Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Climate Change

NOAA storm chaser aircraft are flying in and out of the storm collecting data, along with a NASA Global Hawk which is monitoring it from 56kft:
CuKDtV8UIAAfzfo.jpg:small

A NOAA P3 Orion investigating the storm, punching through into the eye, a few hours ago:


PS:
 
Last edited:
teqniq said:
To deal with climate change we need a new financial system
Click to expand...
What they didn’t notice is that abolishing debt-based currency also holds the secret to getting our system off its addiction to growth,
Click to expand...
Funny how so many well off westerners think more people enjoying their lifestyle is an "addiction".

If a state creates more money but there is not more economic activity for that money, then the amount of economic activity per unit of money falls, i.e. inflation.

How do you build new solar and wind farms when you cannot borrow against the future economic return of those technologies and instead rely on only what is "dollar for dollar" available now?
How do you insulate houses when you have constricted the available loans to only what is available now?
How do people buy more expensive upfront electric cars to accrue to lower lifetime ownership benefits of electric when you have manufactured a credit crunch?

This is not left wing solution. It is a "I do not know anything about economics" solution. It hits some easy beats "debt" "bankers" "fractional reserve currency".


We need to improve the material well being of billions of people while doing so with far less CO2 output. We appear to be closing in on a variety of technologies that can do this economically. Transitioning to a society where the energy is used more efficiently and produced with lower CO2 output requires delivering to the majority lifestyles they will find acceptable for the benefits.
 
Controversial opinion but Trumps win may be a lot less disastrous than a win for either Romney or McCain would have been. In the 8 years of the Obama administration the US enacted laws that encouraged renewables. Germany and China also had huge growth in them. The net impact was to artificially create a large market for onshore wind and solar pv. This means that in 2016 the lifetime cost of renewables is often cheaper than fossil fuel energy. This calculation leaves a lot out like back up and storage and so on but the numbers are sufficient that it is likely that renewables will carry on without federal government help in the US.

Why Wind and Solar won’t be Stopped

The state with the most installed onshore wind is Texas.
It will take 10 years for new coal power stations to come online, solar will continue to fall in that period and likely kick on substantially in rate of installation.
 
A couple of interesting visualisations of HadCRUT4 (global surface temperature anomalies dataset derived from observations back to 1850).

Spot the trend:

A MetOffice visualisation of the same dataset:

which you can investigate yourself interactively here.

e2a: A nice visualisation of the uncertainty of the HadCRUT observations:
uncertainty_wiggle_anim.gif

in which the trend is even clear when it is broken down on a monthly basis:
CxjWry9XgAAvxwl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Researchers at Berkeley, the University of York and JPL have confirmed the original findings of NOAA research a couple of years ago (and more recent analysis by the Japanese Meteorological Agency) - namely that there is no global warming hiatus (an apparent slowdown in ocean warming in the last decade). Sea surface temperatures have been underestimated.

Essentially the 'slowdown' was a systematic error in ship based measurements (which run back to the 1950's) arising from the methodology (water was drawn into the ships to measure via their engine rooms, thus biasing the result). Correcting this bias the ship collected data now better fits with buoy, Argo float and satellite measurements (which constitute the bulk of contemporary measurements) and also with much older ship based data that involved directly measuring the temperature of water manually scooped from the ocean.

586cc8a652077.jpg

Past evaluations also need to account for a second effect of changing shipping routes and when doing so this underlines the bias in ship based measurements.
Paper - DOI:10.1126/sciadv.1601207
BBC News item.
 
2hats said:
Essentially the 'slowdown' was a systematic error in ship based measurements (which run back to the 1950's) arising from the methodology (water was drawn into the ships to measure via their engine rooms, thus biasing the result). Correcting this bias the ship collected data now better fits with buoy, Argo float and satellite measurements (which constitute the bulk of contemporary measurements) and also with much older ship based data that involved directly measuring the temperature of water manually scooped from the ocean.
Click to expand...
As I understand it there were several "discontinuities", one was that the ships of the 90s and 2000s had gotten bigger thus the engine inlet was deeper and drawing in slightly colder water. Another correction was the Argos floats were colder as the temperature was not taken inside a ship. As I understand their methodology it was to build datasets that looked at the ship inlet only, the satellite sea surface temperature only and the buoy only. From this they showed the same trend but that by weighting equally for ships and buoys the Hadley record had an uncorrected bias to the increasing size of ships over the past 20 or so years. The Karl et al 2015 paper that caused all the fuss seems to have gotten its adjustments correct.

Worth pointing out that even with this adjustment the actual trend form 98-2012 was lower than "expected". Not a pause of hiatus but still lower, that is because it starts on a el Nino and ends with a couple of strong la Ninas. That is why people prefer 30 year trends, it tends to even out any ENSO and solar cycle biases.


edited to exclude the bucket\engine inlet switch which happened before the period the paper looks at.
 
ferrelhadley said:
their methodology it was to build datasets that looked at the ship inlet only, the satellite sea surface temperature only and the buoy only. From this they showed the same trend but that by weighting equally for ships and buoys the Hadley record had an uncorrected bias to the increasing size of ships over the past 20 or so years. The Karl et al 2015 paper that caused all the fuss seems to have gotten its adjustments correct.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it: examining the data separately rather than trying to combine them - as per the separate traces in the plot they produced (above).
 
It is worth pointing out to anyone interested in this topic that the Karl 2015 trend from 1979 (start of the satellite record) to 2017 is actually lower than the RSS satellite dataset and near equal to the (recently adjusted) UAH dataset.
I say this because "but satellites" and "Karl cooked the books" are popular refrains to the deniers to the point the US House Science, Space and Technology Comittee tweeted:


 
Crispy said:
the about-to-be-launched GOES-R weather warning satellite
Click to expand...
GOES-R, now GOES-16 is in on-orbit testing right now (due to be declared fully operational in November) but some images and movies from the hi-res Advanced Baseline Imager (which can scan the full Earth disk in 15 minutes, target specific regions of interest every 30 seconds) have been released.




More here. GOES-S to follow in Spring 2018.
 
The level of oxygen in our oceans has dropped over the past half-century, and human activity such as burning fossil fuels and dumping fertilisers in the sea is to blame, according to a new study.

Researchers studied five decades of data in the most comprehensive survey of ocean oxygen levels ever carried out, and found that the amount of oxygen in the world's oceans has reduced by 2 percent.
Click to expand...
Oxygen Levels in the Ocean Are Dropping, and It's All Because of Us
 
Trump is the only G7 leader not to commit to the Paris agreement at their shindig in Italy. The others have all backed it in unison.
 
Fuck. This can only make things worse in the longer run. How much worse will depend on what the rest of the world does, and whether saner heads will prevail in the US administration in the future.
 
NoXion said:
Fuck. This can only make things worse in the longer run. How much worse will depend on what the rest of the world does, and whether saner heads will prevail in the US administration in the future.
Click to expand...
start writing to senators and congressmen and -women to start impeachment proceedings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

steveo87
Is it possible to change an atom by physically adding or taking away electrons?
Replies
23
Views
604
steveo87
steveo87
F
Gut bacteria can change behaviour
Replies
3
Views
389
paul mckenna
paul mckenna
editor
Google Earth Timelapse: view changes on the planet across time
Replies
0
Views
209
editor
editor
free spirit
Climate change bet is won early...
Replies
10
Views
587
kropotkin
K
C
Star signs have changed...
2 3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
4K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom