This is Kevin McKinney's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Kevin McKinney's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Kevin McKinney
Recent Activity
I've been pointing out on the news site I frequent, CBC.CA, that it's crazy to explore for the most difficult to extract, dangerous, and expensive oil when we can basically only afford to burn about a third of proven reserves. So I agree with Neven and McKibbon. But the President may well have made the calculation that that Arctic oil is not commercially viable now, and perhaps will never be.
Toggle Commented May 15, 2015 on Bill McKibben nails it at Arctic Sea Ice
The only identifiably exceptional modern-day aspect is that of the rising CO2 levels, which are still way below that of earlier epochs. Now, we may have our different opinions about CO2-temperature sensitivity, but one thing we agree on is that there's precious little that can be done about it, barring the catastrophic end of civilization. --Cincinnatus Talk about 'assumptions'… and unsupported ones at that! No, worse than unsupported: flat wrong. See, there's this whole report that deals with what is 'exceptional' today, in terms of the impacts that climate change is having on our world: In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most comprehensive for natural systems. Some impacts on human systems have also been attributed to climate change, with a major or minor contribution of climate change distinguishable from other influences. See Figure SPM.2. Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause. Needless to say, the report goes into great detail, and in the course of it 1700+ pages, finds quite a number of 'exceptional' things to talk about. Cincinnatus's weasel wording that we can do 'precious little about climate sensitivity' is itself pretty precious. No, we can't change the sensitivity. But we sure can change CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere--that capability is now very well-demonstrated indeed.
Jim, what are the units on the x-axis of your chart? And what are the dates given? (Can't quite make 'em out with certainty.) It's indeed an interesting graphic. Thanks for sharing! I'm a bit intrigued by the sharpness of the 'knees' at the bottom and (especially) at the top of the ice. (You know, the 6 cm/dm/ell/furlong/whatever mark…) ;-)
Toggle Commented Apr 21, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
"Given that there is no "runaway greenhouse effect" -- a false alarmist stance, now discredited -- then it stands to reason that some warming is all to the good." That is a truly spectacular non sequitur.
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
Hope you have a great time at the conference, Neven. I know you'll be letting us know what was most striking in due course!
"Still melting away…" Yes, not a cheerful study. There've been a couple lately.
Toggle Commented Mar 28, 2015 on Shock news! at Arctic Sea Ice
"Loquacious or pedantic much Bill?" Translation: "It's only a flesh wound!"
Toggle Commented Mar 28, 2015 on Early record, late record at Arctic Sea Ice
As always, Neven, thanks for updating us. Once again, 'the stage is set,' and we'll just have to watch the drama unfold.
Toggle Commented Mar 13, 2015 on PIOMAS March 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
"If the surface is turbulent, then the glint is reduced in the expected places, but is increased in the more distant places…" If that makes any sense at all, I am unable to parse it. "Expected" places? Whose expectations, based upon what? "Distant" places? Distant from what, exactly?
Toggle Commented Mar 12, 2015 on Mad max? at Arctic Sea Ice
Fascinating discussion! Thanks to all. I'd dearly love to know what's driving this surprising twist to… whatever season this is. And I'd suggest that if we need a substitute for crow, then its larger cousin, the raven, has pretty good Arctic credentials. (And is probably even harder to choke down.) After all, as was said earlier, "...we've been surprised before."
Toggle Commented Mar 11, 2015 on Mad max? at Arctic Sea Ice
Thank you, Larry! Much appreciated.
Toggle Commented Mar 4, 2015 on Shock news! at Arctic Sea Ice
Larry, I've used your SIV bar graph, here: (It's the third in a series of 4 articles on some of climate change's 'epistemological basics', as I like to say.) I'd love to update it to reflect 2014 numbers, if you've done that update.
Toggle Commented Mar 2, 2015 on Shock news! at Arctic Sea Ice
A bit OT, but there's some pretty stunning Arctic and Antarctic photography here: (Also, a profile of a pretty interesting photographer.)
Toggle Commented Mar 2, 2015 on Shock news! at Arctic Sea Ice
Also, BTW, an interesting discussion of variability in the Barents Sea in that NSIDC post.
Toggle Commented Feb 5, 2015 on PIOMAS January 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
January update from NSIDC is out--3rd lowest extent in the record. Arctic sea ice extent was the third lowest for the month of January. Ice extent remained lower than average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, while ice in the Barents Sea was near average. Antarctic sea ice extent declined rapidly in late January, but remains high.
Toggle Commented Feb 5, 2015 on PIOMAS January 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Belated thanks for the updates, Larry!
Toggle Commented Feb 2, 2015 on PIOMAS January 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Indeed, Bg1. On another topic (and also suggesting confirmation of one's intuitions), an interesting citation came over the transom at RC this morning, courtesy of the inimitable Hank Roberts. It's a research letter drilling down (yes, that horrible pun is entirely intended) into the details of just which FF reserves should remain unburnt if we are to make our 2 C carbon budget. HT to 'Nature' for not paywalling that… This won't surprise anyone here, I suspect, but one of the money quotes is: "…all Arctic resources should be classified as unburnable."
Checking out the daily graphs page, it looks as if we are starting the new year with lower extents than in the last couple of years. NSIDC has their graph line flirting with 2 SD down once again. And looking at the DMI 80 North temperature graph makes it no surprise: it's predominantly been a warm winter in the Arctic once again, so far. Ice thickening will be slowed as a result; perhaps we'll see the consequences of that in upcoming PIOMAS updates? Too early to think much about spring, of course. But I'm starting to *start* to think about spring…
To clarify my last comment, I should have said that last month tied 2012 for warmest-ever *October*. Carry on...
Toggle Commented Nov 3, 2014 on PIOMAS October 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Since this thread seems to be functioning more or less as an open one, let me throw out the fact that UAH for October is now on preview at Dr. Spencer's website. The monthly anomaly clocked in at .37 C, which ties 2012 for warmest-ever. Continuing toasty… While I was over there checking the temps, I noticed that there's a very cool video up--an ISS-eye view of cyclone Nuri, which Spencer expected to hit the Bering Strait area today with (IIRC) a central pressure of 924 mBar, which is, as many here know, the sign of a pretty darn strong storm. It's probably already under discussion on the Forum, but I thought it deserved a mention out here on the 'front page.' The link to the video:
Toggle Commented Nov 3, 2014 on PIOMAS October 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
This is currently at the top of the news feed in the side-bar, but perhaps is worth highlighting in connection with Neven's comment that: I also can't stress enough that the consequences of Arctic sea ice loss do not start when the Arctic becomes ice-free for all practical purposes. These consequences are most probably already with us…
Toggle Commented Oct 22, 2014 on PIOMAS October 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Ah, English grammar and usage! I'd have chickened out with "There is so much that needs to be investigated," FWIW. Anyway, thanks, Neven, and good luck with the building. We're still looking for professional design help, and so far not finding it. I hope I don't' have to do everything myself, or we'll be finishing up just about the time we're too old to live there anymore. But back to the topic at hand: what I'm seeing here is something that merits the term 'recovery.' I've avoided the "r-word", as it has been misused so intensively by denialists, and I still don't much like it, as one connotation easily attached to it is one of semi-permanence, of an actual change in the long-term trend. And that is not the case here--we've been through a period of accelerated ice loss that surprised everybody, and most of the modelers cautioned us about over-interpreting that. Now their caution looks pretty good. But they are also, of course, the folks who are expecting an ice-free minimum some time in the 2030s, and almost certainly by mid-century. So, no reversal of the long-term trend. But if we were to say "temporary recovery", or "short-term recovery", I'd find it hard to disagree. It does look as though people's perceptions and expectations have shifted. Of course, the caveat is highly appropriate that "it's always good to remember that the Arctic and the word 'likely' don't get along very well." No-one anticipated 2005, 2007, or 2012, either, and I wouldn't bet our retirement house on Maslowski's 2013-2019 window being wrong--not yet, anyway.
Toggle Commented Oct 22, 2014 on PIOMAS October 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
A couple of links of interest. One on inferred wildfire frequency in the Arctic: Interesting indeed, although I wonder about the assumption that these regional records are more widely applicable to the Arctic generally. And a succinct piece on the Dark Snow project: (Cross posted from RC.)
Mark, it is quite simply incorrect that "...we are not yet as warm as it was in medieval times." The evidence strongly suggests that global mean surface temperature is warmer now than during the Medieval Climate Optimum (by whatever name it is called.) See, for example:
I see that JAXA data showed a slight uptick yesterday. Could it be--?