UK and North west Europe - Climate change

[Thundery wintry showers]

Not necessarily- that's a bit like saying that if I make a weather forecast for 5 days' time we can reasonably gauge its accuracy by model projections at 2 days out!

The IPCC's temperature projections are looking at the likely warming over the course of the 20th century so 2030 (which is in 20 years' time) would still be rather early in the century to be able to thoroughly assess the accuracy of their projections. This applies especially because the increased rate of warming in the projections for later in the century depends quite heavily upon positive feedbacks.

Thus, we could feasibly see temperatures rise up to 2030 in line with the IPCC's projections, only for those positive feedbacks to largely fail, resulting in an eventual outcome at the low end of the IPCC's uncertainty bounds. An alternative scenario could see natural variability offset AGW resulting in a much slower warming up to 2030 than the IPCC projects, followed by a very rapid warming as natural variability switches to "positive mode" and we get a combination of natural and anthropogenic warming, resulting in an eventual outcome near the centre of the IPCC's estimates.

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe some guys would see things more clearly if they viewed GHG forcing as the tide and individual years as the waves.

Some waves smash further up the beach than others as the tide comes in (every 7th and 11th and combinations therein?) but the ones not reaching as far up the beach as the previous few do not mean the tide will not continue to rise do they?

Maybe the more GHG's we pump out we prepare the ground for an ever higher tide (which will have to 'come in') even though the 'waves' may bring to some a confusing picture if we hold in mind that the tide 'is rising' then we won't be bamboozled by the shorter term events we are shown?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I prefer to think of it as a case of short-term natural variability either side of a baseline. This natural variability causes fluctuations in individual months that can vary by up to, say, about 0.5C either side of the baseline, but very few months deviate by more than about 0.3C. This variability can also "blow hot and cold" over decades, so a given decade can be, say, as much as 0.2-0.3C either side of the underlying baseline.

In contrast the baseline is affected by long-term variability, which includes GHG-related forcing. The IPCC essentially projects this baseline to rise by between 1.1 and 6.4C over the 21st century with a High Emissions Scenario range of (if I remember rightly) 2.4 to 6.4C.

So if they're right, by the latter part of the century this should easily drown out the "noise" caused by short-term variability. But if you're comparing one decade to another, the "noise" can outweigh the baseline trend. If the short-term variability makes decade 2 anomalously cool relative to decade 1 by about 0.3C, and the trend is +0.2C/decade, you will get a cooling of 0.1C.

[pyrotech]

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by more than a third. If the Sun became that much more radiant we would fry.

OK,

So from what some say on here can i take it that MAUNDER MINIMUM and DALTON MINIMUM were caused by CO2 NOT solar cycle?

Or are the two historic sustained cold spells named above some made up conspiracy against cO2?

so solar cycle has little or no effect? is that what some say on here?

Atleast i admit that co2 probably makes a contruibution its how much i have issues with.

some on here say the solar cycle has no ( none) effect, what a ludicrous statement to make when there is historic proof it has in the past.

Now IF you said that you thought CO2 had much more influence than solar cycle it would be a worthwhile debate, but by saying that solar cycle has no effect at all really is a statement made with little thought or contribution.

As for the effects, bare in mind that water retains heat better than air or land, which is why southern hemisphere will see changes last and why there will be complications from the mixing of air currents.

sea levels

Yes sea levels would have risen but two major points here

1 erosion from the sea has been evident for millions of years not just 20th century

2 two major reasons for sea level rise - heated water expands, sea ice melt.

yes there has been a warming priod, its the causes being debated, not if a warming has occurred!

Unbiased reassessment of the causes. someone said how can it be unbiased! Its called reevaluation with an open mind. In humans that is the best you can get.

This is not about some scientist crowing about being right. Its about solving a global issue and finding the truth and constantly striving to understand our planet, undrstand our solar system and protect life in every form. Its about being honest and open to our interpretations and having the foresight of being able to challenge our reasonings, decisions and mistakes.

Can the silly nobel prize comments be dropped.

Here is a thought for the co2 debatists.

The government collects green taxes, tax on transport and hugely on cars and air travel.

People like myself work all year to have a break ( vacation, holiday) which has now become too expensive for many due to taxes on air travel

same with cars etc, almost everything we do.

Now this generates billions in revenue.

Do i disagree with curbing our emmissions, no i do not disagree with it.

But as its so important, obviously all that revenue is ploughed into finding cleaner air travel and less emmisions. Money spent on finding alternative energy and making our world cleaner.

Obviously that money is not going towards other projects for the governments. None of that would have been spent on bailing out the banks in the last two years! Would it?

Its making a revenue thats it, and because the government put fuel costs up and tax fuel guzzlers more the green party cheer and support them. What should be called for is every penny raised to protect the nviroment should be put pack to protect it. no where else. Funding new exploration and new technollogy even paying for every family in the uk to have the most efficient boiler would be better for environment than where that money actually goes.

wake up and smell the coffee, the govt is laughing, say that right thing, tax anything that is a environment issue then keep the cash.

thats why people are scepticle and annoyed.

If your saying we are facing a real catastrophe from cO2, taxing it to lower it, then you would use that revenue to solely improve the situation.

FACT - 1960 - 2000 HIGH SOLAR ACTIVITY = gradual warming.

Now we have the current minimum, someone spotted that we now have some sunspots. Yes we do.

BUT HERE IS THE QUESTIONS

How far into cycle 24 are we? The start? middle? no one knows!

A peak in a solar max which is very active has a hundred sunspots at a time. we are having ones and twos. a definite rise from weeks of none but still very weak.

dalton minimum was not a period of no sunspots for decades. its a period of much less sunspots than average maximums.

Could we return to solar maximums with a very active sun, yes we could. Then the debate will go on much longer. Now if we continue a solar minimum for decades then thats going to bring the cat amongst the pidgeons. i am sure there are a few people out there praying that does not happen. can they fiddle the figures if that happens to explain the cooling that may occur. Pretty sure that they could find data that shows less harmful co2 has been released and that the taxes worked and saved us all. if they need to.

As for how the sun effects us to warm or cool during its cycle read up on solar radiation, cosmic rays, solar wind and density.

for those who think the sun effects very little on this little blue planet then i challenge you to a little project that you can post here.

1. Please sumarise the effects on this planet and the weather if we were 2% and 10% closer to the sun, and same but for further away.

2. summarise the cause of dalton or maunder minimum if not caused by solar activity

3. Explain causes of climate change / climate shift prior to human intervention and in summary state whether shifts prior to the last century have ever been larger or not.

I really look forward to the answers.

el nino al nina were discovered 100s of years ago and have nothing to do with CO2 but they do effect weather patterns and climate variances, but alternate periodically but with el nino the more dominant. Again there is nothing new in that.

why if people have nothing to fear are we shying away from re looking at the data and examining the facts. Yes lets cut pollution any way but lets keep an open mind throughout.

[jethro]

Interesting post Pyro but can't quite see what Dev's post has to do with it? How can you possibly infer all that you said from his statement of "Atmospheric CO2 has increased by more than a third. If the Sun became that much more radiant we would fry."

Technically he's right, we would.

[pyrotech]

Interesting post Pyro but can't quite see what Dev's post has to do with it? How can you possibly infer all that you said from his statement of "Atmospheric CO2 has increased by more than a third. If the Sun became that much more radiant we would fry."

Technically he's right, we would.

Not all aimed at dev's post just one point on there but .....

1.I wanted to make reply quick, in doing so i used less power and therefore caused less co2 or..

2.i was too lazy to quote everyones post it related to

[sunny starry skies]

Not all aimed at dev's post just one point on there but .....

1.I wanted to make reply quick, in doing so i used less power and therefore caused less co2 or..

2.i was too lazy to quote everyones post it related to

Pyro - do you really think the scientists believe that everything is caused by CO2? (clue - they don't!)

Drivers for past changes such as the LIA, and the coldest spells within it, are of course not CO2, but neitehr are they all solar, ENSO, volcanic or anything else. In fact, no one factor dominated, and until humans came along, CO2 changes were driven by other changes (but proceeded to amplify them). But the fact remains that GHGs are an important driver for change alongside the other drivers, only that while the others vary about a well-westablished mean or zero point, CO2 is increasing, as is global temperature. Plenty of attribution studies are out there to show the relative strengths of the different drivers, but they are visible in the temperature record of the last 30 years (El Nino warmings and coolings, and volcanic coolings, aided by some subtle solar coolings and warmings). There's also an additional rising trend in there too...

sss

[VillagePlank]

(but proceeded to amplify them)

Interesting point.

I am well aware of the current idea of amplification.

However, such that our atmosphere doesn't anneal itself to Fourier analysis, the choice of the terms is, ahem, rather obscure. Of course, you might like to say 'it makes it bigger, dun it mate' but then that's unscientific.

Even worse any self-feeding system that demonstrates feedback such that it 'amplifies' some quantitative measure is bound to demonstrate chaos, such that over the short term (some 10,000 years or so) it is eminently unpredictable, but over the long term (1,000,000 years) shows pattern.

[pyrotech]

Pyro - do you really think the scientists believe that everything is caused by CO2? (clue - they don't!)

Drivers for past changes such as the LIA, and the coldest spells within it, are of course not CO2, but neitehr are they all solar, ENSO, volcanic or anything else. In fact, no one factor dominated, and until humans came along, CO2 changes were driven by other changes (but proceeded to amplify them). But the fact remains that GHGs are an important driver for change alongside the other drivers, only that while the others vary about a well-westablished mean or zero point, CO2 is increasing, as is global temperature. Plenty of attribution studies are out there to show the relative strengths of the different drivers, but they are visible in the temperature record of the last 30 years (El Nino warmings and coolings, and volcanic coolings, aided by some subtle solar coolings and warmings). There's also an additional rising trend in there too...

sss

I certainly agree with what you say about all the drivers, thats my whole point.

My thoughts are that CO2 has a lot less influence than some say and that solar activity has a much larger influence.

Not once have i said CO2 ha no effects or that solar cycle ( activity level) is solely causing climate change, i am under the impression that it has more influence than its been given credit for and that the opposite for CO2. thats why i call for periodic evaluation.

to clarify my position if a evaluation pointed this year too solar cycle being 75% to blame, i would still say we need to continue to evaluate. I am not just asking for evaluation and dynamic assssment because co2 is being blamed. Evaluation is a prudent safe guard for any data and can only clarify or improve on understanding of the state of information we have currently gained.

Fact is co2 is hugely blamed where there is historic and current data to show that solar activity has caused effects like we experienced over last few decades before.

suddenly its only co2 that caused the warming, a very active solar activity over lat 40 years has not contruibuted at all, or not a much a it would have in the past ( please explain why) does excessive co2 minimise the effects of active solar cycle?

the question is how much is what contruibuting? to be fair to you atleast you acknowledge its effects. Like wis i acknowledge co2 is not an innocent party in it.

The debate should really be which one effects most, and how much does each party contruibute, i think there are so many parties involved that we will be into the next century and still not fully understand.

I just believe solar activity has much more effect and contruibution than its given credit for.

Edited January 26, 2010 by pyrotech

[sunny starry skies]

I certainly agree with what you say about all the drivers, thats my whole point.

My thoughts are that CO2 has a lot less influence than some say and that solar activity has a much larger influence.

Not once have i said CO2 ha no effects or that solar cycle ( activity level) is solely causing climate change, i am under the impression that it has more influence than its been given credit for and that the opposite for CO2. thats why i call for periodic evaluation.

to clarify my position if a evaluation pointed this year too solar cycle being 75% to blame, i would still say we need to continue to evaluate. I am not just asking for evaluation and dynamic assssment because co2 is being blamed. Evaluation is a prudent safe guard for any data and can only clarify or improve on understanding of the state of information we have currently gained.

Fact is co2 is hugely blamed where there is historic and current data to show that solar activity has caused effects like we experienced over last few decades before.

suddenly its only co2 that caused the warming, a very active solar activity over lat 40 years has not contruibuted at all, or not a much a it would have in the past ( please explain why) does excessive co2 minimise the effects of active solar cycle?

the question is how much is what contruibuting? to be fair to you atleast you acknowledge its effects. Like wis i acknowledge co2 is not an innocent party in it.

The debate should really be which one effects most, and how much does each party contruibute, i think there are so many parties involved that we will be into the next century and still not fully understand.

I just believe solar activity has much more effect and contruibution than its given credit for.

I think where you and I diverge here is that so far as I can see, the best attempts within the literature have tried to attribute solar forcing as the dominant driver of recent climate change and have not succeeded. The two do not correlate sufficiently well, particularly recently. What is much more persuasive is that you can remove ENSO, volcanic and an approximately 0.15C/decade linear trend, and be left with an index that is closely related to solar variations (about 0.2C variation/cycle) - see Android's graphs here for a nice example of this, notably the 10th post:

http://forum.netweat...vs-temperature/

So you have to explain the ~0.15C/decade increasing trend, and you can't do that with the varying Sun. You can invoke lags, like in the 'leaky integrator' idea to try and include the Sun, but you need a mechanism that will produce the right lag. However, you do not need a complex mechanism to make CO2 that driver, and the sensitivity testing shows the trend to be of approximately the right magnitude for CO2 to be the cause (and there is direct observational evidence too of the changing spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation from Earth among other things).

Interesting point.

I am well aware of the current idea of amplification.

However, such that our atmosphere doesn't anneal itself to Fourier analysis, the choice of the terms is, ahem, rather obscure. Of course, you might like to say 'it makes it bigger, dun it mate' but then that's unscientific.

Even worse any self-feeding system that demonstrates feedback such that it 'amplifies' some quantitative measure is bound to demonstrate chaos, such that over the short term (some 10,000 years or so) it is eminently unpredictable, but over the long term (1,000,000 years) shows pattern.

It looks like the Quaternary-scale feedbacks between orbital forcong, temerature response, CO2 increase from the oceans, methane increase, further temperature response and back again are decently stable on the millennial/10,000-year scale (see figure 1 in the link below). "Amplification" is the term used commonly to describe how the feedback between temperature and CO2/methane leads to a larger temperature increase than with orbital forcing alone.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453291a.html (free full-text access)

sss

Edited January 27, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[pyrotech]

Well some scientists have jumped ship and are saying same thing as me here are some quotes and names qualifications

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

[Devonian]

Well some scientists have jumped ship and are saying same thing as me here are some quotes and names qualifications

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

bla bla

This list first appeared in 2008...

[laserguy]

This list first appeared in 2008...

Wonder how much it's grown in the time since? The 'tipping point' can't be far off,now.

[Devonian]

Wonder how much it's grown in the time since? The 'tipping point' can't be far off,now.

It's been not far off for years

Edited February 7, 2010 by Devonian

[pyrotech]

I expect its more than double and with events accross the Northern Hemisphere this winter there must be a que to sign on to it.

I am so glad that the world has reduced its Co2 emmisions by 80% over the last few years and that we can now see the benefits of the taxes to kerb all emmisions. What a great job done. We can see it working with an exceptional cold spell several times over the Northern areas of the globe. This following a colder than average winter the year before.

Sorry ............. did i get something wrong!

What! there has been no reduction in Co2, it increased! How strange

Sarcasm was never my strongest point

[sunny starry skies]

Nce selection of old quotes there pyro - So you have a dozen people with PhDs, including some geologists (including one, who laughably suggests that the IPCC shouldn't have got the NPP because they weren't geologists ), geophysicists, meteorologists, an atmospheric scientist or two, geophysicist, physicist, chemist. Fair enough. Didn't look like too many of them had as their core research the science of climate change? But of course you wouldn't trust their opinions if they did?

Looks like the UK and Northwest Europe has been pretty lucky to be cold this month. January breaks high temperature records across the board it seems, including UAH, the skeptics favourite! I am definitely favouring an idea that we're seeing the mark of unusual weather patterns (driven by -ve PDO, maybe solar min) in the southerly jet position and -ve AO, but the climate still warms (more heat in the globe as a whole).

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

S.S.S., do you think that we should have real concerns about the impacts here once we find ourselves in cycles that support warming? If we have had 10yrs of 'stagnation' ,due to natural cycles, what happens when they abate?

[sunny starry skies]

Absolutely, GW. It seems quite reasonable to me that much of the variation about the long-term trend is explained by ENSO, with a minor solar component. I await with bated breath what will happen as a product of our (unusual) El Nino of the last few months, but given that we are moving close to record temperatures without unusual weather pattern / solar forcing, I think the next time other signals favour warming it's reasonable to expect a substantial increase in global temperature to a clear new record. I think 2010 will show this, and finally put to bed the nonsense of "the world has been cooling since 1998/2002/2005 [pick year]". It's a simple statistical fact of a system that shows variability about a rising trend that new records don't happen every year, but will occur when the factors that influence the variability head towards 'positive' values'.

Of course the UK can have its coldest winter in however many decades this year and next, and a cool summer in between, and it wouldn't change the global climate trend.

sss

[kold weather]

Exactly the point SSS, and sadly the truth is one winter far from makes a trend. What this winter shows is that whilst the baseline has indeed gone up if you get the right synoptics globally then we can still get very very cold and on a practical level that 0.3C warming in the publics perception is not going to make a difference really.

Another very strong ENSO event (these tend to come about every now and then) like the 82-83 and 97-98 that doesn't very rapidly breakdown like the latter will destroy the global record, its something I've been saying for a long time now, esp if it happens to occur during the next solar max, whenver that will be!

As for our part of the world, I thinkits not by chance that we have seen so many above normal months in the last 10-15 years, I dare say the Atlantic being in its warm phase probably hasn't helped out at all.

Edited February 8, 2010 by kold weather

[pyrotech]

Do i take it then that ENSO can in no way be influenced by solar cycle along with all the other weather related patterns?

I am not some anti environment group, infact i support environmental issues on my floodwarn website. I just see evidence to the contrary regarding CO2 being the main driver.

Any way did some more digging about see what you make of this

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in

summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

This image of the UK taken from NASA's multi-national Terra satellite on Thursday shows the extent of the freezing weather

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.

Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years.

As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0ezIp2K5U

[Gray-Wolf]

Nelson: Thomas was selective on arctic ice report

Columnist spews ideology; check out the real facts

January 22, 2010

Cal Thomas (Jan. 15) refers to English columnist David Rose, who cites data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center claiming to show Arctic sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles since 2007, a 26 percent increase. That, and the fact that weather in Europe has been unusually cold this winter, is enough to convince Thomas that global warming has been dealt a "severe blow."

Now, when Thomas refers to a research organization, my gut reaction is that the organization must be a corporate shill or a tool of the religious right. So I searched the Internet for the National Snow and Ice Data Center. To my surprise, it seems to be a legitimate scientific organization, supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation.

The NSIDC has an illuminating site (nsidc.org). As I searched for the reference to the 409,000 square miles, I learned that between 1980 and 2007 the extent of Arctic sea ice decreased from an area roughly equal to the area of the lower 48 states to an area roughly equal to the states west of the Mississippi River.

It took a few minutes to find the fact cited by Thomas (through Mr. Rose). It was in a press release of Oct. 6, 2009 (http://nsidc.org/new..._minimumpr.html). I would invite those interested in "climate change" to read the entire press release, entitled "Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark."

To quote from the report: "The average ice extent over the month of September (2009) ... was 409,000 square miles greater than the record low for the month in 2007, and 266,000 square miles greater than the second-lowest extent in 2008. However, ice extent was still 649,000 square miles below the 1979 to 2000 September average. Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average."

In other words, Arctic sea ice is up since 2007 because 2007 was the lowest on record. The September 2009 level was nearly 24 percent below the 1979-2000 average.

Now for some statements from the press release that Thomas and Rose missed:

"The past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record."

"It's nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades" - NSIDC Director Mark Serreze.

"Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 2.2 feet between 2004 and 2008."

NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos said, "A lot of people are going to look at that graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change. But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome."

People like Cal Thomas. And David Rose.

I saw this a few weeks back and thought the reporter a little sad for not knowing who NSIDC were! The fact that folk are attempting to make something of the pitiful max extents since 07' is laughable. No mention of 'ice volumes' you'll note as these continue to fall since 07'.

What tells the tale best? a thin skim of ice that forms in 24hr darkness in the coldest area of the planet or the fact that, for 12 months of the year, it's loosing mass year upon year? I'll let you decide folks

Edited February 9, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I know its colder this year, but I'm sure the Arctic hasn't dipped into the UK or NW Europe recently...

[pyrotech]

I think that what i forecast back in September 2009 and back in 2008 has come pretty damned acurately true.

solar min is having this effect and not just locally but pretty much all over northern hemisphere. yes the artic is not recovering quickly, and unless solar min continues or solar max is weak then it will not recover. I gave reasons before of why.

That is why i called this UK and Northwest Europe, that is where effects would happen fastest and deepest.

The gulf stream is effected by the jet stream. The Jet stream effected by solar min. As is SSW effected by solar weather.

Another cold winter 2010-2011 due to the lag effect even if solar max really kicks in.

[SP1986]

I'm sure colder periods have happened under solar maximums too and warm periods in minimums, so it's not always as simple as 'solar minimum = cold period' there are so many variables it's unreal. Another misconception I imagine is that cool periods mean year after year of frigid cold winters.. I imagine this is nowhere near the truth.. a cool period could surely be characterised as much by a cool summer than a severe winter!

[Gray-Wolf]

I think of all the places in the world that NW Europe is going to be the most difficult to pin down in so far as the way climate changes impacts will manifest. The places on the Atlantic coast (and the belt inland from the coast) may well find wetter ,cooler conditions plaguing them as the Arctic looses summer ice and ocean currents alter. We all know what a reduction in the gulf stream is proposed to bring us but what of an 'extended ' gulf stream running up into Frans Joseph land and not around the Baltic?

It is not just as simple as 'temps' when you have the Atlantic to factor in. Of course further inland just end up with drought and increased rain 'events' flash flooding areas (with the knock on impacts through the river drainage systems carrying off the rainfall as we saw in the Danube a few years back).

I hope we are not to 'pay' for climate change with a run of dreary summers as the Arctic sorts it's new patterns out but that , coupled with the increase in run off from Greenland, (as the melted glaciers release the ice sheets from above them) makes it's impacts felt.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Gray-Wolf