This is VaughnA's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following VaughnA's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
VaughnA
Ridgefield, Washington
Recent Activity
Bill, thanks for pointing out the typo and Clare for posting on the Forum. Maybe the heat from the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge is getting to me... still 8 - 12 degrees C above normal in Western Oregon & Washington USA.
Bill, No, missed it...still don't see it, duh.
I just read this article in the New Zealand Herald. Maybe some new information: "What's going on in the big frozen continent below us? Dr Nancy Bertler of GNS Science and Victoria University, a plenary speaker in the 2015 Antarctic Science Conference opening in Christchurch tomorrow, answered these questions." from the NZ Herald. Q&A: Antarctica - our big icy threat http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11472481
"Please, go find an echo chamber where you feel more at home; N.]" Thanks Neven, I appreciate your promptness to keep this under control. ,,,Meanwhile The Ridiculously Resilient Ridge continues. Thanks for the links explaining the causes/effects etc. I am reading these as I can get to them. Very interesting the changes in the Hadley Cell.
The Ridiculously Resilient Ridge is firmly in place and is forecast to intensify and stabilize over the next two weeks with temperatures in Western Oregon valleys from 30 to 40˚C which is 5˚C to 15˚C above normal. To make matters worse there was nearly no snow this past winter so mountainous areas that would normally still have 2 or 3 meters of snow on the ground have been barren of snow for over 3 weeks. It is highly unusual to have such a persistent heat forecast in place so early in the summer. Even late July into early August temperatures like these are unusual for such a long period of time. If this hot high pressure builds into Alaska and or the Arctic it would certainly affect the melting on the Pacific side. Also looking at the Arctic water temperature anomaly maps I cannot remember when there has been such a large anomaly over such a wide region around the periphery of the ice. That looks like an interesting predicament.
Colorado Bob, I made a mention of this factor some time back on this blog. Tremendous numbers of joules going deep into the ice. If liquid water is making it to bedrock it is starting to lubricate and float the ice. If it refreezes in deep cracks then it is splitting old ice apart much like water freezing in a crack in a rock splits it apart. The results should be increasingly interesting to say the least. From what I am reading about Greenland on the ASIF the increased speed of numerous glaciers and associated calvings indicate the water is already affecting the ice in a non linear fashion.
Bill, According to what I am seeing about barycenter is we currently vary about 0.8 radii of the sun with corresponding radiation gain when closer and equivalent loss when roughly this distance further away a half year later. This is independent of seasonal distance and is quite small. It looks like it will max out at about 1.6 solar radii in 2022-2023. The earth should get equivalent increased and decreased radiation over the course of each year with a net difference of "0" as both of us have been saying. I am not quite sure why you are saying my "0" is different from your "0." This is getting off topic, so it is probably not worth discussing further on this blog since the effects are as you say non existent or too small to measure.
Bill, I've never seen or heard of the tallbloke blog before you mentioned it. I have gotten all my info from astronomy resources that were mostly concerned about the mechanics of the motion. I think the topic is very interesting; however, I agree the effects on climate are ephemeral and swing both ways over a short time scale with a NET effect for all intents and purposes "0."
Bill, in case you missed it in my previous comment: "Of course, over time this all averages out but can cause variability over the span of several years." I am in no way suggesting this causes any type of long term trend, only temporary noise that averages out due to some variability in our distance from the sun over the short term. I am not even suggesting this is the major source of noise. I won't bore you with a list like that because they have been and continue to be well discussed here. It's probably more about me thinking artifacts like this are cool especially since this is one of the ways extrasolar planets are discovered.
Bill F., if I am remembering correctly the northern hemisphere summer is about 4 days longer than the northern hemisphere winter thereby making up for the greater distance from the barycenter of the solar system. The opposite is true in the southern hemisphere...winter is about 4 days longer and summer about 4 days shorter. Remember also we actually orbit the barycenter of the solar system instead of just the sun. This also causes variability in our distance from the sun as well as variability in solar input as the sun also orbits the barycenter as well. Of course, over time this all averages out but can cause variability over the span of several years. Right now the barycenter is beneath the surface of the sun so variability is smaller. Starting in 2017 the barycenter will be moving outside the sun for a number of years increasing the effect of this variation. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/gerry-pease-barycentric-orbital-periods/
The Climate Reanalyzer with the GFS is now showing temperatures in the Beaufort, Chukchi and into the Arctic Basin above freezing in the forecast in about 5 to 7 days. This is a few days out, but if it holds true, melt ponds will likely become widespread in those areas. http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/
Toggle Commented May 16, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
"I applaud Neven's decision and I deeply appreciate the hard work you all have done to make this a special place." Stan, I lurk a lot too and post occasionally. I also appreciate the collective intelligence on this blog and thank all of those who post informatively. It was definitely time for "C" to go for reasons others have already stated.
Toggle Commented May 12, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, this is a wonderful opportunity for you to really gather the information to put climate change in proper perspective(Not that you don't do a great job already!) Hopefully you will reconsider going to more than just one day. I have been to two Nation Science Teachers of America symposiums...one in Portland, Oregon USA and the other in San Jose, California USA. That was a few years ago(circa 2001-2003) but I consider attending these to be high points in my life. The volume of information scientists were publishing at that time about recent different studies and research was truly overwhelming. http://www.nsta.org/ The American Chemical Society had a few presentations about atmospheric and oceanic effects of man-made greenhouse chemicals and how they were working to reduce the use of these. What I came away with from them was about things I didn't even know that I didn't even know existed about the monumental and subtle effects of some of these chemicals on earth's climate. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en.html One other important thing I brought from these symposiums was the effects of so many seemingly innocuous things and how they affect climate. The sheer volume and variety of information helped me put a few things together quickly which otherwise may have never happened at all. One suggestion: Take pictures of the posters if allowed. If you run out of time looking at all of them you can look at the pictures later.
Also a tidbit from Weather Underground weather historian, Christopher C. Burt: "Possible New Continental Heat Record for Antarctica" http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=323
Toggle Commented Mar 28, 2015 on Shock news! at Arctic Sea Ice
Bill, I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I got a couple chuckles here and there but I do have a couple questions/observations... "btw what's an "ice" seal?" I was thinking maybe of a generic type of a seal type animal carved out of ice...hmmm.... Or maybe when a waterpipe freezes and it is sealed full of ice. I would consider that to be an "ice seal." Or even a film of frozen water over the top of soft snow. Now that would be a real "ice seal." How about an ice arch? Now that could be could be considered to be an "ice seal" now couldn't it? This is the first I have heard about "ice seals" so I was rather scratching around for an answer and I do like your analysis of "ice seals" as well. Btw, I like your sign off handle, 'cheers bill f," however I do feel annoyed when someone else plagiarizes it. I mean, really, are sign off handles that limited?
Toggle Commented Mar 27, 2015 on Early record, late record at Arctic Sea Ice
Okay, eastern North America got 14 to 15 feet of snow. Out West places that normally get 30 to 40 feet of snow got a couple feet(Ok, exaggerating a little for some higher elevations but areas above 6000' feet might have gotten 5' to 10' especially in Washington state and British Columbia. Wide areas that normally get 10' got less tan 2' and most of that has melted except it is snowing in most areas of Washington state above 3500' now but not forecast to last. So, all that snow in the East will not make up for what we normally get here that doesn't mostly melt until late July or early August some years.
Toggle Commented Mar 24, 2015 on The Ns are calling the maximum at Arctic Sea Ice
Bill thanks, you are absolutely right about the 540 cal/ gram. I read the article from NSIDC. Yes, good information but it really didn't answer my questions so I will rephrase them: If one cm of ice sublimes from the ice surface into the air, where does all the heat come from to sublime the ice and how much does it affect the freezing of the ice? If one cm of ice equivalent condenses on the ice from the air where does all that released heat go and how much does it affect the freezing of the ice? I am not sure about the effect but it must at least be something.
Toggle Commented Mar 20, 2015 on Early record, late record at Arctic Sea Ice
One thing I am wondering about, considering the feeble response of the ice this year, is how much relative humidity affects freezing. I have asked this question before a few years ago but did not get very much response. Consider that the heat of water vapor condensation(600 calories/gram + 80 calories/gram since the ice is going directly to vapor from ice) is about 8.5 times the heat of fusion alone(80 calories/gram). Therefore when relative humidity is low subliming 1cm of ice from the surface will cause 8.5cm of ice to freeze on the bottom for a net gain of 7.5cm. provided that 100% of this heat comes from the ice and none from the air to change the ice to water.(I am NOT suggesting that the efficiency is anywhere near 100%.) If the relative humidity is in the 90% range and there is no sublimation nor deposition then the ice thickness should not be affected by humidity but could still be thinner at similar temperatures in the past that had low humidity conditions. Likewise, if the relative humidity is near 100%, then for every 1cm deposition of ice equivalent of frost should prevent 7.5 cm of ice from freezing if 100% of the heat goes into the ice. Again, I am NOT suggesting the efficiency is near 100%. I do not know how much effect this has on freezing ice but I have watched ponds freeze under dry or humid conditions and the depth of the ice formed in the same number of days and similar temperatures is quite significant. I suspect this has been thoroughly researched but I have not seen any numbers published about the effects of humidity. Based on numerous posts on this blog, it appears the the arctic has been considerably more humid this winter than in the past which could be contributing to how feebly the ice has responded. Any ideas about this or information would be most helpful.
Toggle Commented Mar 19, 2015 on Early record, late record at Arctic Sea Ice
The suggestion that this kind of stuff is unknown to scientists is simply embarrassing." Bill, spot on. I am also waiting for Cincinnatus to publish a longer list than I of valid and reliable studies that provide good evidence that climate change is a matter of natural variation and that human activities have nothing to do with it.....haven't seen a longer list than mine from anyone in fact. (See my post in "Thinner and Thinner" about my list.)
Toggle Commented Mar 13, 2015 on Mad max? at Arctic Sea Ice
The Climate prediction Center also suggests that after a week of relatively cool temps in western Alaska during the coming week the warmth returneth: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/predictions/814day/index.php
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2015 on Mad max? at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks Bill, I was not sure, just making sure we were on the same page. Thanks for your support. I think there were some valid/reliable papers that came out back in the 1960s and into the early 1970s about particulates and sulfur dioxide causing global cooling and that greenhouse gasses were balancing the cooling. It was, of course. quickly and accurately determined that these effects(human activity causes only NOT volcanic insertion into the stratosphere which might last a year or two) were very short lived....days-weeks or a few months at most..without continued human production. The other part of this was that as greenhouse gasses increased the net effects of sulfur and dust would diminish. We still have sulfur dioxide and dust being produced in substantial quantities. Amazing how accurately it was predicted back in the 1960s how carbon dioxide(if it was continued to be produced from fossil fuels) would take over and so firmly control the "driver's seat." Bill, I think your suggestion to Neven is pretty logical. Where are all of these reliable/valid papers that deniers appear to be referencing? I certainly can't seem to find them. (And if certain people read this comment, "reliable and valid" ARE the operative terms here. If you don't know what "reliable and valid" mean Mr. Webster might be a good place to start.)
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2015 on Thinner and thinner at Arctic Sea Ice
No, Bill there is nothing there as I felt it a more dramatic response to Cincinnatus than a direct rebuttal. FYI, I have read at least 85% of all posts and comments on this blog since Neven first published it several years ago. I teach high school so sometimes I get overwhelmed and am unable to post much or even read anything for a couple weeks sometimes months but I do get caught up. Maybe you do not recall any of my previous posts. I think it is a tremendous blog and is one of the bright spots educating the world on the serious of this issue. So, I hope you understand that was a supportive statement for this blog as I hope the others reading it did too.
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2015 on Thinner and thinner at Arctic Sea Ice
Bill, considering no one has appended my list, I consider it complete. How is "complete" cherry-picking? Just curious.
Toggle Commented Mar 6, 2015 on Thinner and thinner at Arctic Sea Ice
Cincinnatus , you may be encouraged to know that I agree with all of the reliable and valid peer review studies published since 2005 I could locate that support your point of view that human caused climate change is virtually non-existent and is instead caused by natural variation. Hopefully, this extensive list or should I say expansive list is complete. However, since there are more knowledgeable posters on here than I, like Jim Hunt, L. Hamilton, Werther, Neven, Epsen, and a number of others, I am sure they may wish to append the list if/when they find any other reliable/valid material published on this premise in addition to this expansive list. (I have included an "End of List" tag so you will know for sure when you have reached the end of this list.) Happy reading. List of what I consider to be valid/reliable peer reviewed articles that provide reliable/valid evidence that climate change is wholly caused by natural variation and not human activities follows: End of List Enjoy!
Toggle Commented Mar 5, 2015 on Thinner and thinner at Arctic Sea Ice
The focus article in the March 2015 National Geographic is: "The War on Science." There are 5 sections and one of these sections discusses the premise: "Climate Change Does Not Exist." Part of the discussion centers around how and why incorrect information gets imbedded into peoples' beliefs. There are a number of reasons such as religious beliefs, well publicized studies which are later proven false, to just believing something incorrect because someone that person believes in says it, etc. My point is, if anyone is interested, this article gave me a much better understanding of why many people do not believe science and possibly some insights into how to deal with this group before as Neven says, there's a risk indeed that all will be punished."
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2015 on Shock news! at Arctic Sea Ice