Is this year what we can expect?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:38 PM GMT on August 03, 2011

Share this Blog
11
+

Is this year what we can expect?

In recent weeks a question I have been asked often, “is this year, the last couple of years, like what we can expect in the future?” The question is often asked quietly, perhaps by a planner, say, someone worried about water in their city. The question follows from not only a perception that the weather is getting “weird,”, but also some small aspect of experience in their job. For example, a water manager recently said they were seeing their local river showing a distinct change to sporadically high flow in the winter, smaller spring flows, and extremely small flow late in the summer. Is this what I should expect in the future? The short answer is yes.

This question of expectation has rolled around in my head for years. I am a gardener with aspirations for small farmer. Over the last 30 years, I have definitely pushed my planting earlier in the year. When I was in Maryland, I felt wet, cool Mays were becoming the “norm,” with my tomatoes sitting in sodden soil. At the same time I would recall plots I had seen in some recent presentation that showed modeled shifts in the warm-cold patterns suggesting springtime cooling in northeastern North America. These are the sorts of casual correlations that lead people to think are we seeing a new “normal.”

In 2008 I wrote a blog about the changes in the hardiness zones that are reported on the back of seed packages. These are the maps that tell us the last frost date, and there were big changes between 1990 and 2006. These changes in the seed packets caught the attention of a lot of people. Recently, NOAA published the “new normal.” This normal relies on the definition of climate as a 30 year average. (AMS Glossary) What was done - at the completion of the decade NOAA recalculated a 30 year average. That is, 1981-2010 rather than 1971-2000. This average changed a lot, with notable warming of nighttime minima. There was some regional reduction of summertime maxima; that is, cooling. All in all, the average temperature went up, with most of the increase in nighttime minimum, a fact that is consistent with both model simulations and fundamental physics. This also came with another update of those hardiness zones.

When trying to interpret climate information and determining how has climate changed and how will it change, the combination of observations, fundamental physics, and models provide three sources of information. The combination of this information and the determination of the quality of that information is subject to interpretation. In the case of determining whether or not we are already experiencing the climate of warming world and how that change will be realized in the next decades it depends on how we use the models.

In my previous entry on heat waves, I implied how to use these pieces of information together. There are fundamental physics in the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air; hot air holds more water; warm water evaporates more quickly. The question of the model is - how well does the model represent the movement of that moisture? For the heat wave example, it is important how well do the models represent persistent high pressure systems over North America in the summer? Are these high pressure systems represented well by the models for the right reasons? The answer to the model question has a range of answers. The model does represent these systems, but if you are an expert in summertime persistent high pressure systems, then you can provide a long list of inadequacies. How can we glean information about the quality of the model? If we look at weather models, then we were able to predict the heat wave – even with the inadequacies that the expert or skeptic can list. Returning to the climate model, do we see like events in the current climate, and do these events change as the planet warms? The answer is yes. Then can we use this to guide our development of plans to adapt to climate change? The answer is yes, if we can connect the model back to data and the fundamental physics. This does become a matter of interpretation – how strong or weak is that connection?

The more I work with planners the more I hear the need for interpretive information, expert guidance, advisories about climate and climate change. People start with the notion that they want digital data from climate models that looks like current weather data. Once presented with 1) the logistical challenges of using that data, 2) the complex nature of the uncertainties associated with that data, and 3) the relative importance of climate to other parts of their decision package – once presented with these facts, they move to the need for advice. This makes sense - most of us want a narrative weather forecast, rather than model output. And the models play the same role in the use of weather forecasts as they do in climate projection. The models guide our thinking, with the ultimate forecast based on that guidance refined by observations and fundamental physics.

This entry started with the question I hear more and more – is this year what we can expect more of in the future? I have a mantra which is that on average the surface of the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. What we are seeing here is weather changing in a warming, more energy laden, environment. The extraordinary extremes that we have seen in the last year and are seeing this year are quite solidly connected to both fundamental physics and the guidance from climate and weather models. Hence, my answer, as I walk around my garden, thinking how to get better tomatoes next year, thinking about my irrigation system in my doddering retirement, is yes, what we are seeing this year tells me about what to expect in a future that is relevant to me - not something far off.

r

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: 121 - 71

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 | 29Blog Index

Quoting Neapolitan:

It's definitely making a comeback--in late September, as it does every autumn.

For the record, preliminary AMSR-E numbers (they're never final for a day or two, and the number will likely decrease) indicate that 36,429 square miles of Arctic Sea ice were lost yesterday. Some comeback, huh? ;-)


Unless I'm missing something, we're at the beginning of August.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting JBastardi:
New paper finds storms responsible for fluctuations in Arctic ice pack:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-pap er-finds-arctic-sea-ice-strongly.html


Also looks like Arctic ice is making a comeback:

Link

It's definitely making a comeback--in late September, as it does every autumn.

For the record, preliminary AMSR-E numbers (they're never final for a day or two, and the number will likely decrease) indicate that 36,429 square miles of Arctic Sea ice were lost yesterday. Some comeback, huh? ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13613
Quoting cyclonebuster:


And yet you keep spreading your BS! My red dots are bigger and more numerous than your tiny infinitesimal blue dots. So kindly stop spreading your BS here!





Please don't tell me what to do. Speaking of BS, also don't post any adjusted data from NOAA. Do you truly believe that garbage?
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting cyclonebuster:


No it does not look like it is making a comeback. Why are you so uninformed? You need to stop spreading your BS!



BS? What does this chart demonstrate? Or can you decipher it?

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
It appears that over half of the world is in a cooling phase, but, I know, that's just regional:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
New paper finds storms responsible for fluctuations in Arctic ice pack:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-pap er-finds-arctic-sea-ice-strongly.html


Also looks like Arctic ice is making a comeback:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting streamtracker:


Or they don't know manipulation when they don't see it.

Rassmussen is well known to have results that trend toward conservative viewpoints and have been criticized for using leading questions.

So, what have other recent surveys shown, Gallup and here.

The second one deals with a trust questions also.
The only way you can get conservative (or liberal) responses to poll questions is to phrase the questions in such a way that they elicit the response the questioner desires. The questions asked are available on the website and they are not biased in any way. Gallup is known to be very liberal, and they almost never post the questions asked -- only the answers.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting nymore:
Cyclone- We all know about your machine, you can quit posting it 50 times a week and basically wasting space. Everyone of your posts is either ice data, Greenland temps or the machine.


Of course it is that is what they can prevent. Why else do you think I made the tunnels?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Cyclone- We all know about your machine, and nobody cares. You can quit posting it 50 times a week and basically wasting space. Everyone of your posts is either ice data, Greenland temps or the machine.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Streamtracker- The thing about peer review is who is reviewing it. It should be a open process where you and all others know who they are. When the people reviewing the paper may have a bias toward you or the conclusions of the study I would have to question they objectivity. Bottom line if you are to judge something your name should be on it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hello Mcfly!! Are you listening to what the good doctor is saying here?

quote:
Yes, I have spoken with Patrick, and, yes, a scheme somewhat like the one he describes could weaken hurricanes threatening places like Miami that have strong western-margin currents just offshore. There are, however, numerous qualifications.

The scheme that we discussed involved an array of several rows devices across the Gulfstream. Each device would be a rectangular duct 140 m long and 10 by 14 m in cross section. Normally the devices would be moored horizontally at a depth of 100m with their long axes aligned with the current flow. They would be nearly neutrally buoyant. When a hurricane approached, ballast at the downstream end of the channel would be released, allowing the device to float up to a 45 deg angle. Cold water entering the upstream end would flow up to the surface and mix with the warmer water there. Since the mixture would be negatively buoyant, it would sink. But mixing due to several (3-10) lines of these devices could cool the surface waters of the Gulfstream by 1-2C, enough to weaken an Andrew-like hurricane from category 5 to category 3. A rough calculation indicates that a device every 100 m on each line of moorings (~1000 devices per ~100 km line) and 3-10 lines of moorings would be required. My guess is that it would cost $250K to fabricate and deploy a single device, but there might be economies of scale. One might also be able to optimize the size and spacing of the devices.

Let's say that careful calculation told us that 4 lines of 1000 devices each would do the trick. At $0.25M per device, the cost works out to 4*1000*($0.25M) = $1000M. The actual cost might range from a few hundred million to a small multiple of a (US = 1000M) billion. One would want to do a detailed simulation before defining the scope of the project, but the basic notion is conversion of some of the kinetic energy of the Gulfstream into gravitational potential energy of the mixed water column. Again, I've not done that detailed simulation, only back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Activation of the array would require accurate forecasting since it would take several days for the effect to make its way from south of the Dry Tortugas (optimum location for protecting the maximum amount of shoreline) to the landfall point.

South Florida gets hit by a category 4 or 5 hurricane at every few years, but the really damaging ones like Andrew tend to be once-a-generation events, or less frequent. The array would need to be deployed and maintained for a long time between activations that actually safeguard property, although false alarms would not be particularly costly. Annual maintenance could easily exceed 10% of initial deployment cost. Bear in mind that Key West to Jacksonville is the only stretch of US coastline where this strategy would work. The other vulnerable sites, Houston-Galveston and New Orleans, lack the necessary strong offshore currents. While Georgia and the Carolinas also experience many hurricane landfalls and have the Gulfstream offshore, most of these cyclones are already weakening because of vertical shear of the horizontal wind so that a second installation north of Jacksonville would be much less useful.

There has been a lot of talk about using wave and current energy to cool the ocean ahead of hurricanes. My general conclusion is that while these ideas might be made to work, the proponents underestimate the scope of the required effort, as well as the political will and recurring cost necessary to keep the project going in the long intervals between really damaging hurricanes. Skeptic that I am, I think that wiser land-use policy and more rigorous building standards are much more cost-effective and more politically feasible. A proof-of-concept that might entail deploying a half dozen devices has some appeal, but I think that there are more promising ways to spend disaster-prevention money.

Best regards,

Hugh Willoughby

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427

South-Central U.S. continues to bake

The extreme heat continues again today after 269 high maximum and 250 high minimum temperature records were set yesterday, 19 and 29 of which were all-time records, respectively. 206 of yesterday's records were 110°F or higher. Yesterday, Reuters was reporting that Texas was one power plant shutdown away from rolling blackouts. The forecast today doesn't look any better. Heat index values up to 125° are forecast in eastern Texas and the Lower Mississippi Valley.

Particularly toasty heat index values from yesterday:

• Mobile, Alabama: 120°
• Arkadelphia, Arkansas: 121°
• Bay St. Louis, Mississippi: 121°
• Memphis, Tennessee: 122°

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This can weaken a hurricane from a cat 5 to a cat3 as per Hugh Willoughby.
Link
Link
Link

Link


quote:
Yes, I have spoken with Patrick, and, yes, a scheme somewhat like the one he describes could weaken hurricanes threatening places like Miami that have strong western-margin currents just offshore. There are, however, numerous qualifications.

The scheme that we discussed involved an array of several rows devices across the Gulfstream. Each device would be a rectangular duct 140 m long and 10 by 14 m in cross section. Normally the devices would be moored horizontally at a depth of 100m with their long axes aligned with the current flow. They would be nearly neutrally buoyant. When a hurricane approached, ballast at the downstream end of the channel would be released, allowing the device to float up to a 45 deg angle. Cold water entering the upstream end would flow up to the surface and mix with the warmer water there. Since the mixture would be negatively buoyant, it would sink. But mixing due to several (3-10) lines of these devices could cool the surface waters of the Gulfstream by 1-2C, enough to weaken an Andrew-like hurricane from category 5 to category 3. A rough calculation indicates that a device every 100 m on each line of moorings (~1000 devices per ~100 km line) and 3-10 lines of moorings would be required. My guess is that it would cost $250K to fabricate and deploy a single device, but there might be economies of scale. One might also be able to optimize the size and spacing of the devices.

Let's say that careful calculation told us that 4 lines of 1000 devices each would do the trick. At $0.25M per device, the cost works out to 4*1000*($0.25M) = $1000M. The actual cost might range from a few hundred million to a small multiple of a (US = 1000M) billion. One would want to do a detailed simulation before defining the scope of the project, but the basic notion is conversion of some of the kinetic energy of the Gulfstream into gravitational potential energy of the mixed water column. Again, I've not done that detailed simulation, only back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Activation of the array would require accurate forecasting since it would take several days for the effect to make its way from south of the Dry Tortugas (optimum location for protecting the maximum amount of shoreline) to the landfall point.

South Florida gets hit by a category 4 or 5 hurricane at every few years, but the really damaging ones like Andrew tend to be once-a-generation events, or less frequent. The array would need to be deployed and maintained for a long time between activations that actually safeguard property, although false alarms would not be particularly costly. Annual maintenance could easily exceed 10% of initial deployment cost. Bear in mind that Key West to Jacksonville is the only stretch of US coastline where this strategy would work. The other vulnerable sites, Houston-Galveston and New Orleans, lack the necessary strong offshore currents. While Georgia and the Carolinas also experience many hurricane landfalls and have the Gulfstream offshore, most of these cyclones are already weakening because of vertical shear of the horizontal wind so that a second installation north of Jacksonville would be much less useful.

There has been a lot of talk about using wave and current energy to cool the ocean ahead of hurricanes. My general conclusion is that while these ideas might be made to work, the proponents underestimate the scope of the required effort, as well as the political will and recurring cost necessary to keep the project going in the long intervals between really damaging hurricanes. Skeptic that I am, I think that wiser land-use policy and more rigorous building standards are much more cost-effective and more politically feasible. A proof-of-concept that might entail deploying a half dozen devices has some appeal, but I think that there are more promising ways to spend disaster-prevention money.

Best regards,

Hugh Willoughby


Since they can weaken hurricanes from a Cat5 to a Cat3 then they can also restore our Arctci Ice.



Ice-free Arctic could bring benefits, climate scientist says

The Arctic will be practically ice-free during the summer within three decades, the top U.S. ice observer says. But climate change could bring some good with the bad, he adds.

"I'm a climate scientist, but I'm also a realist on this," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Arctic sea ice is disappearing a little more each summer. It shrank in July to the least coverage that satellites have ever recorded for that month, measurements show.

"This is just part and parcel of the decline that we've seen in the overall ice extent because the Arctic is warming up," Serreze said.

Average ice extent was 3.06 million square miles, 81,000 square miles below the previous record low (2007) and 842,000 square miles below average, according the data center. The center operates out of the University of Colorado at Boulder with support from NASA.

Satellite records date to 1979, but observations by ship and plane go back to the 1950s, Serreze said. July's ice coverage "is certainly the lowest in oh, the last 50 or 60 years that we have reliable records for," he said.

The oldest ice in the Arctic, which tends to be the thickest and most resistant to melting, is declining, data center scientists said.

The overall ice coverage declined rapidly in the first half of July but slowed in the second half as weather patterns changed, Serreze said. Now they seem to be changing back again. By the time the melting season ends in September, the ice coverage could be among the lowest three or four ever, he said.

"The Arctic is the heat sink of the Northern Hemisphere," Serreze said. "The ice cover is highly reflective. If you lose that ice cover, you change the heat budget of the Arctic."

That changed budget is likely to affect weather patterns below the Arctic, and ultimately the overall climate, he said.

"This is man-made; there seems to be little doubt in that," Serreze said. "It would be reversible if we were to do something about our carbon dioxide emissions, (but) I don't see much of a fat chance in hell we're going to see any change here. We're going to have to adapt."

Climate change will have some serious consequences, Serreze acknowledged: rising sea levels, loss of habitat for Arctic fauna, drinking water shortages, territorial disputes over newly open waters and more. But there will be some real benefits, he said.

Warmer winters and springs will extend growing seasons and even allow farming to happen in places where it hadn't before, Serreze said.

Another benefit of the retreating ice is increased navigation. A tanker set sail from Murmansk, Russia, on June 29 and completed a crossing of the Kara and Barents seas on July 14, according to the data center. The same company plans to send six or seven more ships along the same route this summer.

"We will adapt, because we have to," Serreze said.


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/05/arctic-ice-a t-record-low-for-july/
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting atmoaggie:
? What conclusions?

I haven't had the chance to see said podcast, or even read all there is about what he said...

All I said, generally, is that he is very qualified. And yes, his 1996 textbook is rife with Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is a transcribe from the index of his text (which sits before me):
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
absorption by, 200, 201, 203, 216-217, 232, 244
greenhouse effect 249-250, 252
line broadening, 224
LW radiation, 46, 242
as trace constituent, 22-25
(and the above is only for the parts that contain CO2; the greenhouse gases section is much larger)

But, where do you get off putting all of the above into what I said? Did you learn this from JFLORALA?

Here is my post, for reference:


My comments are never just aimed at the quoted commenter (if they were I'd be spending most of my time trying to move unmovable objects without access to an irresistible force), but are rather aimed at providing information for all readers of the blog, and you can just as well read my "you" for "those that would". Glad to know you wouldn't, but you know there are those who will.

If your going to throw his textbook out there, I will qualify it in the context of the paper we are discussing.

I can read index's too, and the index has no entry under carbon cycle. Greenhouse gases get's 5 pages in a approximately 600 page book (from TOC) and I was able to read greenhouse section online and it does not deal with the carbon cycle, which is the topic of the paper we are discussing.

So I stand by my assertion that based on his research pubs and this textbook, the carbon cycle is not his forte.

He's obviously a brilliant scientist, and it will be interesting to see how this story unfolds. But, like I said before even if he got the regression right, there are several others steps that need to happen before his hypothesis is confirmed. Least of which is getting this paper passed peer-review.

And again, this comment is aimed at readers in general, not just you Atmo.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Looks the the public is a lot more astute than the warmists would have you believe. They know manipulation when they see it:

Link


Or they don't know manipulation when they don't see it.

Rassmussen is well known to have results that trend toward conservative viewpoints and have been criticized for using leading questions.

So, what have other recent surveys shown, Gallup and here.

The second one deals with a trust questions also.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Whether or not the conclusion is right. Always remember this the consensus of the majority in any theory or idea is always proven false by the minority. I may have 1000 papers written for the majority and only 1 written for the minority and the 1 paper makes the 1000 papers obsolete. This has been proven many many times. Dismissing something out of hand may prove to be your fatal mistake.


too bad that philosophy doesn't work for economics on the government level.

Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
Whether or not the conclusion is right. Always remember this the consensus of the majority in any theory or idea is always proven false by the minority. I may have 1000 papers written for the majority and only 1 written for the minority and the 1 paper makes the 1000 papers obsolete. This has been proven many many times. Dismissing something out of hand may prove to be your fatal mistake.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting streamtracker:


Well if you are going to rely on argument from authority and not logic, then

The subject matter is the carbon cycle, not atmospheric physics. It remains to be seen whether he has mastered that topic. His CV is void of any papers on the topic. As with any smart researcher, he's not infallible.

Many others, who are experts on the carbon cycle, have developed complex models that take into account many factors for the movement of C in and out of various sinks and sources. And as I stated before, there are several independent lines of empirical evidence that CO2 increases are anthropogenic.

Salby has presented a simple regression model at a talk at one conference. He presented no empirical evidence to support his claim or what people are claiming he's claiming.

If he got his math right, then the next line of research will be to empirically support test his hypothesis, by looking at sources and sinks, and explaining why the isotope and o2/n2 data got it wrong. That is if we don't want to jump to conclusions before his idea is thoroughly investigated. Until then we go with the tested lines of evidence we already have. I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on a simple untested model and unpublished model.

I wouldn't get all dressed up for the ball quite yet.
? What conclusions?

I haven't had the chance to see said podcast, or even read all there is about what he said...

All I said, generally, is that he is very qualified. And yes, his 1996 textbook is rife with Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is a transcribe from the index of his text (which sits before me):
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
absorption by, 200, 201, 203, 216-217, 232, 244
greenhouse effect 249-250, 252
line broadening, 224
LW radiation, 46, 242
as trace constituent, 22-25
(and the above is only for the parts that contain CO2; the greenhouse gases section is much larger)

But, where do you get off putting all of the above into what I said? Did you learn this from JFLORALA?

Here is my post, for reference:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Interesting.

His "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics" textbook was use for our senior atmo physics course at A&M. If he wrote that book, I can say he's no dummy...and certainly knows far more about the subject matter than any of us, here, ever will.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Interesting.

His "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics" textbook was use for our senior atmo physics course at A&M. If he wrote that book, I can say he's no dummy...and certainly knows far more about the subject matter than any of us, here, ever will.


Well if you are going to rely on argument from authority and not logic, then

The subject matter is the carbon cycle, not atmospheric physics. It remains to be seen whether he has mastered that topic. His CV is void of any papers on the topic. As with any smart researcher, he's not infallible.

Many others, who are experts on the carbon cycle, have developed complex models that take into account many factors for the movement of C in and out of various sinks and sources. And as I stated before, there are several independent lines of empirical evidence that CO2 increases are anthropogenic.

Salby has presented a simple regression model at a talk at one conference. He presented no empirical evidence to support his claim or what people are claiming he's claiming.

If he got his math right, then the next line of research will be to empirically support test his hypothesis, by looking at sources and sinks, and explaining why the isotope and o2/n2 data got it wrong. That is if we don't want to jump to conclusions before his idea is thoroughly investigated. Until then we go with the tested lines of evidence we already have. I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on a simple untested model and unpublished model.

I wouldn't get all dressed up for the ball quite yet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
I'm surprised that more hasn't been posted about the new paper from Professor Murray Salby. I'm also surprised that Neapolitan hasn't called him a denier and stated that his study "has been throroughly bebunked," although it hasn't been released yet in written form. That's never stopped Nea in the past, though. Salby states that temperature rise is responsible for increasing C02 levels -- not the other way around.

Link


What is circulating is a podcast of a talk he did. Not a peer-reviewed paper. But, I'm sure that won't prevent some from once again declaring the end of AGW.

There are already some preliminary responses to the talk

here and here and here.

Main points are where did all the anthropogenic CO2 go? And why are natural sinks (oceans for example) increasing their C content, not decreasing as they would have to if he was correct. This is in addition to the technical errors of his analysis.

Big picture point is that there are several independent lines of evidence to support idea that CO2 increase is man-caused. One talk does not suddenly undermine all that. You'd need a lot more to suddenly dismiss all the other evidence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Streamtracker- Mea culpa I found it not in chapter 5 but chapter 6 but it seems they dismiss it as a minor problem.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
I'm surprised that more hasn't been posted about the new paper from Professor Murray Salby. I'm also surprised that Neapolitan hasn't called him a denier and stated that his study "has been throroughly bebunked," although it hasn't been released yet in written form. That's never stopped Nea in the past, though. Salby states that temperature rise is responsible for increasing C02 levels -- not the other way around.

Link
Interesting.

His "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics" textbook was use for our senior atmo physics course at A&M. If he wrote that book, I can say he's no dummy...and certainly knows far more about the subject matter than any of us, here, ever will.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:
13. streamtracker

I pulled them out of Jeff Masters' hat.
Ever heard of him?

I have an excellent memory, except when it comes to accurately identifying frog species by the eggs they lay, and I'm not crawling through the racks to appease you.

Do your own research and prove me wrong.


You never defined what the 18% was? Can't really reply to such a vague comment. perhaps your unclear about what your referring to?

And if your memory is so good, give me a link to the post were Jeff said whatever it is you claim he said.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I just read an abstract pertaining to sea level rise causing climate change refugees from islands. It seems it is not only the rising ocean they should be worried about. It should also be the subsidence of the land especially in tectonic zones. Link Yet the UN said nothing about land going down just man causing the sea to rise. I wonder why? Maybe because that the subsidence of the land is not mans fault.


UN IPCC Report 4 Chapter 5 subsidence is mentioned several times.

It is taken into account for local estimates of sea level change in areas where it occurs.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Hey Streamtracker! How have you been?

That's a very nice graph that goes with that paper but there's a problem. It's a reconstruction of past climate. What I mean is a forecast model of future temperatures. I should have been more specific. Let's start with the suite of IPCC AR4 models. Then we can go back in the past to the IPCC AR1 models and see how they stack up, now a full 21 years into their predictions. And those predictions weren't nearly as bad as more recent IPCC assessment reports.


The model was ran starting in 1990, so part of what I posted is hindcast and part is forecast. Midline in graph divides the two. Sorry if that was not clear, although it was explained in the paper I linked to. You can add another 5 years of tracking of model to observations. The match between observation and models is about the same as with the 16 years. So there's your 21 years.

The models are not perfect, no climate scientist has ever claimed they are, but they track well within the error bars of the models and tend to underestimate warming over the long-term. There are other papers out there testing earlier generations of models, and those models also perform well enough for the level of concern expressed by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

We are now at a stage where we are perfecting models to work at smaller spatial and temporal scales. But in terms of medium scale they perform quite well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:
What do dat cone of uncertainty look like, Skippy ???

Many await your learned response.


Already posted it, look at the graph.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There's nothing "global" about the warming:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting rod2635:


Would like to see that paper. Does he postulate any cause for temperature rise? Also, what key adjustments in CO2 equilibria (flora, water, exposed rock, etc) does he see affected to increase atmospheric CO2 relative to CO2 sinks in the same media?


If you visit the link I posted earlier, it has another link to his podcast where his present his theory. I haven't had time to listen to the podcast, although I have read summaries of his theory.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting JBastardi:
I'm surprised that more hasn't been posted about the new paper from Professor Murray Salby. I'm also surprised that Neapolitan hasn't called him a denier and stated that his study "has been throroughly bebunked," although it hasn't been released yet in written form. That's never stopped Nea in the past, though. Salby states that temperature rise is responsible for increasing C02 levels -- not the other way around.

Link


Would like to see that paper. Does he postulate any cause for temperature rise? Also, what key adjustments in CO2 equilibria (flora, water, exposed rock, etc) does he see affected to increase atmospheric CO2 relative to CO2 sinks in the same media?
Member Since: January 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 352
I'm surprised that more hasn't been posted about the new paper from Professor Murray Salby. I'm also surprised that Neapolitan hasn't called him a denier and stated that his study "has been throroughly bebunked," although it hasn't been released yet in written form. That's never stopped Nea in the past, though. Salby states that temperature rise is responsible for increasing C02 levels -- not the other way around.

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
What do you think about this NASA report on how the comupter models of long term affects of global warming are skewed? I think it was Roy Spenser who did this study. it predicts that the increase in sea water temp will actually result in increased cloud cover and act to reduce whatever warming may occur. The predictions of over 3C rise in temp are reduced to 1C or less.
Interesting.
Thanks to ICEage coming for the info on the South African winter!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


theshepherd – I am not nearly as knowledgeable as Dr. Rood and I do not pretend to be able to answer your questions better than he will be able to do. I am able to tell you what I do know regarding this.

As you suggest, there are many factors that come into play regarding to the health of coral reefs. As with anything else, in nature, coral reefs are a balancing act. Too much or too little of this or that will have a negative impact on the health of the coral reefs. Silting, pesticides, other forms of pollution, damage from ships and boaters, careless reef divers and storms all damage coral reefs. As cyclonebuster has already stated, so does too much heat. You have also brought to light that infections, disease and the loss of crucial reef members can also have a negative impact on the overall health of the coral reefs.

When it comes to the PH level, in the oceans, it is no different than the salinity values of the ocean in the sense that neither is a constant and neither is evenly distributed across the oceans or through the depths. What I am trying to say is that you will not get the exact same PH and/or salinity readings across the oceans and throughout its depths. You will even get different readings on different days in the exact same spot and at the same depths. Such is the nature, of the beast.

Why then, as you suggest, do we concentrate so much on the PH level of the oceans? All that I can say is that we know a more acidic ocean will be detrimental not only to the coral reefs but, also, to any sea creatures that use calcium in the formation of its shell. We also know that as the oceans absorb more carbon from the atmosphere that the oceans will become more acidic. No matter how much we are successful in abating the other problems that are detrimental to the coral reefs, if we do not also abate the amount of carbon that the oceans absorb then all of our other efforts will be fruitless, towards saving the coral reefs. When we are better able to control the amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere we will have helped to abate two problems that threaten our coral reefs. We help to abate the acidity and heat that go into the oceans. Two, for one. I think that is not a bad return on investment.

I cannot answer as to how much of the climate change funding goes into the research of our coral reefs. I do know that climatologist also look at the coral reefs to see how they are being impacted by a warming climate.

This is my take on your questions. I hope it helps to answer some of your questions. As with you, I hope that Dr. Rood will answer this for you. I am sure that he can do a much better job of doing so than I have been able to do.

Thank you, for your post.


As with any component of the planet's atmosphere, there are sources and sinks, whether biological, geological, geochemical, or man made. The deforestation of the Amazon has no doubt impacted the equilibrium to some extent. Increased atmospheric concentration of any gas may lead to increased levels in the dissolved concentration in the ocean by simple chemical equilibria. Data would seem to support higher atmospheric CO2 in recent decades.

Does this increase, taken in isolation, have a material increase in oceanic acidity? A simple lab experiment with two containers, each containing a split portion of healthy reef water, one with an overlay of 200ppm CO2, one at 400ppm. Tumble both. Then measure pH. Is the resultant difference in pH sufficient to impact the sensitivity of the reef in question?

On a larger note, if CO2 sinks are being depleted, why not engineer an algae for oceanic distribution that would only thrive at CO2 levels above 250ppm and within a defined temperature band. In this manner it would self destruct upon completing its mission and while in progress, would be confined to certain latitudes due to its own thermal sensitivity.

This of course assumes that CO2 is the only issue of concern. The atmosphere and the planet is extremely complex. We are infants in our understanding of this.

While we can measure one of its constituents, CO2, with relative ease and compare the data to other observed phenomena, we should not ignore fluctuations in other constituents, presuming that they have no part to play.

Just a thought.
Member Since: January 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 352
This is my take on your questions. I hope it helps to answer some of your questions.


nope...

I'm way ahead of ya on this one.

But, thanx
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:
Dr. Rood

Sir, allow me to bring back to the forefront an issue that has racked my simple brain "for a few years now" that I posted on your previous Topic and since edited..

No matter what the debate, let us be deligent in our own research and not blindly follow "anyone".

Let us not depend on graphs and factoids for our only source of knowledge......


theshepherd – I am not nearly as knowledgeable as Dr. Rood and I do not pretend to be able to answer your questions better than he will be able to do. I am able to tell you what I do know regarding this.

As you suggest, there are many factors that come into play regarding to the health of coral reefs. As with anything else, in nature, coral reefs are a balancing act. Too much or too little of this or that will have a negative impact on the health of the coral reefs. Silting, pesticides, other forms of pollution, damage from ships and boaters, careless reef divers and storms all damage coral reefs. As cyclonebuster has already stated, so does too much heat. You have also brought to light that infections, disease and the loss of crucial reef members can also have a negative impact on the overall health of the coral reefs.

When it comes to the PH level, in the oceans, it is no different than the salinity values of the ocean in the sense that neither is a constant and neither is evenly distributed across the oceans or through the depths. What I am trying to say is that you will not get the exact same PH and/or salinity readings across the oceans and throughout its depths. You will even get different readings on different days in the exact same spot and at the same depths. Such is the nature, of the beast.

Why then, as you suggest, do we concentrate so much on the PH level of the oceans? All that I can say is that we know a more acidic ocean will be detrimental not only to the coral reefs but, also, to any sea creatures that use calcium in the formation of its shell. We also know that as the oceans absorb more carbon from the atmosphere that the oceans will become more acidic. No matter how much we are successful in abating the other problems that are detrimental to the coral reefs, if we do not also abate the amount of carbon that the oceans absorb then all of our other efforts will be fruitless, towards saving the coral reefs. When we are better able to control the amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere we will have helped to abate two problems that threaten our coral reefs. We help to abate the acidity and heat that go into the oceans. Two, for one. I think that is not a bad return on investment.

I cannot answer as to how much of the climate change funding goes into the research of our coral reefs. I do know that climatologist also look at the coral reefs to see how they are being impacted by a warming climate.

This is my take on your questions. I hope it helps to answer some of your questions. As with you, I hope that Dr. Rood will answer this for you. I am sure that he can do a much better job of doing so than I have been able to do.

Thank you, for your post.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
a href="http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/incoming/2011/0 7/26/volkrust1.jpg/RESIZED/Big/Volkrust1.jpg"

ROADS CLOSED, MOTORISTS TRAPPED

Eastern Cape motorists were warned of many road closures and dangerous driving conditions caused by snowfall on Tuesday.

Several motorists were already trapped in snow or stuck on closed roads, Eastern Cape local government MEC Mlibo Qoboshiyana said in a statement.

“It is snowing heavily and very dangerous between Ugie and Elliot, some motorists are already stuck [in the snow].

“People are stuck in their vehicles on the road from Elliot to Indwe, Ngcobo to Cala, [and in] Satansnek...

“I appeal that all those using roads should be extra vigilant as roads are wet with the snow closing some of the lines, some trees are falling on the roads, availing only one lane for travelling.

“Travellers should put their plans on hold until roads are cleared,” said Qoboshiyana.

The following roads were closed in the Eastern Cape:

— R56 between Matatiele and Mount Fletcher — R56 in Kokstad, Maluti — N2 between Kokstad and Mount Ayliff — Wapadsberg and Lootsberg passes — N10 from Middelburg to Bloemfontein all closed — All roads leading to Dordrecht, except Queenstown via Lady Frere — Boesmanshoek between Queenstown and Molteno — Roads between Elliot and Indwe and Ngcobo and Cala — N10 between Middelburg and Murraysburg — Road between Middelburg and Colesberg — N9 between Middelburg and De Aar — Road between Cradock to Graaff Reinet — R56 between Cala and Elliot closed — R58 between Ngcobo and Elliot — R67 in Fort Beaufort, Seymour, Cathcart — R351 between Cathcart and Whittlesea — Barkly pass on R58 between Elliot and Barkly East — R56 between Mount Fletcher, Maclear and Matatiele — N2 between Kokstad and Mount Aylif closed Elsewhere in the country, the N3 highway between Johannesburg and KwaZulu-Natal has been closed from the Wilge toll plaza near Villiers to the Tugela toll plaza at Ladsymith.


http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/incoming/2011/07/26/ volkrust1.jpg/RESIZED/Big/Volkrust1.jpg
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Another climatologist against AGW:

Link


No, it is not about being against AGW.

She understands the science as well as any.

What you see is the evolution of a scientific process, in process.

The numbers used for policy, don't stay the same as the research evolves.

Just sayin, we learn every day!

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Another climatologist against AGW:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
#78 Shep

"We are fixxin to find out :)"

Edit, I did not realize,,,,,,,Oh no, there are tubes in the linked vid~~~~~~~~
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186




It also prevnts this!


Arctic Ice Melt Near Record Clears Ship Route to Asia, Russian Agency Says


Arctic sea ice is melting at a near- record pace, opening shipping lanes for cargo traffic between Europe and Asia, Russia’s environmental agency said.

Ice cover is close to a record low, opening “almost the entire northern sea route to icebreaker-free shipping” as of early August, the Federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service said on its website today.

The so-called ice extent is as much as 56 percent less than average in some areas, allowing “very easy” sailing that will persist through September, the Moscow-based service said.

Melting ice is making it easier for Russian and other European shippers to service Asia via the northern sea route, which is about one-third shorter than the Rotterdam-Yokohama voyage through the Suez Canal, saving time and fuel. Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson said last year that the pace of global warming in the Arctic was three-times faster than elsewhere, cutting journeys between Asia, Europe and America by as much as half.

Melting occurred “at a rapid pace through the first half of July and is now tracking below the year 2007, which saw the record minimum,” the U.S. National Snow and Data Center said on its website July 18.
Soviet-Era Passage

Three of sixteen groups of oceanic scientists expect the extent to break the record low of 4.14 million square kilometers (1.63 million miles) reached on Sept. 16, 2007, the Fairbanks, Alaska-based Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., or Arcus, said on its website. That compares with about 6.86 million square kilometers now, according to Russia’s environmental agency.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has vowed to transform the Soviet-era Arctic route, first plied in 1932 between Arkhangelsk and the Bering Strait, into a year-round passage and commodity producers including OAO GMK Norilsk Nickel, OAO Novatek and EuroChem have already starting sending test shipments. The route is currently used, with the help of icebreakers, from July to November.

The North Pole may be completely ice-free in summer within a few decades, rather than by 2080, a prediction made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Russia’s chief forecaster, Alexander Frolov, said last year.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
THIS PREVENTS








THAT!




A key U.S. Department of the Interior agency has approved Shell Oil Co. plans to begin drilling for oil as early as next year in Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea off the north coast of Alaska.

Shell has announced plans to drill up to four wells over two years in the Beaufort, covered much of the year with pack ice and home to large populations of polar bears and bowhead whales.

The approval by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation (BOEMRE) comes just before a trip to Alaska by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Salazar will appear at a business management roundtable in Anchorage on Monday with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.

BOEMRE is successor to the federal Minerals Management Service, the agency discredited after last year’s Gulf oil spill due to its lax oversight and close ties to BP and other major oil companies.

“We will closely review and monitor Shell’s proposed activities to ensure that any activities that take place under this plan will be conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner,” said Michael Bromwich, BOEMRE’s director.

But in recent Senate Commerce Committee testimony, discussing past and potential marine disasters, Adm. Robert Papp,the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, said the federal government has no oil spill response in Arctic Alaska.

“If this were to happen off the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing,” Papp told lawmakers. “We’re starting from ground zero today.”

Environmental groups claim assurances by BOEMRE and Shell are nonsense.

“There are just too many unanswered questions: It is clear this approval was given by people who have never lived in the Arctic and never been here in the winter,” said Robert Thompson, an Inupat native from Kaktovik and leader of the group Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands.Eric Grafe, attorney with Earthjustice, argued that the noise and commotion of Shell’s drilling poses “a significant danger” to bowhead whales, an important food source for indigenous natives of Alaska and northern Canada.

Shell must still win approval for its plans from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is illegal to harass such creatures as bowhead whales.

Polar bears have been identified for listing under the Endangered Species Act, but a total of 260 threatened or endangered species await listing under the federal law. The federal government has promised no protection of the bears’ marine habitat.

Shell’s Curtis Smith told Associated Press the oil giant is committed to building a system to cap oil spills and that Shell would capture hydrocarbons at the source “in the extremely unlikely event of a shallow water blowout.”

He promised that Shell will “employ world-class technology and experience to ensure a safe, environmentally responsible Arctic exploration program, one that has the smallest possible footprint on the environment and no negative impact on the North Slope or Northwest Arctic traditional subsistence hunting activities.”

To which Thompson retorted: “They’re not saying whether they can clean up a spill.”

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
75. Ossqss


"Will the "average" person be affected? No."

Hmmm?
So does that mean that the "above average"
won't be around after midnight tonight???

Does that include the "self appointed above average"?

It will be interesting to see who shows up tomorrow.

I'll be around... somewhere.

:))


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Ossqss- I watch Space Weather and also The Geophysical Institute out of Fairbanks Alaska for Aurora forecast as you can see them where I live at anything with a kp index of 3 and over. It should be a good show if the forecast holds true.




This setup does not happen often. Hummm ,just had some connection trouble :]
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Ossqss- I watch Space Weather and also The Geophysical Institute out of Fairbanks Alaska for Aurora forecast as you can see them where I live at anything with a kp index of 3 and over. It should be a good show if the forecast holds true.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A bit of )))Space weather ((( out there if you have had some issues with sites or communication. I have.

Also, this is good for the back pocket. I signed up for the alerts. Ensure you customize them or you will be busy :)

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/warnings_timeline .html

The root site if you didn't have it/

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting CorneliaMarie:
just like Snoopy!


:))

A Jack Russels doing a jig with a Spider Monkey would be closer to the truth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CorneliaMarie:
Happy dance :))

I can see it in my head....

;)


:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 121 - 71

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 | 29Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.