The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

[mrtn]

Interesting thoughts and calculations but there might be problem: Even if the plane had been covered with a certain height of ice, that doesn't necessarily mean that the top of the ice layer is - measured from sea level for example - elevated by the same height over that period. Additional layers will be compressed by later layers and also melting from the bottom might be possible? What I mean is that it's probably not linear. 10 meters of new ice on the top won't be 10 meters anymore when they are being covered by additional 100 meters and they also might have sunk as a whole.

 

[Cosmos]

Interesting thoughts and calculations but there might be problem: Even if the plane had been covered with a certain height of ice, that doesn't necessarily mean that the top of the ice layer is - measured from sea level for example - elevated by the same height over that period. Additional layers will be compressed by later layers and also melting from the bottom might be possible? What I mean is that it's probably not linear. 10 meters of new ice on the top won't be 10 meters anymore when they are being covered by additional 100 meters and they also might have sunk as a whole.

Very good points there! As far as I understood, they dug down 268 feet in 1992 to reach the Glacier Girl and around "350+ feet" down in 2018, to reach the same relative depth the Glacier Girl (on same plane as the others?) was located back in 1992. So they must be referring to the depth, I suppose, that they had dug into the ice, measured from top of the ice/snow they were standing at, at the time, rather than taking the sea level or any other fixed point as reference.

Indeed it could be, that if you would measure the depth of the same planes in 1992 and 2018 respectively, taking the sea level for example as reference point, that the height on which the people of the digging crew were standing on the ice above the planes, wouldn't have changed much, since as you pointed out, compression and melting of bottom parts could have contributed at the same time. I say could, since the melting (not the compression though!) is just an assumption at this point, since I don't have the data for that. What you are suggesting with the melting on the bottom, which seems likely to me and within the norms of Greenland glaciers, is an interesting point. Also the compression component. Although it seems to me that both of those components you have brought up, make the whole thing even more problematic to date (referring here to ice core sample dating and the previous calculations of the Greenland Ice Sheet).

The big problem we still haven't figured out is the exact geographic location the planes landed and the geographic location they were in when they were found in 1992 and rediscovered in 2018. Where exactly was that each time? And had it changed in those 76 years?

One clue we have though is "that the crew of the planes was rescued by the coastguard" that I heard or read somewhere. So the planes probably (obviously a guess) weren't too far away from the coast when they landed. When you look at Greenland on the map, it is quite a huge stretch of land. So anything to far from the coast would have probably made the survival/rescue of the crew unlikely. Also the planes stranded in July, which is in the middle of the summer season, which various very widely/profoundly on the island. Even in summer though, if they would have landed near the middle of the island and/or far away from the coast, I think today, it would have been pretty hard for those people to survive and be rescued by coastguards, let alone in 1942.

So if we assume that the planes were not far away from the coast, which seems likely, that also makes the problem worse rather than better, since as far as I understood, it is mostly the outer parts of the ice sheet (namely the coast areas) that experience a lot of melting in the summer. And jet we still have 350+ feet of ice over the planes.

As for the compression, it makes the 350+ feet even more interesting. If we are talking about ice sheet cover over the planes here, then this means that this ice has about a density of 0.9167 g/cm3. Snow has a lot less density, because a lot of air is still in between: between 0.15 - 0.5 g/cm3. So obviously, the average amount of ice height previously calculated, that has accumulated over the plane every year since 1942 with 4,605 feet [1,4036 Meters], probably means that significantly more snow (measured in height) fell to create that ice?

How much snow (measured in height) has to fall, that 4,605 feet of ice accumulate in one year? And how much snow (measured in height) has to fall that 350+ feet of ice accumulates in 76 years? The mathematical "simple rule of three" (Dreisatzrechnung) can not be used here with those density parameters, since we have to calculate with cubic centimeters of ice and snow density here. Anyone able to do that?

And what about the melting of bottom layers that you brought up, and the dating of ice core samples, do they take that into account, and if so, how sure can they be that they know exactly when and how much things melted on the bottom of the glaciers? I mean, if the 3026 Meters are supposed to be when snow fell 970.000 years ago, wouldn't that point in time quickly disappear backwards in time? In other words, wouldn't the bottom layer above the ground at 3026 Meters, constantly being moving forward in time significantly? And do they calculate that in and if so how?

 

[Voyageur]

As for the compression, it makes the 350+ feet even more interesting. If we are talking about ice sheet cover over the planes here, then this means that this ice has about a density of 0.9167 g/cm3. Snow has a lot less density, because a lot of air is still in between: between 0.15 - 0.5 g/cm3. So obviously, the average amount of ice height previously calculated, that has accumulated over the plane every year since 1942 with 4,605 feet [1,4036 Meters], probably means that significantly more snow (measured in height) fell to create that ice?

Yes, could agree with that. And then there is melting. If you looked at a number of the photos in the link (of the plane) one can see the layering (like tree rings - yet these snow layers might not be annual due to large scale events and temperture gradient changes) knowing that there was compression and loss of air between snow crystals; as the snow crystals broke down in form becoming rounded and then fused/bounded. Snow of course is interesting, undertaking temperature gradient metamorphosis basically like this (although their timelines may well be out):



and temps change roughly 1 degree centigrade for every 10 cm - hence air surface temperatures vs snow depth. It is the loss of air and bonding that firm it into strong bonded snow on the way to ice.

From the world of avalanches, this Swiss site points out metamorphosis better:

"Snow metamorphosis

Fresh snow is an interlocking structure of new snow crystals with a high air content. Metamorphosis of the snow cover begins immediately it is deposited. Due to variable water vapour concentrations in the snowpack, when the temperature gradient is low the snow crystals are transformed slowly by destructive metamorphosis into old granular snow with a particle diameter of <0.5 mm. The snowpack then settles and consolidates.
When the temperature difference within the snowpack is medium or high constructive metamorphosis - an enlargement of the snow crystals - takes place. Angular, square-edged structures are formed and may then metamorphose into hollow crystalline shapes called cup crystals. Layers of snow containing cup crystals are weak and not very resilient. In wet snow metamorphosis can take place when the snow warms to above 0°C and a snowmelt film is formed on the particles. This reduces the stability of the snow."

Now from snow to ice (from where the above image comes from - Center for Ice and Climate) it gets more into firn (the transformation zone):

"In the firn zone, the air can move relatively freely and therefore exchanges with the atmospheric air. This has two important consequences:

The concentration of a gas species in the firn changes relative to the atmospheric concentration due to physical processes (and in case of reactive gases also chemical processes).

The age of the gas in an occluded air bubble is less than the age of the surrounding ice. This age difference (the so-called Δage) depends on temperature and the amount of snowfall. The value of Δage can range from a few hundred years to several thousand years.

When interpreting ice core measurements performed on the ice itself together with measurements on the gas in the bubbles, knowledge of Δage is important. Dedicated firn densification models, based on empirical studies of present-day Greenland and Antarctic conditions, are used to calculate Δage. These models use information about how the transformation from snow to ice takes place.

{image again}


The density of the firn at the surface is around 350 kg/m3 which correspond to a porosity of about 60-70% (meaning that 60-70% of the volume is air). The firn is compacted by the weight of the overlying layers and as a result of water vapour diffusion. From the surface and until a density of about 550 kg/m3 is reached, the transformation of snow to ice is dominated by the rearrangement of the firn grains in order to get to a more dense packing. At even larger depths (and densities), simple rearrangement of the grains leads to no significant density increase. There sintering and plastic deformation become the most important transformation processes. When a density of 800 kg/m3 is reached, the pores are gradually pinched off and form bubbles in the ice. This zone is called firn-ice transition and spans about the lowest 10% of the total firn column. Depending on the site (especially the temperature and amount of snowfall), the firn zone can be between 50 and 150 m thick, and Δage can range from a few hundred years (e.g. in Southern Greenland) to several thousand years (Central Antarctica). Both the firn layer thickness and Δage were significantly larger during periods of colder climate with reduced accumulation and temperature."

There is a little section here on 'Stratigraphy and dating' and one could speculate - because they say it is of the "most important" of tasks to establish a time scale for the ice and it relies on modeling (and we know how that can go wrong).

The measurements on the ice from the ice core have little or no scientific value if they cannot be related to a specific time or time period. It is therefore one of the most important tasks before and after an ice core has been drilled to establish a time scale for the ice core. Dating of ice cores is done using a combination of annual layer counting and computer modelling. Ice core time scales can be applied to other ice cores or even to other archives of past climate using common horizons in the archives.

There is a lot more to this to read and yet there is reference to looking for methods that get away from the time scale method mentioned above (perhaps because they know its delicate and errors can result?).

"

Linking ice cores and other climate archives

Ice cores from Greenland contain information about climate changes in the past over the Greenland ice sheet and the surrounding areas. Likewise, cores drilled from the sea bed or from the sediments in a lake tell about past temperatures and other climate indicators in the oceans and over continents. The different cores all give their story of the climate of the past from their respective geographical locations, and they agree on one thing: Climate has always been changing. On millennial time scales, the climate oscillates between cold and warm periods. However, one question which is still under investigation is to what degree the climate oscillates in phase all over the Earth or whether there are regional differences during climate shifts. Solving this question is hampered by the uncertainty on the dating of the different records. The absolute age along an ice core or sediment core can never be given with 100% accuracy. Because of the uncertainty on the dating of the cores it is difficult to compare the climate profiles and investigate whether climate change happens synchronously or transgresses from one region to the other.

To deal with this problem, researchers are looking for reference horizons that can be used to link ice cores with other archives of past climate so that the records can be compared directly without the need to worry about time scale differences.

Essentially, there are two types of reference horizons: ash layers and 10Be peaks.

Using ash layers to link ice cores with other climate records

If we can find an ash layer with the same chemical fingerprint in an ice core and in a sediment core from the sea or a lake, we can conclude that the ash originates from the same volcanic eruption. Hence, this layer must have the same age in all the cores and, hereby, we can link the climate profiles together using this layer. The more ash layers we can find in the cores, the better the cores can be linked and the better we can compare the climate profiles in order to interpret how the climate system in the past has worked.

You can read more about the methods used to locate and analyse the ash layers in the ice cores here."

Okay, so the optimum time scale marker for snow that moves away from possible error is an ash layer. What is the latest ash layer evidence depth in the Greenland glaciers? How much ice/snow is above it and what is the possibility of time scale errors in that above ash layer section? Will have to look further.

 

[Voyageur]

Greenland Ash Layer

It was in the same link above, yet you have to dig further into the darta sets for depths - have not found the ash marker depths yet.

Synchronization of ice cores using volcanic ash layers

Thin, brownish layers of a thickness of about a millimetre or two are sometimes observed in the whitish/transparent ice cores. These brown layers consist of material originating from volcanic eruptions.



One of the most distinct ash layers in the Greenland ice cores is seen to the right of this 55 cm long piece of an ice core. It is the 55,500 year old ash layer Z2, which is believed to originate from an enormous eruption in Iceland. The same ash layers is also found in many sediment cores from the North Atlantic region, hence the layer is an important reference horizon that is used to link ice cores with other sediment cores from other archives of past climate.

{...just a note}

Following a volcanic eruption, the precipitation is often slightly acidic due to the presence of sulphuric acid that comes from conversion of the volcanic sulphuric gases in the atmosphere. The relatively high acid concentrations lead to high electrical conductivity of the ice. It is fast and relatively easy to measure the electrical conductivity of the ice, and the acid peaks in the measured profile can be used as guides for where the tiny ash particles are hiding. Ice samples will usually be cut around where acid peaks are found, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that ash is present, so the samples have to be analysed very carefully.[...]

Here is the range of data sets like this one measuring dust layers in Greenland from within this link. One is called
"Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005 (GICC05) time scale for the NGRIP ice core (down to 60 ka b2k) extended to the base of the NGRIP ice core by merging with the ss09sea06bm model time scale. The resulting time scale is called GIC05modelext.
Also supplied are 20 year means of δ18O data from NGRIP back to 123 ka b2k / 3085 m depth. (Excel / text)"

It also states in the Excel sheet that "The NGRIP1 core reaches down to a depth of 1372 m. ...The ages of events beyond 60.2 ka b2k must be treated with special caution because of the way the time scale was extended."

There is also a number of data sets on 'SW Greenland temperature data' in PDF. This is the Abstract (in reality they can't go back very far without regressions, this does not even take one back in time to when (as was mentioned) the ships from Europe were puttering around (1,400 - 1,700's) looking for routes in the Greeland area/arctic area:

At present, continuous instrumental temperature records for Greenland reach back to the late 19th century at a few sites. Combining early observational records from locations along the south and west coasts it has been possible to extend the overall record back to the year 1784. The new extended Greenland temperature record is 9% incomplete. There are however sufficient new data (an additional 74 complete winters and 52 complete summers) to provide a valuable indication of late 18th century and 19th century seasonal trends.

Comparison of the previously published records with additional observational series digitized from Danish Meteorological Institute Yearbooks, have also revealed inhomogeneities in some of the existing 20th century temperature records. These problems have been eliminated in the new extended Greenland temperature record.

A long homogeneous west Greenland instrumental temperature record is of great value for the interpretation of the growing number of Greenland ice core records. A first comparison of the new record with highly resolved Greenland ice core data is presented.

Correlations between west Greenland winter temperatures and the ice core winter season proxy are found to be r=0.67 and r=0.60 for the periods 1785-1872 and 1873-1970 respectively.

 

[thorbiorn]

It turns out the science behind Ice Core analysis with respect to evaluating the temperatures of past ages is quite fascinating. Fractionation and temperature: why do d18O and dD reflect temperature? – University of Copenhagen has:

Fractionation and temperature: why do δ18O and δD reflect temperature?
In the 1950s, Willi Dansgaard investigated the relationship between the mean annual temperature and the δ18O of precipitation at a large number of locations worldwide. He found a close correspondence in modern samples of precipitation, and it is believed that this relationship holds in the past, at least qualitatively.

The main reason for this is the basic fact that the maximum amount of moisture that air can hold drops with decreasing temperatures. When humid air cools, at some point the water molecules will condensate to form precipitation. As the heavier isotopes have a slightly larger tendency to condensate, the humid air mass will gradually lose relatively more and more of the water molecules containing heavy isotopes (18O and Deuterium; D or 2H). Every time precipitation forms, the air mass will become more depleted in heavy isotopes. In the language of physics, fractionation takes place. During cold conditions (e.g. during winter or in a cold climatic period), the air masses arriving in Greenland have cooled more on the way, thereby having formed more precipitation and the remaining vapor is therefore more depleted in heavy isotopes (corresponding to lower δ18O vales).

Annual cycle
The annual cycle of δD values in Greenland snow and ice is due to seasonal changes in the amount of rain-out experienced by an air mass on its way to Greenland. Summer and winter layers can therefore be distinguished in the ice core by measuring δD of ice samples.

An example of how the air masses are depleted on their way to Greenland in summer and winter, respectively, is shown in the figure above. The Deuterium depletion (given as δD values of the clouds and precipitation) depends on the amount of water that has rained out of a cloud (illustrated here by the number of times precipitation forms below the cloud). In this way, the δD values reflect the level of rain-out from the air mass, which correlates with temperature. Given the complex nature of the physical relationship between δD (or δ18O) and the temperature at the precipitation site, it may seem surprising that the observed correspondence between the two parameters is so strong, but nevertheless, δ18O remains the most robust and widely used proxy for past temperatures.

Read more about
- Isotopes and the delta notation
- Methods for measuring water isotope ratios
- Isotope measurements as basis for dating ice cores

 

[thorbiorn]

This is more a critique of the AGW thing, and it took place at the University of Calgary in 2017. The presenter, Steve Goreham, puts on a pretty good presentation -[...]

The last part of the talk he takes apart renewable energy - nothing new yet pretty amusing; especially bio-fuels.

The graph at 7:30 is similar to one found on https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Global.Warming_Ziegler.pdf which says (after Dansgaard et al., 1969 and Schönwiese, 1995). The above pdf also has many other graphs. A short discussion about the accuracy and difficulties in producing climate graphs showing temperature changes through time can be found on Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?

 

[Potatoes and Tomatoes]

Very good points there! As far as I understood, they dug down 268 feet in 1992 to reach the Glacier Girl and around "350+ feet" down in 2018, to reach the same relative depth the Glacier Girl (on same plane as the others?) was located back in 1992. So they must be referring to the depth, I suppose, that they had dug into the ice, measured from top of the ice/snow they were standing at, at the time, rather than taking the sea level or any other fixed point as reference.

Indeed it could be, that if you would measure the depth of the same planes in 1992 and 2018 respectively, taking the sea level for example as reference point, that the height on which the people of the digging crew were standing on the ice above the planes, wouldn't have changed much, since as you pointed out, compression and melting of bottom parts could have contributed at the same time. I say could, since the melting (not the compression though!) is just an assumption at this point, since I don't have the data for that. What you are suggesting with the melting on the bottom, which seems likely to me and within the norms of Greenland glaciers, is an interesting point. Also the compression component. Although it seems to me that both of those components you have brought up, make the whole thing even more problematic to date (referring here to ice core sample dating and the previous calculations of the Greenland Ice Sheet).

The big problem we still haven't figured out is the exact geographic location the planes landed and the geographic location they were in when they were found in 1992 and rediscovered in 2018. Where exactly was that each time? And had it changed in those 76 years?

One clue we have though is "that the crew of the planes was rescued by the coastguard" that I heard or read somewhere. So the planes probably (obviously a guess) weren't too far away from the coast when they landed. When you look at Greenland on the map, it is quite a huge stretch of land. So anything to far from the coast would have probably made the survival/rescue of the crew unlikely. Also the planes stranded in July, which is in the middle of the summer season, which various very widely/profoundly on the island. Even in summer though, if they would have landed near the middle of the island and/or far away from the coast, I think today, it would have been pretty hard for those people to survive and be rescued by coastguards, let alone in 1942.

So if we assume that the planes were not far away from the coast, which seems likely, that also makes the problem worse rather than better, since as far as I understood, it is mostly the outer parts of the ice sheet (namely the coast areas) that experience a lot of melting in the summer. And jet we still have 350+ feet of ice over the planes.

As for the compression, it makes the 350+ feet even more interesting. If we are talking about ice sheet cover over the planes here, then this means that this ice has about a density of 0.9167 g/cm3. Snow has a lot less density, because a lot of air is still in between: between 0.15 - 0.5 g/cm3. So obviously, the average amount of ice height previously calculated, that has accumulated over the plane every year since 1942 with 4,605 feet [1,4036 Meters], probably means that significantly more snow (measured in height) fell to create that ice?

How much snow (measured in height) has to fall, that 4,605 feet of ice accumulate in one year? And how much snow (measured in height) has to fall that 350+ feet of ice accumulates in 76 years? The mathematical "simple rule of three" (Dreisatzrechnung) can not be used here with those density parameters, since we have to calculate with cubic centimeters of ice and snow density here. Anyone able to do that?

And what about the melting of bottom layers that you brought up, and the dating of ice core samples, do they take that into account, and if so, how sure can they be that they know exactly when and how much things melted on the bottom of the glaciers? I mean, if the 3026 Meters are supposed to be when snow fell 970.000 years ago, wouldn't that point in time quickly disappear backwards in time? In other words, wouldn't the bottom layer above the ground at 3026 Meters, constantly being moving forward in time significantly? And do they calculate that in and if so how?

It seems that the planes crash landed in the Koge Bugt region of South East Greenland, hence the difficulty for rescue teams...http://www.nspolar.us/missions/greenland/greenland rescue teams to recover rescue teams. I note in this piece that the "Duck" amphibious plane crash landed within the confines of a moving glacier (velocity @ 12 km per year...Minimal Holocene retreat of large tidewater glaciers in Køge Bugt, southeast Greenland) and so their calculations are that the remains of the crewmen are likely to be buried under 50 foot of ice/snow. But they also note further down the article that the C-53 troop carrier, there to drop supplies to the downed B-17, is likely to be buried under 370ft of snow/ice.
Looking at the topography of the Koge Bugt region and it's three calving points, I am guessing that all but the "Duck" landed on ice far enough from the calving mouths to be relatively unaffected by the glacial shift? More than 10km possibly? I also think that due to the steep slopes of the coast line, and protected from submarine warming, the internal area of Koge Bugt may not be subject to melt from below?

 

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1076397679096274944

https://twitter.com/x/status/1076593598907453441

Panorama Resort‏ @panoramaresort 18h18 hours ago
Today's Snow Report: 24cm in 48hrs, 56cm in 7 days. Ok, so we've been riding pow all week, and today, the Monster! For the frontside dwellers, celebrate our earliest ever completion of snowmaking! The Mt Ops team have crushed it this week! Full Report:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1076586760715595776

https://twitter.com/x/status/1076596802739003392

https://twitter.com/x/status/1076576771850420224

severe-weather.EU on Twitter
[B]severe-weather.EU[/B]‏ @[B]severeweatherEU[/B]
Icy winter weather in Vorkuta, Russia on December 22. Report: @MeteoplusRO

 

[Cosmos]

It seems that the planes crash landed in the Koge Bugt region of South East Greenland, hence the difficulty for rescue teams...http://www.nspolar.us/missions/greenland/greenland rescue teams to recover rescue teams.

It isn't clear from the article what planes exactly they are talking about, since quite a number of planes from WWII seem to have been lost in Greenland. My strong guess is that they don't talk about the Glacier Girl fleet here but instead about other planes. All people in the Glacier Girl fleet survived and were rescued.

Couldn't find any reference to Koge Bugt being the place where the planes landed. Do you have a source there or was that just a speculation?

 

[Aeneas]

Some gletschers appear to be growing.

Arctic Glaciers ADVANCED 16 km During 2008-2016 In A Region That Was 6°C Warmer ~9,000 Years Ago

Arctic Glaciers ADVANCED 16 km During 2008-2016 In A Region That Was 6°C Warmer ~9,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 20. December 2018


Newly published science indicates glaciers in the High Arctic Svalbard/Barents Sea region have rapidly advanced in the last decade — surging 16 kilometers since 2008, which is the greatest ice growth since 1890.
About 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, this region was 6°C warmer than today. Consequently, the region’s glaciers were much smaller (or non-existent) at that time and the sea ice was much less extensive (0-10% spring sea ice vs. today’s 80%).

[...]

 

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1077131109371125760

https://twitter.com/x/status/1077291624512643074

https://twitter.com/x/status/1077418367814758400

https://twitter.com/x/status/1077413626011631616

https://twitter.com/x/status/1077361722350960640

 

[mrtn]

... found on https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Global.Warming_Ziegler.pdf ...

That PDF is very good, thanks

 

[Voyageur]

As for the 'Forget Global Warming' part of this thread, the counter to the IPPC crowd seems to be the ICSC of which Steve Goreham (featured above) is a part the connected network Friends of Science. The directors of the ICSC, the 'WHO WE ARE' part, includes Dr. Tim Ball - Ball has a recent December 22 article on CLEXIT spun off of BREXIT on climate change with a spot light on the usual characters going back to Maurice Strong; a meddler of old par none from my own backyard.

Each of these sites has hyperlinks to other sites that are in support (some would be recognized to readers here) of trying to counter the narratives of the IPPC, Paris Accord, Poland initiative et cetera - the 'it's all decided' crowd.

I know that when I bring up subjects of climate with friends, especially left friends, they usually throw a nut and link me back to some Wiki-page overriding the discussion with emphases on 'big' oil ties. Yeah, I could send them back 'big' oil ties to many of the greenwashing environmentalists - yet minds are made up and discussions are rare. Their only magical thermometers used are manufactured by the AGW Corporation that stops at 0c or 32F respectively (the Euro or American versions).

Lastly, noted on Anthony Watts site is that they have a desktop calendar 'Hinode X-ray telescope 2019 Calendar: Sun, Sun and Sun' - all about the sun (counter to its non-influencing factor by the IPPC crowd), so here is the pdf link and as they said, it was a Merry Christmas wish; ditto to all.

 

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079302533397577729

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079286307036131328

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079124367647240192

[MEDIA=twitter]1079292462525497344[/MEDIA]
Translated from Dutch by Microsoft
Alps-Snow Eastern Alps (north)/Wednesday Temperatursturz- Alpen - Sneeuw oostelijke Alpen(noordkant) / Woensdag Temperatursturz | Alpenweerman.nl …

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079069460684832768

Alpenweerman on Twitter
Translated from Dutch by Microsoft
8:34 AM - 29 Dec 2018
Especially in the Nordstau of the Eastern Alps the next 48 hours snow fall (30 to 50cm) from Wednesday it becomes icy cold #arcticoutbreak See also Alpine weather forecast on Alpenweerman Johann. Het meest betrouwbare weerbericht voor de Alpen

 

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079622527847202816

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079560377099345920

"Great concern," said Jorge Enrique Bedoya, president of the Colombian Farmers' Association (SAC), in reference to the possible effects of the El Niño phenomenon in the country. For that reason, he called on agricultural producers to implement good practices, preparing water reservoirs for irrigation and fodder for cattle feed.

On the other hand, he highlighted the $ 80,000 million announced by the government for agricultural insurance in 2019, and considered it important that small and medium producers should take advantage of these mechanisms.

You may be interested: In 2019 there will be $ 80,800 million for agricultural insurance

The Minister of Agriculture, Andrés Valencia, said that with these resources the objective is to encourage "the culture of insurance and protection against events of climatic variability".

The resources for agricultural credit next year were announced just when the frost season also begins due to the low temperatures that occur especially in the early hours of the morning. The Ideam has attracted attention mainly for the high mountain areas in Norte Santander and Santander, as well as Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Cauca, Nariño and Antioquia.

You may be interested: Ideam: more than 6 departments affected by frost and 15 on alert for possible fires

On the other hand, as a result of the imminence of the El Niño phenomenon, the Ministry of the Environment announced in early December a Conpes document with $ 55,256 million to implement strategies that mitigate the impact at the end of this year and beginning of 2019.

According to Bedoya, of the SAC, "it is still too early" to talk about effects on food prices, but he said that if the dry season is prolonged in the first three months of next year "in some areas it can begin to generate a reduction in the normal supply of food ", with a possible effect on consumer prices.

You may be interested: The Ministry of Environment's plan to face El Niño

"The Ministry is vigilant to the prices of food in the supply centers so that there is no speculation about the phenomenon and frost," said the agricultural portfolio. In addition to ensuring, being informed, giving adequate management to the water resource, having food reserves for livestock and avoiding the accumulation of garbage and glass waste, are among the recommendations that the government has given to prepare for the season.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079389546050191361

NBC devoted the full hour of Sunday's "Meet the Press" to climate change, featuring an interview with Michael Bloomberg vowing to elevate its role in the White House race.

Why it matters: It's a rare star turn for climate change on the Sunday shows and potentially a sign of growing political prominence for a topic that's typically a second-tier focus in national elections and on Capitol Hill.

“We're not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We're not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not."
— Chuck Todd at the open of today's show

The show also includes comments from NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel.

The big picture: The segment comes after California's devastating wildfire season and recent reports from the Trump administration and the United Nations about the consequences of warming and the closing window for aggressive steps to hold the expected global temperature rise in check.

• Meanwhile, President Trump is unwinding Obama-era climate regulations and House Democrats are grappling with how to craft climate policy if a political window for major legislation opens in the future.

What they're saying: Outgoing California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has overseen the most aggressive climate policies in the nation, said the U.S. is not doing enough relative to the dangers of warming.

"[N]ot even close, and not close in California, and we're doing more than anybody else, and not close in America or the rest of the world."
— Gov. Brown on "Meet the Press"

Bloomberg said he'll work to ensure that 2020 Democratic presidential candidates offer strong proposals on climate.
"I don't know whether I'm going to run or not, but I will be out there demanding that anybody that's running has a plan. And I want to hear the plan, and I want everybody to look at it and say whether it's doable."
— Bloomberg on "Meet the Press"

The intrigue: Climate's treatment on the Sunday shows and network TV overall has for years come under attack from advocates. They criticize sparse attention and appearances by non-expert guests who dispute the scientific consensus on human-caused warming.

• For instance, a July analysis by the liberal Media Matters for America said that over two weeks from late June to early July, ABC, CBS and NBC aired a combined 127 segments on the major U.S. heatwave, but just one mentioned climate change.
• "Meet the Press" drew criticism for a Nov. 25 segment in which Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute inaccurately suggested that the last two years have been among the coldest on record.

By the numbers: Federal datasets show that 2016 was the warmest year on record dating back to the late 1800s. NASA data shows that 2017 was the second-warmest, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which uses a slightly different method, said it's the third-warmest. Both agencies' data shows that the five warmest years on record have all occurred since 2010.

• Meanwhile, 2018 will almost certainly rank as the fourth-warmest year on record, and NOAA is expecting 2019 to be another top five warmest year.

Go deeper:

• Key global warming target slipping out of reach, UN scientists warn
• New climate report warns of increasingly dire risks to U.S.
• Humans are a wildfire threat multiplier
• New House committee aims at climate "crisis"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1079440952534528000

Published on Dec 30, 2018