To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
whelp thats life
If you are interested in Asteroid impacts, I have a pet theory about the Permian extinction! (90% of known life was wiped out in a sudden event)
I believe there were not one, but two massive strikes 250 million years back, one in the Bedout region of the Antarctic and another nearby off the coast of Australia. Led to huge antipodal volcanic basalt flows in Siberia. (Roughly antipodal, in my view anyway)
Those strikes were much bigger than the KT asteroid. :-)
I have some backup, in the form of Ohio University research using GRACE satellite data, but most main stream scientists don’t seem to give a damn about this theory!
Ya i read alot about that as well, that the impacts caused the basalt flows in siberia. Theres a theory currently that an impact in present day Germany 15 million years ago led to the basalt flows in western USA.
But ya i have been getting really interested in anything pertaining to geology in the last couple years. Pretty interesting to me to learn about whats happened in history and why features on this planet are there.
Both Antarctic and Greenland Ice Core Data confirms previous Interglacial was global and warmer than our current Interglacial.
Wilkes land crater in Antarctica and the Bedout suspected crater off Australian coast
I guess our weathermoron needs to explain to these Alaskans that are moving that Greenland and Antarctica were warmer before. So need to move. maybe they can get permafrost melt insurance and FEMA can take care of themhttps://apple.news/ALN92iJbfQ5a4YGU8oYbmCQ
Who cares what Mitch says? Overwhelming scientific opinion is what matters.
Even Exxon knows that.
Yes literally, who cares what mitch says. He posts small snipits of data from a much broader implementation that align with his agenda and message he relays to the public. He just takes that small graphical representation of data and thinks that he can form a climate based solution based on it. Not only does he do that, but most of the time he is pulling in information from the last 100 years as if that is even an appropriate time scale to be measuring climate change. Not only that, but he frequently posts about anomalous weather as if the current weather is climate evidence. There is nothing to take seriously from him except to recognize he speaks to everyone with contempt. One single person who's career has relevance in weather predictions thinks they are in a position to be telling the world the way of the climate. And pay no attention to him not being able to have a discussion with people. Ask him a question he cant answer and he will just post more graph links with another bold ingenious statement about the climate while having no understanding of the full spectrum that the data used is involved in.
Who else would like to add?
+ He insists everyone run to the handful of denier sites to “study” the wisdom of the outlier scientists he likes that he links while ignoring links posted from mainstream sites that those refuting the nonsense post,
Wrong Andy. Not one hundred years. Try 450,000 years!
All four previous Interglacial Periods were warmer than our current Interglacial!
The way to determine if today's climate is unusual or extraordinary in some way, one must examine the past. Once one does that, then he/she can only come to the honest conclusion that today's climate is not either unusual or extraordinary.
All of you should thank your lucky stars on high that we are currently living in this mild Interglacial Period. Because a "normal" climate during the past 500,000 years would be an extremely rough life. Can you imagine New York City under thousands of feet of glacial ice? And that was just a mere 22,000 years ago!
Wrong. You do not determine what is happening by looking in a rear view mirror, and determine that what happened in the past is what can/should happen in the present/future.
It is important to look at history in an objective manner and not just use it to create a false narrative.
Look at history here:
Pictures don’t lie - glacier melt compared to the 1980’s in Iceland. Interactive photos show you both the lowering as well as retreat.
don't believe your lying eyes!
Its a Chinese hoax
At this point it's nuts to deny what is happening in front of our eyes.
A little good news I came across yesterday. In 2008, coal fired plants supplied 48% of U.S. power generation. By 2018, it had fallen to 25%. This year coal supplied electricity to the grid is expected to fall to 22%.
On the other side of the world, SE Asia to be specific, fears were that up to 15 gigawatt something or other coal power capacity would be added this year. It's coming nowhere close to that. What's happening is residents don't want and protest the plants because of the pollution they bring and coal is no longer economical.
From Electric: "Construction of coal plants in Southeast Asia has stalled, with only Indonesia breaking ground on new stations in the first half of 2019, according to a Global Energy Monitor report released yesterday called “More Fizz Than Boom: 2019 Sees Coal Plant Growth in Southeast Asia Dwindling as Pipeline Continues to Shrink.”
Despite the perception of the region as a growth area for coal, the Southeast Asian regional coal pipeline has declined sharply. Construction starts have fallen dramatically since 2016 when it was at 12,920 MW. Only 2,744 MW entered construction in 2018, and in the first half of 2019, 1,500 MW entered construction."
It's happening. It just needs to be faster.
The difference between Wind/solar and Coal, is that Coal requires perpetual mining and shipping to produce energy.
No Andy. Go educate yourself. Coal is dirty. WInd and solar are clean
I hadnt even factored that in yet. You're adding to why wind/solar is superior.
Hey dim1240, fracking is the reason why coal-fueled power plants are decreasing their share of energy production.
Hey RedShift, you and Andy need to get on the same page. Andy was getting on my case for looking at a mere 100 years of climate data. I corrected him by pointing out that I was looking at 450,000 years of data! Then you come along and try to make a big-ass friggin' deal over data on glaciers since the 1980s, as if that was some sort of significant time period to be concerned about.
Well, guess what RedShift? Concern about melting glacial ice has been going on since 1922!!!
Natural Gas still cuts emissions by 50% versus coal, genius. That's a step in the right direction. In any event:
Net Generation of Power @ Utility Scale Facilities in thousands of megawatt hours
Petroleum Liquids 25,972
Petroleum Coke 12,964
NATURAL GAS 920,979
Other Gas 10,632
FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES
Hydroelectric Conventional 273,445
Renewalb Excluding Hydroelectric/Solar 143,388
Hydroelectric Pumped Storage -4,627
TOTAL GENERATION @ UTILITY SCALE FACILITIES 3,950,331
Petroleum Liquids 16,245
Petroleum Coke 8,981
NATURAL GAS 1,468,727
Other Gas 13,463
Hydroelectric Conventional 292,524
Renewable Excluding Hydroelectric and Solar 347,032
Hydroelectric Pumped Storage -5m905
GENERATION @ UTILITY SCALE FACILITIES 4,170,912
IN PERCENTAGES - CHANGE 2009-2018
Petroleum Liquids -37.5%
Petroleum Coke -30.7%
Natural Gas +59.5%
Other Gas +26.2%
Renewables Excluding Hydro/Solar +142%
Hydroelectric Pumped Storage +27.6%
CHANGE IN TOTAL POWER PRODUCTION +5.6%
In the rolling 12 months ending in August, Solar Power 2018-2019 was 69,033 MwH compared to 62,777 for 2017-2018, up +10.8%.
Coal includes anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, lignite, and waste coal; synthetic coal and refined coal; and beginning in 2011, coal-derived synthesis gas. Prior to 2011 coal-derived synthesis gas was included in Other Gases.
Petroleum Liquids includes distillate and residual fuel oils, jet fuel, kerosene, waste oil, and beginning in 2011, propane. Prior to 2011 propane was included in Other Gases.
Petroleum Coke includes petroleum coke-derived synthesis gas. Prior to 2011, petroleum coke-derived synthesis gas was included in Other Gases.
Other Gas includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. Prior to 2011, Other Gas included propane and synthesis gases.
See the Technical Notes for fuel conversion factors.
Renewable Sources include wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.
Other includes non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, hydrogen, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuel, and other miscellaneous energy sources.
Notes: Beginning with 2001 data, non-biogenic municipal solid waste and tire-derived fuels are reclassified as non-renewable energy sources and included in Other. Biogenic municipal solid waste is included in Other Renewable Sources.
See Glossary for definitions. Values for 2018 and prior years are final. Values for 2019 are preliminary. See Technical Notes for a discussion of the sample design for the Form EIA-923 and predecessor forms.
Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. NM=Not meaningful due to large standard error. W=Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-923, Power Plant Operations Report; U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, Power Plant Report; U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-920 Combined Heat and Power Plant Report; and predecessor forms.
Beginning with 2008 data, the Form EIA-923, Power Plant Operations Report, replaced the following: Form EIA-906, Power Plant Report; Form EIA-920, Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;
Form EIA-423, Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report; and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC Form 423, Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants.
Estimated small scale solar photovoltaic generation and small scale solar photovoltaic capacity are based on data from Form EIA-861M, Form EIA-861 and from estimation methods described in the technical notes.
SOURCE: U.S. Energy Information Administration
2014 U.S. Electricity Generation by Type Compared to 2018
Coal 38.8% —> 27.5%
Natural Gas 27.4% —> 35.2%
Nuclear 19.5% —> 19.4%
Renewables 13.2% —> 16.9% (2018 Hydro 7%, Wind 6.5%, Solar 1.5%, then the other stuff)
Other 1.2% —> 0.3%
Renewables are projected to hit 20% in 2020. The figures above do not include distributed (rooftop) solar.
1. You're right about Natural Gas being a bigger slice than, for example, solar by far. I'm right in that the shift to natural gas cuts emissions around 50% over using coal.
2. There is clearly a shift underway moving toward renewables. Would you rather have 59% growth, admittedly from a large base, or 7000% growth over 10 years? I vote for #2.
3. Which all makes the point: We need to move faster.
Thanks for bringing a fresh breath of ignorance into this thread. Can count on you 100% for that.
Problem with natural gas is that an unmeasured amount, estimated to be 10%, of all natural gas production is leaked through old pipes, appliances or the such. Methane is some 30x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. I think if we have alternatives, a greenhouse gas producing fuel is not a good alternative to a greenhouse gas producing fuel. If oil companies dont even want to set up a real working and not crumbling infrastructure for this energy system, then i dont really know why we are using it. "its too expensive to replace the gas lines", tell that to your quarterly profits. Why replace a gas line when you know damn well that we wont even be using them in 20 years. I agree!
Redshift, master of /s
Without the / ;-)
Looks like Andy is auditioning for Rick Perry’s job. No more trips to Ukraine though.
Check out the chevrons in Madagascar. These are 600' in height, suggesting a minimum tsunami height of 600'. This is currently the evidence to prove an impact in the Indian Ocean, and the discovery of Burckle Crater dated to around 5000 years ago is starting to seal this. You can find these kinds of land features on the west coast of Australia as well.
links are dead andy
Try to copy all the text from the https to the authuser=0
If not try this.
3 most recent days of NSIDC / MASIE data:
25 OCT - 6,059,000 km^2 / 6,703,642.17 km^2
24 OCT - 5,907,000 km^2 / 6,459,648.07 km^2
23 OCT - 5,800,000 km^2 / 6,300,685.54 km^2
MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent) data shows the Arctic sea ice extent to be considerably higher than the NSIDC. This is due to two reasons. One is that the NSIDC uses a 5-day running average to report their daily sea ice extent values. Plus, MASIE has a higher resolution to measure sea ice extent. It picks up more of the new ice that is rapidly forming now. The ice growth was relatively slow in early October, but now the ice growth is accelerating.
Looks like yet another Fall Arctic freeze-up proceeding on schedule.
3 = 2
I know jimmy. Arctic data offends you. That is why I post it. And I'm glad you don't like it.
NSIDC / MASIE data.
26 OCT 2019 - 6,248,000 km^2 / 6,937,286.07 km^2
The Arctic ice is now growing around 150,000 km^2 to 200,000 km^2 per day.
Simply stated, this is just day to day small incremental evidence that counters the argument that the Arctic ice is melting away to oblivion like the hysterical ones in the news media want to present to the public.
Winter is coming.
dim1240, Fall is happening right now. And it is doing what Fall normally does for thousands of years, with or without humans.
Hi. The earths climate does not remain the same. We are presently in a warm interglacial period. The geological record shows the extent to which climate has varied over vast time scales. The last 2.5 million years has been categorized by a series of glacial/interglacial events, at least 11 major and many more minor, on what appears to be a regular pattern. The most alarming detail is that the glacial periods are much longer that the interglacial periods eg. 100,000 years vs 10-20,000 years.
During the glacial periods sea level drops dramatically. Coral reefs such as Great Barrier Reef, are left high and dry and quickly die, only to reform when the sea level eventually rises again as the interglacial period arrives. During the last glacial period vast areas of North America, Asia and Europe were covered by glacial ice sheets . Life was tough for humans, animals and plants alike in these regions - in tropical regions, other than the low sea level, life was not much different from the interglacial.
Now, my concern with the current worldwide climate change debate is that there is almost no discussion or thought about the possibility and consequences of the next glacial period. It appears that the options are a) catastrophic global warming, or b) climate remains the same as now. Unfortunately b) is not really an option unless we discover how to control the earths climate. It would be more than a little ironic if, due to the efforts of well meaning climate scientists and protesters, concerned citizens, etc. that we managed to reverse greenhouse gas levels only to discover that we are about to plunge into a 100,000 year glaciation period, with a subsequent reduction in land area and harsh climate and reduced crop yields resulting in a dramatic reduction in human population.
I am all for cleaning up our act here on earth, and moving towards a cleaner, renewable future, but I caution you to be careful what you wish for. Do we really have the ability to perpetually maintain the earths climate at current interglacial levels? Are greenhouse gas levels actually and accidentally helping us avoid a much worse fate - the next glacial period? I believe there should be much more debate and study about this real possibility so that we make the best decisions going forward.
He is right. Ice freezes there beginning in fall. I guess he just misses the point that Arctic sea ice now starts melting earlier and freezes later.
@Badjohn. Yes it will need to be addressed. But climate change is a more immediate problem. Our descendants have plenty of time to plan for next dramatic change in temps
Badjohn, I have been trying to communicate to some of the hysterical ones here about the Glacial-Interglacial Periods for quite a few years now. But it just goes in one ear and out the other. I have told them time and time again how fortunate we are to be living in this nice, mild Interglacial Period known as the Holocene. It would be an awfully hard life if we were still in a Glacial Period. I have also told them time and time again that the four previous Interglacial Periods were actually warmer than our current one. I've also told them the sea level was considerably higher than today during the previous Interglacial Periods - on the order of 3 meters to 20 meters higher than today.
Most of the sea level rise has already occurred during the Holocene. Now, we are just waiting around for the next glacial plunge due in a mere few thousand years - probably sooner. I'm glad I will be dead and buried long before that happens!
California Democrats waste billions on useless climate alarmist schemes while the state burns uncontrollably -
It isn't so-called "climate change" that is causing the California wildfire disasters. It is the billions of wasted taxpayer dollars on both corruption and incompetence that is creating the problems you Californians have. You should read some of the comments by your fellow Californians at the bottom of the blog. It should be an eye-opener for all of you!
Have any of you Californians seen this yet?
AGW is increasing the likelihood and intensity of fires.
BTW Californians moving and changing Texas to saner bluer shade! What do you think of that!!
RedShift, Santa Ana Winds have been going on long before humans settled on the West Coast. Human caused global warming is a lame attempt to assign blame to where it doesn't belong.
"But Californians have instead paid through higher electric rates —PG&E rates are twice as high as in Oregon and Washington—while utilities have had to redirect capital and ratepayer revenue away from fortifying the grid and tree-trimming.”
PG&E is having to spend their resources on "climate change" crap instead of trimming the trees around their power lines!
You don’t know what you are talking about. As usual.
The climate always changes so we don't need to do anything about it.
Cars always have accidents so they don't need brakes.
The climate always changing is a reason to figure out how its changing so we can adapt.