Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[Wilber]

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.

You say you don't deny the planet is warming and ice is melting yet for some reason you think the 2-3 mm per year will remain constant, but if by some chance it accelerates, then we can talk about it. So basically you are waiting for someone to prove to you that ice melts faster if you increase temperature.

When and if it is finally proved to you that ice does melt faster when you increase temperature, you will be willing to talk about the impact, what to do about it and apply that magic future technology. Technology you didn't bother develop because there was no reason because 2-3 mm per year is no big deal. Technology you won't have time to develop because you did nothing to slow down the process and give yourself that time.

My plan is to have no plan. Que sera sera. Don't worry be happy

[TimG]

So basically you are waiting for someone to prove to you that ice melts faster if you increase temperature.

The rate of 2-3mm has been constant for over 100 years. The unreasonable people are the people suggesting that we should assume that it will accelerate. What is also forgotten is warmer temps mean more precipitation falling as snow so the question is not whether 'ice melts faster as it warms?' but 'will ice melt faster than new ice is formed in regions where the temps are well below zero under all plausible scenarios?' The only way to answer that question is to monitor sea levels.

When and if it is finally proved to you that ice does melt faster when you increase temperature, you will be willing to talk about the impact, what to do about it and apply that magic future technology.

When it comes to SLR we already have tried and true technology (look at the Netherlands). The only question is when is it a big enough concern to justify the massive outlays to build the dikes and/or sea walls.

Technology you won't have time to develop because you did nothing to slow down the process and give yourself that time.

We have the technology: nuclear power. But the same people losing their heads about CO2 don't want to touch nuclear power. If the greens can delay action by rejecting viable technology then why should I agree to spend money on technology which is not likely to be viable? Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

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

And it seems the Antarctic isn't the only place affected. But then why would it be?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/calgary/story/1.2653641

[Keepitsimple]

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

And it seems the Antarctic isn't the only place affected. But then why would it be?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/calgary/story/1.2653641

On Guard......you have become famous for drive-by comments that you cannot support.....and you simply ignore the replies and move on to the next drive-by. You were completely off base with your Thwaites statements - yet you posted useless comments that do nothing to advance the debate. To summarize, there are some recent studies that appear to suggest that the Thwaites glacier could melt in its entirety in an estimated timeframe of between 200 and 1000 years - resulting in a sea level rise of two feet. Your NASA article speculated that if the entire Amundsen region melted it would raise the sea level an additional two feet......again - if, could, might, suggests, appears.....and timeframes that would be even longer that the Thwaites glacier alone.

Give yourself a shake - and show some humility when your posts are exposed as superficial sensationalism.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Wilber]

The rate of 2-3mm has been constant for over 100 years. The unreasonable people are the people suggesting that we should assume that it will accelerate. What is also forgotten is warmer temps mean more precipitation falling as snow so the question is not whether 'ice melts faster as it warms?' but 'will ice melt faster than new ice is formed in regions where the temps are well below zero under all plausible scenarios?' The only way to answer that question is to monitor sea levels.

Already has been shown. There is more snow and ice buildup in the eastern Antarctic but not near enough to replace what is being lost on the western side of the continent.

In the Arctic.

According to the 2007 report from the IPCC, it is hard to measure the mass balance precisely, but most results indicate accelerating mass loss from Greenland during the 1990s up to 2005. Assessment of the data and techniques suggests a mass balance for the Greenland Ice Sheet ranging between growth of 25 Gt/yr and loss of 60 Gt/yr for 1961 to 2003, loss of 50 to 100 Gt/yr for 1993 to 2003 and loss at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005.^[37]

When things get warmer they don't melt faster. Physics Tim G.

I know, you want absolute proof, whatever that means. Can't help but wonder what you will consider "proof" to be.

When it comes to SLR we already have tried and true technology (look at the Netherlands). The only question is when is it a big enough concern to justify the massive outlays to build the dikes and/or sea walls.

Sea levels will rise all over the planet at roughly the same time, the effects will be accumulative and this won't be a localized issue. The longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it will be.

We have the technology: nuclear power. But the same people losing their heads about CO2 don't want to touch nuclear power. If the greens can delay action by rejecting viable technology then why should I agree to spend money on technology which is not likely to be viable?

Nuclear and other non fossil fuel generating systems will just help the reduction of emissions from electrical power generation, not from other sources like vehicles. The other part of the equation is switching to systems that use the clean power they and other sources produce.

Don't dump on Germany Japan and France for pulling back on nukes. When it comes to per capita CO2 emissions, Germany ranks 38th, Japan 39th and France 65th. Canada ranks 12th and the US 14th. When are we building our nukes or are we just going to keep cranking out bitumen for export and burning billions of cu ft of natural gas to process it?

Edited May 25, 2014 by Wilber

[TimG]

Already has been shown. There is more snow and ice buildup in the eastern Antarctic but not near enough to replace what is being lost on the western side of the continent.

Modelling studies. A rise in the sea level is the real data that will confirm this.

Sea levels will rise all over the planet at roughly the same time, the effects will be accumulative and this won't be a localized issue. The longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it will be.

Not necessarily. In 2100 we should be dealing with a global decline in population which would mean it would be much less harmful to simply abandon some low lying areas. On top of that the population will be much richer and much more able to pay for the various sea walls etc. The Dutch have done their own evaluation of the risks of SLR and concludes that they can be handled within the normal upgrade cycle for their dikes.

Nuclear and other non fossil fuel generating systems will just help the reduction of emissions from electrical power generation, not from other sources like vehicles. The other part of the equation is switching to systems that use the clean power they and other sources produce.

No point in using electric vehicles until you have CO2 free (I don't like the propaganda word "clean") electricity. In the meantime we need those fossil fuel vehicles and nothing is going to change that in the foreseeable future.

When are we building our nukes or are we just going to keep cranking out bitumen for export and burning billions of cu ft of natural gas to process it?

I am all for a CO2 free energy strategy that starts with building nukes. But that is a non-starter due to the nuclear-phobes out there so take it up with them - not me. My position is an anti-CO2 strategy that does include nukes cannot work and is simply a waste of money so I will not entertain discussion of an anti-CO2 strategy unless nukes are at the top of the priority list. Edited May 26, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard......you have become famous for drive-by comments that you cannot support.....and you simply ignore the replies and move on to the next drive-by. You were completely off base with your Thwaites statements - yet you posted useless comments that do nothing to advance the debate. To summarize, there are some recent studies that appear to suggest that the Thwaites glacier could melt in its entirety in an estimated timeframe of between 200 and 1000 years - resulting in a sea level rise of two feet. Your NASA article speculated that if the entire Amundsen region melted it would raise the sea level an additional two feet......again - if, could, might, suggests, appears.....and timeframes that would be even longer that the Thwaites glacier alone.

Give yourself a shake - and show some humility when your posts are exposed as superficial sensationalism.

I didn't write the articles, and apparently you didn't read them. They specifically say there is enough ice in that field to raise SL 4 feet. How fast it will happen is only a guess and can't be more than that currently because it's hard to predict what such a large thing as a glacier will do. I don't think there is much doubt that it is hapenning. They have the pics to prove it.

[Keepitsimple]

I didn't write the articles, and apparently you didn't read them.

You're quite a frustrating fellow - either you don't know what you're talking about - or you are a super-senior and just get mixed up. In any event, you're not reading your own articles, let alone mine. You were referring to the Thwaites glacier - which on its own is estimated to raise sea level by two feet in a timeframe between 200 and 1000 years. Here's what you said:

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.

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.

Once again - hopefully for the last time....Thwaites = two feet. The entire Amundsen region and all glaciers found therein = 4 feet. Or do you still not understand?

Edited May 26, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

In 2100 we should be dealing with a global decline in population which would mean it would be much less harmful to simply abandon some low lying areas. On top of that the population will be much richer and much more able to pay for the various sea walls etc.

That sure sounds like a prediction you could take to the bank. Is this what the vast VAST majority of economists are predicting or just a few heroic farts in a windstorm?

Hey, wait a minute, aren't economists scientists too or would it be more appropriate to compare them to scientists the way chiropractors are compared to doctors?

[Wilber]

Modelling studies. A rise in the sea level is the real data that will confirm this.

Not necessarily. In 2100 we should be dealing with a global decline in population which would mean it would be much less harmful to simply abandon some low lying areas. On top of that the population will be much richer and much more able to pay for the various sea walls etc. The Dutch have done their own evaluation of the risks of SLR and concludes that they can be handled within the normal upgrade cycle for their dikes.

No point in using electric vehicles until you have CO2 free (I don't like the propaganda word "clean") electricity. In the meantime we need those fossil fuel vehicles and nothing is going to change that in the foreseeable future.

I am all for a CO2 free energy strategy that starts with building nukes. But that is a non-starter due to the nuclear-phobes out there so take it up with them - not me. My position is an anti-CO2 strategy that does include nukes cannot work and is simply a waste of money so I will not entertain discussion of an anti-CO2 strategy unless nukes are at the top of the priority list.

Tim it seems to me that your entire strategy is determined by blind faith that we will be able to deal with unknown consequences to our own actions. That somehow it will be easier to adapt to rising sea levels than to a lower carbon lifestyle. That it is easier to stop a runaway locomotive than stop it from accelerating in the first place.

Your arguments give me no confidence whatsoever.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Wilber

[TimG]

Tim it seems to me that your entire strategy is determined by blind faith that we will be able to deal with unknown consequences to our own actions. That somehow it will be easier to adapt to rising sea levels than to a lower carbon lifestyle. That it is easier to stop a runaway locomotive than stop it from accelerating in the first place.

Seems to me that your entire strategy is determined by blind faith that there are low cost-low carbon energy sources out there and it is only political will that prevents us from finding them. That somehow it will be easier to stop the seas from rising using technology that does not exist than it would be to build protections against rising seas using technology that does exist. That it is actually possible provide the energy the world needs with unicorn farts and fairy dust.

Your lack of understanding of the problems we face does not give me much confidence in the soundness of your position.

As I mentioned before: we do have one viable zero carbon source: nuclear. But we can't use it because of irrational fears coming from the same people that are irrationally afraid of CO2. Why should I agree to support any zero-carbon initiative as long as the obvious solution is being blocked by mindless zealots?

CO2 is is either an imminent threat that requires taking risks (in which case nuclear is a manageable risk worth taking) or it is a minor issue where people are free to be picky about how it will be addressed (in which case there is nothing wrong with me rejecting wind/solar/biofuels as uneconomic). Which is it? Why are people skeptical of the problem the only ones that are being asked to move out of the comfort zones? Why aren't you demanding that nuclear phobes stop being a barrier to a solution?

Edited May 26, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

You speak of nuclear as if it is some magical cure all. It is just one tool that can be used but because therevis some resistance to it therevis no point in doing anything at all. Because reducing the amount of callories I consume from 7000 to 5000 a day won't give me the weight loss I want, I mightvas well just keep consuming 7000.

[TimG]

You speak of nuclear as if it is some magical cure all. It is just one tool that can be used but because therevis some resistance to it therevis no point in doing anything at all.

I asked you a question: Why are people skeptical of the problem the only ones that are being asked to move out of the comfort zones? Why aren't you demanding that nuclear-phobes stop being a barrier to a solution?

Why is it OK to reject nuclear but not OK to reject wind/solar/biofuels?

Why should I be expected to compromise when the people afraid of CO2 refuse to compromise on anything?

Edited May 26, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

I asked you a question: Why are people skeptical of the problem the only ones that are being asked to move out of the comfort zones? Why aren't you demanding that nuclear-phobes stop being a barrier to a solution?

Why is it OK to reject nuclear but not OK to reject wind/solar/biofuels?

Why should I be expected to compromise when the people afraid of CO2 refuse to compromise on anything?

If there is to be a solution to this problem we will all have to move out of our comfort zones. We will all go down to together but at least we didn't compromise.

[TimG]

If there is to be a solution to this problem we will all have to move out of our comfort zones. We will all go down to together but at least we didn't compromise.

Personally, I don't think the problem is as big as its made out to be, however, I am OK with doing something provided the people that claim its a big deal stop opposing solutions like nuclear and fracking (because natural gas emits a lot less carbon). As long as those solutions are off the table then I don't see the point in doing anything else.

[jbg]

Over 2 weeks, 72 views, 0 replies...

This wasn't an April Fool's joke, in case anyone was confused.

I guess hoping for a discussion on climate change that is anything above people regurgitating unjustified political talking points was hoping for too much.

Too long for most on MLW to read, particularly if they are on portable devices.

[-1=e^ipi]

Fixed a mistake where I said that the frequency at which a moving jetstream passes over a mid-latitude region is 2λ/v_g (should be 2v_g/λ). Surprised no one pointed this out.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think I might need to retract my claim regarding polar amplification and the T^4 nature of blackbody radiation. The polar amplification is basically entirely due to changes in albedo. There is some evidence to support my earlier claim (see link below) but for the most part I retract it.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-005-0018-3#page-1

Also, I wanted to add that after more investigation, a 4°C increase in global temperatures by 2100 corresponding to a doubling of current CO2 levels an over estimate. Various sources including the IPCC consistently indicate that a value of 3.0°C by 2100 for a doubling of CO2 levels is most likely the most justified value based upon the evidence. Perhaps one could argue that 3.2°C, 3.3°C or even 3.5°C are better values, but 4.0°C is too high. Below is a paper by James Hansen that gives strong support for 3.0+/-0.5°C for a doubling of CO2 levels in the short run (i.e. the time scale of a century in the context of the discussion).

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

In addition, a number have sources have convinced me that polar amplification factor for the arctic of 3.33 is too high. Perhaps a value closer to 2.5 is better. Paleoclimate data can justify a factor as low as 2.0. The recent paper below is especially interesting for this topic.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140508

Anyway, the overestimation of these two values means that my Quantification of Expected Change overestimates the amount of expected change to the jetstreams due to increasing CO2 levels. Though I was trying to be generous to the climate alarmists.

Similarly, my claim of 0.7m sea level rise by the end of this century is also too high.

Edited July 20, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

There is no effect on the jet streams because climate change is fake.

[-1=e^ipi]

There is no effect on the jet streams because climate change is fake.

Can't tell if trolling or deluded...

Edited July 20, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

How can there be an effect on the jet stream when climate change isn't real? The scientists are making crap up and constantly change the numbers. If climate change were real, scientists wouldn't keep changing their minds. Since climate change isn't real, there can't be an effect on the jet stream.

[eyeball]

There is no effect on the jet streams because climate change is fake.

How groovy is that?

[-1=e^ipi]

How can there be an effect on the jet stream when climate change isn't real? The scientists are making crap up and constantly change the numbers. If climate change were real, scientists wouldn't keep changing their minds.

Still can't tell if trolling or not...

Not sure how scientists changing their minds when presented with new evidence is something that disproves AGW. Science is supposed to work like that...

[cybercoma]

Either they're right or wrong and if they keep changing their minds, then obviously they're wrong over and over again. Asking what the effect of climate change is on the jet stream is like asking what the effect of santa claus is on the running of the bulls.

[TimG]

Either they're right or wrong and if they keep changing their minds, then obviously they're wrong over and over again. Asking what the effect of climate change is on the jet stream is like asking what the effect of santa claus is on the running of the bulls.

A strawman argument. Where has anyone on this forum said that the climate has not changed in the last 100 years?