Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  Next

Comments 54901 to 54950:

  1. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    kar @36, thank you for the corrected graph. Unfortunately, I have been made aware in discussion elsewhere that even as amended it still requires a caveat. The original graph from Kinnard et al, 2011 shows 40 year mean values, and hence is up to date to 2010. Consequently an apples to apples comparison would only extend the original instrumental average to (approx)just below the "2000" figure on the graph. Having said that, while it is generally very bad practice to compare annual to multi-annual mean data, because of the extraordinary rapid decline in sea ice over the last decade, using multi-annual means conceals far more than it reveals. The 2012 melt is startling and concerning in a way that even that of 2007 was not. How much so is revealed by the graph displayed by Bob Loblaw @49. Give that that is over the fold, and how important that graph is given our current state of knowledge, I shall display it again below: Based on that graph, it is not at all clear that the rapid trend to increased daily melt had ended, even though it has already continued four weeks beyond the normal inflection point. As it is, a sea ice extent minimum under 4 million km^2 looks a dead certainty, and minimum sea ice extents of 3.5 million km^2 or less are well on the cards. In any event, caution should be used in using your graph; and if used, the difference between 40 year mean and annual data is clearly mentioned as a caveat so that we do not accidentally mislead. (Note, if you are inclined to amend the graph to reflect my "more accurate" position mentioned above, don't. That position was worked out from a back of the envelope calculation, and is indicative only.)
  2. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    A point of clarification on the Kinnard graphic. It extends to 2008, thus including the 2007 minimum, and thus does not need to be extended much further down to incorporate data up to present. The values are not as low as one might expect, no doubt because of the 40-year lowpass filter being applied. I'd say the unedited version of the graphic is a pretty reasonable representation even up to present.
  3. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Much discussion about this year's trends in sea ice extent and area on line. I've seen several comments mentioning how the extent continues to drop, even though by this time of year we usually start to see a reversal (or at least a slowing of melt). I followed the links on Neven's blog to grab the data from IARC-JAXA, and created the following graph. It shows the daily change in sea ice extent. I've smoothed it with a five-day running mean, but a couple of caveats: - I didn't bother dealing with the end-of-year wrap, so days 1-5 and 360-365 aren't quite right - I didn't bother accounting for Feb. 29 in leap years - nothing special was done to the last few days of 2012, so the running mean actually runs on past today (August 27) because the means for August 28-31 already have one value that they will need. Thus, the last few points for 2012 actually are for fewer than 5 days, and devolve into a single day's value, with the last one being the real value for today (plotted as it if is the August 27-31 running mean). This tends to accentuate the current decrease. Anyway, here is the graph: Image and video hosting by TinyPic All I can say is that the current melt pattern (over the past week) certainly seems to be outside the bounds of experience. "Normal" doesn't live here any more.
  4. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Anytime you're ready we can do a standalone post on the ZIS, Mauri. The big league hitters like Zacharaiae deserve some attention all their own.
  5. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Zachariae Ice Stream is one place that needs much more cold. Dan Bailey, our prediction is still valid.
  6. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    I recall that recently both the North West and North East passages have been traversed in the same season. Surely unique, and should be added to the post.
  7. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    curtis@4 commenting sout@2 are suggesting that the curve should be more like this: Still clear, bad and not a trend anyone would like.
    Moderator Response: TC: Concern has been expressed privately among SkS authors about the potential for this graph to mislead the unwary. The key concern is that the original graph shows a 40 year running average of mean August extents, which the amended graph compares with the estimated 2012 August mean extent. That is not an apples to apples comparison. Further discussion can be found below by Dana, and myself.

    This comment should not be interpreted as indicating we do not appreciate the efforts of Alex, Sou or Kar in preparing and displaying the graphs.
  8. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    John while there is reason to believe that circulation changes may result in a slowing of the AMOC (of which the Gulf Stream is a part), there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to show that a shutdown is in order. For a detailed discussion of this, see here: The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
  9. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    What about the Gulf Stream? I understand that it would be in danger of collapsing if there is too much fresh water introduced into the Atlantic. The consequences to European agriculture would be immense if the Gulf Stream no longer brought warm water to the north of Europe.
  10. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    26, Phil, I have noticed that there are certain people -- a fairly large population of them, in fact -- who view everything in terms of money and making money. This is their only motivation for doing things, and as such this is their main criteria for evaluating any scenario, no matter what its nature. Everything boils down to money. And for these people, they seem to be incapable of recognizing any other motivation or primary factor in others' decisions. Research is done for money, not the sake of research, interest in the work, or the reward of discovering something new. One gets into climate science and climbs on the AGW wagon to make an easy buck. The IPCC effort is done for money, not for the sake of helping to coordinate the efforts of world governments in addresses a common, scientific problem. It's a way for poor nations to squeeze money out of rich nations, or for scientists and rich green-energy investors to squeeze money out of world governments. Carbon taxes and funding for green-energy or promotion of reasons to pursue green-energy are done as a backhanded way to make money without doing any actual work (like those nose-to-the-grindstone Koch brothers). For those people everything in the world is viewed through the money lens, and there's no way to convince them otherwise, just as it is impossible to truly describe color to a person who has been blind from birth.
  11. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Not to defend Michaels in general, but to defend him on this point, 4.2 was the number used in Hansen, et al 1988. It was wrong, but coupled with a bit too low estimates of the forcing scenario B, it kept the forecast on track for more than 20 years. Hansen himself said in 1998 "Close agreement of observed temperature change with simulations for the most realistic climate forcing (scenario B) is accidental, given the large unforced variability in both model and real world. Indeed, moderate overestimate of global warming is likely because the sensitivity of the model used (12), 4.2°C for doubled CO2, is larger than our current estimate for actual climate sensitivity, which is 3 1°C for doubledCO2, based mainly on paleoclimate data (17). More complete analyses should include other climate forcings and cover longer periods. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the first transient climate simulations (12) proved to be quite accurate, certainly not ‘‘wrong by 300%’’ (14). The assertion of 300% error may have been based on an earlier arbitrary comparison of 1988– 1997 observed temperature change with only scenario A (18). Observed warming was slight in that 9-year period, which is too brief for meaningful comparison.
  12. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    With regard to the Grant Money argument there are the following rebuttals (bear in mind this is written from a UK perspective and same may not be true elsewhere) 1. Grant Money does not pay the salary of the person applying. Typically an academic will be salaried by the institution at which they teach/lecture. A grant may allow them to employ post-doctoral or technical workers (for relatively short periods of time) but does not go to "line the pocket" of those applying. 2. How come this fraudulent activity is restricted to Climate science ? Or is the implication that all academic research (including that which medical treatments are based) is flawed due to this practise ? If that is so, why is it that grant awarding bodies have not "wised up" to this practise, why are there no whistleblowers from inside the grant awarding bodies complaining about the waste of tax-payers money ? 3. To claim that academics would deliberately fabricate research results for financial gain misunderstands the motivation for entering academic research in the first place. People are drawn to academia because they have a strong motivation to investigate and understand their subject - not to make money or build a research "empire". There are a few isolated cases of scientific fraud - Cyril Burt and Gregor Mendel spring to mind - but these seem to have been motivated by a desire to be bolster their particular theory, not to make money.
  13. Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
    Like other people on this thread I'm becoming increasingly worried. What makes it more difficult is that as I carry on my day to day living I have nobody to talk to who really gets the urgency. The general attitude of those who at least accept the science seems to be, oh they'll do something about it, they won't let the worst happen. But it's clear to me that they will -- humans don't react until their backs are unequivocally against the wall. I mean; even the rapid Arctic ice loss seems to be being cast as an opportunity. They see the silver lining, not the black cloud. It seems clear to me that, in the natural world, change tends not to happen in a smooth progression; it happens in fits and starts as various tipping points, large and small, occur. It's like a dam slowly filling to the point it gives way, or a river overflowing and breaking its banks, or the tension building up in tectonic plates until an earthquake occurs. Anyone who expects climate change to occur in a steady and manageable progression, giving time to adapt, is deluded and, frankly, dangerous. Frighteningly, it seems that everyone with money and power is in that category. It's psychiatry we need, even more than climate science.
  14. Bart Verheggen at 18:54 PM on 27 August 2012
    Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    "Can someone please translate this into a few key languages and get this spread to as many blogs around the web as possible!? " A Dutch version is on my blog: http://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/waarom-arctisch-zee-ijs-niemand-koud-zou-moeten-laten/
  15. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Tom Curtis @37 I dont' find your comment very reassuring, if the equilibrium is re-established over the time period you claim how do they 'breathe' in the meantime? https://sites.google.com/site/apocalypse4realmethane2012/home/2012-vs-2011-airs-ch4-359-hpa and clearly the [arctic] oceans warming is provoking a vast increase in methane release.[and not just in the ocean] If you have the time you should read the whole post i took the extract from and linked to, it raises many issues, has been recently added to, and assuming his profile is true has much relevent expertise.
  16. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    BTW I don't understand the abbreviations and therefore can't follow the threads properly. Please enlighten me and refer to the whole words initially at least, TYVM.
  17. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    If I get banned I will assume you're all climate change deniers! Joke. It's bank holiday here in the UK and it's 7.20 am. I fink the admins have gone to sleep so I will copy n paste ur comments and read them when I'm sober, I love all the viewpoints. Is there a page on 'ere where u can discuss general interaction of ecosystem in one place?
  18. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:52 PM on 27 August 2012
    Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    In response to suggestions that 'we' don't know about the arctic sea ice before satellites, it's pointed out that there were ships. Ships keep logs - and very good logs. NSIDC has some good compilations of Nordic ice edge from March through August for the period 1750-2002. It's not complete for obvious reasons, but if there is impenetrable ice down to a certain latitude then there's likely to be ice north of that latitude. Files are in different formats, even jpeg so you can visualise the edge. http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02169_nordic_sea_ice/
  19. empirical_bayes at 12:29 PM on 27 August 2012
    Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
    I am more pessimistic than ever that events, science, or argument will convince people to change. I think the best we can do is point out to The Patient, that they are Overweight, that they need to cut out the cigarette smoking and whiskey drinking, and they need more exercise. If they choose not to do so, it is Their Choice. The Hard Part is that Our Own Kids will suffer the consequences, too. I have no realistic answers. All human systems have limitations. The United States Constitution is ingenious, but why should we expect it itself hasn't limits? Maybe global challenges like climate change are just too tough for it to successfully solve. I am less concerned about predictions like extreme storms and droughts than I am about the nonlinear bifurcations in the climate system which may be possible, because we are operating in paleo-historically unprecedented parts of the state space. Basis? See http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/05/19/41233/barton-carbon-god/
  20. Pete Dunkelberg at 11:43 AM on 27 August 2012
    Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Michael, thanks for this additional information. Of course I don't know anything about your students. It is almost routine though that people who try to present reality to those who don't want to hear it become frustrated by the hardcases - the ones who just smart off against science. Remember they aren't the whole class. Anyone who might be going into science needs badly to be disabused of the vile "grant $" argument. For their sake and for the bystanders I think I would respond quite firmly to this argument, and brush off persistence as absurd. How can anyone believing that also think she or he is learning science, or indeed that there is any science to be learned? What was that Latin phrase? Don't let the hardcases get you down.
  21. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    "A 2008 study found that a period of abrupt sea-ice loss could lead to rapid soil thaw, as far as 900 miles inland." Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that the quicker the permafrost warms, the higher the metabolic rate of the Methanogens becomes? With a higher metabolism there will be a higher rate of methane production. Would anyone know how much of an increase in methane production we'd get per degree of increasing soil temperature? Due to the lethargy of micro-organisms in the cold there should be an enormous increase in metabolism from, let's say, 40F soil to 60F soil. Another positive feedback loop?
  22. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Old Mole @86 My comments on over-pumping of ground water in the Central Valley is based on a report in Geophysical Research Letters (1), a report by the University of California-Irvine (2) and related links as well as an article in New Scientist (3). I note that your comment refers to the San Joaquin Valley only and, while I am not familiar with geography of the area, my understanding is that this constitutes only a part of the Central Valley. (1) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046442.shtml (2) http://www.uci.edu/features/2009/12/feature_centralvalleywater_091214.php (3) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927993.300-lettuce-is-sucking-californias-fruit-basket-dry.html
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Hot-linked links.
  23. Teaching Climate Change in Schools
    Pete, The basic grant money argument is that thousands of scientists are all liars. This argument is made by people who do not listen to reason. What reasonable person would assert that thousands of people they have never met are all lying for money and keeping the conspiracy a complete perfect secret? These people can never be addressed with reason. It angers me that someone would say all scientists are no better than politicians or oil executives. They believe the oil executives at the same time. I have found it is a waste of my time to attempt to deal with this argument. In addition, I find that my students do not listen to someone they disagree with. They think everything is a political argument. They do not know what a fact is. 25% of people in the USA are unable to determine Obama was born in the USA. TV adds pelt them with "scientific" arguments for weight loss and other snake oil. They watch House solve "scientific" problems. Keep in mind that half of students in the USA do not believe in evolution (more people in the USA believe in ghosts than evolution). They are taught to question science by their pastors. We spend very little time in science classes teaching how scientists come to conclusions about new knowledge, most time is spent on material that is well known. My students are often impressed when they see the data. They seem to prefer little discussion so that they can reach their own conclusions. They usually tell me that they have never seen the data before, even though An Inconvenient Truth is shown in English. As any reader of SKS knows, the data speak very loudly. (An Inconvenient Truth is used as an example of how to make an argument). The Physics teacher no longer works at my school. I never found out exactly what his argument was. I think it was the "absorption is saturated" argument.
  24. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Old Mole @85 Thank you for your referenced material which I note records the number of days per annum when 8 hour exposure to O3 concentrations exceeding 80 ppb (0.08 ppm) anywhere in the South Coast Air Basin. Table 2 in the blog refers to the effects of O3 concentrations up to 300 ppb and is then followed by reference to the effects of concentrations in excess of 300 ppb concluding that it is reasonable to assume that prolonged or permanent exposure would be very serious, indeed fatal. The material you cite substantiates that view and the dangers of ozone to human health, including the observation that concentrations of 200 ppb or more pose a serious health risk. I note in comment 76 that in some major cities there has been a trend to reducing O3 emissions as a result of public policy aimed at reducing emission of its precursors. Thank you for confirming that this is the case in California. You point out that the population of Mexico City are exposed to smog for protracted periods. However Mexico City is located at 1,800 – 2,000 metres above sea level. At that elevation climate conditions are not conducive to release of sufficient VOC’s to convert NO to NO2 which, on exposure to sunlight, is converted to ozone. While smog can be very heavy, concentration of ozone is unlikely to reach toxic levels for more than short periods – at present. However Guangzhou and other Chinese cities are at or close to sea level and have very polluted air including quite high levels of NO which has the potential to be converted to NO2 by natural and human VOC emissions. For this reason – and the fact that smog is by itself injurious to public health – Chinese authorities have embarked on retrofitting scrubbers to reduce industrial pollutants entering the atmosphere.
  25. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    johnm33 @34, I cannot help feel that you are buying trouble here. The upper ocean concentrations of various gasses maintain an equilibrium partial vapour pressure with the atmosphere on a very short (about one year) time scale, so that any "oxygen scrubbing" by methane bubbles would be quickly compensated for by increased absorption of oxygen by the ocean at the surface. Indeed, with greater exposed surface due to reduced sea ice cover, the return to equilibrium should be even quicker. There will be a reduction of dissolved oxygen as the planet warms, but that is because warmer water holds less gas. However, the amount of that reduction is, I believe, too small to be a significant threat to marine life.
  26. Pete Dunkelberg at 10:26 AM on 27 August 2012
    Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Michael Sweet @ n New threads pop up and die down quickly here, and you appear and vanish almost like a virtual particle. Anyway I left you a message in the teaching thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Teaching-Climate-Change-Schools.html
  27. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Take a look at the opening paragraph of the Toronto Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security conference held in 1988. The conference statement is here. Scientists who attended explained that 95% of their colleagues would not hesitate to sign that. The first sentence: "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war" The conference was a four day effort for 400 high level delegates assigned the task of coming up with that statement. What could 400 delegates from 40 countries agree the threat of climate change represented? I remember a back room conversation between Digby McClaren, then President of the Royal Society of Canada and a delegate I didn't recognize. McClaren cut the man off in the middle of his statement about how things might not be so bad. "What about the Vostok Core?" is all he said. He expressed this thought with feeling - he sounded like a navigator on a space ship addressing the captain who had just committed the ship to hit a star. No one stood to contest McClaren. With all due respect to those saying the latest data from the Arctic is so bad everyone should take it seriously and the world and civilization will change, I say, the same thing was said about this or that dataset back then. The Vostok core data should have been enough to convince civilization it needed to stabilize the composition of the atmosphere. But it didn't. If you went out into politics, back then, and tried to make a case that people should vote for people who would implemenet policy to stabilize the composition of the atmosphere and return it to the preindustrial you were regarded by most people as insane. This is what I did. I had my own little version of a slide show like Gore's and I would appear wherever I could find an audience. I felt then the way many are expressing themselves in the comments here now. It was obviously too late for civilization to save itself back then. What we faced back then was greater change than what the planet had experienced in going from an ice age to an interglacial only the change was further warming from an interglacial, and what was most worrying was the projected rate. This was going to go at a speed far faster than almost anything in the paleo record. You have to think about the asteroid hit that took out the dinosaurs when you wonder about change that was faster and you have to think that the climate change prospect we faced in 1988 was going to be more far reaching and much longer lasting. And especially what we faced then was a civilization so deeply committed to using fossil fuels it could not think straight. This is still what we face now. Every aspect of the situation is more grave today, but in essence, it is the same situation. So it can be faced. You can understand what is happening and still find power to act on any given day. So don't be so downhearted. My grandmother used to say that to me sometimes. So what if the latest data streaming in from the Arctic is bad news. By now what we want is the worst news possible. The main problem I see with the latest Arctic data is the news isn't bad enough. The morons are ignoring it. They're drooling over the vast region that is opening up where they're going to find more oil and gas.
  28. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    I was looking around for info on another topic when i came across this blog which is the scariest scenario iv'e come across for a warming arctic ocean, a short extract Striping of Oxygen from the Oceans Another disquieting effect of methane release is related to what happens when you bubble a gas through a liquid. The surface of each bubble acts as a semi-permeable membrane. Gases diffuse across the surface of the bubble in proportion to the difference in their concentration on either side of the 'membrane'. In the case of a bubble of methane, the oxygen from the water diffuses into the bubble and is carried to the surface of the ocean. In other words, an extensive evolution of methane gas from the ocean bottom would scrub the oxygen out of the water. Methane which remains dissolved in the water reacts with the oxygen, depleting it and forming Carbon dioxide. Not only do you have a depletion of oxygen but also an acidification of the water from the Carbon dioxide. If this happens, all water breathing life, may die and the Arctic will become an anaerobic cess pool. This adds a further dimension. All the dead sea life, under anaerobic conditions, will also liberate methane as it breaks down not to mention oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. There is also the possibility that under deep ocean pressure, methane will dissolve in large amounts in the water and as currents bring this water closer to the surface, the methane may start to bubble out, causing an upwelling like an air lift, far from the original source of the methane. This will pull more methane rich water upwards to release its burden of methane suddenly into the atmosphere. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/arctic-melting-no-problem.html
  29. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Although this ice melt is a worry, so was the Texas 2011 drought, incredible, as was the Russian drought, as was the March North American heatwave (records brocken by 20-30C), as was the Amazon drought 2010 and so on, so why should this make people less likely to withdraw from denial? Considering the lagged heating system the earth is and the extra energy imbalance the sea ice melt, NH early snow melt and Greenland Ice sheet albedo shift due to dark ice under the snow induce, how much more additional carbon emissions feels safe? Does 2C feel safe considering what is happening already? 1.5C, 1C? The quickest and easiest way to stop emissions to stop using power, or is that too much of a challenge?
  30. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    John Russel @25 - great links, thanks. However, the 1996 Nature letter refers to Antarctic sea ice. I don't suppose you can find the article quoting Christy anywhere, or perhaps could scan your paper version for us? michael sweet @30 - thanks for that link too. I wonder if the St. Roch passage is the 'anecdotal evidence' Christy refers to.
  31. funglestrumpet at 08:42 AM on 27 August 2012
    Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Jeffrey Davis @ 27 "what exactly would it take to get politicians off their duffs?" Seeing as the politicians, media and large portions of the general public are effectively giving the finger to the scientific community and its opinions, how about a global day of scientific inaction? That might get some people to at least ask what the fuss is all about. It might even get some politicians interested, well, the ones who are not to be bought by campaign donations, anyway.
  32. Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
    The video "El Verde Edited Final" has at least some parts in mock-Spanish. And I don't mean an excusable use of English indicative when Spanish subjunctive is essential, but the use of Spanglish and a certain fail to even look up terms in the dictionary, like the refrain "respecta a tu madre" which is ungrammatical, with a meaning closer to "regarding to your mother" than the intended "respect your mother". I consider that culturally insulting, as this is not an exception but the rule in the States.
  33. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    The St. Roch, a Canadian ice breaker, made its passage of the North West Passage in 1943. This SKS post describes that passage. Some deniers claim that since the St. Roch was able to make the passage it means there was no ice. This is clearly not true and anyone who checks the written record can see that it is false. Obviously, Cristy does not care if it is true or not. This denier meme has not been used much lately, but was more popular a couple of years ago.
  34. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    (Continuing the numbering of points) 18. (containing likely fruitless original research) While it's pretty clear that seasonally ice-free arctic messes up the polar jet stream with all sorts of weather irregularities in the temperate zones, the effect further south is not that clear. one might think there would be summer time continental high pressure areas (as the lows are in the arctic) which gives rise to the wet oceans/dry continents -argument that has been referred in some scientific literature for a long time. No doubt the arctic clouds will come southwards but how far they'll get? These highs in turn might effect the routes of tropical storms so (comes to mind) eastward hurricanes in Atlantic might become the norm (could there be two jet streams still in NH but the other one is new and not polar?). With the extra energy in NH (via the albedo effect), will these consequent changes in weather patterns propagate even to the equator pushing the intertropical convergence zone elsewhere (and north or south, does it matter?) Will there be more doubled ITCZs than previously and what does that mean? Anyway it's pretty clear the extra energy finds its way to the southern hemisphere eventually (thermohaline circulation at last) and starts warming up the waters there too. In summary, it looks to me like the countdown to acceleration of GIS or WAIS -melt ends with the disappearance of a stable polar vortex/summer ice in NH. (gotta stop, seeing tropical storms in the British channel and that's not good for clear thinkin ;-)) jyyh @ +20 ASL
  35. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Neven has now posted an extended version of this article on his Arctic Sea Ice Blog: Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
  36. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Changing the thermohaline current is scary but unlikely. There are 3 main reason why we should be concerned with AGW: food, food, and food. Corn dies on the stalk when it's exposed to temps above 112. This summer it hit that and more in Kansas, the heart of the agricultural production in the US. And corn died. Pronto. The next bad heat wave will be worse. Soon, and for the rest of our lives, it will be much worse still. Not to play the Panic Card, but at this point, what exactly would it take to get politicians off their duffs?
  37. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    @Albatross You might find the links I provided in my comment, immediately above, useful for the Christy debunk. By 'historical times' I, of course, meant 'recorded history'.
  38. Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
    The thing about ozone was the main use of the offending chemicals was as a refrigerant. There was $1 worth of CFC in a refrigerator. Compare to the place fossil fuels have in the overall scheme of things. The other thing was the way scientific understanding evolved after the issue had been successfully relegated to a back burner by industry lobbying efforts. After an initial culture shock when Rowland discovered what was possible in 1973 and consumers turned away from spray bomb cans powered by substances that could destroy Earth's radiation shield, industry got things quieted down enough so that the fastest expanding use of CFCs in the 1980s was for use in foam hamburger containers. The general scientific understanding (with notable exceptions, i.e. Rowland, etc.) of the scientific community studying ozone depetion around 1986 was that the models were showing that it shouldn't be possible, yet, to observe that ozone had depleted anywhere, and, most thought, you couldn't observe that ozone had depleted anywhere. (Rowland kept wandering around shouting what about this, what about that). There was a general agreement that just doing nothing and allowing production of CFCs and the other chemicals to expand without limit would at some point pose a very serious problem. The debate drifted off.... Rowland kept saying there's a problem now. Hansen seems to have the role Rowland played in the ozone debate, in the climate debate now. You could be as depressed about the prospects for civilization over ozone depletion and why nothing was being done then as people who've read too many climate science papers are now. Then Farman published his observations of the Antarctic ozone hole. So suddenly, the general understanding went from nothing observable was happening yet to there's this hole in the ozone you could see from Mars. Everyone coalesced around the view that this is the sh*t and it is hitting the fan NOW. At some levels in the stratosphere all the ozone was gone. A reaction was suddenly triggered, it seemed, and poof. Everyone realized no one had a clue about the chemistry that was causing this. The word "hysteria" was applied to the scientific community by observers. Civilization received a shock. For a brief while. The combination, that the problem was basically trivial to solve, and this sudden shock rippling out from the scientists, got a political response that may yet prove inadequate, that nevertheless many point to as a precedent of success. (See Anderson's recent discovery that climate change may have changed the behaviour of thunderstorms causing them to inject water deeper into the stratosphere than it has been during the time civilization has been around, where it is liable to trigger exactly what has been going on over Antarctica all these years... Harvard Magazine article here) By trivial I mean it didn't amount to a hill of beans whether you kept on using $1 worth of chemicals in each refrigerator or you retooled to produce and use $4 per refrigerator or something like that. The US Senate passed a resolution 80 - 2 calling on Reagan to act. Reagan personally overruled the remaining Neanderthals in his Administration who were still arguing that nothing should be done, and the US backed beefing up the Montreal Protocol. Compare to the climate problem: replacing 80% or more of the energy source to civilization is a bit more daunting than paying $3 more for a fridge. And that doesn't address the GHGs coming from land use, food production, et. cetera. And we've become like drug addicts who need a bigger dose for less effect: the surprise that the great ice sheets are waking up, or the massive loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, didn't cause enough political action to see in the rising CO2 chart. You can still make an argument we don't have the equivalent of the ozone hole just yet. We need something like the US Southwest actually turns into a duplicate of the Sahara, or a Category 6 250 mph hurricane levels the Florida peninsula. If political action doesn't come after that.... These warnings that this or that is going to happen UNLESS just aren't the equivalent. And this is a real problem how far the disrespect for science now extends. You had real difficulty showing your face at the highest levels of civilization if your line was the scientists are all just making this up, back then.
  39. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    @Dave 123 The only "anecdotal or other evidence" I can find to back up Christy's assertion -- and I can find a reference to Lindzen saying the something similar -- is this letter to Nature in 1996. However, I can find loads to support the view that the melt we're witnessing is unprecedented in historical time frames. Try here, here and here.
  40. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    You might want to update the Christy Crocks to include the allegation on arctic ice 1938-43. I sure didn't see it on the main page of quotes, and it was certainly new to me. Albatross' post was exactly what I was looking for.
  41. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    John @12, I share your feelings. That quote you provided is an unsubstantiated and blatantly false statement by Dr. Christy. We now have another Christy Crock to add to the long list. Dr. Christy is entitled to his own (misguided) opinions, but not his own facts. I have a pretty good idea what Christy is doing here, but the comments policy prevents me from being perfectly candid. I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions. By the "rest of us", Christy is in fact referring to certain fringe and contrarian elements such as himself who represent 2-3% of climate scientists. Christy's assertions are also at odds with those scientists who specialize in Arctic sea ice (e.g., Polyak et al. 2010; Walsh and Chapman 2001). To wit, [Source] As the above figure shows, Walsh and Chapman found no evidence whatsoever of a reduction in total Arctic sea ice in the thirties or forties that came even remotely close to the scary minima in total Arctic sea ice that we are now experiencing. Not to mention that previous minima (as found by Kinnard et al) were transient, what we are experiencing now is a systematic and accelerating downward trend in total Arctic sea ice at a time when temperatures over the northern high latitudes should be decreasing because of a reduction incoming solar radiation. I will have more to write on this soon, Christy should be taken down hard for yet again making such blatantly false and unsubstantiated statements to the media. This is shameful, irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour for someone of his standing IMO.
  42. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    RealClimate has just posted this update from NSIDC Arctic Sea ice Extent: [Source] Note the use of absolute extent. Shades of Brody, 2013 will need a taller graphic...
  43. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Does anyone have any ready references to Christy's allegations about the arctic 1939-43? I'm not sure where I'd start looking and it helps to be prepared. Thanks
    Moderator Response: [DB] There is a compendium of links under the Christy Crocks button on the left side of every SkS page.
  44. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    @ sout # 10. It's a little hard to say, given the fairly noisy and weather driven nature of the sea ice minimum. However, given the increased melt rate (daily falls of more than 100 thousand have occurred regularly this month) and an extent already below 07's lowest; it'll be, at best, 600 K square kilometers less than the 2007 September average. As of Aug 26th, the current extent is roughly 4.05 M SqKm, and I expect that by September 01 that will have reached at least 3.7 - 3.8, looking at the daily figures provided by the IJIS (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv). It's not improbable that the annual minimum will drop or below 3.5 M Km - given that most years a further 200 -300 K is lost in September itself. Thus a projected September average of 3.6 - 7 ish is at this stage hardly outlandish, and may yet prove a conservative estimate. For it to be even as high as 3.8 it would probably need to plateau by the end of the week, which doesn't seem likely at this stage.
  45. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Just thinking about the 'opportunities' an ice-free Arctic presents: it's a bit like falling off a cliff and exclaiming, "At last! I've always wanted to fly!" What worries me most is that once the countries bordering the Arctic start exploiting their new territories, they'll come to think climate change is a net benefit and then become a force to resist emissions reduction. This really could create fierce new planetary divisions: the low versus the high latitudes.
  46. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Dear admin, I have just seen your reply, how is the albedo effect off-topic?! In the third paragraph it states '... the role Arctic sea ice plays as a reflector of solar energy', which is the albedo effect... Daniel, in my deleted post I did say I would appreciate feedback. Please explain where I am wrong as I have heard this amount used in more than one publication and although I found the figure mindblowing at first, it seems reasonable that it would take that much energy to heat up the land mass of Europe. ( Jonh Mashley, I am finding it difficult to find what the project actually is on the link that you have provided so could you please elaborate? I was thinking about geoengineering before the term was even coined, but i thought that the UN had ordered a halt on all geoengineering projects a couple of years ago? Admin, please bear with me, I'm not a scientist, nor a climate change denier, I want to learn and understand and am actually glad to speak to people who are knowledgeable in this area...
    Moderator Response: [DB] If you wish to pursue a discussion on desert albedo changes, please post a comment on the Skeptic Argument The albedo effect and global warming. This thread is about Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
  47. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    For a modest (but possibly useful) Arctic geoengineering effort, see Ice911. Read carefully, including people involved, some of whom I see occasionally, including Leslie. Steve Schneider was an advisor before his death.
  48. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Leake has a certain track-record along these lines, John. Due skepticism and all that, as in the final sentence of my post on Patrick Moore the other day. But the trouble is that people don't always think skeptically.
  49. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    "...it heats it up by trillions of degrees a day..."
    You should rethink your phraseology used in this bit; as it stands it is very wrong...on many levels.
  50. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    I agree with you John, some people always think about making a fast buck rather than ensuring that life as we know it, or just life, carries on on this planet. As shoyemore siad 'The Arctic Ice story, which will affect millions on the planet far more that these two, should be the science highlight of the year.' I would also like to clarify one of my points about the albedo effect: Dry sand has a higher effect than sand and less than snow. In the arctic, very little snow falls as it is usually too cold and there is very little wind to throw that snow around to maximise the effect. I say usually, because there has actually been more rain of late in the arctic, speeding up the melt. Interesting articles here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107072003.htm

Prev  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us