy balance to see if cold arctic air really could spill out to the south and cause such drastic temperature difference over such a large area.

What would be the approximate line of latitude has the extreme arctic warming been confined to, and how far south has the cold extended? I'm assuming the warm has been within arctic circle, 75 degrees N, and the cooling around the globe has been between there and roughly 38 degrees south. Just anecdotally based on news reports from around the world.

If we take the area of the warm, multiplied by how much warmer than average it has been, and compare that to the area of cold, multiplied by how far below average it has been, the two numbers should be close to equal, if this theory is valid.

A quick look at a globe in front of me causes me to doubt the theory, but without doing the math, I could be deluding myself.

[dmlfarmer]

I have no doubt the climate is changing. It will impact hundreds of millions of peoples lives. The environment has a way of doing that.

The problem is that somehow people think we can outsmart, postpone, change or buy our way out of what is going to happen. Arrogance and presumptuousness at its finest.

Instead of going to Holland and getting some ideas or thinking of other practical things to do people stand around and lay blame. Fiddle while Rome burns comes to mind

Farming101: If you really believe climate is changing, then you know we are going to pay for it. The lowest estimate I can find of number of people who will be displaced by rising sea levels by the turn of the century is 150 million (others predict double or even up to 1 billion people) The cost of moving 150 million and the infrastructure for this number is astronomical. And how many of these climate refugees would you want to see in Canada? Afterall, most of the risk is to 3rd world areas where people built close to sea in river deltas. Most of these countries are already over populated and have little room for resettlement so the demands on a country like Canada for resettlement could be a big issue. It could make the Syrian war refugee number look miniscule.

Then there is the cost of sea walls to protect coasts around the world. And the countries most at risk cannot afford to protect their coastal cities so you know the demand will be on us again.

And if the prediction of severe storms increasing is right, how much more will it cost us in North America?
The US has spent 350 billion over the past decade on fighting forest fires (increase temps and drought enhanced) and cleaning up storm damage (bigger hurricanes and more tornados). How many additional hurricanes and forest fires can we afford. How many more BC fires, Slave Lake fires, fort McMurray fires, high river flooding, ice storms can we afford?

I agree that a carbon tax alone will not stop climate change. But it slows change it will buy us time to be able to find better solutions and to enable us to adapt to the change. Time is against us right now.

Instead of looking at climate mitigation efforts as a cure all, look at it more as insurance. We do not want to have to pay the full cost of the damage caused by global warming so we pay a premium now to mitigate the damage. The same way we put sprinkler systems in high rise building to prevent total loss of the highrise.

We pay now or we pay much more later, and later is coming fast.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

DML, there's only one problem with that, there is no increase in the rate of sea level rise. They will continue to rise with or without additional CO2, As they have been for millennia. People will continue to be displaced, we will have to pay for it regardless. Might as well at least have increased CO2 levels so we can grow more on the land which will not eventually be submerged under the oceans.

[furrowtickler]

How is the carbon tax going to slow change ?

[dmlfarmer]

DML, there's only one problem with that, there is no increase in the rate of sea level rise. They will continue to rise with or without additional CO2, As they have been for millennia. People will continue to be displaced, we will have to pay for it regardless. Might as well at least have increased CO2 levels so we can grow more on the land which will not eventually be submerged under the oceans.

Oh no, AlbertaFarmer5 says there is no increase in rate of sea level rise. Yet 2018 NASA study says it is.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating
And a 2016 Scientific American report from the National Academy of Sciences says it is:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-data-reveal-stunning-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-data-reveal-stunning-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise/
And the 2006 paper A 20th century acceleration in global sea‐level rise by John A. Church and Neil J. White says it is:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024826 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024826
and even Wikipedia supports acceleration of sea level rise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Oh who will I believe????

[seldomseen]

I hope i got this right because i am a little mixed up some days or most days if you ask my wife.

When it hot its global warming and then when its cold its global warming. If it rains lots its global warming and if its dry it is also global warming.

Chuck do i kind of got it right?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Oh no, AlbertaFarmer5 says there is no increase in rate of sea level rise. Yet 2018 NASA study says it is.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating
And a 2016 Scientific American report from the National Academy of Sciences says it is:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-data-reveal-stunning-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-data-reveal-stunning-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise/
And the 2006 paper A 20th century acceleration in global sea‐level rise by John A. Church and Neil J. White says it is:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024826 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024826
and even Wikipedia supports acceleration of sea level rise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Oh who will I believe????

You shouldn't believe anyone, science isn't about belief it's about facts. Perhaps check the underlying data used for those studies that you offered. How they handled discontinuities, how many adjustments, how is isostatic adjustment taken into account. But don't believe anything some random booster on the Internet posts, such as me. Send certainly don't believe Wikipedia Who's Editing process on these subjects is well known. You seem knowledgeable enough to be able to analyze the data and draw your own conclusions.

Leave the believing to the religious nuts where it belongs.

[dmlfarmer]

You shouldn't believe anyone, science isn't about belief it's about facts. Perhaps check the underlying data used for those studies that you offered. How they handled discontinuities, how many adjustments, how is isostatic adjustment taken into account. But don't believe anything some random booster on the Internet posts, such as me. Send certainly don't believe Wikipedia Who's Editing process on these subjects is well known. You seem knowledgeable enough to be able to analyze the data and draw your own conclusions.

Leave the believing to the religious nuts where it belongs.

you are absolutely right. So provide me with the verified and irrefutable facts that you must have to make the claim that sea level rise is not accelerating. I am more than willing to consider these with the same nuances that you use to dispute the 4 studies I linked. But you back up your claim and until I see such studies and have the opportunity to judge their credibility, I am sorry I will not accept your word for no change in sea level rise.

[samhill]

Well, if Arctic ice melted, how much did sea levels go down?

[dmlfarmer]

I hope i got this right because i am a little mixed up some days or most days if you ask my wife.

When it hot its global warming and then when its cold its global warming. If it rains lots its global warming and if its dry it is also global warming.

Chuck do i kind of got it right?

No seldomseen you do not have it right. Temperatures, hot or cold, or if it is raining or dry out is WEATHER and not climate change or global warming. Weather changes day to day and even hour to hour. Climate change is measured over decades, 30 years is probably the minimum duration to measure climate change. However, a changing climate will result is a change in average tempertures, rainfall amounts, growing degree days etc. It can lead to more drought or above average rainfall in a localized area, especially when larger storms result is larger rainfall events. Or as we may have just witnessed, a warmer Arctic combined with a weakened jet stream may have caused a cold spring here.

[seldomseen]

Oh crap story of my life, always wrong. I guess my wife is right!

[Guest]

just think if they put this much energy into fighting pollution , plastic in the oceans , raw shit in lakes and rivers , etc....... oh wait , there's no easy money to be made off of that , is there ? ..................

[Guest]

this is the definition of insanity , I think ?

[biglentil]

this is the definition of insanity , I think ?

Exactly Case! Fukashima is spewing huge quantities of highly radioactive water directly into the pacific. A disaster of epic proportion that is not getting any better. Its so terrible that losing the entire pacific ocean is a possibility. Yet these gullible socialist global warming sheeple keep the fight going strong against a non problem the inert gas C02. The most fundamental requirement of plantlife. Im really sick of it already grass, chuck and dml. Find a cause worth fighting for, not one that will make Canadian farmers even less competetive.