We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:44 PM GMT on February 17, 2013

Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

I have been invited to contribute a piece to Zocalo Public Square for an event next week in Culver City, California. It is called Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change? If you are local, then it looks like an interesting event to attend with good people. To get more idea of the event from a previous event see Lost in Space. My piece is focused on California, but you will get the picture.

Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

The Earth is warming, sea levels are rising, and the weather is changing. We know that the Earth has warmed and will continue to warm due to the carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels—and the warming is and will be disruptive. Five years ago the talk was “if” we limited the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius, then we would avoid “dangerous” climate change. It is now quite obvious that we see large, consequential, and disruptive changes with even less warming—for example in the melting of the Arctic Sea ice. The commitments the world has made have us on a path toward 3.5 degrees of warming or more. If we burn all our fossil fuels, the warming will be much greater.

We have no choice but to adapt to this warming world. We have adapted to changes in the climate for the past 10,000 years—it is something we do. Now, scientific investigation has given us a vision of the future that is credible and actionable. This is unprecedented in history, and it gives us the opportunity to take responsibility and plan to adapt. We know that the Earth will warm; we know it will warm fast. We also know that the weather will change, and when the weather changes the way rain and snow are distributed will be different.

To take advantage of this knowledge, we need to think through scenarios of what will happen to real places. We need to look at the impact of rising sea level on the Sacramento River Delta. We need to focus on how much water is stored in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and drought impacts on the forests, grasslands, and rangelands. We must move away from sweeping statements about more droughts and greater floods and instead play out the scenario and the cost of this warmer world to Culver City, California, to the people of California, and to the people of the United States. Then we can decide whether to build sea walls or move inland, rather than patching different strategies together as fragmented responses of emergency management.

Should we just adapt—and not worry about our continued emissions of our energy waste into the atmosphere, ocean, and land? What would be adapt to? We started talking about the “new normal” when we calculated, in 2011, the 30-year average of temperatures from 1981 to 2010, and a new, warmer average “replaced” the 30-year average of some earlier period. In 10 more years we will have the next warmer “climate,” then the next, and the next—the “next normals.” There is no new normal. And the warming will be speeding up. There is no “just adapting” to this; there is no stable climate to adapt to. We must manage and limit our carbon dioxide waste or we will still be chasing the “new normal” in a thousand years.

It won’t just be getting warmer. Ecosystems will have to adapt far faster than they did in the past 10,000 years. The trees of California will die from hot, dry weather. Intrusion of the sea into the Sacramento Delta will make Katrina in New Orleans seem like a quaint artifact of the “old normal.” The accelerated release of methane and carbon dioxide as the Arctic melts will accelerate the warming. The oceans will become acidic, and there will be vast changes to phytoplankton and zooplankton. The oceans will become warm and will release the carbon dioxide we take comfort in their storing. There is no “just adapting.” We will be required to adapt, and the rate of change will make adaptation ever more challenging. We need both aggressive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the future changes, and we need aggressive adaptation to cope with the changes already occurring and those that are in store.


The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

You be able to leave comments on this blog.

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

Viewing: 382 - 332

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

382. Neapolitan
1:27 PM GMT on March 07, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:

New record low temperature for Northern Hemisphere set in Russia's Siberia

Extreme Weather
February 24, 2013
By: Justin Berk

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-record-low-te mperature-for-northern-hemisphere-set-russia-s-sib eria
Unfortunately, that new record is neither new nor a record. It seems the Daily Mail wrote a story back in January (yes, before February) in which they spoke of Oymyakon's status as the coldest inhabited place on the planet. The alleged -71.2C reading was taken back in 1924, but was never verified or accepted as official. (Some climate change "skeptic" blogs zealously picked up the article and started flogging it around before realizing that they'd simply misunderstood it. Like this one.)

Now, here's a better--and more authentic--record from Chris Burt's blog: On February 27, Abu Na'Ama, Sudan measured a temperature of 112.1F. That's the warmest reliably-measured temperature on record for the month of February anywhere in the northern hemisphere.

112.1? In February? Now that is newsworthy.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
381. iceagecoming
4:29 AM GMT on March 07, 2013

New record low temperature for Northern Hemisphere set in Russia's Siberia

Extreme Weather
February 24, 2013
By: Justin Berk

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-record-low-te mperature-for-northern-hemisphere-set-russia-s-sib eria
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
380. anotherbob
6:59 AM GMT on February 25, 2013
Unless we stop the burning there will be no adaptation that will leave very many of us alive.

There are 7 billion of us only because we have had a stabile climate that has allowed for us to build coastal cities and the ports that allow for huge numbers of people to find shelter and imported food.

Cities in the past sourced their food and energy from the surrounding farm land that had the benefit of a predictable climate. If the local/regional climate changed through natural causes or through deforestation or locusts or war or whatever the city declined in population through lack of food and energy.

Modern cities (of the last 500 years or so) grew past the ability of regional food and material resources by constructing ever larger ports and ships to bring food energy and materials from distant sources. When a modern city's port silted up or was otherwise shutdown the city likewise suffered a decline in population. We will be faced with the same scenario only on a global scale.

Our ports and coastal cities will no doubt attempt to hold back the rising oceans but as the melt progresses ever more rapidly through feedback our ability to contain the destruction of storm surges will require more energy than our non warming energy sources can provide.

We can not adapt in any climate stabilizing way unless we stop the burning now. We can do that only if we can ratchet up our concern and care for ourselves and others including those species that we will take to extinction with us.

People are emotional and will, I believe, be best motivated to change behavior when they are given a challenge that requires the connection and cooperation of the entire human tribe pulling together. Finding and deploying carbon free energy sources so as to stop the burning of fossil fuels is that challenge.

What are you all doing to stop the burning?

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
379. Econundertow
4:20 AM GMT on February 25, 2013
Quoting etxwx:
In reference to Rookie's post about oil being finite in spite of the current boost in production, these three news articles caught my eye. They barely reference environment concerns...this is all about about production. The new sources of "tight oil" are not necessarily as abundant and easy to access as advertised by the promoters.


First of all, good blog!

There isn't enough room on a comment to contain the scope of the current peak oil/resources argument but the gist is that tight-oil output cannot keep up with ongoing declines in conventional fields worldwide. EIA and energy company prognosis calls for 30 million barrel per day shortfall (BP) to 70 million (Petrobras). More on the subject:

http://www.postcarbon.org/publications/postcarbon -articles/

As with climate scientists, the peak oil analysts understate current conditions. High costs for new crude + customers going broke fast worldwide = permanent shortages starting in 2 years ... or less, IMO.

Afterward comes economic disruptions and 'conservation by other means'.

Meanwhile, the shale gas 'revolution' is a ponzi scheme ... so say the resource companies themselves!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas -drilling-down-documents-4-intro.html

... and Art Berman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?p agewanted=all

Technology and wishful thinking won't save us or anything else, only stringent conservation.

BTW, there are definite steps that are low cost and more easily implemented that would not threaten the current status quo as much as an embargo on CO2 emissions. More on that later.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
378. RTLSNK
4:06 AM GMT on February 25, 2013
This blog is now closed.

Please bring your discussion, and your comments,
to Dr. Roods new blog.

Thanks. :)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
377. azucas
4:05 AM GMT on February 25, 2013
Birthmark,

I'm not interested in niggling over tenths of degrees per decade. Maybe it's up, maybe its down, maybe it's flat. It is within measurement error and it is definitely not on the same slope as between 1975 and 1997 and definitely not on the same slope as ocean enthalpy.

How do you explain the drastic change in slope if it has in fact warmed at all?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
376. srqthymesage
3:56 AM GMT on February 25, 2013
Can anyone tell me if what's been showing up here is, 'wagging the dog' or 'let's you and him fight'? Either way, or another, we appear to be 'off topic'. Thanks.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
375. RTLSNK
3:43 AM GMT on February 25, 2013
This blog is now closed.

Please bring your discussion to Dr. Roods new blog.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
373. azucas
3:12 AM GMT on February 25, 2013
Birthmark,

Either you are denying the results of all the satellite groups and now the IPCC, or you are relying on the efforts of Ramshorf to expunge ENSO from the record. Even Kevin Trenberth has stated that this is impossible. ENSO is imbedded at many different levels and involves Kelvin and Rossby waves and IMO the thermohaline circulation in ways that simply do not express in our index rectangles in the Pacific.

Do you think ENSO is noise? I do not. It is how our planet works. Was the 1997 El Nino such a kahuna that it overshot 16 years worth of trend. No. The 1986 El Nino was a bit stronger.

Let's not move on. Let's stay right here until you understand that "excess energy retained" would be ocean enthalpy because atmospheric enthalpy has been flat. The misconception I was addressing was that the atmosphere had not warmed because the ice was melting. If you want to compare the energy to melt the ice to ocean enthalpy, it becomes more laughably miniscule.

Obviously the surface warming in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans has a lot to do with the melting, but the stratospheric warming gives pause...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
371. azucas
9:36 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Neapolitan@351

The "cool skin" of the ocean (and all water surfaces) is involved in an astonishing energy exchange with the lower atmosphere that is reciprocal, nearly instantaneous, and greater than the energy we recieve from the sun. If the sun were a 100w bulb, the surface radiates 117w to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere 100w back down. An additional 25w is transferred to the atmosphere by evaporation using some quantum of the downwelling energy.

I fully agree that in theory the thermal mass of GHG's and indeed the entire atmosphere will reduce the net radiation from the surface skin, but only if it warms proportionally itself.

We are faced with a puzzling predicament where for 16 years the atmosphere has refused to recieve additional enthalpy, either water vapor or heat, from a warming ocean.

ENSO adjustment is irrelevant for this consideration. If atmospheric thermal mass is reducing net surface radiation, from any initial condition they both move together.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
369. Neapolitan
4:23 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting allahgore:



thanks for posting that chart, being new i was getting confused because people were posting different charts that countered each other. I think I need to study what everyone is posting. thank you to all that responded to my questions.
By all means you should study everything. But be discerning; not everything is equally credible. If we were researching, say, lung cancer treatments, you'd give much more weight to things said by oncologists working working with Sloan-Kettering than "smoking is good for you" cheerleading from a PR flack employed by RJ Reynolds. Similarly, with climate, you're far more likely to get the straight story from a practicing, publishing climate scientist than someone who earns a substantial portion of his income from ExxonMobil.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
368. SteveDa1
3:59 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting allahgore:



thanks I do need to study more. I am very new to this topic and have a very open mind.


That's refreshing. :)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
367. Daisyworld
3:58 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting overwash12:
This may have been posted already and How is this possible in a warming world?Link


For the reasons explained in the article you linked to:

"[...] With less ice cover, the Arctic Ocean absorbs heat and solar energy from the sun that the ice would have reflected back into space. The heating of Arctic sea water can shift weather patterns in the Arctic and also affect the jet stream, Stroeve said. The jet stream is a persistent river of air that circles the planet, and has a strong influence on winter storms and movement of frosty polar air. Dips and troughs created by the shifting Arctic wind patterns could let Arctic air sneak south, studies show..."
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
366. overwash12
3:46 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
This may have been posted already and How is this possible in a warming world?Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
365. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
3:44 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
363. Skyepony (Mod)
3:19 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting azucas:
Skyepony,

You do realize that upwelling deep water is practically fizzing with CO2? You realize that we have entered a PDO phase that fosters upwelling?

I calculated the pH change if all historic human CO2 were dissolved in an ocean of distilled water.

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2012/11/15/a-simp le-calculation-on-ocean-acidification/


Upwelling has always always occurred in that area & yes the PDO affects it.. In the past when the PDO was in the cool faze it wasn't bringing up such acidic water killing off the food source along the coast there..indigenous people have lived off that ocean shellfish harvest in that area for many PDO cycles this is really the first time they are being impacted like this for this reason..

No one has researched it that I've seen but watching the satellites, the new laws letting them burn crud for fuel in the ships in the NW Pacific quite often keeps that area from getting direct sunlight...I'm not surprised the PDO is going cool with so much cloud cover & that it is occurring in time with the law changes..


Lastly & unrelated to our delightful debate...WeatherUndergound doesn't take kindly to spam...usually it's an instant perma-ban. It's been noted by others you are repeatedly spamming your site. You are a long time member so you get a warning, probibly beyond this to maybe remove some of your spam & not continue to put it out there.. One or two links are okay but we've seen it now, discussed it.. so stop the spamming.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
361. OldLeatherneck
3:05 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:

The comments on this page of Neven's blog sort of explain what's going on with the security stuff: Link

Unfortunately, I don't know how to get from that page to Old Leatherneck's thread, but he'll probably let us know.


It is posted as a topic in the Consequences folder under AGW in General

Arctic Sea Ice : Forum » AGW in general » Consequences








Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
360. OldLeatherneck
2:56 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


Link doesn't work for me. Some 'security message' comes up.


You can ignore that security message. The site is secure.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
359. FLwolverine
2:06 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


Link doesn't work for me. Some 'security message' comes up.

The comments on this page of Neven's blog sort of explain what's going on with the security stuff: Link

Unfortunately, I don't know how to get from that page to Old Leatherneck's thread, but he'll probably let us know.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
358. pintada
1:54 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting Daisyworld:


Good link, Skyepony.

We, as mainly a land-dwelling species, can be so closeted and jaded in our daily, rat-raced lives that we tend to forget about these wide blue expanses of water between distant places, despite the fact that they cover 70% of the Earth's surface. This new warming world is heating up so quickly that species which live in the ocean cannot adapt fast enough.

In my scientific opinion, THE most disturbing trend is this: Ocean plankton are on the decline. Plankton are tiny, microscopic plants and animals that form the base of the ocean food web. According to a story a few years ago in NPR, "the cause is pretty clear: The declines are biggest where the ocean is warmest. As the surface of the ocean warms up, that hot water just sits there and prevents colder nutrient-rich waters from coming up from below, so the phytoplankton don't get fertilized."

Unfortunately, plankton cannot just swim to a cooler waters, as they rely solely on ocean currents to move around. Neither can the next-affected group of animals that require plankton to survive: coral. Coral reefs, which rely on a specific type of plankton called Zooxanthella, are often noted as being the "rain forests of the ocean", as fish and marine life of every size, color, and shape rely on coral for food, habitat, and spawning ground. Every living thing in the ocean relies on the coral - every rung in the food chain, every fin in the water. They are all its benefactors.

Unfortunately, the coral are dying too. Back in 2010, one of the most rapid and severe coral reef die-offs ever recorded was discovered off the coast of Indonesia, triggered by ocean surface temperatures that exceeded 93 degrees Fahrenheit. Considering that coral also relies on plankton for food, to say nothing of a delicate water pH that is also in jeopardy due to ocean acidification from rapid absorption of excess carbon dioxide, the evidence points to a global mass extinction of coral within our lifetimes. As with plankton, the coral will not simply swim to cooler waters - their skeletons are basically rock anchored to the seafloor.

As I said, these changes are largely going ignored due to the remoteness of the affected regions, our general inability to comprehend the vast scope and magnitude of the problem, as well as the public's inability to make the vital connections between these ecological symptoms and the resulting impact on our individual lives.


Here is a little backing to your "opinion" which is, by the way, spot on:
Roberts, Callum (2012-05-24). The Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea Penguin Group.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
357. yonzabam
1:53 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting OldLeatherneck:
Global Impact (Economic & Societal) of Declining Arctic Sea Ice

The other day I joined Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Forum and decided to start a thread regarding the Global Impact of Climate Change. Within 4 days, it has resulted in over 30 replies and is nearing 300 page views. For those interested in the future we are facing, please take a look and either comment there or here on Dr. Rood's blog.

AGW Consequences



Link doesn't work for me. Some 'security message' comes up.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
356. OldLeatherneck
1:50 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Global Impact (Economic & Societal) of Declining Arctic Sea Ice

The other day I joined Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Forum and decided to start a thread regarding the Global Impact of Climate Change. Within 4 days, it has resulted in over 30 replies and is nearing 300 page views. For those interested in the future we are facing, please take a look and either comment there or here on Dr. Rood's blog.

AGW Consequences

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
355. FLwolverine
1:49 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Azucas -
You have accomplished at least one of your goals here because (God forgive me) I looked at your blog and so gave you one added click to help your standing in the search engines. Which, by the looks of it, you really need, because my google search did not show your blog in the first several pages. Instead, it turned up a blog for a similarly named Canadian startup company that was trying to get work from petroleum companies. That company seems to have failed in 2005. So is this you starting over?

But in neither place do you say anything that makes much sense. There are a bunch of other criticisms I could bring, but what's the point? I would very much like to pouf you, but until such time as Admin decides you really are the troll you appear to be, I feel a certain responsibility to help inform other newbies here about what you're doing.

Sorry, you caught me at a bad time this morning. I started reading Andrew Guzman's book "Overheated: the Human Cost of Climate Change", which enforces what I've learned on here about GW/ACC but goes on to explore the truly terrifying consequences. There are real problems in this world, supported by real science, but instead of addressing them, you are fiddle-farting around in here trying to stir up interest in your pathetic blog! Re-think your business plan, man! If it's money you need, this is a time when there is money to be made in doing good for people and the planet.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
354. schwankmoe
12:52 PM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting azucas:

But there is this problem about how the infrared (which is all CO2 does) could actually warm the oceans when it can only penetrate a few microns and then must defeat the intrinsic thermal stability by conduction alone. You guys seem to know a lot about the physical properties of CO2 but not so much water.


oy gevult.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
351. Neapolitan
4:38 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting azucas:
Goosegirl,

Really.

"did you consider checking the oceans and land masses for that extra heat?"

Certainly the oceans. I even took the trouble to plot ocean enthalpy against ENSO "adjusted" atmospheric temperatures.

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2013/02/02/struct ural-similarities-observed-in-enso-neutered-atmosp heric-temperatures-and-ocean-enthalpy/

But there is this problem about how the infrared (which is all CO2 does) could actually warm the oceans when it can only penetrate a few microns and then must defeat the intrinsic thermal stability by conduction alone. You guys seem to know a lot about the physical properties of CO2 but not so much water.

Land, in the areas where all radiation is not absorbed by plant cover, has the same problem,but worse, because here not only IR, but UV is also limited to the top microns.

Sorry to be tiresome but you guys have just flat out got it wrong. It is not about Carbon dioxide. Geology makes that abundantly clear. I don't know what it is, but you young thinkers, rather than burying your heads in the sand, should be out there figuring out what really does cause climate change.
You don't seem to understand the mechanism by which CO2 is causing the oceans to heat up. GHG's don't, as you suggest, directly warm the seas by channeling heat down into them. Rather, those GHGs heat the atmosphere, which has the effect of lowering the temperature gradient of the ocean's "cool skin layer"--that is, the thin, viscous surface layer of the ocean that's in contact with the atmosphere above it. That lowered gradient in turn reduces the rate at which heat moves from the ocean to the atmosphere--and that, also in turn, allows more heat to stay in the water. And thus they warm.

I hope this simple explanation was able to help clear up some of your misconceptions.

(On a side note, trying to drive traffic to your own non-WU blog by frequently and repeatedly linking to it is frowned upon as spam, and could land you in trouble. And at the very least, citing only your own anonymous, non-peer-reviewed writings will certainly do nothing to bolster the credibility of your many outlandish claims.)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
350. greentortuloni
4:37 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting SteveDa1:
This is interesting. Quite early compared to last year.




That could be the biggest story of 2013 if it develops.

By the way, your link did not take me to the image. Here is a link to the main page.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
349. Daisyworld
4:12 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting azucas:
Goosegirl@ 307


"The Arctic is a frozen (well, formerly frozen) area of ocean subject to currents and warming ocean waters. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by frozen ocean. You really can't compare the two directly as they are completely different systems."

Well sure, and it is very clear that the ice melting in Greenland is where the currents are lapping at the southern edges.

The Indian, the North Atlantic, and the ARCTIC oceans account for all of the surface temperature rise in the last 16 years. All the other oceans are flat or declining.

Currents also lap at Antarctica, but the Southern Ocean has not been warming.



Quoting azucas:
Skyepony,

You do realize that upwelling deep water is practically fizzing with CO2? You realize that we have entered a PDO phase that fosters upwelling?

I calculated the pH change if all historic human CO2 were dissolved in an ocean of distilled water.

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2012/11/15/a-simp le-calculation-on-ocean-acidification/



Again, another red herring, Azucas. How many times do we have to tell you that your lies are wrong? On the hour?

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
348. azucas
4:11 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Skyepony,

You do realize that upwelling deep water is practically fizzing with CO2? You realize that we have entered a PDO phase that fosters upwelling?

I calculated the pH change if all historic human CO2 were dissolved in an ocean of distilled water.

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2012/11/15/a-simp le-calculation-on-ocean-acidification/
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
347. Daisyworld
4:11 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting azucas:
Goosegirl,

Really.

"did you consider checking the oceans and land masses for that extra heat?"

Certainly the oceans. I even took the trouble to plot ocean enthalpy against ENSO "adjusted" atmospheric temperatures.

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2013/02/02/struct ural-similarities-observed-in-enso-neutered-atmosp heric-temperatures-and-ocean-enthalpy/

But there is this problem about how the infrared (which is all CO2 does) could actually warm the oceans when it can only penetrate a few microns and then must defeat the intrinsic thermal stability by conduction alone. You guys seem to know a lot about the physical properties of CO2 but not so much water.

Land, in the areas where all radiation is not absorbed by plant cover, has the same problem,but worse, because here not only IR, but UV is also limited to the top microns.

Sorry to be tiresome but you guys have just flat out got it wrong. It is not about Carbon dioxide. Geology makes that abundantly clear. I don't know what it is, but you young thinkers, rather than burying your heads in the sand, should be out there figuring out what really does cause climate change.


A complete red-herring, Azucas.

You are oblivious about the basic facts of climate change, and are deliberately confusing the issue. The warming of the oceans have little to do with "intrinsic thermal stability", and the excuse that infrared radiation penetrates only a few microns of the ocean surface is a very old piece of denialist propaganda that's been refuted many times in the past. As RealClimate.org puts it, "absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer (your 'few microns' of ocean), the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures."

Unlike others who have given you the benefit of the doubt, I'm fully confident that you are nothing but a troll attempting to de-rail the discussion here. However, because I haven't seen your handle before this weekend, I will explain this to you the same way I explained it to the denialists who attacked Dr. Rood's blog over the holiday season:

You are using misinformation tactics to discredit climate science that similar to the same methods used by the popular media organization, Fox News. Dr. Cynthia Boaz, assistant professor of political science and international relations at Sonoma State University, has identified 14 propaganda techniques that FoxNews uses to brainwash Americans. According to her research, you are engaging in method #8:

8. Confusion: Deliberately confusing the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along.

So, as before, I will ask you to please take your lies elsewhere. The science does not support them.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
346. azucas
3:58 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Goosegirl@ 307


"The Arctic is a frozen (well, formerly frozen) area of ocean subject to currents and warming ocean waters. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by frozen ocean. You really can't compare the two directly as they are completely different systems."

Well sure, and it is very clear that the ice melting in Greenland is where the currents are lapping at the southern edges.

The Indian, the North Atlantic, and the ARCTIC oceans account for all of the surface temperature rise in the last 16 years. All the other oceans are flat or declining.

Currents also lap at Antarctica, but the Southern Ocean has not been warming.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
345. azucas
3:40 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Goosegirl,

Really.

"did you consider checking the oceans and land masses for that extra heat?"

Certainly the oceans. I even took the trouble to plot ocean enthalpy against ENSO "adjusted" atmospheric temperatures.

http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2013/02/02/struct ural-similarities-observed-in-enso-neutered-atmosp heric-temperatures-and-ocean-enthalpy/

But there is this problem about how the infrared (which is all CO2 does) could actually warm the oceans when it can only penetrate a few microns and then must defeat the intrinsic thermal stability by conduction alone. You guys seem to know a lot about the physical properties of CO2 but not so much water.

Land, in the areas where all radiation is not absorbed by plant cover, has the same problem,but worse, because here not only IR, but UV is also limited to the top microns.

Sorry to be tiresome but you guys have just flat out got it wrong. It is not about Carbon dioxide. Geology makes that abundantly clear. I don't know what it is, but you young thinkers, rather than burying your heads in the sand, should be out there figuring out what really does cause climate change.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
344. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
3:40 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
faster and faster
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
343. SteveDa1
3:36 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
This is interesting. Quite early compared to last year.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
342. overwash12
3:22 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
If patriotism is feeling or expressing love for one's country, what better term is there for describing those who, for whatever reason, intentionally act to harm that country? No, I believe I used the term correctly.
How true!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
341. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
3:08 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
340. Daisyworld
3:06 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting Skyepony:
Oyster Farming is now leaving Washington because the waters have become too acidic to support it due to climate change.


Good link, Skyepony.

We, as mainly a land-dwelling species, can be so closeted and jaded in our daily, rat-raced lives that we tend to forget about these wide blue expanses of water between distant places, despite the fact that they cover 70% of the Earth's surface. This new warming world is heating up so quickly that species which live in the ocean cannot adapt fast enough.

In my scientific opinion, THE most disturbing trend is this: Ocean plankton are on the decline. Plankton are tiny, microscopic plants and animals that form the base of the ocean food web. According to a story a few years ago in NPR, "the cause is pretty clear: The declines are biggest where the ocean is warmest. As the surface of the ocean warms up, that hot water just sits there and prevents colder nutrient-rich waters from coming up from below, so the phytoplankton don't get fertilized."

Unfortunately, plankton cannot just swim to a cooler waters, as they rely solely on ocean currents to move around. Neither can the next-affected group of animals that require plankton to survive: coral. Coral reefs, which rely on a specific type of plankton called Zooxanthella, are often noted as being the "rain forests of the ocean", as fish and marine life of every size, color, and shape rely on coral for food, habitat, and spawning ground. Every living thing in the ocean relies on the coral - every rung in the food chain, every fin in the water. They are all its benefactors.

Unfortunately, the coral are dying too. Back in 2010, one of the most rapid and severe coral reef die-offs ever recorded was discovered off the coast of Indonesia, triggered by ocean surface temperatures that exceeded 93 degrees Fahrenheit. Considering that coral also relies on plankton for food, to say nothing of a delicate water pH that is also in jeopardy due to ocean acidification from rapid absorption of excess carbon dioxide, the evidence points to a global mass extinction of coral within our lifetimes. As with plankton, the coral will not simply swim to cooler waters - their skeletons are basically rock anchored to the seafloor.

As I said, these changes are largely going ignored due to the remoteness of the affected regions, our general inability to comprehend the vast scope and magnitude of the problem, as well as the public's inability to make the vital connections between these ecological symptoms and the resulting impact on our individual lives.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
339. Skyepony (Mod)
2:36 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Oyster Farming is now leaving Washington because the waters have become too acidic to support it due to climate change.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
338. Skyepony (Mod)
2:31 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
337. Neapolitan
2:23 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting nymore:
Unpatriotic may be a little over the top. Radical right as you say coming from someone who is radically left. Hello pot meet kettle. No wonder why I dislike the right and the left.
If patriotism is feeling or expressing love for one's country, what better term is there for describing those who, for whatever reason, intentionally act to harm that country? No, I believe I used the term correctly.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
336. Daisyworld
2:19 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
[...]

Perhaps we're too serious here - but then AGW/CC is indeed a sobering subject, with likely consequences in the next few decades that are far worse than all the current severe weather and natural disasters combined. Perhaps following severe weather is "fun" but AGW/CC is not. I go elsewhere to lighten up - something that we all must do to preserve our sanity...


We've been amiable with each other in the past, it's just that lately, we're constantly barraged by comments intended to de-rail the conversation about human-induced climate change. This is done by commenters who are illiterate in climate science and adamant in their own incorrect and non-sequitur conclusions. We waste time on them by having to re-explain the basic science because they're too lazy to search the WU Climate Change pages, or too arrogant to realize their knowledge and understanding of the subject is sorely lacking. Personally, I postulate that a majority of the deniers promote their lies specifically for the purpose of de-railing the conversation. From the looks of it, it seems to be working... again...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
332. Neapolitan
1:24 AM GMT on February 24, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Green energy investment: just like throwing money down the toilet, and this is in my backyard:

Link
And--speaking of toilets--you're back again with yet another poorly-written, extremely biased op-ed piece from a dishonest, unpatriotic, radical right website funded by fossil fuel money.

Why oh why am I not surprised?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 382 - 332

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.