Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[On Guard for Thee]

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is do we have enough confidence in these predictions to make any investments that we would not otherwise do? I say the answer is clearly no because climate scientists keep making predictions that do not come true and then they try to cover up their failure by applying post hoc adjustments to historical data and/or simply issuing the same predictions for some suitably distant future date.

When it comes to SLR the current rate is 2-3mm per year which less than a foot by 2100 (i.e. nothing to worry about). We can monitor this and if it shows any sign of of accelerating then we can discuss it. For now it is scaremongering. There are many more important things to worry about.

That 1 foot you are talking about does not take into account the collapsing Thwaites Ice sheet, which is accelerating according to NASA sat. photos. A little hard to predict exactly what something like a huge ice sheet is going to do but to pretend it isn't happenning ain't smart.

[TimG]

That 1 foot you are talking about does not take into account the collapsing Thwaites Ice sheet, which is accelerating according to NASA sat. photos.

Even the scientists claiming that it is collapsing say it will take 400 years. That means there is lots of time to plan after we see real data indicating that SLR is increasing faster than in the past. Until then the predictions are as useful as a weather report for next month.

What is pointless is spending trillions on a futile attempt to reduce CO2 when the technology acceptable to make a difference does not exist nor is it likely to exist in the foreseeable future (well, there is nuclear power but the risk adverse enviro crowd opposes anything that actually works so it is not a viable option at this time).

Basically, when things get so bad that green advocacy groups are willing to drop their opposition to nuclear power then I will pay attention. However, as long as green advocacy groups reject nuclear as an option then that tells me it is not an urgent problem and is merely a vehicle to push political agendas.

Edited May 24, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Even the scientists claiming that it is collapsing say it will take 400 years. That means there is lots of time to plan after we see real data indicating that SLR is increasing faster than in the past. Until then the predictions are as useful as a weather report for next month.

What is pointless is spending trillions on a futile attempt to reduce CO2 when the technology acceptable to make a difference does not exist nor is it likely to exist in the foreseeable future (well, there is nuclear power but the risk adverse enviro crowd opposes anything that actually works so it is not a viable option at this time).

Basically, when things get so bad that green advocacy groups are willing to drop their opposition to nuclear power then I will pay attention. However, as long as green advocacy groups reject nuclear as an option then that tells me it is not an urgent problem and is merely a vehicle to push political agendas.

I guess probably "collapsing" isn't the best word. It's actually sliding into the antarctic ocean. That sliding has accelerated faster than expected over the past 40 years of observation but noone can really predict if it will continue to accelerate and by how much. However it is estimated be NASA that it could be as little as 200 years until it's "all in" if the rate of acceleration continued. Then you got 4 feet of rise.

[Keepitsimple]

I guess probably "collapsing" isn't the best word. It's actually sliding into the antarctic ocean. That sliding has accelerated faster than expected over the past 40 years of observation but noone can really predict if it will continue to accelerate and by how much. However it is estimated be NASA that it could be as little as 200 years until it's "all in" if the rate of acceleration continued. Then you got 4 feet of rise.

There's those weasel words again..."could be" and "as little as 200 years"........how about the other extreme......"might be" and "as much as (insert your chosen upper limit)". By the way - the article you were referring to has some other weasel words relating to the sliding and acceleration....those words? "appears to be".

These types of studies are only scratching the surface - they are theories - and in reality mostly guesswork. There's not enough real-world observation history to do anything but throw out a bunch of guesses with those eco weasel words.

We've got more serious things to worry about in the world - and this country.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

There's those weasel words again..."could be" and "as little as 200 years"........how about the other extreme......"might be" and "as much as (insert your chosen upper limit)". By the way - the article you were referring to has some other weasel words relating to the sliding and acceleration....those words? "appears to be".

These types of studies are only scratching the surface - they are theories - and in reality mostly guesswork. There's not enough real-world observation history to do anything but throw out a bunch of guesses with those eco weasel words.

We've got more serious things to worry about in the world - and this country.

So your approach is just ignore the sat photo's of Thwaites?

[Keepitsimple]

So your approach is just ignore the sat photo's of Thwaites?

In a nutshell....yes. The fact that something MIGHT happen in 200 years is interesting. I mis-spoke when I said the study in question formulated a theory. It was actually a hypothesis.......a hypothesis that warrants a lot more testing, observation and evaluation before rising to the level of a theory. Perhaps 30 or 40 years from now, we'll be in a position to confidently say something will - or will not happen in a century or two or three - or more.

As I've stated before - the media plays up the sensational "studies" because it sells......and people who don't invest the time to open-mindedly evaluate all sides of any issue will just get sucked into the vortex of that shallow-minded sensationalism.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

Basically, when things get so bad that green advocacy groups are willing to drop their opposition to nuclear power then I will pay attention.

I'm alright with nuclear energy so long as it's done properly with the most advanced technology available. The main problem and sticking point I have with nuclear energy is the official regulatory oversight that's supposed to ensure nuclear energy is safe. It can't be trusted because of the same vulnerability all our institutions of oversight have to confidential lobbying of their political masters.

Unfortunately there seems to be very little will for the sort of deep transparency and accountability in our governance that might lead to better public trust. Interestingly enough a lot of outright resistance for that comes from a lot of the same people who sneer at concern about AGW. Funnily enough I get the sense from listening to the government's sycophants that too much accountability would wreck the economy even faster than addressing CO2 emissions would.

[On Guard for Thee]

In a nutshell....yes. The fact that something MIGHT happen in 200 years is interesting. I mis-spoke when I said the study in question formulated a theory. It was actually a hypothesis.......a hypothesis that warrants a lot more testing, observation and evaluation before rising to the level of a theory. Perhaps 30 or 40 years from now, we'll be in a position to confidently say something will - or will not happen in a century or two or three - or more.

As I've stated before - the media plays up the sensational "studies" because it sells......and people who don't invest the time to open-mindedly evaluate all sides of any issue will just get sucked into the vortex of that shallow-minded sensationalism.

I didn't know NASA was media driven.

[Keepitsimple]

I didn't know NASA was media driven.

Now remember - it was you who raised the Thwaite's Glacier - in response to the fact that the oceans have been rising at a fairly consistent but non-threatening manner - and not at the cataclysmic rates that Gore and Suzuki spew out ad nauseum. Thwaite's is a perfect example of the shallow-minded sensationalism that I mentioned earlier. Even with this single issue, you've been wrong or mis-guided on a number of points:

1) NASA didn't do the study - their satellite photos served as input to the study.

University of Washington researchers used detailed topography maps and computer modeling to show that the collapse appears to have already begun

2) The study indicates that the fastest that Thwaites will melt is 200 years - the longest is 1000 years. Seems like we'll be pretty safe for a while.

The good news is that while the word “collapse” implies a sudden change, the fastest scenario is 200 years, and the longest is more than 1,000 years.

3) The melting of Thwaite's alone is estimated to raise sea level by two feet - not four feet.

The fast-moving Thwaites Glacier will likely disappear in a matter of centuries, researchers say, raising sea level by nearly 2 feet.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-under-way/ Edited May 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

Now remember - it was you who raised the Thwaite's Glacier - in response to the fact that the oceans have been rising at a fairly consistent and non-threatening manner. Thwaite's is a perfect example of the shallow-minded sensationalism that I mentioned. Even with this single issue, you've been wrong or mis-guided on a number of points:

1) NASA didn't do the study - their satellite photos served as input to the study.

2) The study indicates that the fastest that Thwaites will melt is 200 years - the longest is 1000 years. Seems like we'll be pretty safe for a while.

3) The melting of Thwaite's alone is estimated to raise sea level by two feet - not four feet.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-under-way/

Not according to NASA

[On Guard for Thee]

Not according to NASA

Actually to be totally accurate, the report was published by JPL, which is managed by NASA.

[Keepitsimple]

Not according to NASA

Where is is your link? Mine is from the University of Washington - their researchers did the study.....and you've disputed their report? Perhaps you should look beyond those sensational, shallow headlines.?

Edited May 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

Now remember - it was you who raised the Thwaite's Glacier - in response to the fact that the oceans have been rising at a fairly consistent but non-threatening manner - and not at the cataclysmic rates that Gore and Suzuki spew out ad nauseum. Thwaite's is a perfect example of the shallow-minded sensationalism that I mentioned earlier. Even with this single issue, you've been wrong or mis-guided on a number of points:

1) NASA didn't do the study - their satellite photos served as input to the study.

2) The study indicates that the fastest that Thwaites will melt is 200 years - the longest is 1000 years. Seems like we'll be pretty safe for a while.

3) The melting of Thwaite's alone is estimated to raise sea level by two feet - not four feet.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-under-way/

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/

[On Guard for Thee]

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/

1 NASA did the study through JPL

2Agreed

3 Its 1.2 meteres if you prefer but it still adds up to 4 feet.

[Keepitsimple]

1 NASA did the study through JPL

2Agreed

3 Its 1.2 meteres if you prefer but it still adds up to 4 feet.

NASA's was a separate study from the one I posted and is more of a generalization that provides further hypotheses beyond just Thwaites. Your study includes the entire Amundsen region, of which Thwaites is only a part......and that explains your incorrect mention of 4 feet - as opposed to 2 feet. I've bolded some of those weasel words again. Are you starting to see how these "studies" get so sensationalized by sound-byte headlines that they create skepticism for those who choose to keep an open mind?

Even as Rignot and colleagues suggest that loss of the Amundsen Sea embayment glaciers appears inevitable, it remains extremely difficult to predict exactly how this ice loss will unfold and how long it will take. A conservative estimate is that it could take several centuries.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

NASA's was a separate study from the one I posted and is more of a generalization that provides further hypotheses beyond just Thwaites. Your study includes the entire Amundsen region, of which Thwaites is only a part......and that explains your incorrect mention of 4 feet - as opposed to 2 feet. I've bolded some of those weasel words again. Are you starting to see how these "studies" get so sensationalized by sound-byte headlines that they create skepticism for those who choose to keep an open mind?

Take another read of the report. The 4 feet comes directly from Thwaites. If the others slide as an afer effect they conclude we could be up to 12 feet.

[Keepitsimple]

Take another read of the report. The 4 feet comes directly from Thwaites. If the others slide as an afer effect they conclude we could be up to 12 feet.

It's helpful if you provide quotes from your own links. Can you please do that to support your claim? Here's what I was referring to - from your own report - note that it refers to the entire region - not just the Thwaites Glacier........

What would a loss of the Amundsen Sea region mean for sea level rise?

Even as Rignot and colleagues suggest that loss of the Amundsen Sea embayment glaciers appears inevitable, it remains extremely difficult to predict exactly how this ice loss will unfold and how long it will take. A conservative estimate is that it could take several centuries.

The region contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 4 feet (1.2 meters).

[TimG]

The main problem and sticking point I have with nuclear energy is the official regulatory oversight that's supposed to ensure nuclear energy is safe.

Ironically, I have more confidence in nuclear regulators because even the most venal politician does not want to see a nuclear plant meltdown. OTOH, I have absolutely no trust in any government run system to manage CO2 emissions because the is no downside for people who corrupt the system for personal profit. Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Ironically, I have more confidence in nuclear regulators because even the most venal politician does not want to see a nuclear plant meltdown. OTOH, I have absolutely no trust in any government run system to manage CO2 emissions because the is no downside for people who corrupt the system for personal profit.

Be careful where you place your trust. Ever heard of Fukushima?

[TimG]

Be careful where you place your trust. Ever heard of Fukushima?

You mean the event caused by the combination of a 9.0 earthquake, a massive tsunami and an long outdated design? Yeah I have heard of it and I have also heard of the 4 other nuclear facilities in the same area that faced the same event and survived with minimal damage. I am sure all nuclear regulators will learn from this event and plants will become even safer. Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You mean the event caused by the combination of a 9.0 earthquake, a massive tsunami and an long outdated design? Yeah I have heard of it and I have also heard of the 4 other nuclear facilities in the same area that faced the same event and survived with minimal damage. I am sure all nuclear regulators will learn from this event and plants will become even safer.

Well it was actually a 7.1, but don't let the numbers get in the way. Why was a nuclear power plant built on a fualt line by the beach? And with the backup generators in the basement? Even I could have figured out this was all a nuclear accident waiting to happen. Again, be careful who you trust.

[TimG]

Well it was actually a 7.1, but don't let the numbers get in the way.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2727&from=rss_home#.U4FvwPldUeo

The USGS has updated the magnitude of the March 11, 2011, Tohoku earthquake in northern Honshu, Japan, to 9.0 from the previous estimate of 8.9. Independently, Japanese seismologists have also updated their estimate of the earthquake’s magnitude to 9.0. This magnitude places the earthquake as the fourth largest in the world since 1900 and the largest in Japan since modern instrumental recordings began 130 years ago.

USGS trumps Wikipedia as an information source for basic facts.

Why was a nuclear power plant built on a fualt line by the beach?

It was not on a fault line and most nuclear plants are near water for safety reasons. There was a 16ft tsunami wall as well but that was not enough. Future plants will need larger ones.

And with the backup generators in the basement? Even I could have figured out this was all a nuclear accident waiting to happen.

An designs less that 50 years old are passive and do not require back generators for cooling.

But like I said: anyone who claims that CO2 is the most serious problem facing us AND refuses to support nuclear is lying about believing that CO2 is the most serious problem facing us.

Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2727&from=rss_home#.U4FvwPldUeo

USGS trumps Wikipedia as an information source for basic facts.

It was not on a fault line and most nuclear plants are near water for safety reasons. There was a 16ft tsunami wall as well but that was not enough. Future plants will need larger ones.

An designs less that 50 years old are passive and do not require back generators for cooling.

But like I said: anyone who claims that CO2 is the most serious problem facing us AND refuses to support nuclear is lying about believing that CO2 is the most serious problem facing us.

It's called the Futaba faultline and it turns out there is another reactor built close to it.

[eyeball]

But like I said: anyone who claims that CO2 is the most serious problem facing us AND refuses to support nuclear is lying about believing that CO2 is the most serious problem facing us.

Actually it's our economy that is the real problem.

[Keepitsimple]

Well it was actually a 7.1, but don't let the numbers get in the way. Why was a nuclear power plant built on a fualt line by the beach? And with the backup generators in the basement? Even I could have figured out this was all a nuclear accident waiting to happen. Again, be careful who you trust.

Now that it's clear you were incorrect or misleading on the first two points, I'm waiting for you to provide a quote from your own article that supports your claim that the Thwaites Glacier will cause a 4 foot rise in ocean levels. Again, don't get drawn into that media vortex of shallow sensationalism. Be careful who you trust.