Global Warming

[kar999]

I confess to not having read all 23 pages of this thread so I don't know if this is correct place to post this.

Press release today from the Met Office...

"European heatwaves are likely to become much hotter and much more frequent during the course of this century, states new research by the Met Office's Hadley Centre.

A paper published today in the Journal of Climate states that extreme summer temperatures are expected to increase if atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, as it is expected to over the course of the century. North and South America and east Asia are expected to be affected as well as Europe."

More here.

Edited September 1, 2006 by kar999

[Dawlish]

Looks like the damn fruit flies have managed to begin their adaptations before we have. Outdone again, by the insects!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9896...al-warming.html

Paul

[parmenides3]

Those pesky fruit flies... [popular with biologists in gene research]

This months UKCIP cuttings pack for August is now out, on http://www.ukcip.org.uk/news_releases/38.pdf

This provides short extracts from new scientific papers on the climate.

Some of the subjects mentioned this month: urbanisation & temperature, uncertainty analysis, methane production, aerosols & clouds, hurricanes & politics, UK flood risk 2030-2100, tourism, wildfires, species migration (the fruit flies again), the WAIS.

Plenty there for discussion.

There's a bit of a weird 'claim-counter claim' game going on ATM between Climate Science & Realclimate; when I've got my head round it, I'll post more details. Otherwise, read the damn sites yourself.

P

[Dawlish]

I've copied this into here as the curtain came down on the other thread!

QUOTE(summer blizzard @ 14 Sep 2006, 01:26 PM)

"If i remeber correctly, the NAD has slowed by over 30% since 1950, with around 15% of that talking place since the year 2000, perhaps that is the reason for the loss of heat??"

Sorry Summer; I have to pick you up on that one.

I know of no evidence that any current in the NAD, moving towards our shores, has reduced at all. Not a single one. The 2005 Southampton Uni study, oft misquoted across the Internet and always by hacks, found that one, seldom measured, North to South current had decreased by 30% since the last measurement 5 years ago. Prof Wadham's study of 2004/5 found less sinking cold water columns in the Greenland Sea, but not a single study has ever found that the NAD has reduced in intensity. Both, excellent, studies fuelled enormous speculation about the state of the thermohaline circulation, some of it scientifically very valid, but both studies cautioned extrapolation towards any slowing of the NAD - of course the studies were not fully read and the caution expressed by the researchers was completely ignored in favour of good press.

So many people picked up on these untruths and now half (OK guys and gals - a guess ) the people on weather discussion boards still believe this untruth that the NAD has slowed by 30%.

It hasn't.

If anything, SST's would indicate a strengthening of the current over the timescales you indicate.

If anyone knows of any studies which have proved the slowing of the NAD/Gulf stream, please tell us about them. I for one am dying to see the results of a lot of current research.

Paul

PS Current research......geddit, geddit?

[parmenides3]

This paragraph, extracted from a press release about Ruth Curry's research at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, just about covers the issue. It's about the most recent piece I have found so far. If I can find anything else, I'll post it.

P

These cold, dense southward flowing waters (collectively called Nordic Seas Overflow Waters) have been closely monitored with instrument arrays for more than a decade, butno sustained changes have yet been measured. Of the total 19,000 cubic km of extra fresh water that has diluted the northern Atlantic since the 1960s, only a small portion-about 4000 cubic km-remained in the Nordic Seas; and of that amount only 2500 cubic km accumulated in the critical layer feeding the Overflow waters. This is the reason, Curry explains, that the overflows have not yet slowed despite all the freshening. At the rate observed over the past 30 years, it would take about a century to accumulate enough freshwater (roughly 9000 cubic km according to this study) in the critical Nordic Seas layer, to significantly slow the ocean exchanges across the Greenland-Scotland Ridge; and nearly two centuries of continued dilution to stop them. The researchers conclude therefore that abrupt changes in ocean circulation do not appear imminent.

[Dawlish]

This paragraph, extracted from a press release about Ruth Curry's research at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, just about covers the issue. It's about the most recent piece I have found so far. If I can find anything else, I'll post it.

P

Yup, thanks P3. I know about the Woods Hole research - that's what I was referring to when I said I'm really looking forward to reading the results of ongoing research.

It nails down what I said about no studies showing any slowdown in the NAD. There aren't any - there isn't a slowdown.

Paul

[parmenides3]

Yup, thanks P3. I know about the Woods Hole research - that's what I was referring to when I said I'm really looking forward to reading the results of ongoing research.

It nails down what I said about no studies showing any slowdown in the NAD. There aren't any - there isn't a slowdown.

Paul

Yet.

I've finally sussed out the Climate Science/Realclimate game. Basically, one side is providing lots of material suggesting that ocean temperatures have not gone up very much, whilst the other is focusing on the effects of the observed warming of the SST. It leaves us amateurs in a hopeless state of limbo, if the 'big boys/girls' can't even agree on something as basic as this.

None of this would have come up if there hadn't been a paper showing some cooling in certain areas in 2003-2005, apparently bucking the GW trend. At the same time, Climate science is offering up commentaries on all sorts of other climate issues, such as aerosols and black carbon. Realclimate, today, has the article about sunspots I posted elsewhere.

BTW, the latest is a comment on a NASA press release about Carinthian's favourite, the Arctic sea-ice extent. Nice to see that even professors can sometimes mix their measurement criteria up!

P

[Dawlish]

Yet.

I've finally sussed out the Climate Science/Realclimate game. Basically, one side is providing lots of material suggesting that ocean temperatures have not gone up very much, whilst the other is focusing on the effects of the observed warming of the SST. It leaves us amateurs in a hopeless state of limbo, if the 'big boys/girls' can't even agree on something as basic as this.

None of this would have come up if there hadn't been a paper showing some cooling in certain areas in 2003-2005, apparently bucking the GW trend. At the same time, Climate science is offering up commentaries on all sorts of other climate issues, such as aerosols and black carbon. Realclimate, today, has the article about sunspots I posted elsewhere.

BTW, the latest is a comment on a NASA press release about Carinthian's favourite, the Arctic sea-ice extent. Nice to see that even professors can sometimes mix their measurement criteria up!

P

Yet! Yes of course you are right "Yet" is a small word, but can be an awfully long time!

[Snowly does it]

Devils advocate here for a moment.

'At the rate observed over the last 30 years it would take...'

Surely if we proceed along the hockey stick line of thinking the rate will increase and therefore the slowdown would be brought forward?

Any thoughts?

[parmenides3]

Devils advocate here for a moment.

'At the rate observed over the last 30 years it would take...'

Surely if we proceed along the hockey stick line of thinking the rate will increase and therefore the slowdown would be brought forward?

Any thoughts?

If the rate of freshwater influx matched the rate of warming implied by the 'hockey stick', then we might well be in for some trouble! But two things: the changes to the ocean are hideously difficult to work out, hence this one measure, which is accelerating, but not smoothly, or as rapidly as the temperature. Also, the study did not assume temperature trends as a cause, instead reporting on measured changes in the Arctic-Atlantic freshwater exchange only; of course, this implies a cause after the event, but they weren't looking for it when they did the study.

A 2006 paper independently used Global Climate models with known forcings (AOGCMs) to test the idea of a THC shutdown, and came to the same conclusion, that any change would be unlikely to be visible before 2030, and would take 100-200 years to reach problematic proportions.

:)P

[Snowly does it]

If the rate of freshwater influx matched the rate of warming implied by the 'hockey stick', then we might well be in for some trouble! But two things: the changes to the ocean are hideously difficult to work out, hence this one measure, which is accelerating, but not smoothly, or as rapidly as the temperature. Also, the study did not assume temperature trends as a cause, instead reporting on measured changes in the Arctic-Atlantic freshwater exchange only; of course, this implies a cause after the event, but they weren't looking for it when they did the study.

A 2006 paper independently used Global Climate models with known forcings (AOGCMs) to test the idea of a THC shutdown, and came to the same conclusion, that any change would be unlikely to be visible before 2030, and would take 100-200 years to reach problematic proportions.

:)P

ok, thanks P3!

[parmenides3]

ok, thanks P3!

It was a good question. My posts may make it sound as if I am confident about these scientific papers, but the news just the other day, that methane production from melting permafrost in Siberia is happening five times faster than people thought, then the recent paper which showed that the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance was decreasing three times faster than anybody thought; these are indicative of the level of uncertainty we really have about the impacts of warming in the Arctic and, by implication, the Atlantic.

I would be less bothered if the findings were 20%, or even 40% greater, but the fact that the miscalculation has been in multiples implies to me that other research being done at the moment could well also show that changes are happening more rapidly than anyone thought. Under those circumstances, the estimates of 100-200 years may well end up being revised downwards in the next few years.

P

[MAF]

well as a keen novice in the debate of GW i tend to err on the side of the scientist's who are portraying a bleak future for my kid's kid's. so no matter wht the reasons i feel the need to heed advice on trying to sustain the natural environment as very important.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5344208.stm

[Dawlish]

The latest monthly Global report from NOAA is out:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ml#Introduction

In summary, worldwide:

August was the 3rd warmest recorded.

This last summer, was the 3rd warmest ever recorded.

Jan-Aug was the 6th warmest ever recorded.

and, just as a reminder:

2005 was the warmest year ever recorded (joint).

9 of the top 10 warmest years ever recorded have been in the last 10 years.

17 of the warmest 20 years ever recorded have been in the last 20.

Global warming is an unfortunate, but very real problem we have to face. It's not going to go away, despite what Ice-age now erroneously feeds the cool-wishers on the Internet. The only arguments left are....

What is causing it and what should we do about it.

Paul

Edited September 15, 2006 by Dawlish

[Hairy Celt]

The latest monthly Global report from NOAA is out:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ml#Introduction

In summary, worldwide:

August was the 3rd warmest recorded.

This last summer, was the 3rd warmest ever recorded.

Jan-Aug was the 6th warmest ever recorded.

and, just as a reminder:

2005 was the warmest year ever recorded (joint).

9 of the top 10 warmest years ever recorded have been in the last 10 years.

17 of the warmest 20 years ever recorded have been in the last 20.

Global warming is an unfortunate, but very real problem we have to face. It's not going to go away, despite what Ice-age now erroneously feeds the cool-wishers on the Internet. The only arguments left are....

What is causing it and what should we do about it.

Paul

but last winter was so cold...

[Dawlish]

but last winter was so cold...

I know - only the 8th warmest ever recorded. People were shivering in some places....

[Guest Mike W]

I the reference made ealier to last winter was to do with the CET average for the 3 months all together. In this resepect it was average on the 61-90 at 4.1 I believe, and the 'coldest' winter since the winter of 96/97. It was dry winter though so nothing notable at all in the way of snow by the looks of it.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Mike W

[blitzen]

The latest monthly Global report from NOAA is out:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ml#Introduction

In summary, worldwide:

August was the 3rd warmest recorded.

This last summer, was the 3rd warmest ever recorded.

Jan-Aug was the 6th warmest ever recorded.

and, just as a reminder:

2005 was the warmest year ever recorded (joint).

9 of the top 10 warmest years ever recorded have been in the last 10 years.

17 of the warmest 20 years ever recorded have been in the last 20.

Global warming is an unfortunate, but very real problem we have to face. It's not going to go away, despite what Ice-age now erroneously feeds the cool-wishers on the Internet. The only arguments left are....

What is causing it and what should we do about it.

Paul

Do you have a foot in both camps Paul ie: global warming vs natural climate change? Just wondered.

[Dawlish]

Do you have a foot in both camps Paul ie: global warming vs natural climate change? Just wondered.

HI Blitzen,

The two can be exactly the same. Creating confusion between GW, natural GW and AGW is what keeps many of the "anti GW" people going.

There is, to my mind and based on all the scientific evidence available no doubt whatsoever that the world is warming. That's Global Warming (GW). The evidence to disprove that can only come down to "what has been the accuracy of global temperature measurement over the last century. It is good enough for me and I am convinced. There is no serious evidence that the world is not in a warming phase. Exactly when it started is a little up for grabs, maybe 50 years, globally, maybe 20/25 in the UK, but we are warming. One cannot predict the future exactly, hence my warm/cool percentage forecasts below and whatever happens it won't be a linear progression, especially not in a small area, like the UK, but we are in a warming phase now. Yes, I'd put myself in that camp. I would imagine anyone else would. is there anyone, seriously, that wouldn't.

Then the possibility of confusion arises. The chance, especially, for anyone that feels that AGW is not a reality to obfuscate the issue.

AGW is blaming us for the GW. Anthropomorphic GW is people made (I am not taking the blame for every woman in the world's possible CO2 output and I'm always careful of not saying "man-made". It's just bad form). It may be true. I tend towards that line of thinking, but I'm not convinced by it yet. For me the jury is still out.........because....

Natural climate change, caused by cycles, the sun's output, ice age progression, or recession, or especially the rate of absorption on CO2, by the oceans, which may have a time lag and may save us from the extreme effects of future GW, are all, still, possibilities.

So yes, if I was Jake the Peg, I'd have a foot in all 3 camps actually. One foot remains in the GW camp, all the time, as it is happening today. The other two sort of hover over natural climate change and AGW.

There really should be no confusion whatsoever, between GW and AGW, but the people who really don't wish to consider people as possible culprits, try to confuse GW and AGW all the time.

If I'm reading a post and am able to comment......it will be without success, I can assure you!

Paul

[The Penguin]

Very elegantly put Dawlish. The other issue that arises to cause confusion (and I apologise for saying it again,) is that there still seems to be room for debate over the question of the requirement for active reinstatement of climatic equilibrium.

The oft-quoted hockey stick can be interpreted, as you suggest, in one of two ways. Either the natural progression of temperature fluctuations as simply reached another, admittedly notable, upward phase that will naturally decline or anthropomorphic (now there’s a word,) forcing has pushed the system too far and to a point beyond natural remediation.

I’m absolutely with you on this one. There is no definitive answer to the question at the moment, but I can’t help feeling that human intervention tends to be overblown. We do tend to see ourselves at the centre of the universe as the main driving force behind all manner of things. Methinks we are again overstating our importance.

[Guest Viking141]

Very elegantly put Dawlish. The other issue that arises to cause confusion (and I apologise for saying it again,) is that there still seems to be room for debate over the question of the requirement for active reinstatement of climatic equilibrium.

The oft-quoted hockey stick can be interpreted, as you suggest, in one of two ways. Either the natural progression of temperature fluctuations as simply reached another, admittedly notable, upward phase that will naturally decline or anthropomorphic (now there’s a word,) forcing has pushed the system too far and to a point beyond natural remediation.

I’m absolutely with you on this one. There is no definitive answer to the question at the moment, but I can’t help feeling that human intervention tends to be overblown. We do tend to see ourselves at the centre of the universe as the main driving force behind all manner of things. Methinks we are again overstating our importance.

Couldn't agree more Penguin.

[turna]

Sensationalist Headline...... :blink:

Unless something is done to tackle the effects of global warming within the next 10 years, Sprunehorpe could eventually be wiped off the map.

This is the view of former vice-president of the United States Al Gore - Bill Clinton's number two for eight years - who warned melting polar ice caps could cause the town to one day disappear beneath the sea. His concerns were discussed during a conference attended by Sprunehorpe MP Elliot Morley.

where do we stand on this... headline grabbing tosh or truth... the full article in last night's paper talked of the sea level rising by something barmy like 80M................ :lol:

Edited September 15, 2006 by turna

[blitzen]

HI Blitzen,

The two can be exactly the same. Creating confusion between GW, natural GW and AGW is what keeps many of the "anti GW" people going.

There is, to my mind and based on all the scientific evidence available no doubt whatsoever that the world is warming. That's Global Warming (GW). The evidence to disprove that can only come down to "what has been the accuracy of global temperature measurement over the last century. It is good enough for me and I am convinced. There is no serious evidence that the world is not in a warming phase. Exactly when it started is a little up for grabs, maybe 50 years, globally, maybe 20/25 in the UK, but we are warming. One cannot predict the future exactly, hence my warm/cool percentage forecasts below and whatever happens it won't be a linear progression, especially not in a small area, like the UK, but we are in a warming phase now. Yes, I'd put myself in that camp. I would imagine anyone else would. is there anyone, seriously, that wouldn't.

Then the possibility of confusion arises. The chance, especially, for anyone that feels that AGW is not a reality to obfuscate the issue.

AGW is blaming us for the GW. Anthropomorphic GW is people made (I am not taking the blame for every woman in the world's possible CO2 output and I'm always careful of not saying "man-made". It's just bad form). It may be true. I tend towards that line of thinking, but I'm not convinced by it yet. For me the jury is still out.........because....

Natural climate change, caused by cycles, the sun's output, ice age progression, or recession, or especially the rate of absorption on CO2, by the oceans, which may have a time lag and may save us from the extreme effects of future GW, are all, still, possibilities.

So yes, if I was Jake the Peg, I'd have a foot in all 3 camps actually. One foot remains in the GW camp, all the time, as it is happening today. The other two sort of hover over natural climate change and AGW.

There really should be no confusion whatsoever, between GW and AGW, but the people who really don't wish to consider people as possible culprits, try to confuse GW and AGW all the time.

If I'm reading a post and am able to comment......it will be without success, I can assure you!

Paul

Thanks for your reply Paul, it was most informative and appreciated. I was unaware that GW and AGW vs climate change could in fact be classed as 3 different things! It is obvious to me now that there is no definitive answer.

[Dawlish]

Very elegantly put Dawlish. The other issue that arises to cause confusion (and I apologise for saying it again,) is that there still seems to be room for debate over the question of the requirement for active reinstatement of climatic equilibrium.

The oft-quoted hockey stick can be interpreted, as you suggest, in one of two ways. Either the natural progression of temperature fluctuations as simply reached another, admittedly notable, upward phase that will naturally decline or anthropomorphic (now there’s a word,) forcing has pushed the system too far and to a point beyond natural remediation.

I’m absolutely with you on this one. There is no definitive answer to the question at the moment, but I can’t help feeling that human intervention tends to be overblown. We do tend to see ourselves at the centre of the universe as the main driving force behind all manner of things. Methinks we are again overstating our importance.

Thank you dear bird! Technically, it would not be possible, of course to reinstate an equilibrium when there never has been one - the world's climate is in constant change and, probably, always has been. All you can do is aim to put the climate at a particular place. It's a silly idea anyway, because we are nowhere near being able to do that (see below). The best we could do is fiddle with the concentrations of a particular gas. I have concerns about the hockey stick graph from 2 viewpoints: one because the curve on the stick has only had a shortish period of time for its steepness (not the actual GW trend, which, I feel, is statistically valid) to be accepted; two because it really might be exponential and we really might be responsible.

I'm with you on the "no definitive answer" bit, but I'm not sure I'm with you on the chances of our importance in it. I see the meteorological/climatological world, more and more, in terms of probabilities, as I'm sure you've seen(!) and as to us being responsible, I'd put us, right now, at about 2/5 and natural cycles etc at 5/2. I think we are favourites for the blame, but a 2/5 favourite in a 2 horse race (AGW vs Natural Climate Change) is far from a certainty.

The real problem, as far as I'm concerned, is: if we are responsible and our increased output of greenhouse gases is causing the rise in world temperatures, there may not be a damn thing we can do about it now, even if we do reduce emissions - to which you refer, very well and clearly, as a possibility, in your own "hockey stick" analysis. The economic consequences of cutting back CO2 emissions, may be horrendous, especially for the two emerging powerhouses of India and China, which have, between them 1/3 of the world's population.

Paul

Edited September 15, 2006 by Dawlish

[Dawlish]

Here's a Met Office piece of research concerning UK climate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5357606.stm

Basically it shows that the changes in the UK climate are unlikely to be natural and it speculates on the other possible cause. I'm not sure about the speculation.

Paul