Global warming discussion IV

[macdoc]

For those interested ...Occupy TV series covers this exact situation with Norway going entirely renewable but also stopping its oil and gas to supply to Europe.
Premise is US is very isolationist and has bowed out of Euro affairs and is fossil fuel self sufficient.

Quite interesting...and the biggest budget series ever for Norway .....well done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weP8CUnTy3c

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm writing this post as a complement for the 2017 Sea Ice Thread.

As rjh01 was commenting there, there's not only the issue of lesser sea ice area and extent but its thickness is also a concern. We know it is thinning year after year, even in high latitudes.

But this looks like a static process, and it surely isn't. What is more worrying is that thinner ice fosters the creation of new ice, as ice is a formidable insulator. But that isn't happening, and the key is this graphic:

Take a look (red plot) to the real surface temperatures above 80°N the first 60 days of last year, and so far this year (I appended this year's figure to the right of last year's). Look how they are some 7°C (13°F) above the mean values for the 1958-2000 period.

If you give it a thought you'll discover the cause by yourself. Think that happens during the polar night so no incoming energy from the sun, only outgoing energy. But the temperatures don't drop, where is all the lost heat coming from? Some 20-25% comes from new ice that is created as it renders the same heat that it will reabsorb during the melting season. The rest comes from lower latitudes, because the polar regions get most of their energy from lower latitudes. Only during a 4 or 5 weeks around the solstice they get as much energy from the Sun as they radiate into space.

Do those +7°C come from more heat originated in lower latitudes reaching the polar regions? Yes, some of them. But remember that the higher the temperatures, the easier for the atmosphere to radiate that heat back into space. Then, what's hidden there? Haven't you figured it out yet? The last clue: I took those graphics from a webpage belonging to the Ocean and Ice Service of the Danish Meteorological Institute. If you go there you can browse year by year and get a more complete picture. Look how temperatures during January and February were rising slowly year after year until this century. Even 1997 and 1998, the year "the pause" supposedly started, temperatures were about normal. But from then on it's all going from bad to worse.

Don't you get it yet? Well, stop please, I'll tell: GHG in all their glory. The surface of the ice radiates different frequencies according to its temperature, and some of them are blocked by GHG more efficiently than others. As the sea ice cover dwindles and more heat comes from lower latitudes the Arctic warms and becomes more humid, and that causes more warming because of an enhanced GHG effect from the atmosphere over the region.

 

[Trakar]

I'm writing this post as a complement for the 2017 Sea Ice Thread.

As rjh01 was commenting there, there's not only the issue of lesser sea ice area and extent but its thickness is also a concern. We know it is thinning year after year, even in high latitudes.

But this looks like a static process, and it surely isn't. What is more worrying is that thinner ice fosters the creation of new ice, as ice is a formidable insulator. But that isn't happening, and the key is this graphic:

[qimg]http://i65.tinypic.com/160vko0.png[/qimg]

Take a look (red plot) to the real surface temperatures above 80°N the first 60 days of last year, and so far this year (I appended this year's figure to the right of last year's). Look how they are some 7°C (13°F) above the mean values for the 1958-2000 period.

If you give it a thought you'll discover the cause by yourself. Think that happens during the polar night so no incoming energy from the sun, only outgoing energy. But the temperatures don't drop, where is all the lost heat coming from? Some 20-25% comes from new ice that is created as it renders the same heat that it will reabsorb during the melting season. The rest comes from lower latitudes, because the polar regions get most of their energy from lower latitudes. Only during a 4 or 5 weeks around the solstice they get as much energy from the Sun as they radiate into space.

Do those +7°C come from more heat originated in lower latitudes reaching the polar regions? Yes, some of them. But remember that the higher the temperatures, the easier for the atmosphere to radiate that heat back into space. Then, what's hidden there? Haven't you figured it out yet? The last clue: I took those graphics from a webpage belonging to the Ocean and Ice Service of the Danish Meteorological Institute. If you go there you can browse year by year and get a more complete picture. Look how temperatures during January and February were rising slowly year after year until this century. Even 1997 and 1998, the year "the pause" supposedly started, temperatures were about normal. But from then on it's all going from bad to worse.

Don't you get it yet? Well, stop please, I'll tell: GHG in all their glory. The surface of the ice radiates different frequencies according to its temperature, and some of them are blocked by GHG more efficiently than others. As the sea ice cover dwindles and more heat comes from lower latitudes the Arctic warms and becomes more humid, and that causes more warming because of an enhanced GHG effect from the atmosphere over the region.

Warm moist arctic feedback, interacting with a destabilized polar vortex, can we trace the history of the Arctic polar vortex disruptions and see if there are any indications that the Antarctic vortex is showing any signs of greater instability?

 

[asydhouse]

Warm moist arctic feedback, interacting with a destabilized polar vortex, can we trace the history of the Arctic polar vortex disruptions and see if there are any indications that the Antarctic vortex is showing any signs of greater instability?

This is off topic, but after the events of this past week, I read this just now with these images in mind, which I hope everyone will receive as the gallows humour we need to survive the political climate obscuring the landscape of global climate beneath:

Warm moist arctic feedback

Theresa May in heat for the plump special relationship's dangling trade deals

interacting with a destabilized polar vortex

humping the frumpy Trump's cold dead hands (extra points for getting the reference to that old crap actor talking about the rifle he won't give up).

Sorry, I'll get my coat.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Large chunk of Larsen C about to break

A good companion for the soon to come Antarctic sea ice extent and area record breaking minimums.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Warm moist arctic feedback, interacting with a destabilized polar vortex, can we trace the history of the Arctic polar vortex disruptions and see if there are any indications that the Antarctic vortex is showing any signs of greater instability?

I didn't want to engage in a discussion until I could provide more information on what I was saying.

The following image compares spectrum absorption with the radiative spectrum for 244 K (winter temperature that there used to be in the higher Arctic latitudes a few decades ago) -blue plot, for 252 K (the same temperatures today) -yellowish green plot- and 260 K (those temperatures in a not distant future) -red plot-

The absorption is: the first one, ozone; the second one, carbon dioxide; and the third one, water. The last is the sum of effects.

Doing a visual integration is impossible as the x-axis is in logarithmic scale. The absorption plots are a little misleading because they are referred to a maximum effect and not to total absorption. All that is included in those modules normally used is the most advanced climate models, and the result is a feedback coming from the very greenhouse gases.

This effect is parametric, that is, it's out of the loop of "effects then causes", so we can talk all we want about the polar vortex, and the impressive waves in the tropopause, and how warming tends to send the tropopause to higher altitudes while the much lower tropopause of the polar regions shows a tendency to go down. But the GHG effect is showing its nose in higher latitudes too.

 

[Mikemcc]

It appears that there are weather issues in Southern Europe this year that has caused supply problems in the vegetable supply chain leading to supermarkets imposing rationing of certain veggies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38851097

Clearly one event doesn't make any more than a data point, we will have to wait and see how climate change will affect the weather cycles in that part of the world over the coming years. Certainly isn't a good sign though.

 

[aleCcowaN]

That's what a climate of extremes mean.

In warming central Argentina (+0.62°C in 48 years), AGW has brought us a year with snow -first time in my life I saw snowing in downtown Buenos Aires- and another year with frosts so late (until 50 days before Summer solstice) that a zucchini (courgette in Britain) was as expensive as a Ferrari.

The victims here are not all of us who dwell in temperate and cold climates, as we're sturdy. Besides there are not many species because so many variations and glaciations have wipe most of them out. The victims are species living in the sea and in tropical and subtropical regions. It's the regular climate and the even temperatures which have fostered specialization and infinite variation. Species are set to die in spades because of this human practical joke.

 

[Trakar]

I didn't want to engage in a discussion until I could provide more information on what I was saying.

No problem, I'm only stopping in once/twice a week lately, been busy on other projects, and getting ready to take a few weeks vacation the latter part of the month.

[qimg]http://i65.tinypic.com/fxgncz.jpg[/qimg].

The absorption is: the first one, ozone; the second one, carbon dioxide; and the third one, water. The last is the sum of effects. .

Thanx for the graphs.

...and the result is a feedback coming from the very greenhouse gases.

This effect is parametric, that is, it's out of the loop of "effects then causes",...

Surely that is uncontroversial and completely expected by anyone with even a passing understanding of the subject, is it not?

...so we can talk all we want about the polar vortex, and the impressive waves in the tropopause, and how warming tends to send the tropopause to higher altitudes while the much lower tropopause of the polar regions shows a tendency to go down. But the GHG effect is showing its nose in higher latitudes too.

agreed.

What I was wondering, more specifically, is if there are enough southern polar anomalies (similar to the patterns of anomalies we've noted closer to the northern polar region over the last decade or so), to begin to make estimates of how long it will be before we see the type of breakdowns in the atmospheric circumpolar circulations in the south that we are seeing in the north?

That's what a climate of extremes mean.

In warming central Argentina (+0.62°C in 48 years), AGW has brought us a year with snow -first time in my life I saw snowing in downtown Buenos Aires- and another year with frosts so late (until 50 days before Summer solstice) that a zucchini (courgette in Britain) was as expensive as a Ferrari.

Dang! I had a bumper crop of stray zucchini this last year, my timing was off by just "that" much.

...The victims here are not all of us who dwell in temperate and cold climates, as we're sturdy. Besides there are not many species because so many variations and glaciations have wipe most of them out. The victims are species living in the sea and in tropical and subtropical regions. It's the regular climate and the even temperatures which have fostered specialization and infinite variation. Species are set to die in spades because of this human practical joke.

A whole lot of humans are already getting the rear-end of that "joke" and many more will increasingly suffer and die as the impacts and consequences multiply going forward.

 

[novaphile]

The victims are species living in the sea and in tropical and subtropical regions. It's the regular climate and the even temperatures which have fostered specialization and infinite variation. Species are set to die in spades because of this human practical joke.

I'm predicting that jelly-fish are going to be a winner, and also a cause of the die-off.

I kayak regularly (have done so for many, many years) and the sheer number of jelly-fish that I see all the time now, is ridiculous.

I've heard that jelly-fish "blooms" use up all the oxygen in the water, causing massive die offs of other marine species, especially real fish.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I've heard that jelly-fish "blooms" use up all the oxygen in the water, causing massive die offs of other marine species, especially real fish.

It's difficult to believe that a species could cause the demise of its own food. But I do know that jelly-fish has "bloomed" here and caused changes in the tourism industry. During the hottest days there are so many of these nasty creatures along the beaches that sometimes the tourists have to dig trenches in the sand just to access some water to get soaked. Hence, summer tourism is moving towards other regions and even hotter beaches, like Uruguay's and Brazil's where jelly-fish seems to be not such a problem.

 

[aleCcowaN]

What I was wondering, more specifically, is if there are enough southern polar anomalies (similar to the patterns of anomalies we've noted closer to the northern polar region over the last decade or so), to begin to make estimates of how long it will be before we see the type of breakdowns in the atmospheric circumpolar circulations in the south that we are seeing in the north?

Not that I've seen. The "structure" is pretty sturdy down there. Antarctica isn't to pull local surprises. It's just a ginourmous Greenland with less ozone on top of it (take a look to the figure in my post above). The circumpolar circulation is set by laws of physics and the interoceanic "dialogue" is driven by permanent differences.

I was collaborating with a group looking for new approaches on systemic structures linking ENSO with the Southern system. Agulhas is itself a phenomenon that is certainly going to take centre stage in future research. The kind of destabilizations and breakdowns you're talking happen around the region where America and Antarctica meet. The Malvinas current is a proxy of that and we have strange climate patterns because of it.

Basically the Southern Ocean continues to be the place where global warming is temporarily swept under the rug, so to speak. In its rage, the windy climate becomes windier, themohaline gaps become wider, and that makes the mixed layer deeper for warming to be ditched in deep ocean. But I have to admit that my past involvement with that research makes me disregard a bit what is happening here in the surface

 

[logger]

Warmists caught in more lies?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

 

[macdoc]

no...tabloid nonsense for the gullible.

Try some reality

It's getting warmer, we're responsible ...time to drop the charade.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Warmists caught in more lies?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

How come a lie telling about alleged lies can acquire the logical value of TRUE?

Killers say their victims had it coming. And logger posts here whatever matches his epistemological hedonism and allows him to go on with harmful behaviour and ideology without remorse. Both are basically the same.

 

[Reality Check]

Warmists caught in more lies?

Anything on climate from David Rose of the Mail on Sunday should be treated as dubious. This article

• swallows what looks like fantasies about "faking" data.
  An interview with Dr John Bates is treated as "astonishing evidence". Basic journalism is ignored - one person's opinion needs to be backed up with independent evidence.
• alludes to the non-event of 'Climategate' with a lie about "manipulated and hidden data".
• has an abysmally bad assertion that world leaders at the Paris conference would base their decisions on a single paper.
• never actually cites that 2015 paper!
• quotes the climate change denier Professor Judith Curry.

Over the last years several papers have addressed the issue of the global warming "hiatus" that all climate scientists knows did not really exist. Global heat content of the land and ocean continued to increase and even accelerated a bit. The question was why did global surface temperatures not increase at the same rate over almost 2 decades as the preceding 2 decades? Initially the prevailing view seemed to be natural variation of climate. Then along came the 2015 paper:
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, described at Described in Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming. Simply put: better information of ship sea temperature measurements + making the data more compatible with the more accurate data from sea buoys = a large part of the "hiatus" goes away.

If Bates is correct then the 2 datasets that the 2015 paper was based on were preliminary and have been under revision for the last 2 years. The rational thing to do is to wait for the paper(s) using the updated datasets.

 

[Fudbucker]

In an article on the Climate Etc. blog, John Bates, who retired last year as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, accused the lead author of the 2015 NOAA “pausebuster” report of trying to “discredit” the hiatus through “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards.”

In addition, Mr. Bates told the Daily [U.K.] Mail that the report’s author, former NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information director Thomas Karl, did so by “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

I don't know how credible Bates is, but those are serious allegations.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know how credible Bates is, but those are serious allegations.

The source is a article on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog which has degraded toward climate change denial rather than credible climate science.

What Bates writes is mostly reasonable but not relevant. He talks about the requirements for climate datasets to be used in important policy decisions. That is not the same requirements for scientific papers. They use the datasets that they have available. He complains about the datasets not being archived in the NOAA database but they are available through FTP.

What he does not do is show that current datasets invalidate the 2015 paper.

 

[Fudbucker]

The source is a article on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog which has degraded toward climate change denial rather than credible climate science.

What Bates writes is mostly reasonable but not relevant. He talks about the requirements for climate datasets to be used in important policy decisions. That is not the same requirements for scientific papers. They use the datasets that they have available. He complains about the datasets not being archived in the NOAA database but they are available through FTP.

What he does not do is show that current datasets invalidate the 2015 paper.

OK. Why is this guy going after NOAA?

 

[Reality Check]

OK. Why is this guy going after NOAA?

We do not know. We might speculate without any evidence e.g. the language and where he published suggests a climate change skeptic going a bit overboard, recently retired from the National Climatic Data Center which is part of NOAA - was this amicable?, Thomas Karl was National Centers for Environmental Information director - inter-center rivalry?, but that is useless.

More fake news in ‘The Mail on Sunday’ points out other flaws in the Mail on Sunday article.
Succeeding papers seem to have found the data easily enough for a paper that was not "properly ‘archived’". The article used a fake graph comparing two datasets with different baselines. A draft of the Paris Agreement existed on 11 June 2015, the paper was not published until 26 June 2015.

Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise also points out that the 2015 paper results have been independently verified and adds

Further updates to come from NOAA
NOAA is planning on further updates to their sea surface temperature record this year to incorporate Argo data and to make some adjustments to their spatial interpolation technique. Based on the preliminary results that their team presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting late last year, their new record (ERSSTv5) will have about 10% less warming than their current record (ERSSTv4) over the 2000-2015 period, largely due to changes in the way that they account for areas with limited data. Their upcoming record will still show 50% more warming than the old NOAA record (ERSSTv3b).