Since the date of the first post in this series (April 18th), significant changes have taken place.
For example, the record setting low Arctic extent continued until late May when it fell below the record low of 2012 once again.
So, for a couple of months now, 2012 is the record low (Fig. 1).
However, as the graphs at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show, the impact of the low ice extent up until late May, combined with the low ice extend from last year, caused a drop to take place in the projected time that Arctic Sea-ice will disappear from the Arctic Ocean in the summer.
Fig. 2
The change was surprising, in that the projection came closer by one year to 2023 from 2024.
Nevertheless, the long term projection, when the ice extent will be gone is still the same.
The lesson is that the software projection model takes all the changes into consideration when calculating projections into the future, which means that sometimes counter-intuitive results will be generated.
In a couple of months, if the 2017 extent continues to be below the 2012 record low for this time of year, I expect that there will be a different projection, most likely adding a year (back to 2014) when the first ice-free summer happens.
The reason for these oscillations is that the projections are based on real-time changes in
polar weather that adds ups and downs to the sea-ice extent, in combination with the fixed historical record.
The take-home lesson from these changes is that weather up there at the North Pole oscillates in the sense that there is no consistent downward track in the picture on a year to year analysis, but there is a consistent downward track in the picture in the longer term trend consisting of a decade of weather records.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
This latest report may not see the light of day, because the Fake Based Administration is loony when it comes to Global Warming Induced Climate Change.
I suppose we should read the report while we can ... so ... let's look at some of the content:
"CSSR TOD: DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE ... About This Report As a key input into the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) oversaw the production of this special, stand-alone report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts. The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) serves several purposes for NCA4, including providing 1) an updated detailed analysis of the findings of how climate change is affecting weather and climate across the United States, 2) an executive summary that will be used as the basis for the science summary of NCA4, and 3) foundational information and projections for climate change, including extremes, to improve “end-to-end” consistency in sectoral, regional, and resilience analyses for NCA4. This report allows NCA4 to focus more heavily on the human welfare, societal, and environmental elements of climate change, in particular with regard to observed and projected risks, impacts, adaptation options, regional analyses, and implications (such as avoided risks) of known mitigation actions. Much of this report is intended for a scientific and technically savvy audience, though the Executive Summary is designed to be accessible to a broader audience."
(U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 3, PDF). Why would the Fake Based Administration not want information about the United States to be available for use by the United States?
3. Relative sea level (RSL) rise in this century will vary along U.S. coastlines due, in part, to: changes in Earth’s gravitational field and rotation from melting of land ice, changes in ocean circulation, and vertical land motion (very high confidence). For almost all future GMSL rise scenarios, RSL rise is likely to be greater than the global average in the U.S. Northeast and the western Gulf of Mexico. In intermediate and low GMSL rise scenarios, it is likely to be less than the global average in much of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. For high GMSL rise scenarios, it is likely to be higher than the global average along all U.S. coastlines outside Alaska (high confidence).
4. The annual occurrences of daily tidal flooding—exceeding local thresholds for minor impacts to infrastructure—have increased 5- to 10 fold since the 1960s in several U.S. coastal cities (very high confidence). Rates of increase, which are accelerating in over 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities, are fastest where elevation thresholds are lower, local RSL rise is higher, or extreme variability is less (very high confidence). Tidal flooding will continue increasing in depth and frequency in similar manners this century (very high confidence).
(ibid, p. 413, PDF). That sea level change section is bolstered by another report, from another source, that has already been released:
"Sea level rise caused by global warming is usually cast as a doomsday scenario that will play out so far into the future, it’s easy to ignore. Just ask anyone in South Florida, where new construction proceeds apace. Yet already, more than 90 coastal communities in the United States are battling chronic flooding, meaning the kind of flooding that’s so unmanageable it prompts people to move away. That number is expected to roughly double to more than 170 communities in less than 20 years."
(National Geographic). Hey deniers, you can run but you can't hide, because you are in the same boat the rest of us are in.
Anyway, getting back to the U.S. Global Change Research Program Report, I was pleased to see that this report is more accurate and sophisticated than the most recent IPCC report (an international, rather than a national report).
The authors of this report understand that gravity is not a hoax, and even cite a paper by the professor who gives the presentation in the video below (Professor Mitrovica):
"Second, the location of land ice melting imparts distinct regional “static-equilibrium fingerprints” on sea level, based on gravitational, rotational, and crustal deformation effects (Mitrovica et al. 2011) (Figure 12.1a–d). For example, sea level falls near a melting ice sheet because of the resulting changes in the distribution of mass on the planet and thus in the planet’s gravitational field."
(ibid, p. 414, PDF, emphasis added). That is a very good development in the science of sea level change (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4), so don't give up hope that they will also pick up on "ghost water" (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Not only that, in another positive move, they are moving away from the "thermal expansion is the major cause of sea level rise in the 20th and 21st centuries" myth:
"Sea level change is driven by a variety of mechanisms operating at different spatial and temporal scales. Global mean sea level (GMSL) rise is primarily driven by two factors: 1) increased volume from thermal expansion of the ocean as it warms, and 2) increased mass from melt additions of ice locked in mountain glaciers and the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Satellite (altimeter and GRACE) and in situ (Argo) measurements show that, since 2005, about one third of GMSL rise has been from steric changes (thermal expansion) and about two thirds from the addition of mass to the ocean, primarily from melting land-based ice (Llovel et al. 2014; Leuliette 2015; Merrifield et al. 2015; Chambers et al. 2016). The overall amount (mass) of ocean water, and thus sea level, is also affected to a lesser extent by changes in global land water storage associated with dams and reservoirs, groundwater extraction, and global precipitation anomalies (Reager et al. 2016; Rietbroek et al. 2016; Wada et al. 2016), such as associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)."
(ibid, p. 414, PDF, emphasis added). "One third" (thermal expansion) is not a major factor when compared to "two thirds" (ice melt water flowing into the oceans).
On that issue they are moving in the proper direction, however, they still have a ways to go, because "one third" is demonstrably in error, in terms of being way too high (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 21).
Now, go spread the good and bad news.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
The point is that they are willing to police just about anything or anybody.
But, more than that, they are also willing to replace civilians in government positions traditionally held by civilians, which is causing some concern in places that might surprise you, and which is not causing any concern in other places, which also might surprise you.
The reasons for that policy are or should be obvious, but the situation is now so stark that I can also ask "should the military police the White House?"
Some, who are politically distant from me on some issues, also see the concern that I see:
"Gen. John Kelly has been brought to the West Wing with a mission so often given to military officers amid chaos: restore order and discipline. Kelly is a man of sterling reputation and achievement, and his appointment has produced a rush of optimism throughout the country and especially among Republicans. This is a problem ... the problem is that the public’s eagerness to see a general impose order on the White House-- ... This is a complete reversal of long-lasting and stable traditions of American civil-military relations. The United States has a civilian commander in chief in order to provide a civilian check on the power of the military, not the other way around. To hope that Kelly and H.R. McMaster in the White House, and Gen. James Mattis at the Pentagon, will somehow restrain the president’s erratic impulses is a terrible development in our history, not because these are not fine men, but because too much reliance on them corrodes a key principle of the American constitutional order."
(The Federalist, emphasis added). Did you see it coming, or where it is leading (Real News)?
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
"We spend more on national security than the rest of the world combined ..."
"The Military is the lead federal agency on climate change ... and that is ... extremely dangerous ... we may lose the republic ..." - Professor Wilkerson (video)
