This is Wade Smith's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Wade Smith's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Wade Smith
Recent Activity
Hey, Neven, let me educate you one time, and then I'll leave you alone. you're guy made a personal attack on me, and I tore into him for a reason. Your friend, "Dr" Jeff Masters doesn't know how this works, sorry to tell you that. Take a look at this, and TRY to think objectively for a moment. https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp This is from Masters' site. Look at that for a few minutes, and ask yourself, "What's wrong with this list?" Well, I'll tell you what's wrong. Only 3 of the cyclones were Global Warming cyclones. 21 of the Cyclones were Volcanic Winter Cyclones, including 3 of which happened in the same year, which was one of the 3 coldest years in world history. 12 of the Cyclones happened when Global Warming was too small to measure, in fact, they too actually happened when the Arctic Sea Ice was still INCREASING... Educate yourself guy. I'm done with you. I'm way better at this than you have ever been at anything in your entire pathetic life.
Wait, sorry, but what is that? I don't know how to get to that site... [It's here; N.]
Not exactly the right place to talk about this, but it's semi-relevant. [No, it's not the right place to talk about this and so I'm deleting the other comments as well; you can discuss Harvey over on the ASIF; N.]
Wipneus should use a 3rd Order Polynomial Regression, not a 2nd Order Regression. I've identified at least one 3rd order positive feedback mechanism, and I'm pretty sure there should be at least one 3rd order negative feedback mechanism. I don't know whether we yet have enough data points for a 3rd Order Polynomial Regression to be able to develop a higher Correlation Coefficient, but it should at least be viable. Don't worry, 3rd order effects are very, very small, but they are definitely non-zero.
Toggle Commented Aug 20, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Technically, "my 6 years strictly worse," theory isn't yet busted; Global Area is a lot worse than it was 6 years ago. Daily record low global area just got broken again yesterday, and global extent has been holding daily record lows for quite some time now.
Toggle Commented Aug 18, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
The 2010's average has been added to this graphic, even though we obviously don't have a complete 2010's data set. https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent So far, even with the rebound years, we're still already 950,000km^2 below the previous decade average. This wasn't there a few days ago, last time I checked this page. I still think "Area" is the most reliable measure we have for sea ice, because Area is slightly less effected by randomness, such as wind direction, than is Extent. Still pretty bad outcome, because it looks like the overall pattern is still accelerating, even though some of the individual years for this decade had slowed down.
Toggle Commented Aug 18, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
The Earth is fighting back. It looks like my "six years, strictly worse," theory is about to get slightly debunked, which is a good thing, as it turns out. Well, it was a slight over-simplification of the data anyway.
Toggle Commented Aug 18, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
For "christian" hypocrites, there is no Biblical law giving man a "right" to be a Republican (nor Democrat), and certainly not waste and destroy nature. In fact, there are Biblical laws and proverbs condemning the waste of animals, for example, and putting moral responsibility for the environment on humans...So then why is it that so many "christians" are science-denying Republicans, who also deny responsibility to the environment, and also deny medical science? Never mind the fact that their Daniel was called a scientist, and their Luke was called a Physician. You'd think that if there were any intellectually honest Republicans, they'd have to stand up and call the others fools, but nobody does that. By the end of this decade or next, humans will be contributing 50% of the entire sea level rise effect, and by the end of this century, with business as usual, humans will be contributing 90 to 95% of the entire sea level rise effect...if not more than that.
Toggle Commented Aug 15, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
AnotherJourney: I agree. The U.S. especially, and Western Civilization in general, actually gives individuals and corporations more "rights" than they rationally should have. Example: The "right" to own a firearm is not rationally "fundamental". The "right" to burn 1 ton of Coal per person per day is not rationally "fundamental". Currently, according to James Hansen, people in the Northern U.S. burn more than twice as much carbon fuel per person, per year than do people in the southern U.S. Yet people in the Southern U.S. tend to be the ones most heavily affected by climate disasters. He doesn't have a personal bias here, because he actually lives in the northern U.S. these days. He literally called this "Unconstitutional" in a recent speech; Also pointing out that certain other nations which contribute very little to pollution are going to take it on the chin as bad or worse than any U.S. state. It's hard to imagine a place which is going to be affected more heavily than Louisiana or Florida over the long term, but there actually are entire nations which are going to be affected more heavily than Louisiana or Florida over the long term. We need something like 10 different Constitutional Amendments to fix the ethical and moral problems in the U.S. today, and we cannot even begin to fix the Global Warming related problems before then, because we can't get enough people to acknowledge that Global Warming exists at all, never mind that at least 1/3rd of it is man made, and the portion which is man-made will overtake one half of the entire effect, if it has not already done so, within the next decade or two. Within the next decade or two, sea level rise will overtake twice as fast as the average of the past 8000 years. So how are we supposed to stop Pollution before we get people to admit that, "Oh by the way, you actually don't have a 'fundamental God-given right' to live just any lifestyle you choose to live"?
Toggle Commented Aug 15, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Oh well. This looks bad. There's still a chance we could see a semi-normal recovery season, I guess, but every evidence is that we are probably about to see a verify of last year's Global Area meltdown instead.
Toggle Commented Aug 15, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Sorry, another thing to point out is the fact the 20 years linear trend for volume converges to zero in 2025, which is still within the 95% confidence interval for the exponential regression trend. This means it probably doesn't even matter which trend line we are using, since they are predicting an outcome which is within one another's margin of error.
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
On the Regression lines for September Volume melt: I think the 20 years linear trend is probably the best we have to go by for the present time. I think the Exponential regression line is over-playing the melt. Even though the Keeling Curve is technically growing slightly exponentially, due to population growth, the Earth is a sphere, so the positive albedo feedback for each further unit of retreat of snow and ice is smaller than for the previous same-sized unit of retreat. This is roughly a hyperbolic effect, like the Gompertz curve. I believe these two non-linear effects almost cancel one another, presently anyway, which is why the overall trend continues to be mostly linear; in particular after the past 5 years of corrections, counting this one. So four out of the past five years for extent have fallen almost exactly on the 30 years trend line. Four out of the past seven years for volume have fallen almost exactly on the 20 years trend line. This suggests the linear trend lines are not quite perfect, but "good enough" for now. There will be some sort of correction in the Sea Ice budget over the next few years which will cause the trend lines from Volume, Extent, and Area to all begin to converge to the same year, instead of being scattered around. We are also "due" for another big "down year" sometime within the next few years, based on the past behavior of it happening about once every 3 to 5 years.
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
This year's September volume minimum will fall almost exactly on the projection of the 20 year trend line. Which means this year is also a very good representation of the "new normal/new mean" in terms of volume. I doubt we actually beat 2012 for the record lowest September minimum, but we will come very close to it. Basically it means the planet has worked out the corrections/over-corrections for the fact that 2007 and 2010 melt seasons were "way ahead of schedule" in terms of the average trend. Others may have noticed that Volume and Extent seem to be converging to zero at inconsistent rates. The Volume trend suggests converging to zero in about 16 years, while the Extent trend suggests converging to zero in around 46 years. Obviously, in the real world, these two values must converge to zero at the same time. This means over the next few years we should expect some sort of additional dynamic adjustment in the sea ice melt behavior to compensate for this discrepancy.
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
This year's data point for the July extent ended up being exactly on the trend line, which means this year's extent melt curve is a very good representation of the "new normal/mean".
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
In keeping with the above calculation and the assumption of the current rate of net CO2 production continuing, the Arctic will be ice-free, even in the month of July, by 114 years from now, or about the year 2131.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Dr. James Hansen seems convinced that we have not yet passed a permanent tipping point, but if we don't change something soon we may pass such a point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLk8Uy2-Lsk I found this speech interesting, and may listen to it again. I'm not sure when the speech was given, but it was published last September.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Okay, here's a way of thinking about the arctic sea ice area melt. Don't be fooled by the fact this year's melt season is no longer on pace to break the record lows. For the month of July, based on the long-term linear trend line, it will take 4.14 years (round up to 5 years,) before the July Sea Ice Area Trend is below the July 2011/2012 actual data. Granted, if we have a really strong melt year, an individual year may still beat that record before the trend gets that low. This would mean that by 5 years from now, we will be averaging July Sea Ice Area equal to 2011/2012, and the low years will be significantly lower than the average. This estimate is made by noting the difference between the trend line vs 2011/2012, and then applying the average trend loss to the difference between the last trend mean and 2011/2012. Which of course produced 4.14 years worth of melt needed for 2011/2012 to become the new "normal", so I rounded up to 5 years in order to not be exaggerating the situation.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
[snip, off-topic; N.]
Toggle Commented Aug 8, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
[snip, off-topic; N.]
Toggle Commented Aug 8, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
[snip, off-topic; N.]
Toggle Commented Aug 8, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
[snip, off-topic; N.]
Toggle Commented Aug 8, 2017 on PIOMAS August 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
So basically in both Greenland and the Himalayas, and all the streams and rivers fed by them, there is going to be major biome changes over the next few centuries. As the glaciers melt, you'll have trees, grasses, and shrubs move in, either planted by humans or else seeded by the winds and birds. However, these streams and rivers are not going to be fed in the same way as they currently are fed. Once the glaciers are depleted enough, there are going to be major dry spells in these watersheds which currently don't occur. Obviously, this is going to greatly effect wildlife and fisheries, not just the human populations downstream. Also, this is eventually going to lead to increase in Earthquakes in these regions, as mass loss of that much ice is going to cause isostatic rebound, and both regions are close to tectonic plate boundaries. This could be an especially big problem for the Himalayas region, since it can already have major earthquakes to begin with.
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2017 on PIOMAS July 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
I expect Greenland to experience about a 5% to 10% meltdown by the end of this century. Then after that, albedo feedbacks on land are going to greatly accelerate the loss of ice in the following century. So if you see 2.5 to 3 feet of sea level rise by the end of this century, you will probably see a further 10 feet or so of sea level rise in the following century, due to self-reinforcing feedbacks. This should be especially in Greenland and also especially the Himalayas, since they actually get much more sunlight during the year. The change in the summer time daytime high temperatures for both Greenland and the Himalayas is going to be radical by the time this process is finished, because we're talking an albedo change from 0.8 or 0.9 all the way down to 0.2 or 0.3. So we're not talking about a 5 degree regional temperature change once this happens. We're probably looking at a 15 to 20 degree change in daytime high for these regions by the time they completely melt down. It might even be more than that. Like Everest will be ice-free eventually in a couple centuries.
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2017 on PIOMAS July 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Bill, It stands to reason that as summer time minimum sea ice continues to decrease, then further albedo feedbacks will continue to make weaker and weaker recovery seasons. Although the sunlight penetrates all the way down to 700 to 900 meters, therefore doesn't all go to warming the surface, this would imply that over multiple decades following the first summer meltdown it might be possible to warm the SST enough to totally prevent refreezing. The continental ice of Greenland and Alaska may have a lot to say about that though, because you can only warm the ocean so much before thermodynamics requires the heat to start going into melting the land ice more and more. I'm pretty sure Greenland is already toast over the long term, but I doubt humans will be dumb enough to burn enough carbon to totally melt down Antarctica.
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2017 on PIOMAS July 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Fortunately, it takes a lot more CO2 than we currently have in order to melt down the arctic. Curvature of the Earth is really applying a negative feedback to the trend line for average Sea Ice thickness. It may take even longer to deplete than I previously suspected. The next 5 months should be interesting. Will we verify last year's ridiculous non-recovery for Global Sea Ice Area? Will the Antarctic Sea Ice Area begin a permanent negative trend now? How big can the biggest ice berg calving event be?
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2017 on PIOMAS July 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice