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

Change in the Weather: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (7)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:14 AM GMT on November 19, 2013

Change in the Weather: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (7)

This is the end-for-a-while of my series on the Arctic Oscillation / North Atlantic Oscillation. Links to background material and previous entries are below.

At the end of the previous blog I showed the following figure. The top panel shows the observed Arctic Oscillation Index from 1864 to 1960. The middle panel shows the observed Arctic Oscillation Index from 1864 to about 2000. The little number “r” in the panel is a measure of how well one year’s Arctic Oscillation Index is linked to or correlated with the previous year’s. A number close to zero is a measure of being unrelated. Prior to 1960, the observations were almost unrelated from year to year (r=-0.03). After 1960 there is a much stronger relation (r=0.4). Just looking at the graph after 1960, you can convince yourself that the Arctic Oscillation stays stuck in one mode or another for several years.



Figure 1: The top two plots in the figure show the observed Arctic Oscillation Index. The bottom plot shows a model simulation of the Arctic Oscillation Index. See text for more description. Thanks to Jim Hurrell

The bottom panel of Figure 1 shows a model simulation with the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model. In this model simulation the model’s carbon dioxide is held constant at levels prior to the industrial revolution, when man-made carbon dioxide was quite small. This simulation does not represent any particular year; it is 200 years which when taken together might look, statistically, like the atmosphere. An interesting feature of this simulation is that the Arctic Oscillation does look like the observations before 1960, but not after 1960. One possible suggestion of the reason why the model loses its ability represent the behavior of the Arctic oscillation is that carbon dioxide has increased enough to change the Arctic Oscillation.

I will come back to this below, but first a reminder of the other ideas I introduced in the middle part of the series. Most importantly, there is a stream of air that wants to flow around the North Pole. Likely in a world that has no mountains, no land and water sitting next to each other, then that air would actually circulate with the pole in the center. We live in a world with mountains and oceans and continents, which distort this stream of air. It’s a little like boulders in a creek, and water going around the boulders. The stream becomes wavy. There are other factors that also cause the air to be wavy, but I have introduced enough to make my points, and you can go back to the earlier blogs linked at the bottom for words and pictures. What causes the air to spin around the North Pole? The first thing to consider is the rotation of the Earth. The Earth’s atmosphere wants to line up with the rotation. Another important factor in determining the details of the air circulating around the North Pole is heating and cooling. The patterns of heating and cooling contribute to setting up high-pressure and low-pressure systems. Air flows from high to low pressure and as it flows towards low pressure it does its best to line up with the rotation of the Earth. This relation between high and low pressure and the Earth’s rotation is one of the most important features of the motion of the air in the atmosphere and the water in the ocean.

The way carbon dioxide changes the Earth’s climate is by changing the heating and cooling. A common comparison is to compare additional carbon dioxide to a a blanket which holds the Sun’s heat closer to the Earth’s surface. This blanket causes the Earth to heat up more at the pole than at the Equator. The poles are also special because the Sun goes down for the winter and it cools off. In fact, it gets very cold, and as discussed in the previous blogs, the stream of air that gets spun up isolates the pole enough to let the cooling really get going. With these changes to heating and cooling, if we add a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then it is reasonable to expect that the Arctic Oscillation might change.

The studies prior to, say, 2008, suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere would be to cause the Arctic Oscillation Index to become more positive. This would be the pattern of the Arctic Oscillation where the cold air is confined to the pole; that is, the less wavy pattern (scientific references: for example, Kuzmina et al. 2005 and the 2007 IPCC AR-4). The studies prior to 2008 support the idea that the additional carbon dioxide is a leading suspect in the changes after 1960 noted in Figure 1. That is, without carbon dioxide increasing in the simulation, the models cannot reproduce the statistical characteristics of the observations and with it increasing, they can.

Those pre-2008 studies, effectively, only considered increasing carbon dioxide. They did not represent the huge changes in the surface of the Arctic that have been observed. Notably, sea ice and snow cover have declined. These surface changes also cause changes in heating and cooling. The decline of sea-ice, for example, changes the surface of the Arctic Ocean from white to dark. This changes the surface from a reflector of energy to an absorber of energy. Sea ice is also a temperature insulator; hence, without the ice the ocean and atmosphere exchange heat more easily. There are many other changes as well, but all I want to do here is establish the plausibility that large changes at the surface are also likely to change the behavior of the Arctic Oscillation. Why? Changes in the patterns of heating and cooling, leading to changes in high and low pressure systems, which then with the influence of the Earth’s rotation, change the waviness of the stream of air around the Arctic.

There have been a series of papers in the past couple of years that suggest that the changes in sea ice and snow cover are having large effects on the weather in the U.S. If you look across these papers, then there is growing evidence that the meanders (or waviness) of the Arctic Oscillation are getting larger and that storms over the U.S. are moving more slowly. Here is a list of quotes from these papers.

From a paper I have previously discussed:

Francis and Vavrus (2012): Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes - “Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”

Liu et al. (2012): Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall – “ … some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation.”

Greene et al. (2012): Superstorm Sandy: A series of unfortunate events? - “However, there is increasing evidence that the loss of summertime Arctic sea ice due to greenhouse warming stacks the deck in favor of (1) larger amplitude meanders in the jet stream, (2) more frequent invasions of Arctic air masses into the middle latitudes, and (3) more frequent blocking events of the kind that steered Sandy to the west.”

There is some controversy about the work connecting the changes in the sea ice and snow cover to changes in the Arctic Oscillation and to changes in extreme weather in the U.S. (Barnes (2013): Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes, Francis response, and Freedman @ Climate Central ).

I think there is significant merit in the work that connects changes in the Arctic Oscillation to increases in carbon dioxide and related changes to the surface of the Earth. Part of my intuition comes from a career of working with atmosphere models. If a model is radiatively dominated, then the vortex over the pole is very strong. In this case, there is little waviness in the jet stream. This is analogous to the case of increasing carbon dioxide and the Arctic Oscillation becoming more common in its positive phase. If a model is less driven by radiative forcing, then it is easier for the waves that are initiated by the flow over the mountains to grow and distort the edge of the jet stream – more waviness. This is like the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. Though in the end it will require a careful calculation of the energy budget, the removal of sea ice from the surface of the Arctic Ocean allows more heat into the polar atmosphere, which means the radiative cooling will be less intense. Hence, the vortex will be weaker or the Arctic Oscillation will more commonly be in its negative phase. If there are changes in the Arctic Oscillation, which are realized as changes in the waviness and speed of the jet stream around the Arctic, then there will certainly be consequences to the weather in the U.S.

Potential changes in the character of the Arctic Oscillation are an important issue for those thinking about how to respond to climate change. The loss of sea ice is a large change, which will undoubtedly have important impacts in the Arctic. It is reasonable to expect large impacts on weather at lower latitudes, in the U.S., Europe and Asia. The change in the Arctic sea ice has happened very rapidly. This challenges the assumption often made in planning that climate change is a slow, incremental process. The weather of the here and now and/or the next fifty years, a common length of time for planning, is likely to be quite different from the past fifty years. Since we rely on our past experience to plan for the future, this is a direct challenge to our innate planning strategies. If we are cognizant of the possibility of significant changes to weather patterns on decadal lengths of time, then we can develop new planning strategies that will improve our resilience and make our adaptation decisions more effective.

r

Previous entries:

Climate Change and the Arctic Oscillation

Wobbles in the Barriers

Barriers in the Atmosphere

Behavior

Definitions and Some Background

August Arctic Oscillation presentation

CPC Climate Glossary “The Arctic Oscillation is a pattern in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between negative and positive phases.”



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: 93 - 43

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

From DeSmogBlog:

Climate Denial Group CFACT Congratulates Australia During Warsaw Talks

AUSTRALIA finally has a vocal cheerleader at the COP19 United Nations climate talks currently taking place in Warsaw - a climate denial activist think tank which rejects the science of human-caused climate change.

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, a fossil fuel-funded group which denies that emissions from burning fossil fuels cause climate change, declared in a UN-sanctioned press conference inside the talks that the world should be following Australia's lead in repealing laws to price carbon emissions.

Environment groups have been critical of Australia at the talks, giving the country four "Fossil of the Day" awards for slowing down the talks, while one group said Australia is taking an "anti-climate" stance in Warsaw.

Campaigners have been shocked at the rhetoric coming from Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who recently described carbon pricing as a "so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one" and characterised moves to financially support developing countries to manage climate change as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism."

Marc Morano, the editor of the ClimateDepot denial website, appeared Tuesday alongside CFACT executive director Craig Rucker. Morano unleashed a torrent of previously debunked climate denial talking points to a sparsely populated and occasionally perplexed press conference audience.

"Coal is the moral choice, particularly for the developing world," said Morano in the CFACT Warsaw press conference - a comment greeted with laughter from many in the room. Conference hosts Poland have been criticised for simultaneously hosting a World Coal Association conference elsewhere in Warsaw.

"The model for the world right now should be Australia," Morano said. "Australia gets it. Scientifically they get it, politically they get it and particularly when it comes to the United Nations, they get it. They are pulling out of this, they are repealing their carbon tax and Canada seems to be intrigued by what Australia is doing."

"Australia gets it - they have realised what the United Nations is doing here today. Viva Australia - let's hope the world follows Australia's model," said Morano, who is a former advisor to Republican Senator James Inhofe, who has said global warming is a scientific "hoax".

Support from CFACT is not the kind of attention which Australia will welcome.

CFACT has accepted more than $4 million in recent years through Donors Trust, a slush fund for rich conservatives, and has also accepted more than $500,000 from oil giant ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel related foundations.

Also appearing for CFACT was 81-year-old former Apollo astronaut Walter Cunningham, who admitted he was no climate scientist but then proceeded to tell the audience how science should and should not be carried out.

He said phrases such as "climate change," "global warming" and "anthropogenic warming" were, in fact, "code words for governmental control of energy consumption and consequently our standard of living."

[...]

In questions, one representative from the UK Youth Climate Coalition said: "I'm going to call bullshit on everything that you have just said. You guys are the ones being naive and you guys are the ones ignoring the science. I don't even know what to ask. I think my question would just be... how do you sleep at night?"

Watch the Q&A part of the presser >>

In angry scenes outside the press conference, Morano, Rucker and Cunningham were challenged on their views by British climate change Professor Kevin Anderson. Mr Rucker evaded questions from DeSmogBlog on aspects of the organisation's funding. Stay tuned for more on that soon.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 91. yoboi:




"as reality even were atmospheric CO2 to climb to 1500ppm, average daytime highs in Kansas to reach 120, the seas to rise a hundred meters, Florida to be submerged, Greenland to become a tropical paradise, all the fish in the ocean to die, and winter to disappear almost entirely save for a few brief January cool snaps in Siberia"


sigh
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 73. Birthmark:

You do realize:

1. that this is an open forum, not a platform for private consversations, right?

2. You brought up Obama...as you so often do.


Is "Obama" now becoming the new godwin? Sure seems like it.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
The rice is not Mahatma seem's.

; )

Chevron & Climate Change - Chevron.com%u200E
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 83. yoboi:


Are you making a prediction that all these things are going to happen????? If so what is the timeframe???
How did you in any way interpret what I said as a prediction? The only "prediction" I will make is that hard-core denialists are pathologically incapable of changing their minds no matter how much evidence exists, so I don't expect that to happen. Ever.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 80. yoboi:


You can ref post 70.....you were close not off by much, but you did say you were close and not exact....so in a sense you did not mislead anyone just the math was off a bit.....
Before we go down this road, you should know that I worked for Praxair for awhile. Having said that, the volume of sea level-pressure gas a cylinder of a particular size will hold is determined by how much it's compressed. And the standard for high-volume food and beverage establishments (and, ahem, those growing illegal weeds in their basement) was right at 180cf. Some clients wanted less, but 180 was our standard fill.

At any rate, if using 174cf instead of 180, you'll need to add roughly 3.4% to the number of cylinders we humans are creating--further illustrating my point.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Imminent peak oil could burst global economic bubble: study

Major industrial sectors are at risk without a swift transition to a more resilient, post-carbon economy

A new multi-disciplinary study led by the University of Maryland calls for immediate action by government, private and commercial sectors to reduce vulnerability to the imminent threat of global peak oil, which could put the entire US economy and other major industrial economies at risk.

The peer-reviewed study contradicts the recent claims within the oil industry that peak oil has been indefinitely offset by shale gas and other unconventional oil and gas resources. A report by the World Energy Council (WEC) last month, for instance, stated that peak oil was unlikely to be realised within the next forty years at least. This is due to global reserves being 25 per cent higher than in 1993. According to the WEC report, 80% of global energy is currently produced by either oil, gas or coal, a situation which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

The new University of Maryland study, in contrast, conducts a review of the scientific literature on global oil production and argues that the bulk of independent, credible studies indicate that a “production peak for conventional oil [is] likely before 2030″, with a “significant risk” it could occur “before 2020.” Unconventional oil such as Canadian tar sands is “unlikely to expand enough to fill the gap”, and this also applies to “shale oil and gas.” Shale wells, the study argues, “reach their maximum production levels (peaks) much earlier than conventional ones and are therefore difficult to operate profitably.”

Although US Geological Survey (USGS), Energy Information Administration (EIA) and International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates project that the decline of conventional resources will be more than compensated by ‘yet to be developed’ and ‘yet to be found’ fields, other scientific studies find that these “projections are overly optimistic.”

RawStory.com (The Guardian)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 74. pintada:
Arctic Methane Release and Rapid Temperature Rise are interlinked (Exponential changes might make deniers of even the most astute).
I wish, but I don't think so. There is a segment of society so ideologically against the idea of climate change that they wouldn't accept it as reality even were atmospheric CO2 to climb to 1500ppm, average daytime highs in Kansas to reach 120, the seas to rise a hundred meters, Florida to be submerged, Greenland to become a tropical paradise, all the fish in the ocean to die, and winter to disappear almost entirely save for a few brief January cool snaps in Siberia. No, these clowns would still be pointing at a few patches of ancient ice melting in the shade at the top of Mt. Everest and hysterically screeching, "See?! It's all a lie!!!"

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 78. cynyc2:


Please keep in mind that I was off by a factor of ten, as a couple of other bloggers pointed out, and after looking back, I believe they are correct.

That blanket is actually 10 feet deep, not one. Wow, I say, just wow!

If we were still at 280 ppm CO2, that blanket would only be 7 feet thick.

As others say, Faster and faster....


Thanks cynyc2..
Wow is right!!
10 foot deep if it were to be placed on the Earths surface..
There would be NO life as we know it..
Thank goodness this is a gas that our planet can convert..
But she can't keep up with our arrogance..

Thanks again on your perspective and analysis..
Kudos to both you and Nea for those fantastic examples.. :)
Kudo's!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 59. yoboi:


Not correct....
Quoting 66. yoboi:
I do take notice......just like the wrong math I just pointed out....I also notice when some use volume as extent numbers.....
If you believe my math is in error--and it very well may be--show your work. Otherwise, this statement, as so many others of yours, has no validity whatsoever. (Ditto your baseless statement about sea ice volume vs. extent: show what you think you know, or move on.)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 51. pcola57:


Morning Nea..
Not going to take a stance on ACA just yet..
My reps help me understand as much as they can..
Alerts, ect..
It has always been "what is good for one is not necessarily good for another"..
Has there ever been a Gov. idea that didn't have problems?..
I can't think of any issue in my lifetime that this wasn't true..
I blame ignorance on the part of voters..
I'm an Independant..
Wish we had a horse in this race..
One that was worth a flip..
As it stands now I have to vote the lesser of two damaging choices..

By the way..
And on topic..
Your example of collective carbon was great..
Thanks..
A 27 km cubic square of carbon gas ATM was helpful to visualize the invisible gas in a concrete way..
cyncy2 offered up a rough calculation of approx. 1 foot for depth covering the expanse of the entire globe..
These are fantastic examples of translating 36 billion record tonnes of CO2 reported by the UN meeting..
If Ban would have given those as a perspective..
More attention would have been attained..
JMO..






Please keep in mind that I was off by a factor of ten, as a couple of other bloggers pointed out, and after looking back, I believe they are correct.

That blanket is actually 10 feet deep, not one. Wow, I say, just wow!

If we were still at 280 ppm CO2, that blanket would only be 7 feet thick.

As others say, Faster and faster....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Met Office Release

Introductory Renewable Energy Professionals course now available

The Introduction to Meteorology for Renewable Energy Professionals course aims to help those in the onshore and offshore renewable energy industry better understand and interpret meteorological information. Developed by the Met Office College, the course helps participants to optimise operations and site safety.

The training is made up of a variety of modules, the first covering weather regimes and fronts. Participants will examine what drives our weather, learn about air masses and study their implication for wind demand and maintenance activities. Participants will also explore how hazardous weather conditions can threaten wind farm operations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Exponential changes might make deniers of even the most astute.

Per Malcolm Light:
"How much will temperatures rise?

The atmospheric temperature increase in Australia this year (0.22oC) indicates that in 10 years it will exceed 2.2oC and in 30 to 40 years, 6.6oC to 8.8oC.

This is the same as the predicted temperature increase from the Arctic methane build up and will lead to total global deglaciation and our extinction by the middle of this century.

There is in addition a delayed carbon dioxide and methane temperature anomaly of 12oC to 20oC. The 20oC methane delayed temperature anomaly is the same as the temperature anomaly of the hot clouds that have been blowing around the Arctic this year, indicating that the Arctic has almost caught up with the methane delayed global warming heating.

The stage is therefore set for a giant firestorm, drought and sea level rise mostly caused by the uncontrolled build up of methane in the atmosphere due to the carbon dioxide induced global warming destabilization of the Arctic permafrost and subsea methane hydrates."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From The Guardian, because you can't get this quality and accuracy on climate change from American sources.


Climate science reporting in popular business news outlets is failing to meet basic standards of accuracy and quality

Some of the most popular business news outlets are complete failures when it comes to climate reporting. If they get basic climate science this wrong, how can they be trusted on any other topic?

Recently, news outlets such as Forbes, the Wall Street Journal and CNBC have been in misinformation overdrive. It's not like it's difficult to get real scientists to speak to journalists. In spite of this, these news organizations have their so-called experts wax ineloquently on climate change, all the while displaying enormous ignorance of the actual science.

Let's take the Wall Street Journal which published an article by non-scientist Matt Ridley about the then not-yet-released 2013 IPCC climate change report. Ridley made a number of unsubstantiated claims which I then rebutted in the WSJ. Had he waited just a few days for the report to come out and then had he taken the time to read it, he might have recognized the errors in his understanding.

Take for instance his claim that the global warming from increased water vapor in the atmosphere may be offset by precipitation or clouds. This comment is absolute nonsense and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the topic. Here is what a real scientist, Dr. Andrew Dessler, says about this claim:

"This argument is rhetorically clever but scientific nonsense. While there is uncertainty about both issues, we nonetheless know a lot about both. In fact, water vapor is quite well understood, and, while there is uncertainty in the behavior of clouds, the evidence we do have agrees well with models that they will amplify the warming from greenhouse gas emissions."


What about his unsubstantiated claim that up to 3.6°C of warming might be good for the planet? Unbelievable. What is more unbelievable is that the WSJ presented him as someone who is an expert in the field of climate science – but the WSJ neglected to inform its readers that Mr. Ridley lacks any expertise in this field and was writing about something he had never done any research in.

But the WSJ managed to outdo itself on September 24th with an article by yet another nonsensical non-scientist – Donna Laframboise. What is Ms. Laframboise's expertise? Well, she may be a good photographer (go here to book her from your next party!), but she is not a scientist. A literature search on her name on October 1, 2013, turned up… you guessed it – nothing. Ms. Laframboise has a checkered past described here, and her poor reporting is described here. This hasn't stopped her from using her blog to attack reputable scientists and respected environmental reporters. But her past sheds some light on her present writing.

In June 2009, in response to a defamation suit against her, the National Post in Canada had to provide a full written retraction and a financial settlement in excess of $100,000 for an article she had written about Dr. Ferrel Christensen. I was surprised by the egregiousness of the charges (described on this site). Links to the lawsuit materials are included which, along with my communication with Dr. Christensen, verified the claims on the site. I wrote to both Ms. Laframboise and the National Post asking for verification that the retraction and settlement had, in fact, occurred. I never received a response.

But it isn't just the Wall Street Journal. Other supposedly reputable institutions similarly mislead their audiences; CNBC is a prime example. Media Matters reported on that channel's dismissive coverage of climate change. Similarly, Forbes relies on the Heartland Institute's James Taylor (also not a scientist) to report on climate change. How bad is the Forbes reporting? Well, in an August 2012 interview, I correctly stated that in a warming world, hurricane intensity can increase and these increases are being observed. Also, rainfall, storm surge, and storm size can be affected.

In response, Mr. Taylor attacked me and discussed the frequency of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, as if the two were the same. Obviously, he either misunderstood my comments or does not have the knowledge to interpret them. When I asked for the right to rebut Mr. Taylor, what did I hear? Crickets…. Did Forbes feel even a bit embarrassed when just over a month later, Superstorm Sandy hit the U.S. coast, causing approximately $65 billion in damage? Do they feel embarrassed now that the newly released IPCC report supports me, not their non-scientist Mr. Taylor? Perhaps we will never know.

What is the point of all of this? First, these organizations, if they are serious about providing their readers with accurate information, must set a higher standard. Right now, their climate science standard appears to be set at zero. Zero experience from their contributors. Zero research publications. Zero science background. Zero. Why can't they get real scientists to write for them? Why can't they present real science their readers are eager to understand as they try to make decisions about the business challenges of a changing climate?

Perhaps it is because there are so few reputable scientists left who still have their heads in the sand on climate change. All that remain are former or retired scientists who typically work in other disciplines. But even these worn-out voices are beginning to cede the science. They know that they are wrong, and have been wrong for decades.

In their stead, the only ones left are the Matt Ridleys, Donna Laframboises, and James Taylors of the world. Perhaps these organizations are afraid that if they get real and reputable scientists to write for them, their thread-bare ideological slant will be exposed.

So the real message here is for the readers of these organizations' publications. If you want to be misled, if you don't mind having information misinterpreted or withheld, then continue to peruse these sites. Readers should expect high standards of reporting on financial or economic news. They should expect a similarly high standard on science reporting.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:


In talks for a new climate treaty, a race to the bottom

20th November 2013

Weak government action on climate change will lead to a projected 3.7degC of warming by 2100, around 0.6degC higher than the original promises they made in Copenhagen, the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) said today.

The annual assessment by the CAT, a project of research organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research shows that the world has a one in three chance of exceeding 4?C by 2100.

“We are seeing a major risk of a further downward spiral in ambition, a retreat from action, and a re-carbonisation of the energy system led by the use of coal,” said Bill Hare, director of Climate Analytics.

“Governments are taking a ‘bottom up’ approach to climate action, unilaterally degrading their pledges without review: the type of pledge first, review later approach to commitments that could lead to a very weak agreement in 2015.”

Since the Warsaw talks began, the announcement by Japan to downgrade its target enlarged the global 2020 emissions gap by 3-4%. Australia's backtracking on implementation could widen the gap further, with some positive signals coming from the US and China.

These developments point towards warming of about 5?C, under the highest of the new IPCC scenarios that sees a sixfold increase in coal use. There is a growing disconnect between current policies and 2020 pledges, and the longer-term reductions needed for 1.5-2°C.

“This whole situation flies in the face of plentiful opportunities for action and the continuing rise of renewable energy,” said Niklas Höhne Director for energy and climate policy at Ecofys. “For the first time, we analysed whether currently implemented government policies are sufficient to meet their pledges and find that significant and very diverse action is happening, but still not sufficient.”

“Instead of strong domestic policies to meet ambitious pledges, we’re seeing a weakening of action, and a degradation of pledges that sees the highest 2020 emissions levels the Climate Action Tracker has ever seen,” said Marion Vieweg, of Climate Analytics.

The Climate Action Tracker has spent recent months researching the world’s 24 biggest emitters, gathering data from a wide range of sources and today released its full assessment of their current pledges and policy pathways. These are the numbers that have been used to arrive at the 3.7degC policy projection.

-----

Climate Action Tracker is an independent science-based assessment, which tracks the emission commitments and actions of countries. The website provides an up-to-date assessment of individual national pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 66. yoboi:



I do take notice......just like the wrong math I just pointed out....I also notice when some use volume as extent numbers.....


Yoboi..
When you post something like that..
You put your credibility and integrity out for all to see..
And kick around..
Please..
Use your critical thinking skills..
You need to post "Sources"to back your opinion..
Nobody, even your "compatriots", can take you seriously..
I'm looking for substance..
As well as you should be, as AGW cannot be more serious than it is NOW..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 67. daddyjames:


The "gravitational potential energy" is basically the potential energy of a object falling from a certain height.

An example that works - water behind a dam.

Although, there are other possible applications:

Using gravitational potential energy to produce electricity by the use of escalators


Thank you DJ..
Interesting article..
This is the kind of info I was asking yoboi for yesterday..
It is carbon neutral..
Not a power source though that could be isolated for field energy production in my opinion..
Net gain seems to only getting back the potential put in..
Water,clean water,has been shown to work..
Salt water needs treatment as is harmful to turbines and other equipment..
Which may be mute by the carbon neutral aspect..
Something to ponder for sure..
Thanks again..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 30. pcola57:



Ok..
And there's water at the bottom of the ocean right?
Look..
Theory is ok..
But tangible/feaseable/proof would help..
How about an example that would actually work?


(Don't know how I got so far away from my original post..)


The "gravitational potential energy" is basically the potential energy of a object falling from a certain height.

An example that works - water behind a dam.

Although, there are other possible applications:

Using gravitational potential energy to produce electricity by the use of escalators
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Current climate change models greatly underestimate the amount of methane being released by thawing permafrost in the Canadian Arctic, according to Canada's National Institute of Scientific Research (INRS).

Canadian, French and US researchers from the INRS have been studying the methane and greenhouse gas emissions in small thaw ponds, concluding that the emissions could have a significant climate impact.

"We discovered that although the small shallow ponds we studied represent only 44 percent of the water-covered surface in a Bylot Island valley, they generate 83 percent of its methane emissions," said Karita Negandhi, a water sciences doctoral student at the INRS's Environment Research Center.


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Re: Post# 61..
Thanks for the post..
I really enjoy most all of your posts John.. :)
Maybe someday yoboi and others will take notice..
I see them as the "stop making sense " crowd..
Thanks again..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on

Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about "loss and damage" – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan.

Saleemul Huq, the scientist whose work on loss and damage helped put the issue of recompense on the conference agenda, said: "Discussions were g oing well in a spirit of co-operation, but at the end of the session on loss and damage Australia put everything agreed into brackets, so the whole debate went to waste."

Australia was accused of not taking the negotiations seriously. "They wore T-shirts and gorged on snacks throughout the negotiation. That gives some indication of the manner they are behaving in," said a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network.

More at The Guardian >>>
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
“PORTLAND, Maine — The microscopic creatures that make up a critical link in the ocean food chain declined dramatically the first half of this year in the North Atlantic as ocean temperatures remained among the warmest on record, federal scientists say.

Springtime plankton blooms off the coast of northern New England were well below average this year, leading to the lowest levels ever seen for the tiny organisms that are essential to maintaining balance in the ocean food chain, said Kevin Friedland, a marine scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From The Guardian:

Investors demand oil, coal and power companies assess climate change risks

Regulatory, market and societal forces are changing the global landscape. Fossil fuel companies cannot expect business as usual for much longer

For many decades, the only time most people thought about fossil fuel companies was when they filled up at the gas pump. Environmentalists sounding the warning bell early on about climate change were considered by many to be fearmongers.

Today, the connection many people feel to these companies is more profound. Links between high-carbon fuels and escalating climate problems are becoming more obvious. And it's not just students and activists clamouring for radical changes; leading corporations and investors are now adding their voices to the chorus calling for stronger action to reduce our fossil fuel dependency.

As the world approaches irreversible and catastrophic levels of climate change, there is a growing urgency to diversify our energy sources and leave much of the world's remaining fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Oil and coal companies must recognise that it is in their best interest to plan for a low-carbon future. Consumers demand it, their investors demand it, and it's the smartest business strategy – because the world is changing.

Coal demand is softening in many parts of the world, renewable technologies are becoming more cost-competitive and there is a growing realisation that reliance on the most expensive unconventional oil sources such as Canada's oil sands is fraught with risk.

More importantly, people around the world are beginning to understand that decisions in the boardrooms of fossil fuel companies impact their daily lives.

Chinese citizens are protesting "apocalyptic" coal pollution that is shutting down airports and entire cities. A recent Climate Asia survey showed that 78% of Chinese people believe climate change is happening. On the other side of the world, at least 84% of people in US states recently hit by drought or sea-level rise say that global warming is happening, according to a new Stanford University study. Meanwhile, student activists around the world are calling on university endowments to divest from fossil fuel companies.

Clearly, climate change isn't just fossil fuel companies' problem; it is everyone's problem. But the decision by fossil fuel companies to invest $674bn last year in developing new, potentially unusable reserves – a number that dwarfs the $281bn in total global investment in clean energy in 2012 – has a tremendous impact on our future.

Companies across the economy and institutional investors are among those recognising the need to transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources.

Nearly 60% of the combined Global 100 companies have set goals for renewable energy sourcing and greenhouse gas reductions. Companies are embracing cleaner energy not only because it's cost-effective and sustainable, but also because they understand that fossil fuel energy is increasingly risky and prone to volatile price swings.

Just last month, a new and powerful set of market actors – some of the world's largest pension funds and money managers – publicly recognised the connection between their financial assets and the decisions being made by fossil fuel executives. As part of this effort, 70 global investors with collective assets totalling $3tn (£1.85tn) made the first ever joint request to the world's 45 largest oil, coal and power companies – including Exxon, BP and Arch Coal – to assess the financial risks that climate change and these other trends pose to your business plans. The investors, co-ordinated by Ceres and the Carbon Tracker Initiative, sent letters to the companies this fall requesting detailed responses by early next year.

"We would like to understand (the company's) reserve exposure to the risks associated with current and probable future policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050," the investors wrote in their letter to oil and gas companies. "We would also like to understand what options there are for (the company) to manage these risks by, for example, reducing the carbon intensity of its assets, divesting its most carbon intensive assets, diversifying its business by investing in low-carbon energy sources or returning capital to shareholders."

These investors know that capital spent today will determine the future carbon intensity of our global energy system. The policies and technologies that will be in place in 2020 are likely to be very different than those we see now. This will make business-as-usual a risky bet for fossil fuel companies.

It may be that the voices of individuals, companies and investors are, in fact, now being heard in fossil fuel boardrooms. Companies have generally acknowledged that the investors' effort raises legitimate issues. Just last week, Shell's CEO told Bloomberg: "It would be stupid for the oil and gas industry to say that renewables will not play a major role in the energy system of the next few decades today's investment levels into wind and into solar have a very rapid growth. Renewables will be developed."

Reams of powerful research the past few months by the International Energy Agency, Carbon Tracker, World Bank, United Nations, and investment banks have all connected the dots between status-quo burning of fossil fuels and the catastrophic impacts of climate change on our horizon. But these reports are more than just words on a page – individuals, companies and investors are already seeing the profound risks today, and they are making their voices heard.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 54. Patrap:
If you cant figure out by now, that the sole enemy is the Oil Companies, energy Coal Companies.

I shall clarify my view for the archival record.

Why the avg Joe hasn't a clue you ask?

Well, look what we have charging in here daily to obfuscate, the topic Du Jour..

Multiply this entries obfuscation by a Billion and well,"itsa whole bunch" fer sho'.

You think that this is jus a curious group ?

I say again, the Enemy is the Fossil Fuel industry.


You can take it from here I spect.


Thanks Pat..
And for the link also..
My point wasn't clear enough i guess..
I'm in the AGW camp..
I'm not disputing the Facts..
It's my opinion that until we get a 97% consensus with the public @ large, as we do with scientists..
That meaningful and lasting changes addressing the planets AGW climate won't happen..
I hope that I explained that better..
Thanks again for the link and response..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Canada's climate change stance 'de-motivating'
Critics say that's why the world is angry at Canada

The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 20, 2013 9:12 AM ET


Anyone wondering why Canada, with its minuscule global carbon footprint, attracts so much international ire from environmentalists these days should listen to Avrim Lazar.

The former forest industry executive and one-time Environment Canada policy lead was part of a biodiversity seminar Tuesday at the University of Ottawa, where policy talk inevitably meandered over to climate change.

'It's not the people that say there is no problem who are standing in the way of solutions. It's the people who are saying there is no solution.'
- Avrim Lazar
Lazar said a feeling of powerlessness is sapping motivation and he believes the problem lies in getting everyone in the global commons to contribute.

"It's not the people that say there is no problem who are standing in the way of solutions," Lazar told the assembled business, government, academic and student representatives.

"It's the people who are saying there is no solution. That basically sucks the energy out of the necessary human action and initiative."

A United Nations conference in Warsaw, Poland, is currently struggling to find an international consensus on a post-2020 framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada's low-key Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq carried exceedingly low expectations to Warsaw this week, and indications are they're being met.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged delegates at the conference Tuesday to "set the bar higher" as they work toward a 2015 summit in Paris where it is hoped the 2020 framework can be nailed down.

"Current pledges are simply inadequate," the secretary general admonished the conference.

The Conservative government formally abandoned Canada's commitments under the old Kyoto Protocol and Environment Canada confirmed last month that Canada is not close to being on track to meet its 2020 emissions target under the subsequent Copenhagen Accord. Aglukkaq has not indicated what Canada's immediate post-2020 emissions targets might look like.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was in London on Tuesday, where he continued to question a European Union fuel directive that paints Alberta's oilsands bitumen as much more highly polluting than conventional sources.

Canada's carbon footprint not the point, critic says

Government officials have repeatedly noted that Canada contributes less than two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions; Oliver told reporters Tuesday in London that the "oilsands, which have become a symbol for some opponents, represent 0.1 per cent of global emissions."

Back in Ottawa, Lazar suggested in an interview the statistic misses the point.

"Those who are furious with Canada's performance, it's not because they need our two per cent (of global GHG emissions)," he said. "The government's quite right saying we're only two per cent of the problem."

Poland Climate Conference
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged delegates at the conference Tuesday to "set the bar higher" as they work toward a 2015 summit in Paris where it is hoped the 2020 framework can be nailed down. (The Associated Press)

The anger comes from Canada "reducing the global collectivity's belief that if they act, others will act. It's de-motivating. That's the reason for the fury."

"Each time someone says 'I'm not going to step up,' everyone else thinks there's no point to my stepping up," said Lazar.

His comments were not a political attack on the government. The university forum was devoid of partisan posturing and focused entirely on efforts to advance environmental policy.

A recurring theme was that industry is often out in front of government in seeking a regulatory regime or market signals that allow it to plan accordingly while being responsible environmental stewards.

Governments aren't looking far enough ahead, said Stewart Elgie, an environmental law expert at the University of Ottawa.

"It's not that they don't want to do anything, it's that governments are paralyzed by thinking that doing these things will ultimately hurt the economy and cost them votes," said Elgie.

He called it backward thinking in a world where scarce environmental resources — water, climate, biodiversity — will be the drivers of business success in future.

Industry says it needs government direction

Sandra Schwartz, vice-president of the Canadian Electricity Association, told the forum that her industry needs government direction — rules it can follow — in order to plan and operate.

Lazar put the issue in stark terms.

"Let's not beat around the bush," he told the forum.

"Do you think that Canada's oilsands and pipeline industry would be meeting the degree of universal opposition they're now meeting if people trusted government to regulate?"

Lazar was part of a movement that turned around the reputation of Canada's forest industry as a international pariah in the 1990s by working with environmental groups and by highlighting government regulation.

"We used government regulation as a way of reassuring people who were skeptical of us," he said. "You can't do that with any great effect in the oil industry."

"So yes, industry depends upon government doing its job. And when government doesn't do it's job, it's not just the environmental community that's disadvantaged."
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Ahh the quote was cool.

Thanx.

Best part of Disaster Relief is laughing at Politics and Politicians,usually very up close like.

They step aside of me warily.

Well save for Christie, he is a big Man, and a good Humanitarian .

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 48. Patrap:
Seems we see the "Song Remains the Same" for some.

We expect no less.

Seems the ol Blogging thing was jus a ruse for well, ideology for some.

"Skeptics entry, me Worry?"..yeah, that dissipated faster than a GOP Vote in Fla.

They back for more on a Weds.


Coffee?






Blog got destroyed in the great crash of '13.
2014 gonna make 2010 look good for u guys!

Chicory? I'll pass.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 31. cyclonebuster:Yes "Gravitational Potential Energy" is very old and is still with us today as "Gravitational Potential Energy" was with us 4.28 billion years ago... Sadly it has taken this long to use it...
Google was no help - how is GPE made useful with respect to clean energy - aside from Hydro? (Water flows downhill because of gravity and spins turbines).

Or are you creating a contorted path to re-naming your proposed ocean current tunnel systems, which are not "things that fall" GPE systems like hydro?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you cant figure out by now, that the sole enemy is the Oil Companies, energy Coal Companies.

I shall clarify my view for the archival record.

Why the avg Joe hasn't a clue you ask?

Well, look what we have charging in here daily to obfuscate, the topic Du Jour..

Multiply this entries obfuscation by a Billion and well,"itsa whole bunch" fer sho'.

You think that this is jus a curious group ?

I say again, the Enemy is the Fossil Fuel industry.


You can take it from here I spect.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Wow Nea..
Every year..
Thanks for the analogy..
Why can't we get these kind of examples to the average Joe?
Idea..
How about one of your charts that shows the cylinder comparison..
I think that would be beneficial..
Explaining the math to achieve the results as well..
Thoughts?
TIA..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 51. pcola57:
By the way..
And on topic..
Your example of collective carbon was great..
Thanks..
A 27 km cubic square of carbon gas ATM was helpful to visualize the invisible gas in a concrete way..
cyncy2 offered up a rough calculation of approx. 1 foot for depth covering the expanse of the entire globe..
These are fantastic examples of translating 36 billion record tonnes of CO2 reported by the UN meeting..
If Ban would have given those as a perspective..
More attention would have been attained..
JMO..




Remember, that was a >20,000 cubic kilometer box o' pure CO2 being pumped into the environment every year by us--that is, a cube roughly 27km on a side.

Every year.

Here's another one for you: a standard 20lb CO2 cylinder of the type used by restaurants and bars for carbonization holds about 180 cu. ft. of pure CO2. That means we humans pump out the equivalent of nearly 10.8 billion of those cylinders into the atmosphere each day, or 3.9 trillion of them per year.

I know the numbers seem almost meaningless at this point, so I'll just say this: it's a whole bunch.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 49. Neapolitan:
(This isn't the forum for politics unrelated to climate change, but this comment is about public policy, and a certain type of activity that's preventing action on climate change mitigation.)

Members of a certain segment of society--one political party in particular--are every bit as adamant about stopping action on climate change as they are about making sure tens of millions of Americans don't have access to affordable health care. And just as these people have sabotaged climate change mitigation efforts every step of the way, they've thrown one monkey wrench after another into the ACA to try and make it not work. That's not saying there weren't numerous ridiculous and unnecessary foul-ups by the Administration; no one is denying they haven't shot themselves in the feet time and again. But the GOP--which only in the past month has started "caring" about those who can't easily get health care after decades of not doing so--has gone into contortions to see to it that the ACA's design and roll-out were as problematic as possible. Which is precisely the same thing they've done about climate change mitigation efforts. Which is precisely why little to nothing has been done.

This obstructive and juvenile behavior has to stop.

The Right has made America "exceptional", though for all the wrong reasons. But if the majority has its way in 2014 and again in 2016--that is, if the GOP's ongoing "election reform" efforts don't totally succeed in denying the vote to the tens of millions who've seen the environmental, financial, and moral damage conservatism has wrought--perhaps we can start moving toward an America that truly is exceptional, and a planet that is, at the very least, livable for our descendants.


Morning Nea..
Not going to take a stance on ACA just yet..
My reps help me understand as much as they can..
Alerts, ect..
It has always been "what is good for one is not necessarily good for another"..
Has there ever been a Gov. idea that didn't have problems?..
I can't think of any issue in my lifetime that this wasn't true..
I blame ignorance on the part of voters..
I'm an Independant..
Wish we had a horse in this race..
One that was worth a flip..
As it stands now I have to vote the lesser of two damaging choices..

By the way..
And on topic..
Your example of collective carbon was great..
Thanks..
A 27 km cubic square of carbon gas ATM was helpful to visualize the invisible gas in a concrete way..
cyncy2 offered up a rough calculation of approx. 1 foot for depth covering the expanse of the entire globe..
These are fantastic examples of translating 36 billion record tonnes of CO2 reported by the UN meeting..
If Ban would have given those as a perspective..
More attention would have been attained..
JMO..




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Arctic oil spill is certain if drilling goes ahead, says top scientist

A serious oil spill in the Arctic is a "dead cert" if drilling goes ahead, with potentially devastating consequences for the pristine region, according to a leading marine scientist who played a key role in analysis of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The warning came as Russia filed court orders this week to have Greenpeace activists and journalists kept in prison for a further three months in prison before their trial over a protest at Arctic oil dirlling.

Concerns about the potentially dire consequences of drilling for oil in the region have intensified as the Russian government and others have begun exploration under the Arctic seas. In such a cold region, any spill would be much more troublesome, because the oil would not naturally disperse as it does in warmer waters, and because of the difficulty of mounting a clean-up operation in hostile weather conditions.

The "Arctic 30" – comprising 28 activists and two journalists – were arrested when Greenpeace's Arctic Sunrise vessel was boarded by Russian coastguards in September and are facing lengthy jail terms if they are convicted. They have been kept in harsh conditions in freezing cold jail cells with poor food, and are being moved 800 miles from Murmansk to St Petersburg.

Simon Boxall, an oil spill expert from the University of Southampton, told the Guardian exploring the region was inherently dangerous: "It is inevitable you will get a spill – a dead cert. I would expect to see a major spill in the not too distant future. I would be astonished if you did not see a major spill from this."

The conditions in the Arctic would vastly compound the problem, he said. "It's a completely different environment. In temperate climes, oil disperses quickly. Bacteria help [to digest the oil]. In the Arctic the oil does not break down in this way – it can take decades before it breaks down. Nature will not help us."

During those decades, any spilled oil would be a serious hazard to marine life.

No industry is perfect, Boxall said, but the oil industry has behaved poorly in the past. "There are lots of failsafes on planes, but accidents still happen. At times, this is an irresponsible industry. Corners are cut, money is saved in small ways. Then it can go wrong and end up costing a huge amount of money, like in the Gulf of Mexico."

He added: "Different countries have different levels of health and safety. Russia does not have an enviable record on this."

Read more in The Guardian ...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 46. PensacolaDoug:




LOL!!!!
Make sure all yer dem buddies take credit for their stance on the not so ACA!
(This isn't the forum for politics unrelated to climate change, but this comment is about public policy, and a certain type of activity that's preventing action on climate change mitigation.)

Members of a certain segment of society--one political party in particular--are every bit as adamant about stopping action on climate change as they are about making sure tens of millions of Americans don't have access to affordable health care. And just as these people have sabotaged climate change mitigation efforts every step of the way, they've thrown one monkey wrench after another into the ACA to try and make it not work. That's not saying there weren't numerous ridiculous and unnecessary foul-ups by the Administration; no one is denying they haven't shot themselves in the feet time and again. But the GOP--which only in the past month has started "caring" about those who can't easily get health care after decades of not doing so--has gone into contortions to see to it that the ACA's design and roll-out were as problematic as possible. Which is precisely the same thing they've done about climate change mitigation efforts. Which is precisely why little to nothing has been done.

This obstructive and juvenile behavior has to stop.

The Right has made America "exceptional", though for all the wrong reasons. But if the majority has its way in 2014 and again in 2016--that is, if the GOP's ongoing "election reform" efforts don't totally succeed in denying the vote to the tens of millions who've seen the environmental, financial, and moral damage conservatism has wrought--perhaps we can start moving toward an America that truly is exceptional, and a planet that is, at the very least, livable for our descendants.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Seems we see the "Song Remains the Same" for some.

We expect no less.

Seems the ol Blogging thing was jus a ruse for well, ideology for some.

"Skeptics entry, me Worry?"..yeah, that dissipated faster than a GOP Vote in Fla.

They back for more on a Weds.


Coffee?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?

Typhoon Haiyan may have been the strongest storm ever recorded; a fact that has triggered an array of stories discussing its possible links to climate change.

Global Warming Fuels Hurricanes

Climate scientists are confident in three ways that climate change will make the impacts of hurricanes worse. First, global warming causes sea level rise, which amplifies storm surges and flooding associated with hurricanes. As a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Aslak Grinsted and colleagues concluded,

"we have probably crossed the threshold where Katrina magnitude hurricane surges are more likely caused by global warming than not."

Second, as climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has noted, global warming has also increased the amount of moisture in the air, causing more rainfall and amplifying flooding during hurricanes.

Third, warmer oceans are fuel for hurricanes. Research has shown that the strongest hurricanes have grown stronger in most ocean basins around the world over the past several decades, and climate models consistently project that this trend will continue. Chris Mooney recently documented the past decade's worth of monster hurricanes around the world, and Jeff Masters estimates that 6 of the 13 strongest tropical cyclones on record at landfall have happened since 1998.
Typhoon Haiyan may have been the strongest storm ever recorded; a fact that has triggered an array of stories discussing its possible links to climate change.

Global Warming Fuels Hurricanes

Climate scientists are confident in three ways that climate change will make the impacts of hurricanes worse. First, global warming causes sea level rise, which amplifies storm surges and flooding associated with hurricanes. As a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Aslak Grinsted and colleagues concluded,

"we have probably crossed the threshold where Katrina magnitude hurricane surges are more likely caused by global warming than not."

Second, as climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has noted, global warming has also increased the amount of moisture in the air, causing more rainfall and amplifying flooding during hurricanes.

Third, warmer oceans are fuel for hurricanes. Research has shown that the strongest hurricanes have grown stronger in most ocean basins around the world over the past several decades, and climate models consistently project that this trend will continue. Chris Mooney recently documented the past decade's worth of monster hurricanes around the world, and Jeff Masters estimates that 6 of the 13 strongest tropical cyclones on record at landfall have happened since 1998.

Read more in The Guardian...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 44. Neapolitan:
Cowards cut and run; true patriots recognize the problem, and stay to fix it. And fix it we will--starting with the 2014 mid-terms, when we clean House...




LOL!!!!
Make sure all yer dem buddies take credit for their stance on the not so ACA!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 41. PensacolaDoug:



Feel free to leave and take yer like-minded buddies with ya. Try Myanmar or North Korea. I hear its nice there this time of year.


Your welcome for my service. :)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 41. PensacolaDoug:



Feel free to leave and take yer like-minded buddies with ya. Try Myanmar or North Korea. I hear its nice there this time of year.
Cowards cut and run; true patriots recognize the problem, and stay to fix it. And fix it we will--starting with the 2014 mid-terms, when we clean House...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
From RABETT RUN, Eli gives his thoughts on Adaptation For Those That Can Afford It

Eli has always pointed out the moral dimension to humans ruining the blue marble, and how this burden falls upon those at the bottom of the barrel.

We are sailing into a moral storm.

The moral dimensions associated with the Anthropocene has long interested Eli, and to be honest many others on a deeper level. While philosophy is associated with personal responsibility, law concerns itself with assignment of responsibility to others. As our command of the Earth increases, these must come together.


In particular the Bunny has relied upon Stephan Gardiner's description of climate change as a perfect moral storm

the presence of the problem of moral corruption reveals another sense in which climate change may be a perfect moral storm. This is that its complexity may turn out to be perfectly convenient for us, the current generation, and indeed for each successor generation as it comes to occupy our position. For one thing, it provides each generation with the cover under which it can seem to be taking the issue seriously – by negotiating weak and largely substanceless global accords, for example, and then heralding them as great achievements – when really it is simply exploiting its temporal position. For another, all of this can occur without the exploitative generation actually having to acknowledge that this is what it is doing. By avoiding overtly selfish behaviour, earlier generations can take advantage of the future without the unpleasantness of admitting it – either to others, or, perhaps more importantly, to itself.


The storm has arrived

Read More at RABETT RUN ...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 93 - 43

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog 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.