Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/hurricane-heat/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
arctic ice  arctic  comment unforced  comment  ice  oct  population  unforced variations  unforced  variations oct  variations 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:01:29 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Thomas

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:01:29 +0000

C21G-1179: A Novel Approach To Retrieve Arctic Sea Ice Thickness For Prediction And Analysis L Brucker et al "In spite of October-November Arctic-sea-ice-volume loss exceeding 7000 km3 in the decade following ICESat launch (2003), most global ocean reanalysis systems are not able to reproduce such a drastic decline. "Knowledge of the sea ice properties and its thickness distribution is critical to our understanding of polar ocean processes and the role of the polar regions in the Earth's climate system. [...] "For the first time, we were able to reproduce the Arctic sea ice thickness field at 10 km resolution with success for fall, winter, and spring (April/May depending on melt conditions) from passive microwave data. Our results reveal the same patterns of thickness distribution in the Arctic basin and peripheral seas as CryoSat-2, and the majority of the retrievals are within 0.5 m of CryoSat-2. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2141.msg131840.html#msg131840 and Published: 6 July 2017 A weekly Arctic sea-ice thickness data record from merged CryoSat-2 and SMOS satellite data Robert Ricker https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/1607/2017/tc-11-1607-2017.pdf C035: Sea ice-ocean-atmosphere interactions in the “New” Arctic and Southern Oceans Conveners solicit papers on observational, theoretical and numerical investigations that advance a system level understanding of processes that affect sea ice extent and thickness in the Arctic and Southern Oceans https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm17/preliminaryview.cgi/Session22340 or Published: 24 August 2016 Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Estimation from CryoSat-2 Satellite Data Using Machine Learning-Based Lead Detection by Sanggyun Lee et al Academic Editors: Walt Meier, Mark Tschudi, Xiaofeng Li and Prasad S. Thenkabail http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/9/698 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICESat-2 https://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Earth_Explorers/CryoSat-2/ESA_s_ice_mission There is much happening atm in this subject area.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Mal Adapted

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:11:30 +0000

On reflection, alan2102, I've done a little more than say your claims were optimistic; I've discussed historical human population dynamics, and suggested that while current demographic trends appear related to economic and political factors, there are underlying biological mechanisms that may be countervailing. Projecting demographic futures is like projecting climate futures: there are multiple physical, economic and political factors acting on various timescales, and the precise future trajectory of global population depends on their relative strengths at every instant from now. Therefore, I'm unwilling to say yet whether global TFR will fall below replacement rate permanently or not. It may rise to replacement level or higher again, perhaps when total global population is lower. By the same rationale, I'm unwilling to say whether or not AT will decline as P does, either. I really don't have anything more to say on this subject. If you put words in my mouth, however, I might make you eat them instead.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Mal Adapted

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:16:10 +0000

alan2102:
Your argument sounds like the arguments I’ve had in past years with overpopulationists who cannot believe the glaring fertility drop-off numbers. All they know is that population is still growing; they seem blind to the fact that growth is slowing and will cease in a few decades. In other words, they seem blind to the (all-important) TRAJECTORY of things, seeing only a snapshot of the way things are, frozen in time at this moment. Same with renewables skeptics who point to the very small percentage of total energy derived from renewables, as yet; no appreciation of the (all-important) TRAJECTORY of things, which have renewables doubling every 2-3 years, reaching 100% in a few decades!
Dude, I really get annoyed when I'm attacked for things I did not say. You know I have not said any of your optimistic claims are impossible. I've merely said they're optimistic. I'm not rejecting them at the outset, I'm merely leaving it to you to support them. That's the skeptical position. All your observations of existing trends are more or less accurate. Their future trajectories have yet to become real, that's all. As I have no crystal ball, nor am I a haruspex, I'm reserving judgment.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:56:10 +0000

Kevin McKinney @197 Makes sense. The general theory is smaller families / lower fertility is caused by a combination of lower infant mortality (requiring improved prosperity), and better contraception, and better women's rights, and I find it persuasive. It correlates in part with your graph on America and there are global correlations of all these factors as a general rule, but with exceptions in various places, and perhaps these have specific reasons. We had a reasonable correlation of increasing prosperity and reduced infant mortality and smaller families in America from at least 1900 to 1931 about. Perhaps the depression once it really kicked in it made people adverse to large families as it was so severe. Perhaps the oddity of the increase in fertility in America from 1940 to 1960 during a period of rising prosperity ,is partly a rebound from delayed child bearing in the depression, and related to the demands of the war effort,and booming post 1940 economy all over riding the normal patterns of higher prosperity/low infant mortality associating with low fertility. This possibly ended as the trend ran out of power by the 1960s and you had the 1960s revolution of contraception and better womens rights etc contributing.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by alan2102

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:28:02 +0000

#186 Thomas 17 Oct 2017: "alan states/queries the assumption that: 'Humans are not creative and intelligent beings capable of worthwhile contribution'. imho, the rare exceptions of individuals who act on their creative intelligence to manifest it in the world and who also happen to be human beings, prove the rule above is reasonably accurate." Wow. Dreadfully pessimistic and cynical, in addition to being out of touch with empirical reality, in which billions of intelligent people make worthwhile contributions every single day. #191 Thomas 17 Oct 2017: "#166 Hank re 'Mitigating global warming therefore remains a priority to avoid dangerous impacts on global water and food security.' Ha, in their dreams maybe. Not going to happen in the real world upon planet Earth. Merely more unheard unheeded voices crying in the wilderness." Damn! More pessimism and cynicism. But understandable on the part of a citizen of a failing nation. It is all but impossible to be optimistic when your country is going down the tubes, with gangs of corrupt idiots as "leaders". Fortunately, the rising world powers, the forces shaping our new planetary future, display much better mental health, as well as fortitude, dedication, perspicacity, stamina, and other qualities necessary to lead us out of the wilderness -- which will happen unless catastrophe supervenes, as it might.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by zebra

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:07:35 +0000

nigelj 207, I acknowledged that you might not be familiar with our geography in that comment that got lost. Also, I covered the question of what happened "environmentally" in the past in a reply to someone earlier-- you can't compare stuff from 100 or 200 years ago because the technology was so different. And, the whole point of putting this out for input from others is that yeah, I write about what I know-- the US-- and maybe others more familiar with other geography could give some insights about areas that could "sustain" a technological population. But really, you are failing to think outside a very tiny box on this. It is all politics, and economics. If you are talking about a democratic society, think about it: What would the politics be like in my bi-coastal US? There would be no Senators or reps from Wyoming, or any of the other resource-dependent locales. Do you think West Virginia is going to dominate the country and force everyone to burn coal? The smaller the population, the less valuable non-renewable resources become, and so less powerful are those who control them. The smaller the population, the more valuable labor becomes, which reduces inequality and the concentration of power. We're not talking about some marginal effect here.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by zebra

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:45:22 +0000

alan2102, I take #200 to be your manifesto. The essence of "what I am talking about" is that we don't need no stinkin' manifestos. I'm tired of pointing it out, but there seems to be this psychological need from certain contributors for there to be (a), grandiosity, and, (b), some kind of profoundly "moral" component, in order for a suggestion to be worthwhile. In case you missed my original comment(s), this Malthusian cynic said: Hey guys, pick a minimum population number that will 1. Maintain genetic diversity, so humanity will survive and adapt if necessary. 2. Allow for specialization, so that science and technology can continue to progress, (and at the same time allow for creativity in art and music and so on.) And, alan, that will give all you futurist/fantasists the "ecological civilization" you are supposedly after. But I have trouble believing that's what you want, in reality. Rather, it sounds like y'all only want it if it incorporates your personal agenda, whatever that may be. I'm not quite sure what yours in particular is, other than to be "anti-Malthusian". Why do you care? Why do you object to promoting the demographic transition as much as possible? What benefit is there to having 10 billion humans on the planet?



Comment on O Say Can You CO2… by mike

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:59:20 +0000

AO at 26: per the PNW forests. My spouse and I walk the same areas around Tahoma or Mt. Rainier year after year because some specific hikes and destinations are stunning in their natural beauty. I can tell you that some parts of these forests have suffered quite a bit from the heat and lack of moisture. This year was a little different because we had a better snowpack than for the past few, but I have little doubt that the PNW forests have struggled with the climb in global temps as that has played out on the high ground, the parks, the wilderness areas.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by mike

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:29:16 +0000

More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas “Insects make up about two-thirds of all life on Earth [but] there has been some kind of horrific decline,” said Prof Dave Goulson of Sussex University, UK, and part of the team behind the new study. “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.” http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Thomas

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:34:46 +0000

Looking at Piomas Anomaly against a 1979-2009 avg has Piomass dropping by 8,000 to 10,000 Km3 in recent years. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=54061;image Or look for the light gray line in the top section of the graph - that's 1979 to 2001. Every year since is below that relatively short term Mean Avg https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=54059;image .... would be nice to see similar data graphs based on the reanalyses of the late 19th early 20th century Piomas / area estimates in the past. imho the condition of the Arctic is one of the worlds best kept secrets at the moment. :-)