Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:46 PM GMT on September 20, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

The extraordinary decline in Arctic sea ice during 2012 is finally over. Sea ice extent bottomed out on September 16, announced scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on Wednesday. The sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers, breaking the previous all-time low set in 2007 by 18%--despite the fact that this year's weather was cloudier and cooler than in 2007. Nearly half (49%) of the icecap was gone during this year's minimum, compared to the average minimum for the years 1979 - 2000. This is an area approximately 43% of the size of the Contiguous United States. And, for the fifth consecutive year--and fifth time in recorded history--ice-free navigation was possible in the Arctic along the coast of Canada (the Northwest Passage), and along the coast of Russia (the Northeast Passage or Northern Sea Route.) "We are now in uncharted territory," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "While we've long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur. While lots of people talk about opening of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic islands and the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast, twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean."


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice reached its minimum on September 16, 2012, and was at its lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?
We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) shows that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 - 3°C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.


Figure 2. Year-averaged and 3-month averaged Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from Chapman and Walsh (2001), as updated by the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. I've updated their graph to include 2011 plus the first 9 months of 2012.


Figure 3. Late summer Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed from proxy data by Kinnard et al.'s 2011 paper, Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. The solid pink line is a smoothed 40-year average, and the light pink areas shows a 95% confidence interval.  Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, though the extent is not as low as the current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing. More commentary on this graph is available at skepticalscience.com.

When will the Arctic be ice-free in summer?
So, when will Santa's Workshop need to be retrofitted with pontoons to avoid sinking to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean in summer? It's hard to say, since there is a large amount of natural variability in Arctic weather patterns. Day et al. (2012) found that 5 to 31% of the changes in Arctic sea ice could be due to natural causes. However, the sea ice at the summer minimum has been declining at a rate of 12% per decade, far in excess of the worst-case scenario predicted in the 2007 IPCC report. Forecasts of an ice-free Arctic range from 20 - 30 years from now to much sooner. Just this week, Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within four years. A study by Stroeve et al. (2012), using the updated models being run for the 2014 IPCC report, found that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility." Of the 21 models considered, 2022 was the earliest date that complete Arctic sea ice occurred in September.


Video 1. A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds. According to NSIDC, the storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.Video credit: NASA.

But Antarctic sea ice is growing!
It's a sure thing that when Arctic sea ice hits new record lows, global warming contrarians will attempt to draw attention away from the Arctic by talking about sea ice around Antarctica. A case in point is an article that appeared in Forbes on Wednesday by James Taylor. Mr. Taylor wrote, "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low. Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."

This analysis is highly misleading, as it ignores the fact that Antarctica has actually been warming in recent years. In fact, the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed faster than the global trend, and there has been accelerated melting of ocean-terminating Antarctic glaciers in recent years as a result of warmer waters eating away the glaciers. There is great concern among scientists about the stability of two glaciers in West Antarctica (the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers) due the increase in ocean temperatures. These glaciers may suffer rapid retreats that will contribute significantly to global sea level rise.

Despite the warming going on in Antarctica, there has been a modest long-term increase in Antarctic sea ice in recent decades. So, how can more sea ice form on warmer ocean waters? As explained in an excellent article at skepticalscience.com, the reasons are complex. One reason is that the Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). As the planet continues to warm, climate models predict that the growth in Antarctic sea ice will reverse, as the waters become too warm to support so much sea ice.


Figure 4. Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica (top), and sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). Image credit: (Zhang 2007).

Commentary: Earth's attic is on fire
To me, seeing the record Arctic sea ice loss of 2012 is like discovering a growing fire burning in Earth's attic. It is an emergency that requires immediate urgent attention. If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the Contiguous U.S. from the ocean, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. This year's record sea ice loss also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Global warming doubters tell us to pay attention to Earth's basement--the Antarctic--pointing out (incorrectly) that there is no fire burning there. But shouldn't we be paying attention to the steadily growing fire in our attic? The house all of humanity lives on is on fire. The fire is certain to spread, since we've ignored it for too long. It is capable of becoming a raging fire that will burn down our house, crippling civilization, unless we take swift and urgent action to combat it.

References
Funder, S. and K.H. Kjaer, 2007, "A sea-ice free Arctic Ocean?", Geophys. Res. Abstr. 9 (2007), p. 07815.

Kinnard et al., 2011, "Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years".

Walsh, J.E and W.L.Chapman, 2001, "Twentieth-century sea ice variations from observational data", Annals of Glaciology, 33, Number 1, January 2001, pp. 444-448.

Related info
Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog post
Wunderground's Sea Ice page

Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 659 - 609

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

I think the area to watch is just N of Panama.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


This year's net loss of volume is exactly the same as the 5 year running average net loss of volume, and it's below the 10 year running average by about 140cu km.

Your comment is pointless and ill-informed.


Since the average melt rate had been growing exponentially, it's more likely the storm actually inhibited melting, since you would expect the most recent year to be at least slightly above the 5 year running average loss, and certainly above the 10 year running average loss.



The comment is valid. The fact that the storm has contributed to the ice loss has been made by climatologists. The point in the graph where 2012 starts to deviate sharply from 2007 coincides with the storm. No doubt you are very intelligent and knowledgeable, but you could use some manners. A touch of Asperger's, possibly?
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 3013
Quoting LargoFl:
actually a big change IS coming, weather wise when that happens..climate may change,plants,animals and humans will need to adapt to it, im sure it has happened many times in the past...hate to say the Mayans had it right..not total destruction as some say but..a big change..those studying the mayan culture were amazed at how advanced they were..in studying the stars etc..we shall see huh

Yes, I would hate to say the Mayans had it right, since their ability to see into the future apparently missed the fact that almost the entire race would be wiped out by Spanish conquerors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Pipejazz:


RT, love ya BUT the women of the mid-east and Africa have no say in their pregnancies. Actually instead of cutting funding, the vas deferens should be cut.


You're actually at least partially correct, and Islam is a big part of the problem.


It never ceases to amaze me, one of the things that perplexes me most about the "liberals" perhaps the left-most 1/4th of Americans, is that they'll either support or maintain a neutral view of Islamic faiths, and yet the Islamic faith would destroy all of the "liberal" principles if it's followers had their way.

Oh yes, there's a reason for everything.

I the middle east and the Islamic parts of Africa, the problem is, well, Islam.

In other parts of Africa there are other issues as I described.


But the "cause" of the problem is irrelevant to the concept of an international law. If you could pass such a law, or at least get each nation to pass a similar "common sense reproduction law," then you could prevent this evil.

Yes, reproducing beyond capacity of the sustainability of the planet given existing technologies is evil, what else would it be? The destruction of the environment beyond critical limits will leave some of us, and certainly future generations, in a situation where much of the world is a depleted wasteland.


I calculated that every billion humans produce 0.1PPM CO2 per year just from breathing, then when you figure the livestock animals for food, those probably produce another 0.1PPM per year just from breathing. So if you added 2 billion humans, the slope of the keeling curve would go up by about 0.4PPM just from breathing, before you even consider more automobiles or electricity, or more deforestation for farm land to support those livestock animals.

Because the Earth can only recycle CO2 at a set limit, which actually decreases as we destroy forests and ocean habitats, ever PPM or fraction of a PPM we make above what we are already making goes directly to EXCESS, which goes directly to the slope of the Keeling Curve, which in turn means rapidly accelerating that curve and the GW caused by that CO2 for a relatively small fraction of the CO2 humans actually produce in a year.

We actually "produce" around 6PPM per year, but only around 2 to 2.2PPM per year goes to net gain.

So you can see how an increase of 0.4PPM/yr just from the breathing of these extra humans and the livestock to feed them must automatically bring that slope up to 2.4PPM/yr to 2.6PPM/yr, and we have not given them automobiles, clothing, homes, or electricity yet; those things will add an additionally 1.4PPM/yr per 2 billion people, bring the total annual excess CO2 to 3.8ppm/yr to 4.0ppm/yr, or nearly double today's excess.

Edit:

Forgot to mention, since we'll be cutting down more forests to make farmland for the agriculture and horticulture to feed all these extra people, the environment's ability to uptake and recycle CO2 will certainly go down, probably by several tenths of a PPM, so you can add a few more tenths per year to the 3.8 to 4.0 figure above...

Reality bites...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
-------

Oil and coal companies make a combined profit of several hundred million dollars each day. Profit. Each day. So until someone can provide evidence that climate scientists are sharing in an equal amount of monetary gain, I'll continue on the assumption that it's nothing more than a silly denialist fantasy to pretend "it's all about money for both sides".

It would really be great if in discussing this, everyone would please try to stick with verifiable facts, not easily-disproved contrarian nonsense.


More AGW denialism on full display.

Did you know that Amazon.com is a great source for books on starting a business and subjects like supply and demand in the marketplace?

Your comments shout loudly that you haven't a clue about concepts like 'supply and demand' etc. If you would simply take the time to read up on the subject you would see how full of holes your argument really is.

The AGW movement wants to cause us to look the other way with statements like yours and like the famous quote from a very special movie.."Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

To deny that there is a huge amount of money to be made in AGW and deny that there are numerous groups positioning themselves so that they can feed from the AGW money trough, is simply Denialist times three.

If you are so desperate to be part of the AGW movement, please feel free. Last I heard, we are free to our opinions, at least that is the case in a free society.

The only thing any of us would ask is that you at least be honest about it when you make your comments and stop demeaning those who see it differently from you.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In the next 30 years these problems will very likely expand and multiply, as an already taxed food system faces threats on multiple fronts. A rise in temperature—even as little as 1 degree Celsius—could cause many plantings to fail, the report indicates, since pollen and seeds are sensitive to slight temperature changes. Yields of corn and rice are expected to decline slightly. Heat-sensitive fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, will most likely suffer. Some of the potential damage will be blunted by higher carbon dioxide levels; soybean yields, for instance, will probably improve, because soybeans (and several other crops) thrive from higher carbon inputs. But if temperatures keep rising, the balance will ultimately tip: At some extreme temperature, cells stop dividing, and pollen dies.

High ozone levels, which have risen sixfold in the United States in the past century and are expected to rise further, will suppress yields as well. In fact, ozone levels are already extremely high in the eastern and midwestern regions of the country, rivaled globally only by eastern China (no model of air quality, to be sure) and parts of western Europe. One recent study, for instance, found that high ozone levels significantly suppress yields of soybean, wheat, and peanuts in the Midwest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
627. Neapolitan 1:49 PM GMT on September 21, 2012
Your argument about the wealthiest people who were written up in the Forbes article proves only that (add: many? most of?) those humans NOT (in)vested in energy have less money to work with.

How about some of the less wealthy, the Hollywood liberals, the climate scientists, the Neos and others? Have they no money invested directly or indirectly in oil, gas or coal? Show me that, please.

Some who, by inheritance or by their own moxie, gained wealth in oil and gas do promote alternative energy. Boone Pickens for instance.

I am not placing wrong or right on anyone. Please, just give me a valid argument, no matter which side you represent.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
652. mati
Quoting sar2401:

Here are some reasearch questions for you:

1. What percentage of photovoltacic panels are manufactured in the USA?

2. What company is the largest manufacturer of wind turbines?

3. What was the total income of James Hansen, including his government salary?


1. China
2. China
3. N/A
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wunderkidcayman:
hey guys look at this the TCHP are screaming high


That's pretty ridiculous.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32870
Quoting Jedkins01:



Well assuming Climate predictions are right, we probably won't get that much hotter, but the Climate will probably get more purely tropical. That is a longer wet season, and a lack of cold frontal passages. Meaning the dry season would still be sometimes warm and humid, with occasional showers. While the wet season would favor a longer period of heavy rainfall. Basically winter cold would disappear and the rain season would be more like 6 to 8 months of the year.

Probably the Climate would be similar to that of Central America, especially because like Central America, Florida has water on either side and is about as as thick in land coverage.

Already dry areas of the U.S. will probably get hotter and drier. South Texas will probably become a nightmare of heat.
ive been reading the science sites all morning and a change is coming, slowly but coming, i wont be around to see it happen fully but the climate they say Will change, but for us..a wetter climate is ok, better than the drier climate huh..really worried about the crop yields further north though..oh well
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
That's not remotely true. In fact, it's easy to prove that it's an outright falsehood.

In doing research for a soon-to-be-published article, I went through Forbes magazine's list of the world's billionaires. On that list were 85 names of people who derived most or all of their fortunes via extracting, processing, transporting, distributing, or providing infrastructure for fossil fuels. Care to take a guess how many names were on that list because of the fortunes they'd earned primarily or mostly practicing climate science? Building or selling solar panels or wind turbines?

Oil and coal companies make a combined profit of several hundred million dollars each day. Profit. Each day. So until someone can provide evidence that climate scientists are sharing in an equal amount of monetary gain, I'll continue on the assumption that it's nothing more than a silly denialist fantasy to pretend "it's all about money for both sides".

It would really be great if in discussing this, everyone would please try to stick with verifiable facts, not easily-disproved contrarian nonsense.

Here are some reasearch questions for you:

1. What percentage of photovoltacic panels are manufactured in the USA?

2. What company is the largest manufacturer of wind turbines?

3. What was the total income of James Hansen, including his government salary?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:

As I said before, Neapolitan's views have NOTHING to do with whether or not the Earth is warming, cooling, vaporizing, or freezing over ice-age style. It's an agenda slamming fossil fuels burning. Plain and simple. Whether that goes as far as promoting green energy or not...that I can not tell you. What I can tell you is the relentless effort to demonize Big Energy. That's all it is. It's a no-brainer.

You seem to be giving Nea a lot more power than he actually has. I don't know why you go after Nea since he is not the issue. Sounds like just another way to confuse the issue.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
OK i have a serious question..IF climate change makes the earth warmer..and new york say..becomes tropical..here's my question..how hot would FLORIDA and the deep south get??



Well assuming Climate predictions are right, we probably won't get that much hotter, but the Climate will probably get more purely tropical. That is a longer wet season, and a lack of cold frontal passages. Meaning the dry season would still be sometimes warm and humid, with occasional showers. While the wet season would favor a longer period of heavy rainfall. Basically winter cold would disappear and the rain season would be more like 6 to 8 months of the year.

Probably the Climate would be similar to that of Central America, especially because like Central America, Florida has water on either side and is about as as thick in land coverage.

Already dry areas of the U.S. will probably get hotter and drier. South Texas will probably become a nightmare of heat.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wunderkidcayman:
hey guys look at this the TCHP are screaming high

Its a matter of time before something takes advantage of it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
645. BDAwx
One theory, global warming puts more energy into the atmosphere, so more water vapor can enter the atmosphere and release latent heat through condensation and make weather systems more energetic. This would mean they would have stronger winds.

In the arctic, since it is a frozen ocean, stronger winds would break up ice and potentially blow it towards warmer waters for it to melt. OR blow in warmer winds from the south.
Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, stronger winds wouldn't break up as much ice because it is a continent. In fact, stronger winds blowing offshore of the continent would cool the waters surrounding it more than normal, and to a lower latitude. Antarctica frequently has the coldest weather on earth, so it would make sense that stronger winds blowing that cold over the nearby Southern Ocean would create more ice.

Not to mention any increase in precipitation from the extra water vapor in the atmosphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Pity about the unusual (for the time of year) storm that broke up the ice. No way to tell how much it contributed, but it did contribute. We'd have a clearer picture of the rate of melting if it hadn't happened.


This year's net loss of volume is exactly the same as the 5 year running average net loss of volume, and it's below the 10 year running average by about 140cu km.

Your comment is pointless and ill-informed.


Since the average melt rate had been growing exponentially, it's more likely the storm actually inhibited melting, since you would expect the most recent year to be at least slightly above the 5 year running average loss, and certainly above the 10 year running average loss.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In the next 30 years these problems will very likely expand and multiply, as an already taxed food system faces threats on multiple fronts. A rise in temperature—even as little as 1 degree Celsius—could cause many plantings to fail, the report indicates, since pollen and seeds are sensitive to slight temperature changes. Yields of corn and rice are expected to decline slightly. Heat-sensitive fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, will most likely suffer. Some of the potential damage will be blunted by higher carbon dioxide levels; soybean yields, for instance, will probably improve, because soybeans (and several other crops) thrive from higher carbon inputs. But if temperatures keep rising, the balance will ultimately tip: At some extreme temperature, cells stop dividing, and pollen dies.

High ozone levels, which have risen sixfold in the United States in the past century and are expected to rise further, will suppress yields as well. In fact, ozone levels are already extremely high in the eastern and midwestern regions of the country, rivaled globally only by eastern China (no model of air quality, to be sure) and parts of western Europe. One recent study, for instance, found that high ozone levels significantly suppress yields of soybean, wheat, and peanuts in the Midwest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:



Well Miami has had like 65 inches plus rainfall for the year. Its one of the wettest regions in the country. Some rain gauges are near the 80 inch make for the year.
I see that Miami is officially at 75.30", or 28.31" above normal; Ft. Lauderdale is at 48.97", or just 2.09" above normal; and West Palm is at 65.07", or 18.64" above normal. Meanwhile, across Alligator Alley, Naples has seen just 32.08", which is 9.63" below normal. It's nice and green now thanks to everything we've had in the last several weeks, but we're still hurting a bit...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
today is sept 21 2012 the last full day of summer
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tropical Convergence zone moving northward..AWAY from the tropics....................Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Morning Everyone, Found an Interesting article I would like to share with the blog

Exclusive: A Peek Inside NASA’s Global Hawk Hangar

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Pity about the unusual (for the time of year) storm that broke up the ice. No way to tell how much it contributed, but it did contribute. We'd have a clearer picture of the rate of melting if it hadn't happened.
Yes, the storm contributed to this year's loss, but not nearly so much as some might think (or, in many cases, wish). This graph shows a clear annual downward trend in ice volume, with no large 2012 spike:

Ice

The takeaway is twofold: 1) this year's record lows would likely have happened without the August storm. 2) That storm likely wouldn't have happened, or at least wouldn't have been as severe, without the record low ice.

Look for much more in the future...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
this could really be bad..crop wise, many plants need the cold weather in their life cycles etc...............taken from the UK daily mail science section............
‘For example, the southern portions of the United States may get drier if the storm systems move further north than they were 30 years ago.Indeed, some climate models have been showing a steady drying of the subtropics, accompanied by an increase in precipitation in higher mid-latitudes.'




Profesor Robert Allen said: ‘If the tropics are moving poleward, then the subtropics will become even drier.

‘If a poleward displacement of the mid-latitude storm tracks also occurs, this will shift mid-latitude precipitation poleward, impacting regional agriculture, economy, and society.’

Writing in journal Nature, his team studied data from a climate model covering 1979 to 1999, known as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 3 or ‘CMIP3.’

The model understimated the movement of the tropics by a third - until black carbon or tropospheric ozone was introduced into the equation.
Once they were the model matched the reality, suggesting the pollutants are playing a key role.


The experiment was repeated over a wider scale and the results remained the same.


Prof Allen said: ‘Both black carbon and tropospheric ozone warm the tropics by absorbing solar radiation.

‘Because they are short-lived pollutants, with lifetimes of one-two weeks, their concentrations remain highest near the sources: the Northern Hemisphere low- to mid-latitudes.

‘It's the heating of the mid-latitudes that pushes the boundaries of the tropics poleward.’

Prof Allen said that this moved wind patterns northwards, taking weather such as rain with them.


He said: ‘For example, the southern portions of the United States may get drier if the storm systems move further north than they were 30 years ago.
‘Indeed, some climate models have been showing a steady drying of the subtropics, accompanied by an increase in precipitation in higher mid-latitudes.

‘The expansion of the tropical belt that we attribute to black carbon and tropospheric ozone in our work is consistent with the poleward displacement of precipitation seen in these models.’

Black carbon is produced from incomplete burning of fossil fuels while tropospheric ozone is a secondary pollutant that results when volatile organic compounds react with sunlight.
Prof Allen said: ‘Greenhouse gases do contribute to the tropical expansion in the Northern Hemisphere.
‘But our work shows that black carbon and tropospheric ozone are the main drivers here.

‘We need to implement more stringent policies to curtail their emissions, which would not only help mitigate global warming and improve human health, but could also lessen the regional impacts of changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere.’

Thomas Reichler, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Utah, said: ‘For a long time it has been unclear to the research community why climate models were unable to replicate the observed changes in the atmospheric wind structure.
‘This work demonstrates now in very convincing ways that changes in the amount and distribution of tiny absorbing particles in the atmosphere are responsible for the observed changes.

‘Since previous model simulations did not account properly for the effects of these particles on the atmosphere, this work provides a surprisingly simple but effective answer to the original question.’

Prof Allen added: ‘The question to ask is how far must the tropics expand before we start to implement policies to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, tropospheric ozone and black carbon that are driving the tropical expansion?’.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
Arctic Sea Ice Sets a New Low

The drastic melting of Arctic sea ice has finally ended for 2012, scientists announced on Sept. 19, but not before demolishing the previous record — and setting off new warnings about the rapid pace of change in the region.

The apparent low point for the year was reached on Sept. 16, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which said that sea ice that day covered about 1.32 million square miles, or 24 percent, of the surface of the Arctic Ocean. The previous low, set in 2007, was 29 percent.


Pity about the unusual (for the time of year) storm that broke up the ice. No way to tell how much it contributed, but it did contribute. We'd have a clearer picture of the rate of melting if it hadn't happened.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 3013
Quoting lobdelse81:
Nothing to form in the Atlantic or Caribbean in the foreseeable future????? Man i hope this season is not over for good. Otherwise I will be chanting about what a garbage lopsided season this is.


Well then you clearly got your hopes too high up for a season that was supposed to be inactive.

I thought this season was very interesting and active and proof that ENSO doesn't determine activity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Arctic Sea Ice Sets a New Low

The drastic melting of Arctic sea ice has finally ended for 2012, scientists announced on Sept. 19, but not before demolishing the previous record — and setting off new warnings about the rapid pace of change in the region.

The apparent low point for the year was reached on Sept. 16, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which said that sea ice that day covered about 1.32 million square miles, or 24 percent, of the surface of the Arctic Ocean. The previous low, set in 2007, was 29 percent.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:



Well Miami has had like 65 inches plus rainfall for the year. Its one of the wettest regions in the country. Some rain gauges are near the 80 inch make for the year.
amazing huh
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
632. mati
Quoting stevsh89:


I most definitely have views on the global warming issue, but I don't really know much about funding with regards to the American 'AGW movement' that I have seen people speak about on here. Apologies if my comment was a bit confusing.

In my opinion, the 'it's all about the money' applies mostly to the skeptic side for me from a UK perspective. Fossil fuel companies will lose ALOT of money if people stop using fossil fuels as they have a large amount of reserves that would be rendered redundant.


Well the anti-science pushback in the U.S. is actually more driven by the large number of libertarian funded think tanks. The reason is that the science is causing policy changes by the government causing more regulation.

The Koch's et. al. do not want any government regulation. Thus smoking, polluting, burning oil, should be totally deregulated. Up to the consumers to sue the big companies if they cause problems.

Causing FUD about the science makes the politicians a little bit more wary of introducing regulations.

To some extent the big companies also worry about U.S. regulation, but not nearly as much because they are now global companies with global share holders. They have to tread more cautiously.

It will be interesting to see if the next Bilderberg group meeting will put more focus on climate change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
south florida's rainfall totals for the year must be very high huh.......................



Well Miami has had like 65 inches plus rainfall for the year. Its one of the wettest regions in the country. Some rain gauges are near the 80 inch make for the year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nothing to form in the Atlantic or Caribbean in the foreseeable future????? Man i hope this season is not over for good. Otherwise I will be chanting about what a garbage lopsided season this is.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
buy tvs and supply electricity to all the impoverished areas of the world. instead of making babies theyll be watching tv
Member Since: September 11, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 5009
OK i have a serious question..IF climate change makes the earth warmer..and new york say..becomes tropical..here's my question..how hot would FLORIDA and the deep south get??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting clamshell:
Whichever side you are on, the one big fact to remember is...its all about the money for both sides.


That's not remotely true. In fact, it's easy to prove that it's an outright falsehood.

In doing research for a soon-to-be-published article, I went through Forbes magazine's list of the world's billionaires. On that list were 85 names of people who derived most or all of their fortunes via extracting, processing, transporting, distributing, or providing infrastructure for fossil fuels. Care to take a guess how many names were on that list because of the fortunes they'd earned primarily or mostly practicing climate science? Building or selling solar panels or wind turbines?

Oil and coal companies make a combined profit of several hundred million dollars each day. Profit. Each day. So until someone can provide evidence that climate scientists are sharing in an equal amount of monetary gain, I'll continue on the assumption that it's nothing more than a silly denialist fantasy to pretend "it's all about money for both sides".

It would really be great if in discussing this, everyone would please try to stick with verifiable facts, not easily-disproved contrarian nonsense.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting guygee:
This morning is probably the last chance for comments before the Doc blows this popsicle stand.

I think we are looking at the prelude of an ice-free Arctic ocean within a decade, maybe within five years, ignoring some fast ice and ice calving off of Greenland. The picture of waves rolling over the North Pole will shock the civilized world.

The non-civilized neo-liberal pro-corporate globalization denier instigators of today will try to sell it to us as "opportunity" and "progress", as we will have one last area of the Earth to rape and pillage. Maybe they will be offering cruises through the Northwest Passage in 20 years for the elites, with the passengers escorted to the ships in heavily-guarded armored cars with bullet-proof glass.

Food will be very expensive and rationed in the US, poverty will be rampant, and in many other countries there will be mass starvation and war. That is where all of these supposed "pro-economy, anti-environment" people are leading us today.
actually a big change IS coming, weather wise when that happens..climate may change,plants,animals and humans will need to adapt to it, im sure it has happened many times in the past...hate to say the Mayans had it right..not total destruction as some say but..a big change..those studying the mayan culture were amazed at how advanced they were..in studying the stars etc..we shall see huh
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormPro:


BIGFOOT!!!
LOL sure is an interesting pic..probably some strange rock formation but..i bet the first NASA guy who saw that pic when it came in..went running around shouting LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SFLWeatherman:
It a EYE lol jk jk




It's a hurricane heading for FL run for your lives
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
rover is taking some curious pics alright.........
Quoting LargoFl:
rover is taking some curious pics alright.........


BIGFOOT!!!
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 606
This morning is probably the last chance for comments before the Doc blows this popsicle stand.

I think we are looking at the prelude of an ice-free Arctic ocean within a decade, maybe within five years, ignoring some fast ice and ice calving off of Greenland. The picture of waves rolling over the North Pole will shock the civilized world.

The non-civilized neo-liberal pro-corporate globalization denier instigators of today will try to sell it to us as "opportunity" and "progress", as we will have one last area of the Earth to rape and pillage. Maybe they will be offering cruises through the Northwest Passage in 20 years for the elites, with the passengers escorted to the ships in heavily-guarded armored cars with bullet-proof glass.

Food will be very expensive and rationed in the US, poverty will be rampant, and in many other countries there will be mass starvation and war. That is where all of these supposed "pro-economy, anti-environment" people are leading us today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
rover is taking some curious pics alright.........
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting indianrivguy:


is this a trick question? cold beer!
..hmmm martian red beer..gotta go and copyright that LMAO
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting stevsh89:


There's more ice there than there is in the Arctic /sarcasm :P
LOL, i was just in the science web, mars had oceans and rivers etc at one time, wonder if rover etc will ever find out..what happened there..rover is sending back some amazing pics from mars.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It a EYE lol jk jk
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
they found ICE on Mars!..where there's ice there's....


There's more ice there than there is in the Arctic /sarcasm :P
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:

I'll tell you one thing. You don't JUST have to be an American to have views on the issue. AWG and the effects of it are worldwide. Hence the tern Anthropogenic *Global* Warming.


I most definitely have views on the global warming issue, but I don't really know much about funding with regards to the American 'AGW movement' that I have seen people speak about on here. Apologies if my comment was a bit confusing.

In my opinion, the 'it's all about the money' applies mostly to the skeptic side for me from a UK perspective. Fossil fuel companies will lose ALOT of money if people stop using fossil fuels as they have a large amount of reserves that would be rendered redundant.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
they found ICE on Mars!..where there's ice there's....


is this a trick question? cold beer!
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2639
they found ICE on Mars!..where there's ice there's....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wunderkidcayman:


look again wind shear is high in the GOM not the NW caribbean however the shear starts to increase in the very extreme NW NW Caribbean on the yucatan pennusula


I only have to look once at something to grasp the significance. The shear is especially high over the Cayman Islands.

Shear tendency is expected to increase to the North of the system




Wind shear to the Northwest is between 20-50 mile range.

Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 27210
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
Anyway, one of the best ways to stop FUTURE CO2 production would be if mid-eastern and African women stopped having 8 children per woman, and decreased to a more reasonable 2.5. That would cut out around 60% of the net population growth over the next 2 decades compared to projections of present day trends.

Seriously, that's actually the easiest and most efficient thing that can be done.

Maybe we need an international law forbidding reproduction beyond 3 surviving children per woman. This would reduce world population to 8 billion by the mid 2030's, instead of 9 billion it would be on the present day trend, cutting net CO2 production by about 12.5%...




RT, love ya BUT the women of the mid-east and Africa have no say in their pregnancies. Actually instead of cutting funding, the vas deferens should be cut.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 659 - 609

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
34 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron