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: 71 - 21

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 nymore:
NOAA predicting more bad news for the plains and southern United States as La Nina has a good chance of returning and the atmosphere is still showing a La Nina pattern from the last one. Link This is a natural pattern which generally means less rain and higher temperatures for these areas.


Thanx, but let's revisit a past conclusion drawn by Jeff Masters in one of his past topics.

The Ground Hog is more accurate than 6 month look-aheads...with a toss of the coin probably being the most reliable.

So, heads it's gonna be dry at my house and tails it's gonna be wet...

Tails it is.

Happy dance :))
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting rod2635:


Well put. And as you rightly point out, even appropriate viable economic planning in the absence of capital, which only gravitates towards political stability, is a paper exercise. And at present, sadly, we have little control over political stability in that part of the world.


Actually with the appointment of our new CIA Director, maybe we can see a breath of fresh air breathed into certain stagnant jungles.

A few well placed and dedicated volunteer souls worked wonders along the north bank of the Congo not that long ago.

Climate Change is the least of Somalia's worries.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting rod2635:
This all sounds so eerily familiar to the recent debt ceiling debate. Great deal of noise, very little constructive result. The initial thought of the blog was the dilemma planners face in what may be an increased frequency of extremes.

Several hundred thousand Somalis and Kenyans, now starving, might appreciate some brainpower devoted to better planning initiatives as opposed to scoring points on GW.

There is a need for debate on GW, causality matters in terms of what is going to happen in the long term. In the meanwhile, we also need to become better at addressing the cards of drought, flood, and famine we've been dealt today, rather than focusing our energies to excess accusing each other of playing with a stacked deck.


Well have at it Sir if you'd like,I don't suspect you
get very far, sort of like Zimbabwe
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NOAA predicting more bad news for the plains and southern United States as La Nina has a good chance of returning and the atmosphere is still showing a La Nina pattern from the last one. Link This is a natural pattern which generally means less rain and higher temperatures for these areas.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
On the topic of Africa:

Image: Eumetsat + U.S. National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Click on images for larger view.

SAWDIS - Several weather warnings have been issued by the SA Weather Service for the next few days. These include heavy rain, very cold conditions, snowfall, very rough seas and gale force winds. Truely a recipe for severe weather and disaster. The SAWDIS has monitored the approach of the cold front in the past few days and it would appear that the latest rainfall forecast reflect slightly less rain in the SW-Cape. However snowfalls can be expected on the Western Cape's southern mountains by the evening. The front extend eastwards on Friday, bringing snow to the central and northern parts of the Eastern Cape. Snowfall might not only affect the high ground but the lower ground as well. On Saturday, snow would be limited to the northern parts of the Eastern Cape and the western part of the Drakensberg and Lesotho.

The SAWDIS would like to warn all communities to remain on full alert. Motorists, travelers and members of the public must take note of the high probability of snow, heavy rain and gale force winds. If at all possible postpone your journey or make alternative arrangements. The SAWDIS will once again bring you the latest updates as the cold front progresses.







Meanwhile snow in South Africa “the worst snow storm he had seen in the town since 1992.”:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2011/07/26/easte rn-cape-motorists-warned-of-road-closures


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
rod2635- The problem with Kenya and Somalia and most African countries is political instability which cascades as other problems. These countries need some coal fired power plants first of all, from there oil and other refineries, and some manufacturing capacity, When we have the power and a little distribution network you could drill some deep wells and get water for crops or maybe even a desalination plant and the infrastructure to support these things. Without the power nothing else can happen. These are poor countries so don't let me here about solar panels and wind power these are much to expensive to start with for the amount of energy needed. The only thing is as I said at the beginning who will invest with the political climate as it is now.


More tech? The poor bushmen's society couldn't handle
a Coke bottle.

P.S. I loved this series of movies and feel they shed a positive light on rigors of life in southern Africa, I state this in advance of Neap slandering me
as a racist like last time.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
rod2635- The problem with Kenya and Somalia and most African countries is political instability which cascades as other problems. These countries need some coal fired power plants first of all, from there oil and other refineries, and some manufacturing capacity, When we have the power and a little distribution network you could drill some deep wells and get water for crops or maybe even a desalination plant and the infrastructure to support these things. Without the power nothing else can happen. These are poor countries so don't let me here about solar panels and wind power these are much to expensive to start with for the amount of energy needed. The only thing is as I said at the beginning who will invest with the political climate as it is now.


Well put. And as you rightly point out, even appropriate viable economic planning in the absence of capital, which only gravitates towards political stability, is a paper exercise. And at present, sadly, we have little control over political stability in that part of the world.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
rod2635- The problem with Kenya and Somalia and most African countries is political instability which cascades as other problems. These countries need some coal fired power plants first of all, from there oil and other refineries, and some manufacturing capacity, When we have the power and a little distribution network you could drill some deep wells and get water for crops or maybe even a desalination plant and the infrastructure to support these things. Without the power nothing else can happen. These are poor countries so don't let me here about solar panels and wind power these are much to expensive to start with for the amount of energy needed. The only thing is as I said at the beginning who will invest with the political climate as it is now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NOAA study: Slowing climate change by targeting gases other than carbon dioxide

August 3, 2011Carbon dioxide remains the undisputed king of recent climate change, but other greenhouse gases measurably contribute to the problem. A new study, conducted by NOAA scientists and published online today in Nature, shows that cutting emissions of those other gases could slow changes in climate that are expected in the future.

Discussions with colleagues around the time of the 2009 United Nations’ climate conference in Copenhagen inspired three NOAA scientists – Stephen Montzka, Ed Dlugokencky and James Butler of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. – to review the sources of non-carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gases and explore the potential climate benefits of cutting their emissions.

Like CO2, other greenhouse gases trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere. Some of these chemicals have shorter lifetimes than CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore cutting emissions would quickly reduce their direct radiative forcing — a measure of warming influence.

“We know that recent climate change is primarily driven by carbon dioxide emitted during fossil-fuel combustion, and we know that this problem is going to be with us a long-time because carbon dioxide is so persistent in the atmosphere,” Montzka said. “But lowering emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide could lead to some rapid changes for the better.” Scientists know that stabilizing the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere would require a decrease of about 80 percent in human-caused CO2 emissions — in part because some of the carbon dioxide emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. In contrast, cutting all long-lived non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent could diminish their climate warming effect substantially within a couple of decades. Cutting both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions to this extent could result in a decrease in the total warming effect from these greenhouse gases this century, the new paper shows.

For the new analysis, the researchers considered methane; nitrous oxide; a group of chemicals regulated by an international treaty to protect Earth’s ozone layer; and a few other extremely long-lived greenhouse gases currently present at very low concentrations.

The new review paper describes the major human activities responsible for these emissions, and notes that steep cuts (such as 80 percent) would be difficult. Without substantial changes to human behavior, emissions of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases are expected to continue to increase.

The climate-related benefits of reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases have limits, Montzka and his colleagues showed. Even if all human-related, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions could be eliminated today, it would not be enough to stabilize the warming influence from all greenhouse gases over the next 40 years – unless CO2 emissions were also cut significantly.

The scientists also noted in the paper the complicated connections between climate and greenhouse gases, some of which are not yet fully understood. The non-CO2 gases studied have natural sources as well as human emissions, and climate change could amplify or dampen some of those natural processes, Dlugokencky said. Increasingly warm and dry conditions in the Arctic, for example, could thaw permafrost and increase the frequency of wildfires, both of which would send more methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

“The long-term necessity of cutting carbon dioxide emissions shouldn’t diminish the effectiveness of short-term action. This paper shows there are other opportunities to influence the trajectory of climate change,” Butler said. “Managing emissions of non-carbon dioxide gases is clearly an opportunity to make additional contributions.”

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook, Twitter and our other social media channels.














Link










Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
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.

Let us occasionally look out of the box that we all are so guilty of being trapped in as we pursue our chosen professions. "Stop and smell the roses, if I may".

Let us be stewards.



That being said:

Let us look at our coral reefs worldwide.

The only thing we have heard lately from "the powers that be" is that coral reefs wordwide are being destroyed by ocean acidification throwing of the PH which in itself kills the coral.

Is this the whole story?

Maybe not???

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2011/04/research.html

Could ther still be other causes???

http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/sanctuary_resources/m orecoral.html

****But wait a minute...How can newly planted coral flourish in an ever increasing acid enviroment???****

That's worth repeating..."HOW CAN NEWLY PLANTED CORAL FLORISH IN AN EVER INCREASING ACID ENVIROMENT"?

http://www.floridakeysdivectr.com/florida-keys-co ral-reef-restoration.html

The takeaway from this is that we don't hear "the rest of the story", nor do we have all the answers.

Regional threats include new diseases that sweep through populations of organisms living on the reefs. For example, in 1983, an unknown disease,possibly a virus, is believed to have come through the Panama Canal from the Pacific Ocean. This disease killed most of the spiny sea urchin population, first in Panama then throughout the Caribbean and to the Western Atlantic reefs of the Florida Keys and Bahamas.More than 99% of the spiny sea urchins were killed. The virus seems to still be present,because spiny sea urchins are now uncommon on Caribbean reefs.
The consequence of the die-off of the spiny sea urchin has been unlimited growth of algae on coral reefs. The spiny sea urchin population fed on the
algae populations found on the coral reefs. For example, in the early 1980’s, coral covered more than 60% of the reefs in Jamaica. Now, coral covers less than 10% of the reef. Algae are taking over the reefs
everywhere.

So where does that leave us?

Did a rise in ocean acidification create an enviroment that actually creates a virus friendly soup?

Will the corals flourishing in the successfull projects eventually succumb to another viral infection? If so, will it get blamed on acidification atacking the coral directly or acidification enabling a virus?

Is it possible to vaccinate coral reefs?

Is it unreasonable to ask that at least a pentance of Gov't funds routed to Climate Change be shared with research in this area? As we all know their are numerous Agencies duplicating climate change research and even more in shovel ready projects.

What if they're wrong about the true culprit here and there may indeed be "possible cure"?

Just asking...








Oh but you also forgot about the heat causing Coral Bleaching. What about the heat factor?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
This all sounds so eerily familiar to the recent debt ceiling debate. Great deal of noise, very little constructive result. The initial thought of the blog was the dilemma planners face in what may be an increased frequency of extremes.

Several hundred thousand Somalis and Kenyans, now starving, might appreciate some brainpower devoted to better planning initiatives as opposed to scoring points on GW.

There is a need for debate on GW, causality matters in terms of what is going to happen in the long term. In the meanwhile, we also need to become better at addressing the cards of drought, flood, and famine we've been dealt today, rather than focusing our energies to excess accusing each other of playing with a stacked deck.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.

Let us occasionally look out of the box that we all are so guilty of being trapped in as we pursue our chosen professions. "Stop and smell the roses, if I may".

Let us be stewards.



That being said:

Let us look at our coral reefs worldwide.

The only thing we have heard lately from "the powers that be" is that coral reefs wordwide are being destroyed by ocean acidification throwing off the PH which in itself kills the coral.

Is this the whole story?

Maybe not???

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2011/04/research.html

Could ther still be other causes???

http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/sanctuary_resources/m orecoral.html

****But wait a minute...How can newly planted coral flourish in an ever increasing acid enviroment???****

That's worth repeating..."HOW CAN NEWLY PLANTED CORAL FLORISH IN AN EVER INCREASING ACID ENVIROMENT"?

http://www.floridakeysdivectr.com/florida-keys-co ral-reef-restoration.html

The takeaway from this is that we don't hear "the rest of the story", nor do we have all the answers.

Regional threats include new diseases that sweep through populations of organisms living on the reefs. For example, in 1983, an unknown disease,possibly a virus, is believed to have come through the Panama Canal from the Pacific Ocean. This disease killed most of the spiny sea urchin population, first in Panama then throughout the Caribbean and to the Western Atlantic reefs of the Florida Keys and Bahamas.More than 99% of the spiny sea urchins were killed. The virus seems to still be present,because spiny sea urchins are now uncommon on Caribbean reefs.
The consequence of the die-off of the spiny sea urchin has been unlimited growth of algae on coral reefs. The spiny sea urchin population fed on the
algae populations found on the coral reefs. For example, in the early 1980%u2019s, coral covered more than 60% of the reefs in Jamaica. Now, coral covers less than 10% of the reef. Algae are taking over the reefs
everywhere.

So where does that leave us?

Did a rise in ocean acidification create an enviroment that actually creates a virus friendly soup?

Will the corals flourishing in the successfull projects eventually succumb to another viral infection? If so, will it get blamed on acidification atacking the coral directly or acidification enabling a virus?

Is it possible to vaccinate coral reefs?

Is it unreasonable to ask that at least a pentance of Gov't funds routed to Climate Change be shared with research in this area? As we all know there are numerous Agencies duplicating climate change research and even more in shovel ready projects.

What if they're wrong about the true culprit here and there may indeed be "possible cure"?

Just asking...






Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Atacama desert coated with record snow

July 7, 2011

One of the driest places on the planet got a wintry blast this week. The Atacama Desert region in Chile was coated with its heaviest snow cover in nearly two decades, the BBC reported. An estimated 80 centimeters (31.5 inches) piled up in the normally arid region

A cold front moved through the region this week, bringing colder than usual weather, even though it’s the Southern Hemisphere winter, to Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. The temperature in Santiago, Chile, plunged to minus 8.5 degrees Celsius(17.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on July 6. Authorities rescued 36 people that were stranded by the snow on a bus for hours, according to local news reports.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Maybe the people just don't believe it. Such as when someone states they know something with 100% certainty, then someone comes along and finds problems with what you said or wrote why would they believe anything else you tell them without being skeptical.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Excellent point as usual. I believe psychologists refer to the phenomenon as "selective perception".


Or selective hearing!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Another example where opinions do not have to be based on the reality? ... Just asking. 69% of the people may also believe that corporations overstate their tax load. Would this also be true then since opinions really do matter?

Excellent point as usual. I believe psychologists refer to the phenomenon as "selective perception".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
OUCH!


August 3, 2011
Arctic sea ice at record low for July

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for July 2011 reached the lowest level for the month in the 1979 to 2011 satellite record, even though the pace of ice loss slowed substantially during the last two weeks of July. Shipping routes in the Arctic have less ice than usual for this time of year, and new data indicate that more of the Arctic's store of its oldest ice disappeared.

Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for July 2011 was 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles). This is 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month, set in July 2007, and 2.18 million square kilometers (842,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.




On July 31, 2011 Arctic sea ice extent was 6.79 million square kilometers (2.62 million square miles). This was slightly higher than the previous record low for the same day of the year, set in 2007. Sea ice coverage remained below normal everywhere except the East Greenland Sea.

Conditions in context
During the first half of July, Arctic sea ice extent declined at a relatively fast pace (see July 18 post). But ice loss slowed substantially over the latter half of the month as the weather changed.




Through July, sea ice declined at an average pace of 90,200 square kilometers (34,800 square miles) per day, which is slightly faster than the average for 1979 to 2000 of 84,400 square kilometers (32,600 square miles) per day. Ice loss slowed towards the end of July as a high-pressure cell centered over the northern Beaufort Sea broke down and a series of low-pressure systems moved over the central Arctic Ocean. This change brought cooler conditions and likely pushed the ice apart into a thinner but more extensive ice cover.



July 2011 compared to previous years



Average Arctic sea ice extent for July 2011 was the lowest for July in the satellite data record. The previous lowest year for July was 2007, which went to break the record for the lowest ice extent at the end of the melt season. Including 2011 the linear trend for July now stands at -6.8% per decade.





New ice age measurements show decline in oldest, thickest ice
Researchers look at ice age as a way to estimate ice thickness. Ice thickness matters to the overall stability of the ice cover, because older ice grows thicker over multiple seasons, while newly formed ice tends to be thin and vulnerable to melt. While the amount of older sea ice has increased somewhat since September 2007, an updated analysis of satellite-derived sea ice age recently published by James Maslanik and co-authors show the oldest ice (ice older than five years), has continued to decline.

Until recently, the central Arctic Ocean and Canadian Archipelago served as refuges for some of the oldest, thickest ice. However, the new data show that ice age is now declining in these areas. A map of ice age for the third week of July, combined with sea ice concentration for July 31, 2011 (Figure 4) shows that in the eastern Beaufort Sea, the ice has essentially melted back to the edge of the multi-year ice cover (ice older than one year). Multi-year ice is more resistant to melting completely in summer, so it is not yet clear how much more ice will melt. Another tongue of old ice extends from near the pole towards the New Siberian Islands.

Between late March and late July first-year (younger) Arctic sea ice has declined by 30%, multi-year ice has declined by 14%, and the oldest ice, or ice older than 5 years, has declined by 16% . For background information on ice thickness, see the new post on NSIDC's Icelights.




Ice loss in Arctic shipping routes
Over the past few weeks, the sea ice edge has retreated from the shores of Siberia and Eurasia, potentially opening up much of the Northern Sea Route, the shipping lane that runs along the Eurasian Arctic coast from Murmansk on the Barents Sea, along Siberia, and through the Bering Strait. Higher resolution data such as the Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE) indicate that some ice remains, particularly in the East Siberian Sea, but the reduced ice cover in the region has already made the route feasible this year. Taking advantage of the early retreat of sea ice in the Kara and Barents seas, the tanker Perserverance set sail on June 29, 2011 from Murmansk, Russia, aided by two icebreakers and completed the passage on July 14. The company plans to send six to seven more ships through the Northern Sea Route this summer.

On the other side of the Arctic, the Northwest Passage is still choked with ice. However, data provided by Stephen Howell of Environment Canada show that ice loss in the Northwest Passage is well ahead of average (Figure 5), nearly matching last year when, according to Canadian Ice Service (CIS) analyses, sea ice in the Parry Channel (the northern part of the Northwest Passage) reached the lowest levels in the CIS records dating back to 1968. Whether a navigable channel does indeed open this year will depend on weather conditions through the next few weeks, but so far, it looks possible.




Link




Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting nymore:
NW passage open answer no at least according to the NSIDC. In their words "Choked with ice"


Perhaps so but it should be choked with multi-year ice.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting JBastardi:
Increasing CO2 levels actually inhibit drought in the open range. Uh oh, another CO2 warmist fallacy down the tubes. From the USDA:

Link


Did you even read the article? The article actually supports GW theory. What is being questioned is if a higher CO2 level will help retain soil moisture due to the fact that the pores in the leaves of the grasses become more closed. This will cause the plants to release less water vapor and therefore draw less water form the soil. The article also states that some of the range farmers depend on the grasses that are more adapted to cooler temps than are the grasses more adapted to warmer temps. It is the grasses better adapted to warmer temps that would see any benefits. The article also does not point out that when the pores in the leaves start to close then they become less effective as a carbon sink as well.
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


Another example where opinions do not have to be based on the reality? ... Just asking. 69% of the people may also believe that corporations overstate their tax load. Would this also be true then since opinions really do matter?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:


No. The ratios were negative for two decades. The trend there through the three decades, using only those three decades, is negative.

Using another example, from the 1960-1980's, both the 1960's and 1970's have negative ratios but the 1980's has a positive ratio. So the trend from the 60-80's is positive, despite the two negative ratio decades of the 60's and 70's. Trend.

This is why, as I said, I don't like to get involved in these types of discussions. I feel I spend more of my time having to correct interpretation and comprehension of my comments than anything else. I don't know whether I'm not typing it out clearly or what.

Okay, then, if we're talking about trends, here's my take: there was a negative trend from data point A to data point B, and a negative trend from A to C. Meanwhile, there was a positive trend from B to C, a positive trend from B to D, a positive trend from B to E, a positive trend from B to F, a positive trend from C to D, a positive trend from C to E, a positive trend from C to F, a positive trend from D to E, a positive trend from D to F, a positive trend from E to F, a positive trend from A to D, a positive trend from A to E and a positive trend from A to F.

The thing is, one can't simply cherry-pick three data points of their choosing and then claim with any real degree of honesty that a negative trend between them balances out the overall picture. Attempts to do so can certainly fool some, especially those who desperately wish to believe things aren't changing. But climate scientists know better. They always do.

Wait: did you really just call me "childish" while at the same time posting a clip from a Disney cartoon? ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743







Winter in the southern hemisphere has less of an impact than its northern counterpart. This is partly because the land area affected is much smaller, being confined to southern South America, the far south of Africa, southern Australia and New Zealand. It is also partly because the south is dominated by the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific. These tend to have a moderating effect on winter in the region.

Nevertheless, for those affected, conditions can be severe. The winter of 2011 has been harsh one in South America. Bolivia and Chile have seen large snowfalls; Argentina has seen snow in areas where such events are rare. Cold blasts of Antarctic air have also threatened Brazil’s future coffee crops.

The cold weather is likely to continue here with further heavy rain, with snow at higher elevations, expected across Chile.

Further west, Australia has seen very unsettled weather affecting Victoria and New South Wales over the last week or so. The last few days have seen exceptional weather conditions across New Zealand with Monday 25th July probably the coldest day of the year, so far. Temperatures fell as low as Minus 5 degrees Celsius in Christchurch and Minus 8 degrees in Queenstown. This followed a night of clear skies after the most widespread snow across the country since 1995. Snow extended from the southern tip of South Island to just south of Auckland in North Island.


Source:
Al Jazeera
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Now, it's true that lows in the US outnumbered highs in the 1970s and the 1960s (though not in the 1950s, so the trend was only negative for two decades, not three as you stated)


No. The ratios were negative for two decades. The trend there through the three decades, using only those three decades, is negative.

Using another example, from the 1960-1980's, both the 1960's and 1970's have negative ratios but the 1980's has a positive ratio. So the trend from the 60-80's is positive, despite the two negative ratio decades of the 60's and 70's. Trend.

This is why, as I said, I don't like to get involved in these types of discussions. I feel I spend more of my time having to correct interpretation and comprehension of my comments than anything else. I don't know whether I'm not typing it out clearly or what.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If my idea can do this then my idea can also restore arctic ice! Correct?


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
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, I see the denialist contingent has come out en masse again to plus the contrarian comments and minus the scientific ones (though the click-happy folks appear to have accidentally sent too many plus votes to stormtracker's #10 comment--whoopsie!). If I had the time and inclination, I might go check to see which in member blog(s) this latest desperate call to arms was posted--please help us!!!


Yeah. Pongo, Perdi and I were out last night sending the message out to all the climate contrarians to come here to thumb you down and thumb us up.



How childish.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Only among denialists.


ha! again
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
Quoting PurpleDrank:
Neapolitan, the word denial or some form of it is mentioned within 3 sentences of almost every comment you make.



do you think this sort of discredits your arguments a bit?

Only among denialists.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Neapolitan, the word denial or some form of it is mentioned within 3 sentences of almost every comment you make.



do you think this sort of discredits your arguments a bit?
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
Quoting Neapolitan:

I suppose that's how a denialist would look at it. But a climate scientist would say, "We're clearly being outspent by the deep-pocketed Professional Denial Industry. While we'll never have enough cash to take on the fossil-fuel industry, we'll have to do more to be sure the truth gets out and the anti-science brainwashing is halted."

This part, at least, was encouraging: "Out of three scenarios, 30% of Americans say a period of dangerous global warming is likely to occur, while just four percent (4%) say a dangerous ice age is more likely." I'm sure that makes the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil unhappy; perhaps they need to drop more billions to enlarge their campaign of obfuscation...


You really think private industry is outspending world governments? You really are in denial.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
38. auburn (Mod)
All I know is its HOT..dont know if its Natural or unnatural..but I do know its hot!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The USA alone spends 10,600,000 dollars a day or 3.87 billion a year on climate change research. According to US budget report. I really doubt the opponents are spending 3.87 billion a year. Peace out for now
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

I suppose that's how a denialist would look at it. But a climate scientist would say, "We're clearly being outspent by the deep-pocketed Professional Denial Industry. While we'll never have enough cash to take on the fossil-fuel industry, we'll have to do more to be sure the truth gets out and the anti-science brainwashing is halted."

This part, at least, was encouraging: "Out of three scenarios, 30% of Americans say a period of dangerous global warming is likely to occur, while just four percent (4%) say a dangerous ice age is more likely." I'm sure that makes the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil unhappy; perhaps they need to drop more billions to enlarge their campaign of obfuscation...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
No I am not misunderstanding anything the state records extent further back in time. You know long term not a shorter term record of some town. If I put a new thermometer up today I will have a new high temperature for my location but not one for the state.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NW passage open answer no at least according to the NSIDC. In their words "Choked with ice"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oh, I see the denialist contingent has come out en masse again to plus the contrarian comments and minus the scientific ones (though the click-happy folks appear to have accidentally sent too many plus votes to stormtracker's #10 comment--whoopsie!). If I had the time and inclination, I might go check to see which in member blog(s) this latest desperate call to arms was posted--please help us!!!--but I've a feeling I wouldn't have to look far. Ah, well. As always, if it makes the "skeptics" feel better, more power to them; they need all the help they can get at this point, even if that means stuffing the ballot box in an internet forum. Heck, if it were me on the wrong side of science instead of them, I might very well resort to the same type of tactics, you know?

Now, a few responses in digest form:

--#24 nymore: I see you're still making some basic errors in understanding; please visit the NCDC's records page and have a look around.

--#26 rod2635: Yes, a Malthusian Catastrophe or two awaits should we continue on our present course.

--#20: sullivanweather: I told you I didn't wish to offend any tender sensibilities by applying the term "denialist" to you. That doesn't mean what you're doing doesn't fit into the category of denial; it merely meant I would no longer call you by that name as it apparently bothers you. And I won't, I promise.

Now, it's true that lows in the US outnumbered highs in the 1970s and the 1960s (though not in the 1950s, so the trend was only negative for two decades, not three as you stated). At any rate, that's been well explained from a scientific standpoint. In short, the postwar boom led to an amazing amount of "cooling" pollution being pumped into the environment. When that pollution was recognized and thus greatly reduced, warming began anew. And it's been picking up the pace ever since. Here are the ratios of heat records to cold records based on NCDC data:

1950s: 1.09:1
1960s: 0.77:1
1970s: 0.78:1
1980s: 1.14:1
1990s: 1.36:1
2000s: 2.04:1
2010s: 2.41:1 (so far, and with this year's running ahead of last year's by the same date.)

With the heat wave in the middle part of the country not expected to break for at least six weeks or so, and with at least some forecasters tentatively calling for another massive East Coast heatwave in a few weeks, it's gonna take some very cold wintry blasts to equalize things, if that's possible.

--#30 CorneliaMarie: you mean like how PD's comment #1 has 17 plus votes, while Dr. Rood's #25 has only three? Yes, the vote counts are obviously an accurate way to measure the validity of a particular comment, or value of a poster. As I wrote above: if it makes the "skeptics" feel better, more power to them; they need all the help they can get at this point, even if that means stuffing the ballot box in an internet forum. ;-)

Silly denialists...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
5th place!


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Increasing CO2 levels actually inhibit drought in the open range. Uh oh, another CO2 warmist fallacy down the tubes. From the USDA:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Looks the the public is a lot more astute than the warmists would have you believe. They know manipulation when they see it:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
5 thousand years ago, the Egyptians had to deal with the vagaries of the Nile and utilized storgage for grains produced in surplus years to help in years of poor crop yields. An admitted simplistic analogy to what may be our global future.

If we look at the two elements of extremes, temperature and precipitation, what are the options and challenges for planners in modern times. On a global basis, food production and distribution, a large scale life and death issue, should take precedence over whether an individual city is adequately prepared to deal with a blizzard, or whether dwellings should be situated half a mile further inland from a 500 year floodplain determined by past data.

But since we as a species don't yet govern globally, we don't plan globally. All politics is still local politics.

So be it. Then planners in northern cities should consider laying in a separate long term stockpile of fuel and salt, much like the strategic petroleum reserve, for extreme winters or successive extreme winters. They might even take the enlightened step of putting a compact together with other cities to pool their resources, the fundamental concept behind insurance, such that the pool could support City A while City B is having an easy winter. Each year, though, all cities contribute fuel and salt to the pool (premiums) to keep it whole.

Insurance companies, incented to manage risk, may end up regulating floodplain development simply by making coverage cost commensurate with their own probabilistic determinations of future extreme event frequency and cost.

The Texas drought presents another matter entirely. Farmland is individually owned. Difficult for the pooling/storage concept to work. If we had known exactly what was coming up (not possible at present), the best the individual economic unit, ie the farmer, could have done might be to avoid planting, sell cattle early, and hope to be financially solvent enough to continue next year. But if next year, and subsequent are just as bad, the farmer is out of business. Remember the Dust Bowl.

Fortunately the US is big enough that, at least so far, regional losses can be moderated by production in other areas. Other countrires, ie Kenya, Somalia, are not so fortunate...hence the need for a global 'storage' framework to assit these entities. The longer term solution for these smaller states may simply be that they are not viable economic entities and that they need to merge with other states, another means of pooling.

We have current evidence that significant portions of agriculture are on the edge in terms of tolerance for successive deviations from the mean. The world can still feed these hungry if it has the will, but there is no firm solution as to what to do with the people who may never be able to continue their former livlihood, whether in Somalia or Texas. They cannot all be retrained to work in call centers.

Part of this is the unprecedented population explosion in the last 100 years and a desire for continuous creature comforts not present in the past, ie central heating, air conditioning, power grids, central water supply. All well and good in a benign environment. Less achievable if the world will be beset by increasing frequencies of regional extreme events.

So, taken from an external view, just looking at the planet from a distance, we may not be able to support all these comforts to 8 billion people. China's one child emphasis is Draconian to some, but pragmatic for a nation that has to manage 2 billion people and would seek to have that number stabilize or decline.

We may need to strive for a smaller population by 2100, located in areas where successive deviations from the mean can be more readily absorbed. Those seeking to chance it in more marginal areas do so at their own risk.

I rather doubt that such an outcome will be achieved voluntarily or thru predictive models. More likely it will be the outcome of famine, flood, and other successive regional disasters driving the point home. That will be the 'proof' we seem to need as a species to move us into action.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PurpleDrank:
whew!

new blog

refreshing..


Sorry ... I promise to do more things than I can do!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
With all the rising temps caused by man over the last 30 years wouldn't you expect there to be more all time record highs? Yet since 1980 new all time record highs by state are 9 Compare this with just the decade of the 30s when there were 24 record highs. It would certainly seem the heatwaves 80 years ago were hotter than today. I would not say the heatwaves of present are unprecedented.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Right on RickyRood
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 71 - 21

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.