Originally Posted by General Mayhem

Who cares if one is Zimbabwean with an O.

Sorry, i should zzz. Or I am zzz. There's a difference but it's probably minimal.

But, aren't military men trained to follow orders and definitely to not think? I wasn't aware that they chose the causes for which they fought.

Ah I get it now G M.

That was quite good.

Originally Posted by General Mayhem

Confused again. You mentioned earlier that the northern nations will be the last to feel the effects of global warming, which will be felt mostly around the equator. Yet this article claims that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, while CO2 concentrations are noted in the southern hemisphere - not in the north.

Seems there is more evidence of climate manipulation than anything else - which technically would be human-caused global warming...

There is no contradiction, GM, and, I doubt any confusion. The early effects of the warming in the Arctic nations will be seen as positive. That is part of the reason that the present government of Canada is able to get away with its anti science behaviour. My heating bills are considerably lower than they were just a few years ago.

I just happen to know where we are heading and I am not thrilled.

Originally Posted by General Mayhem

Confused again. You mentioned earlier that the northern nations will be the last to feel the effects of global warming, which will be felt mostly around the equator. Yet this article claims that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, while CO2 concentrations are noted in the southern hemisphere - not in the north.

Seems there is more evidence of climate manipulation than anything else - which technically would be human-caused global warming...

There is definitely an Arctic amplification of global warming, but the coldest part of the planet is still plunging to the -40s in the winter.

"Warming faster" means its annual average temperature is changing faster than anyplace else - that does not mean it is warmer by an absolute measurement.

The chart shows the "anomaly" in temperature, or departure from the average.



I could be approaching Dublin at twice your speed, but if I am in Galway and you are in Kildare, who will arrive first?

CO2 is a well-mixed gas and spreads around the globe no matter where it originates. The article said nothing about CO2 concentration in the southern hemisphere particularly influencing Arctic temperatures.

Records 20C above the maximum temperature! WTF! Peter Sinclair tries to make sense of it.

Next Part of the previous post's video.

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

There is no contradiction, GM, and, I doubt any confusion. The early effects of the warming in the Arctic nations will be seen as positive. That is part of the reason that the present government of Canada is able to get away with its anti science behaviour. My heating bills are considerably lower than they were just a few years ago.

I just happen to know where we are heading and I am not thrilled.

Postponing the inevitable is not positive. Admitting the reality, and preparing for it, is. I think it's quite confusing.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

There is definitely an Arctic amplification of global warming, but the coldest part of the planet is still plunging to the -40s in the winter.

"Warming faster" means its annual average temperature is changing faster than anyplace else - that does not mean it is warmer by an absolute measurement.

The chart shows the "anomaly" in temperature, or departure from the average.



I could be approaching Dublin at twice your speed, but if I am in Galway and you are in Kildare, who will arrive first?

CO2 is a well-mixed gas and spreads around the globe no matter where it originates. The article said nothing about CO2 concentration in the southern hemisphere particularly influencing Arctic temperatures.

I get you. I dived into this topic a while back and nearly drove myself mad trying to find any facts at all. This use of 'twice as fast' is highly misleading in that regard (in the article). To me, if you are driving twice as fast as me that is 100% faster. If the arctic is changing from -40 to -36, thats a 4 degree change or 10%. Equatorial countries changing from +20 to +22 is a 10% change. Of course what I just said is total hogwash since zero is not the baseline actually - but hopefully you take my point about the inaccuracies of what is often presented on this subject. But either it is being felt more at the equator or it's being felt more at the Arctic... Can't be both.

My own comment in the post to which you were replying is a case in point, I was not careful with sentence structure. The article says twice as fast; the CO2 concentration was mentioned in another post here, not in the article

I had also understood that freezing point for salt water was -21 but I will hazard a guess on the spot that Arctic temps rise above that in 'summer' or something. Otherwise how would ice be melting...

Originally Posted by General Mayhem

Postponing the inevitable is not positive. Admitting the reality, and preparing for it, is. I think it's quite confusing.



I get you. I dived into this topic a while back and nearly drove myself mad trying to find any facts at all.

Here is a good post about the basics. Global Warming in a Nutshell

This use of 'twice as fast' is highly misleading in that regard (in the article). To me, if you are driving twice as fast as me that is 100% faster. If the arctic is changing from -40 to -36, thats a 4 degree change or 10%. Equatorial countries changing from +20 to +22 is a 10% change. Of course what I just said is total hogwash since zero is not the baseline actually - but hopefully you take my point about the inaccuracies of what is often presented on this subject. But either it is being felt more at the equator or it's being felt more at the Arctic... Can't be both.

I think your expectations are too high from a article which is only peripherally about the scientific rate of warming. In this case, rate usually refers to the change per unit time of the average annual temperature, not the change in extremes.

There will be differential effects of climate change all over the globe. The Arctic might live with a 3C average annual rise - its climate will change to something more temperate, assuming there are no malignant effects like methane venting, in which case the smell will be the least of the problems.

But the equatorial climate cannot get anything but worse - expect gigantic droughts, desertification, mass extinctions and a variety of unpleasant effects, plus some more that have not even been discovered yet.

I had also understood that freezing point for salt water was -21 but I will hazard a guess on the spot that Arctic temps rise above that in 'summer' or something. Otherwise how would ice be melting...

These are average temperatures across the Arctic from the Danish Meteorological Institute. COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

You can see the current temperature is some 5C above average, which is about 242K or -31C. Since there will be variation about the mean, a temperature of -40C would be possible.

As you can see from the chart, the summer temperature rises above zero. The dynamic of melting ice is dependent on more than just temperature - wind and sun (albedo) are also important.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Ian Stewart reads the memo on Republican global warming denial strategy. First two minutes are a must-watch.



Rabett Run: Who Made This?

Great video by Iain Stewart on Climate Modeling.

One equatorial effect that one paper has posited is that humans will not be able to live in large swaths of that ban by the end of the century. The rising temperatures plus increased humidity will make it impossible to perspire and mean certain death for anyone who ventures into the region.

As the author put it, One could stand naked in front of a fan and would still die.

Why is the southern hemisphere not heating to the same degree as the north? And why is there nothing about the southern hemispheres jet stream? Is it going all bendy and slow? When you only focus on half the planet so it is hard to draw any conclusions.