New Research

[Gray-Wolf]

As the deputy head of the IPCC said at the start of Doha, soon enough it will make more sense to try and single out events which do not have an AGW component.

To me the climate is a near sealed system and if we have altered that system then it will impact everything , to a lesser or greater degree, inside that system.

Only when temps climb well beyond natural variability will we be in a position to say that events are due to climate change alone and only then when the display characteristics outside the old extremes of our past , unaltered ,climate.

It is troubling, at times, to see folk rely on weather events that were part of warmer climates as 'proofs' that all this has happened before?

[knocker]

Long-term research reveals how climate change is playing out in real ecosystems

NORTH WOODSTOCK, N.H., December 1, 2012—Around the world, the effects of global climate change are increasingly evident and difficult to ignore. However, evaluations of the local effects of climate change are often confounded by natural and human induced factors that overshadow the effects of changes in climate on ecosystems. In the December issue of the journal BioScience, a group of scientists writing on long-term studies of watershed and natural elevation gradients at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire and in the surrounding region report a number of surprising results that may shed more light on the complex nature of climate change.

According to Peter Groffman, one of the lead authors and a principal investigator at the Hubbard Brook Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) program, these studies highlight the value of long-term integrated research to assessments of the subtle effects of changing climate on complex ecosystems.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/uonm-lrr113012.php

[Methuselah]

As the deputy head of the IPCC said at the start of Doha, soon enough it will make more sense to try and single out events which do not have an AGW component.

To me the climate is a near sealed system and if we have altered that system then it will impact everything , to a lesser or greater degree, inside that system.

Only when temps climb well beyond natural variability will we be in a position to say that events are due to climate change alone and only then when the display characteristics outside the old extremes of our past , unaltered ,climate.

It is troubling, at times, to see folk rely on weather events that were part of warmer climates as 'proofs' that all this has happened before?

So that explains why I saw a few snowflakes today, then? I'd just put it down to the fact that the weather is currently cold & unsettled...Silly me!

[knocker]

Renewable news

Wind, solar power paired with storage could be cost-effective way to power grid

8:51 a.m., Dec. 10, 2012--Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030 at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses, according to new research by the University of Delaware and Delaware Technical Community College.

A well-designed combination of wind power, solar power and storage in batteries and fuel cells would nearly always exceed electricity demands while keeping costs low, the scientists found.

http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/dec/renewable-energy-121012.html

[Gray-Wolf]

This is the annoying thing for me Knocker. We are never going to get less power out of the technology as time moves on , only more?

The size and storage capacity is beginning to act like computer memory in the way it doubles over a short time period and advances in the known technologies (we are losing half of the wind turbines at one of the local wind-farms when they upgrade to slightly taller towers with the capacity, even with the reduction of generators, to double current output!) appear to be just as rapid with the use of new materials and techniques.

There is something very sinister about the way fossil fuel appears to be constantly favoured over the development and implementation of renewables?

[jethro]

I don't think sinister or any other emotion ever features in business, money and profit drives business.

[knocker]

This is the annoying thing for me Knocker. We are never going to get less power out of the technology as time moves on , only more?

The size and storage capacity is beginning to act like computer memory in the way it doubles over a short time period and advances in the known technologies (we are losing half of the wind turbines at one of the local wind-farms when they upgrade to slightly taller towers with the capacity, even with the reduction of generators, to double current output!) appear to be just as rapid with the use of new materials and techniques.

There is something very sinister about the way fossil fuel appears to be constantly favoured over the development and implementation of renewables?

I tend to agree with most of that GW and if the forthcoming BGS report confirms that the amount of shale gas in England has been underestimated I fear the worst and we'll take the American route. That has been compounded by the fact that it has released more coal for export. Also taking into account the huge reserves in the Arctic we could be heading for a huge world fossil fuel economy. Environmental and atmospheric destruction beckons and what legacy for future generations? Well I won't be around to see it.

[Gray-Wolf]

I might just be paranoid but I imagine that both the fossil fuel industry and our social elite have access to the latest understanding on where current climate change is leading us?

From our perspective ,from the news and papers we are privy to, things look very dire?

If Fossil fuel had 'good news' from their own investigations on the subject they'd be singing it from the rooftops and the abscence of this confirms to me that there is no 'Good News'. further to that the Fossil fuels funding of the procrastinators makes me think that , further on down the line, we will be recieving very bad news.

Knowing this you think we'd be seeing far more investment outside 'Fossil Fuel' to take the companies through the downturn in the current major moneyspinner? As it is they continue to invest and exploit as if sure that this money will continue to bring returns. How can thery be so sure if they do not have assurances that they are set to continue , B.A.U. for some time yet?

[jethro]

I might just be paranoid but I imagine that both the fossil fuel industry and our social elite have access to the latest understanding on where current climate change is leading us?

From our perspective ,from the news and papers we are privy to, things look very dire?

If Fossil fuel had 'good news' from their own investigations on the subject they'd be singing it from the rooftops and the abscence of this confirms to me that there is no 'Good News'. further to that the Fossil fuels funding of the procrastinators makes me think that , further on down the line, we will be recieving very bad news.

Knowing this you think we'd be seeing far more investment outside 'Fossil Fuel' to take the companies through the downturn in the current major moneyspinner? As it is they continue to invest and exploit as if sure that this money will continue to bring returns. How can thery be so sure if they do not have assurances that they are set to continue , B.A.U. for some time yet?

Are you saying that there's a conspiracy going on here and that science gets suppressed, only to be viewed by the fossil fuel industry and social elite? If you are, then you've answered your own question.

Blimey Ian, sinister and conspiracy plots in one day, I'm not being funny but maybe a walk and breath of fresh air will help clear your head.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'd consider many actions of the fossils fuel industry as sinister. Just look at how their paid proponents verbally abuse climate scientists and green energy supporters, and purposefully mislead the public. The buying up of legislators and the manipulation of scientific studies in their favour.

All good business practises I'm sure.

Edited December 11, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[Gray-Wolf]

Again I had a little worry that my plot had finally left the building.

So you believe the fossil fuel industry does not keep itself appraised of the threat that it's product may become undesirable due to the pollution it causes J'? You fully believe that they would not seek to promote any science which showed the current consensus as flawed science?

You also appear to find it quite natural that Govt. will attend conferences and make promises about controlling GHG emissions whilst subsidising the industry that is the main contributor to those emissions?

Conspiracy or purposeful naivety?

[jethro]

Again I had a little worry that my plot had finally left the building.

So you believe the fossil fuel industry does not keep itself appraised of the threat that it's product may become undesirable due to the pollution it causes J'? You fully believe that they would not seek to promote any science which showed the current consensus as flawed science?

You also appear to find it quite natural that Govt. will attend conferences and make promises about controlling GHG emissions whilst subsidising the industry that is the main contributor to those emissions?

Conspiracy or purposeful naivety?

None of the above, just a healthy dose of realism. The facts are we need energy and we'll need more and more of it. Currently there is no alternative means of generating all the energy we need, other than heavy usage of fossil fuels. As time progresses and as technology advances, that situation will change - it's going to have to as regardless of climate change, fossil fuels are finite and dwindling.

Of course petro companies keep themselves abreast of scientific developments, that doesn't however mean that they try to disseminate mis-information; quite apart from anything else, they have no control over it. Governments have legislated in order to reduce GHG emissions, these legislations will get tighter but that doesn't necessarily mean no more fossil fuels, that they will be banned. Much of the research and legislation is designed to keep the coal fires burning but make them less harmful, carbon capture as well as alternative means of energy production will progress hand in hand in the forseeable future. Shell, BP and Exxon are not going to close, their products are not going to be banned, we will continue to use fossil fuels until there are none left, but like the Clean Air Act and the development of smokeless fuels, their potential to cause harm will be greatly reduced.

[Gray-Wolf]

The science is telling us that the damage of using Fossil fuels is already done and will be costly to mitigate against or to repair.

Some of the damage ,like the level of extinctions we currently see occurring will never be repaired?

Whilst we know this you still insist that we will use up all our fossil fuel reserves?

We will already be undergoing rapid climate damage by the time we come close to using up current reserves ,never mind the ones yet to be uncovered in the Arctic and Antarctica, do you seriously believe that the public will still be clamoring to use those reserves?

You claim to be 'undecided' on climate change by human hands but again you seem fairly positive in your views that we will not chose to ditch fossil fuels? Somehow this makes you feel very pro the feeling that there is nothing to worry about Fossil fuel ,past, present or even future?

You either see the problems of GHG's, and their lifetime influencing the climate, or you do not believe them an issue? You either believe in the impact of Global dimming during the 20th century, and now in the early 21st century, or you do not accept it as a problem.

From the first time we discussed these issues how far has the consensus on climate change evolved? How much more evidence of the impacts do we now hold? How does the minimum ice level in the Arctic compare to the minimum back then? How many more GT's of ice melt from Greenland each year now compared with back then? How many positive temperature records have been broken , compared to cold records, over that time period? How much has extreme weather cost us compared to the years prior to our first conversations.

You claim to have remained unaltered in your 'don't know' status but this is moving backward towards denial the more confirmations we receive.

For my part I have seen my worse fears bested by evidence on the ground and predictions from ever more competent Models become ever more frightening and immediate.

[jethro]

The science is telling us that the damage of using Fossil fuels is already done and will be costly to mitigate against or to repair.

Some of the damage ,like the level of extinctions we currently see occurring will never be repaired?

Whilst we know this you still insist that we will use up all our fossil fuel reserves?

We will already be undergoing rapid climate damage by the time we come close to using up current reserves ,never mind the ones yet to be uncovered in the Arctic and Antarctica, do you seriously believe that the public will still be clamoring to use those reserves?

You claim to be 'undecided' on climate change by human hands but again you seem fairly positive in your views that we will not chose to ditch fossil fuels? Somehow this makes you feel very pro the feeling that there is nothing to worry about Fossil fuel ,past, present or even future?

You either see the problems of GHG's, and their lifetime influencing the climate, or you do not believe them an issue? You either believe in the impact of Global dimming during the 20th century, and now in the early 21st century, or you do not accept it as a problem.

From the first time we discussed these issues how far has the consensus on climate change evolved? How much more evidence of the impacts do we now hold? How does the minimum ice level in the Arctic compare to the minimum back then? How many more GT's of ice melt from Greenland each year now compared with back then? How many positive temperature records have been broken , compared to cold records, over that time period? How much has extreme weather cost us compared to the years prior to our first conversations.

You claim to have remained unaltered in your 'don't know' status but this is moving backward towards denial the more confirmations we receive.

For my part I have seen my worse fears bested by evidence on the ground and predictions from ever more competent Models become ever more frightening and immediate.

Woah there, hang on just a second.

First up, at no point have I EVER said that humans have not changed the planet, neither have I EVER said climate change or even AGW is not happening. As you are quite well aware I fully endorse the theory of AGW, my only question is the magnitude of it. By all means argue against points I have made but save us both the tedium of trying to discredit me by making out I'm a complete sceptic/denier, it's a pathetic get out clause used to silence critics instead of addressing the issues raised.

Secondly, what I or you or anyone else thinks on this subject will have absolutely no impact on whether or not fossil fuels continue to be used. The continued use, phase out and demise will be dictated by cost/profit, whether there are viable alternatives, whether or not we run out of them. I don't live in a fluffy world of ideology, I live in the one dictated to by commerce and capitalism. Placing both feet firmly on the ground, applying all logic, common sense and life experience gained thus far I can say with absolute conviction that regardless of impact, regardless of climate change, regardless of environmental issues, the average man in the street if faced with the choice between saving the planet and having a car, would choose the car every time even if it did mean drilling for oil in Antarctica or the Arctic. That's not me personally insisting that we'll use all our fossil fuels, that's me accepting the truth of the world we live in. Show me a decline in their use and I'll happily retract my words, remember, emissions levels keep rising, despite all the fears of climate change.

[4wd]

This study investigates the statistical significance of the trends of station temperature time series from the European Climate Assessment & Data archive poleward of 60°N. The trends are identified by different methods and their significance is assessed by three different null models of climate noise. All stations show a warming trend but only 17 out of the 109 considered stations have trends which cannot be explained as arising from intrinsic climate fluctuations when tested against any of the three null models. Out of those 17, only one station exhibits a warming trend which is significant against all three null models. The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL054244.shtml

[BornFromTheVoid]

This study investigates the statistical significance of the trends of station temperature time series from the European Climate Assessment & Data archive poleward of 60°N. The trends are identified by different methods and their significance is assessed by three different null models of climate noise. All stations show a warming trend but only 17 out of the 109 considered stations have trends which cannot be explained as arising from intrinsic climate fluctuations when tested against any of the three null models. Out of those 17, only one station exhibits a warming trend which is significant against all three null models. The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland.

http://www.agu.org/p...2GL054244.shtml

The thing I would have highlighted there would be

This study investigates the statistical significance of the trends of station temperature time series from the European Climate Assessment & Data archive poleward of 60°N. The trends are identified by different methods and their significance is assessed by three different null models of climate noise. All stations show a warming trend but only 17 out of the 109 considered stations have trends which cannot be explained as arising from intrinsic climate fluctuations when tested against any of the three null models. Out of those 17, only one station exhibits a warming trend which is significant against all three null models. The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland.

Would be interesting to what what the new statistical significance test is and how it would apply in other parts of the world.

[4wd]

So you don't think it's significant that all but one of the stations showing some warming were explained by normal processes i.e. not AGW?

That sounds like seizing on the W word without trying to understand why some warming was recorded.

[Interitus]

Interesting paper but a few things to point out. The author notes that ALL stations show a warming trend, not just one which is highlighted which was suggested as a significant unnatural variation within the temperature time series.

It is an exercise in regression analysis where trends were identified by (i) ordinary least-squares regression, (ii) robust regression, (iii) generalised linear model regression, (iv) wavelets and (v) ensemble empirical mode decomposition.

Then the trends are tested for significance against a surrogate time series of temperature for each station to represent the natural climate created, by three methods - a first order autoregressive model, an autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average model and a Fourier transform with a randomised phase spectrum. An ensemble of temperature surrogates was created for each station, 1000 times by each model and it is against these estimated climates that the real temperature trends are tested.

There is no attempt at attributing causal factors, any AGW is included within the natural climate variation.

As the author concludes - These results come with the caveat that for relatively short time series we might not be able to identify the ‘true model’ of the background climate variability.....

While I do not find evidence for a significant warming trend in Siberia the raw data still indicate a widespread temperature increase in Siberia (Figure 2). Given that the temperature fluctuations in Siberia are large, this portends to the possibility that the warming signal in Siberia has not yet reached its time of emergence when it will be outside of the range of natural temperature variability.

[BornFromTheVoid]

So you don't think it's significant that all but one of the stations showing some warming were explained by normal processes i.e. not AGW?

That sounds like seizing on the W word without trying to understand why some warming was recorded.

We're hardly getting back to arguing whether or not the world is warming from CO2, are we?

As Interitus explained, there was no attribution, either natural or man-made in the paper. The one station pointed out passed all 3 of the null models, while sixteen passed at least 1.

I'd imagine though, that as a whole, all stations combined might well produce a statistically significant warming?

Edited December 12, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[Gray-Wolf]

You appear very keen on having a reasonable amount of time to allow trends to show in areas of the planet exhibiting rapid climate shift yet hold up a stunted time series as some kind of evidence now?

I would say that the trends , over a larger timescale , from other studies show increases well outside 'natural' variation and so feel that I must imagine that this time series , when complete, will show exactly the same?

Everyone is out to measure the same thing and though warming may show regional bias the whole planet is warming at an alarming rate with no signs that this trend will abate?

EDIT: The other thing to be mindful of here is the '80n effect'. Year on year we have folk over on the Arctic thread telling us that things are quite normal in the Basin on the back of the DMI 80N temp plot. Whilst over winter, spring and Autumn the plot show massive warm departures from the verage the summer hovers around freezing. We constantly reminf them where those temperatures are taken (over the ice) and remind them of the energy required to melt ice. Obviously once the ice there has gone we would expect to see massive positive temp spikes over the summer to.

As such we should not just look at temperatures, which the 2012 Arctic report card tells us have been 'unremarkable' for the past decade but also to see if we can see impacts of extra energy in the basin.

If we were to see permafrost thaw over wide areas or sea ice volume loss or mass loss from Greenland or ealier summer snow loss or even extreme summer snow loss we might have to think that we are seeing more energy available to enable such changes.

So what do we see beyond 60N?

We see the record reduction in snow over summer in Eurasia, we sea sea ice volumes plummeting, we see record mass losses from Greenland, we see permafrost melting up to 20m down etc,etc

So? what do we think will occur when the energy that is being spent on thawing out the cryosphere has finished that Job

Edited December 12, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Climate modelers see possible warmer, wetter Northeast winters by 2070

A new high-resolution climate study suggests temperatures are going to be significantly warmer in the next 30 years, especially in winter

AMHERST, Mass. – A new high-resolution climate study by University of Massachusetts Amherst climate scientists, the first to apply regional climate models to examine likely near-term changes in temperature and precipitation across the Northeast United States, suggests temperatures are going to be significantly warmer in all seasons in the next 30 years, especially in winter. Also, they project that winters will be wetter, with more rain likely than snow.

Writing in the current issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, Michael Rawlins and Raymond Bradley of the Climate System Research Center at UMass Amherst, with Henry Diaz of NOAA's Climate Diagnostics Center, Boulder, Colo., provide the highest resolution climate projections to date for the Northeast from Pennsylvania to Maine for the period 2041 to 2070. The study used data from multiple climate model simulations run at greatly improved resolution.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/uoma-cms121212.php

[4wd]

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

A book, nice way to by-pass peer review. His idea doesn't seem to hold up with the latest research... http://journals.amet...LI-D-11-00169.1

Relationship of Lower-Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective

An updated assessment has been made of the proposed hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are positively correlated with lower-troposphere global cloudiness. A brief review of the many conflicting studies that attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis is also presented. It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period between solar cycles 23 and 24 has led to a record-high level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record-low level of lower-troposphere global cloudiness. This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR–cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change.

[4wd]

This is a good clip and not really partisan either way.

[4wd]

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/umass-amherst-climate-model-first-study-climate-effects-arctic-hurricanes

Geoscientist Alan Condron at UMass Amherst and Ian Renfrew at the University of East Anglia, U.K., write in the current issue of Nature Geoscience that every year thousands of these strong cyclones or polar lows occur over Arctic regions in the North Atlantic, but none are simulated by the latest climate prediction models, which makes it difficult to reliably forecast climate change in Europe and North America over the next couple of decades.

Something else which climate models simply do not at present include.

The science is settled, we have been told.