Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biting winters driven by global warming: scientists

December 21, 2010 by Marlowe Hood Enlarge
Sports fishermen try their luck despite freezing temperatures at Slovakia's dam Liptovska Mara on December 5. Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.
Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.



The culprit, according to a new study, is the Arctic's receding surface ice, which at current rates of decline could to disappear entirely during summer months by century's end.
Click to expand...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-winters-driven-global-scientists.html


we have the atmosphere well out of equilibrium and the forces are large...even if we stopped contributing more GHG now the avalanche of change will continue until a new climate regime reaches a different equilibrium.

do recall....climate CHANGE
 
Remarkable physics.....moisture laden air hits continental high pushed south by warming Arctic......= misery

U.S. storm grounds flights; southern states declare emergency

Jessica Gresko

Washington— The Associated Press

Published Saturday, Dec. 25, 2010 12:28PM EST

Last updated Sunday, Dec. 26, 2010 12:51PM EST


pixel.php

A band of frigid weather snaking its way up the East Coast on Sunday threatened to bring blizzards and at least 30 centimetres of snow to New York City and New England, while several states to the South made emergency declarations as the storm caused crashes on slick roads.
Airlines grounded hundreds of flights Sunday along the Northeast corridor in anticipation of the storm, affecting major airports including New York's JFK and Newark. Airlines said more cancellations were likely as the storm progressed. Travel misery began a day earlier in parts of the South, where a rare white Christmas came with reports of dozens of car crashes.
More related to this story



 Monster storm heads for mid-Atlantic, Northeast


In Washington transportation officials pretreated roads and readied 200 salt trucks, plows and other pieces of equipment to fight the 15 centimetres or more expected to fall in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Click to expand...

more misery

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...hern-states-declare-emergency/article1849567/

That would climate CHANGE now wouldn't it... :garfield:
 
macdoc said:
That would climate CHANGE now wouldn't it... :garfield:
Click to expand...

You seem to have pre-empted the Inhofe Igloo effect :)

C'mon guys, this is Snowmageddon 2 : The Truthening. If the denialist argument can't get any traction out of snow and ice what hope has it got left? Step up (or slide over) and hold the line, or risk losing by default.
 
I actually wrote a note to Gavin asking about any potential negative feedback that might arise if the weather pattern stayed consistent with obdurate stalled continental highs.

I'm sure the gaiaeans would applaud ;)

more on swings and roundabouts

Climate is warming - despite 'ups and downs'

December 28, 2010 Periodic short-term cooling in global temperatures should not be misinterpreted as signalling an end to global warming, according to an Honorary Research Fellow with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Barrie Hunt.



“Despite 2010 being a very warm year globally, the severity of the 2009-2010 northern winter and a wetter and cooler Australia in 2010 relative to the past few years have been misinterpreted by some to imply that climate change is not occurring,” Mr Hunt said.
Click to expand...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-climate-ups-downs.html
 
Let's ring in the new year with a new post regarding adaptation and mitigation. The debate is over.

You may have seen the video of the walruses that were beached in the Arctic.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100927-us-walrus-haul-vin-video/

Normally the walruses are out drifting on the ice, spending some time feeding and then resting on the ice again. As the ice that previously existed drifted around the walruses were moved over new foraging grounds. With the loss of sea ice in many areas the ice that is now left is a great distance offshore and probably in too deep of water for the walruses to feed, so they end up beaching themselves on land. Let's hope they can learn to adapt and swim and feed and then beach themselves or the populations might crash if the sea ice continues to recede. Research vessels in the Arctic have had abandonded walrus pups swimming near them in the water crying out for help and there was nothing that the people on the vessels could do to help.

The walruses may replace the polar bears as the new poster child for global warming if the polar bears can adapt to hunting on land. It's interesting to be on the endangered species list with them.

The oil companies and other businesses own the Congress, the GOP, and Fox News in the U.S. and we continue to battle the disinformation campaign which lacks a meaningful counterbalance by intellectuals. It was noted at the climate change conference in Cancun that the Republicans are one of the few political parties anywhere ine the world that continue to deny that global warming is a problem. They are well compensated not to admit the facts or understand the science so for the rest of us let's move in in 2011.

Richard Branson set up the Carbon War Room and perhaps it's time for the great minds that participate on this forum (I honestly don't include myself in that group) to start looking at mitigation and adaptation as opposed to spending time fighting the intellectually less fortunate, or people that have financial and /or other reasons to attempt to counter the evidence of the blatantly obvious problem. The disinfomation campaign is working very well in this country unfortunately but fighting the disinformation may not produce the potential results that moving on to contributing to global solutions may provide.

I agree with T Shaitanaku that mitigation and adaptation should be the focus at this point.

http://www.carbonwarroom.com

Best wishes for the new year and warmest regards for all the intelligent and generous contributors to this forum that spend thier precious time to enlighten all of us with properly researched and peer-reviewed information.

Let's make 2011 the year that we all brainstorm solutions rather than rehash the evidence.

All the best!
 
Michelle Bachmann: "Carbon Dioxide is a Natural By-Product of Nature"



Two fallacies here:

1) The naturalistic fallacy.

2) The strawman fallacy.

Sure, carbon dioxide is "natural." That's irrelevant.

Then there's the strawman. She says that people are claiming that it is "harmful." No. That's not the claim at all. The claim is that it is opaque to infrared light, which is demonstrated in this video. In fact, without CO2, the earth would be a snowball. The average temperature would be below freezing.
 
Puppycow said:
The claim is that it is opaque to infrared light, which is demonstrated in this video.
Click to expand...

Once the 'tube' of air, from the Earth's surface to the edge of the atmosphere is 'cross-sectionally full' of CO2 and mathematically infrared-opaque, does adding more CO2 make it more opaque?

Putting on 2 perfectly opaque eye-masks doesn't make it twice as black as wearing a single perfectly opaque one .
 
Pixel42 said:
I see we've got the "it's unusually cold in a couple of places so AGW must be wrong" brigade out, btw. You'd think in a year in which global average temperatures were set to make it the warmest (or at least equal warmest) year on record they'd be too embarrassed to try that one, but apparently not.
Click to expand...
I argued that for time myself. Last year my state saw some of the coldest temperatures on record for the winter season, and the last month made for the 2nd coldest December readings. But at both times the arctic regions were above normal averages. At this point my main issues with the AGW claims is not that climate isn't changing, but that much of the notion that humans are primarily responsible for the changes rests on records dating back a couple hundred years, with the most accurate, and objective measurements beginning in the satellite era (~30 years). Way to small of a good sample to rule out a good portion of current climate changes being part of a cycle.

I agree changing landscapes (urbanization, deforestion, etc for example) can have local impacts that build up (urban heat islands for example), but the carbon dioxide induced warming just doesn't suffice with the current arguments I've heard over the years.
 
BenBurch said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

To expand on that; It's like adding another layer of insulation. Infrared cannot pass through an insulating building panel, but nonetheless adding another panel between the hot side and the cold side increases the insulating value.

See, what happens is that CO2 molecule absorbs the IR, and then re-emits it in a mostly-random direction. Sometimes up, sometimes down. Now the IR that goes up either is captured again by CO2 and has a chance to be re-emitted down, or it escapes into space.

So it doesn't take a genius to realize that a deeper layer of CO2 equates to less of the IR emitted from the surface escaping promptly into space.

Eventually, of course, it all does escape, but because it was held back by the CO2 in the air, the hysteresis was increased, and so the temperature of the earth is higher.

It's simple, really, and basic physics and physical chemistry.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I argued that for time myself. Last year my state saw some of the coldest temperatures on record for the winter season, and the last month made for the 2nd coldest December readings. But at both times the arctic regions were above normal averages. At this point my main issues with the AGW claims is not that climate isn't changing, but that much of the notion that humans are primarily responsible for the changes rests on records dating back a couple hundred years, with the most accurate, and objective measurements beginning in the satellite era (~30 years). Way to small of a good sample to rule out a good portion of current climate changes being part of a cycle.
Click to expand...

A cycle of what? Have you heard any suggestions of where else the energy is coming from, or what it is that is "cycling"? AGW was predicted before the event from sound physical principles and has been confirmed by even the data you choose to regard as "most accurate and objective" (although where subjectivity enters into it I don't know).

I agree changing landscapes (urbanization, deforestion, etc for example) can have local impacts that build up (urban heat islands for example), but the carbon dioxide induced warming just doesn't suffice with the current arguments I've heard over the years.
Click to expand...

It doesn't suffice for you, but for most well-informed people it does suffice. Perhaps another ten years will do it for you?
 
GB
argued that for time myself. Last year my state saw some of the coldest temperatures on record for the winter season, and the last month made for the 2nd coldest December readings. But at both times the arctic regions were above normal averages. At this point my main issues with the AGW claims is not that climate isn't changing, but that much of the notion that humans are primarily responsible for the changes rests on records dating back a couple hundred years, with the most accurate, and objective measurements beginning in the satellite era (~30 years). Way to small of a good sample to rule out a good portion of current climate changes being part of a cycle.

I agree changing landscapes (urbanization, deforestion, etc for example) can have local impacts that build up (urban heat islands for example), but the carbon dioxide induced warming just doesn't suffice with the current arguments I've heard over the years.
Click to expand...
Then you are sadly ill informed.

The fundamental physics behind AGW has been established for over a century

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

The physics are not hard to understand

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm

Even the fossil fuel company's own scientist knew this - 15 years ago.

and the fossil fuel companies knew this in the mid 90s..

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
Click to expand...
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

Natural cycles like ENSO, NAO and the current dipolar stalled high set up in the mid continents - simply overlay the gain in energy in the atmosphere and most importantly in the ocean and shift local climates and weather patterns.
Either magnifying the changes brought about by AGW for a region or mitigating them in short term.

The earth's radiative balance has been altered by us by the introduction of fossil carbon to the natural carbon cycle.
This has happened at least one other time in a major way ( Deccan traps, Siberian traps ) and the C02 skyrocketed as did the global temperature.

This is not speculative - it is part of the global record.

Most often C02 levels are a feedback that magnifies ( in both directions btw ) large changes like the Milankovitch cycles...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

As the planet cools in the particular cycle more C02 is taken up by the oceans which makes it cooler as well as there being less water vapour which also makes it cooler and around it goes to an ice age.
Co2 and it's companion water vapour magnify the change in either direction.

When you introduce fossil carbon to the extent we have, of course there are consequences.
If we stopped cold now we would still have another .6 C in the pipeline of warming and perhaps far more is another feedback like methane release ( that is the only really serious risk of rapid change ) alters the climate to a new much warmer state.

it is very likely the next ice age is delayed or cancelled entirely.
We have created a new climate regime...nothing similar has occurred for 12-15 million years - far outside the benign Holocene humans and more important human civilization flourish in for the last 12k years.

By the end of this century and perhaps even by mid century the climate in many areas will be like nothing seen during the entire Holocene.

The tropics will be least effected ( tho the tropical zone has expanded some 200 km north and south ( 100k each way ) and most impact ( as we've seen dramatically ) in the north.

( there are reasons for the South Pole with it's land based ice sheet and ozone hole to react differently ).

There are literally thousands of papers from dozens of disciplines documenting the changes on every continent even in Antarctica where penguins are freezing to death from ........rain :boggled:

This is an annual report, multi-national, multi-disciplinary from scientists with feet on the ground in the field.

A variety of sources feeding a comprehensive annual look - the Arctic Report is very multidisciplinary - I like analog signals - hard to fool the critters

This one gives you a real overview of the strong signals from biota and cryosphere

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

If you are still questioning our responsibility at this point you've not been reading mainstream climate science....period.

The very difficult question is what to do about it and there is no strong guidance at all.

Short of pumping S02 up or other geo-engineering which carries it's own "here be dragons" risk...the planet is facing a climate era not seen in millions of years and within some human's life times.

There are lots of links here on the basics.

Getting started links and links to other info sources

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/

and a few "dire consequence" links here...

How bad could it be...

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the*
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/

Monaco declaration
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6529307.ece

I've read the science and have for decades and at first I thought it was something far off in the future.
Then I thought it was in my kids future....
A decade ago is came home that it is right now.....I've seen the changes myself - I understand the risks of what is coming for my kids....

where do I stand??.....in agreement with this

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
Click to expand...
We have peak oil, water shortages, food shortages and peak global population coming in the next 3 decades....the latter three will be strongly impacted by change in climate beyond any in the Holocene.

Interesting times .... :garfield:
 
lftrsuk said:
How come?
Click to expand...

Just be glad that it doesn't. Ultimately the IR that gets past the greenhouse gasses and escapes the atmosphere must balance the incoming sunlight or the Earth would heat up indefinitely.
 
BenBurch said:
It's simple, really, and basic physics and physical chemistry.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of the simple basic physics a chemistry.

A bit of polemic on my part! I thought a grid of 10000 squares represented reallity better than the Keeler Curve (+ Hockeystick) type information you AGW proponents throw at the general public.

It's very simple to black out a candle with a tube full of CO2 in a laboratory, but throw in Hadley, etc. cells, negative feedbacks, clouds, water vapour, etc., etc., etc., and I, for one, think we don't know one ten-thousandth of what needs to be known, to predict the effects on humanity of anthropogenic CO2 production, by the end of this century.

Google "physicsforum" and find the thread: "Global warming is not caused by CO2" - a great stage for parading one's erudition.
 
C_Felix said:
For every little bit of info that you can find proving that Global Warming is real, someone else can a bit of info proving that it isn't.
Click to expand...


False.

There is far more evidence that AGW is real.
Which is why you go for the totality of the evidence.
AGW deniers pick out the little bits that look a bit contrary...and then they lie a bit.
 
BenBurch said:
You need no temperature processing whatsoever to know that GW is happening.

All you need to see is the arctic ice volume anomaly;

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

Game Over.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a separate issue, but one I'd like to understand too.

So, starting with the graph, what does it mean? I can't figure it out. The vertical axis is labeled .... ice volume anomaly relative to 1979-2010 ... I assume this is an error. What does the graph show, in plain English?

Then, of course, we have to ask, how was it measured/calculated.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
So, starting with the graph, what does it mean? I can't figure it out. The vertical axis is labeled .... ice volume anomaly relative to 1979-2010 ... I assume this is an error.
Click to expand...

You assume wrongly.

What does the graph show, in plain English?
Click to expand...

You really do like others to do your homework for you don't you? :D
Well, okay, I'll steer you in the right direction but then it's up to you, okay:

Click on BenBurch's link.
A graph will appear on your screen.
Right click on the graph.
Scroll down to "view image info" and click on that.
This will give you the "location" of the graph.
Go to the location.
Read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom