New Research

[knocker]

Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100

 

 

Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.

 

The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-cloud-mystery-global-temperatures-4c.html#jCp

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100

 

A video to accompany the new study, featuring the lead author.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that guys!

 

We seem to getting a host of warnings recently that climate sensitivity is going to be at the upper end of current projections?

 

As we progress in our understanding of clouds, and their impacts, we seem to be removing the uncertainty that some of the 'old sceptics' relied upon to downplay the dangers of doubling CO2?

 

I still cannot escape the fear of a rapid climate shift, over a couple of decades, as the planet readjusts to an ice free northern hemisphere over summer. The fact that clouds will aid this rapid warming spurt just adds to my concerns.

[Polar Maritime]

New Year, New Temperature Record.

The NOAA  has released its preliminary report of Global temperature analysis for November 2013, offering an oversight of the near complete year. The administration has revealed 2013’s average land and ocean temperatures were 0.62 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average (from January to November).

Land temperatures have averaged 0.98 degrees C above the long termtrend- tying with 2002 as the fourth highest temperature anomaly. Ocean temperatures in 2013 showed less severe warming at 0.48 degrees C above the average, similar to 2006- the eight warmest year on record.

But, 2013 was bound to achieve 1st place in some category, and that lies with November. November gave us average land and sea temperatures for the record books; the warmest month in 134 years, with temperatures 0.78 degrees C above the 20th century average.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11/

 

Edited January 2, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[knocker]

Response of the ozone column over Europe to the 2011 Arctic ozone depletion event according to ground-based observations and assessment of the consequent variations in surface UV irradiance

 

Abstract

The strong ozone depletion event that occurred in Arctic during spring 2011 was found to cause appreciable reduction in the ozone column (OC) in Europe, even at lower latitudes. The features of this episode have been analysed using the data recorded at 34 ground-based stations located in the European area and compared with the similar events in 2000 and 2005. The results provided evidence that OC as far south as 40°N latitude was considerably influenced by the Arctic ozone loss in spring 2011. The reduction of OC at the northernmost sites was about 40% with respect to the mean value calculated over the previous six-year period, while a similar decrease at the southern extreme ranged between 15 and 18%, and were delayed by nearly two weeks compared to the Arctic region. The ozone distributions reconstructed for the West Europe sector show that the decline of OC lasted from late March to late April 2011. The echo of the Arctic ozone depletion on mid-latitude UV irradiance has been analysed trough model computations that show an increase of the midday erythemal dose by 3–4 SED (1 SED = 100 J m^−2) that was slightly higher than at polar regions. On the other hand it was assessed that the biosystems in the northernmost regions were a subject of about 4 times higher UV stress than those at mid-latitudes. Despite indications of an OC recovery, the event examined here shows that the issue of ozone depletion episodes cannot be belittled.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101300931X

[knocker]

Mercury and ozone depletion events in the Arctic linked to sea-ice dynamics

 

This week a new study published in Nature and co-authored by Drs. Chris Moore and Daniel Obrist of Nevada's Desert Research Institute establishes, for the first time, a link between Arctic sea ice dynamics and the region's changing atmospheric chemistry potentially leading to increased amounts of mercury deposited to the Earth's northernmost and most fragile ecosystems.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-mercury-ozone-depletion-events-arctic.html#jCp

 

Clouds mark the location of cracks in the ice-covered Arctic ocean. Atmospheric mixing over the cracks can add mercury to the Arctic food chain. Video copyright: Chris Linder Photography / University of Washington

Edited January 15, 2014 by knocker

[jonboy]

prp-2-1-2014.pdfA new paper by Scaffeta on solar harmonics and earths climate

[VillagePlank]

prp-2-1-2014.pdfA new paper by Scaffeta on solar harmonics and earths climate

 

Nice paper. Bit complex in places (one wonders if these people like obfuscation) However, interestingly Scaffeta's astronomical model alone underplays the temperature compared to the astronomical model + AGW + volcanic factors; he halves the impact of double CO2 to fit the curve, as it were. (p14) I'm sure Roger, our long range weather forecaster, would be very interested in the astronomical stuff in this paper.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Nice paper. Bit complex in places (one wonders if these people like obfuscation) However, interestingly Scaffeta's astronomical model alone underplays the temperature compared to the astronomical model + AGW + volcanic factors; he halves the impact of double CO2 to fit the curve, as it were. (p14) I'm sure Roger, our long range weather forecaster, would be very interested in the astronomical stuff in this paper.

 

I agree very interesting not that I understood all of the planetary complexities but I did note the point you made. One thing that is puzzling me concerns fig. 8 p.12. The high solar output in 1950s doesn't equate to the cooling period in the temp record which presumably is down to other factors such as aerosols, etc.

So looking at Morner's General conclusions regarding the planetary–solar–terrestrial interaction when he says:

 

 

Several papers have addressed the question about the evolu-

tion of climate during the 21st century. Obviously, we are on

our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious

doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warm-

ing as claimed by the IPCC project

 

is he taking into account the counter affect of AGW and which would be stronger?

 

http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/205/2013/prp-1-205-2013.pdf

Edited January 16, 2014 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Main problem is the AGW signal is so small, that other factors can clearly dominate, and for extended periods of time. AGW impact is it's impact over even longer periods of time not year to year stuff. Given that the temperature record is short (less than 200 years) any astronomical phenomena can easily be cast over and made to fit. That's not to say there's nothing in it, can't be possibly be true etc - I try to keep an open mind - but one has to be wary. Scafetta, who is known for "it's the sun wot did it, innit" seems to moving into the mainstream and combining many factors, now.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Yes I'm thinking along similar lines with the addition I've read a couple of papers recently that say the solar signal is quite small as well.

[knocker]

Some thoughts by Geog Feulner

 

What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

Edited January 16, 2014 by knocker

[jonboy]

I don't think we are heading for a grand minimum like the last mini ice age but every indication is that cycle 24 has reached max and is about to fall through the floor and will be relatively short in duration and cycle 25 will be even lower then building back through cycles 26 and 27.

 

In regard to the hiatus/cooling around the 1950's I attach a paper that can explain this around solar flux/magnetic field strength

 

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

 

I also attach an intresting paper that links Uranus and Neptune to solar max and min and their relative intensities

 

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513reference

 

These in my opinion show why we have warmed why we are at a pause and entering a cool period and why come 2100 we will be back to temps associated with the medevial warm period

[knocker]

Arctic warming, atmospheric blocking and cold European winters in CMIP5 models

 

Amplified Arctic warming is expected to have a significant long-term influence on the midlatitude atmospheric circulation by the latter half of the 21st century. Potential influences of recent and near future Arctic changes on shorter timescales are much less clear, despite having received much recent attention in the literature. In this letter, climate models from the recent CMIP5 experiment are analysed for evidence of an influence of Arctic temperatures on midlatitude blocking and cold European winters in particular. The focus is on the variability of these features in detrended data and, in contrast to other studies, limited evidence of an influence is found. The occurrence of cold European winters is found to be largely independent of the temperature variability in the key Barents–Kara Sea region. Positive correlations of the Barents–Kara temperatures with Eurasian blocking are found in some models, but significant correlations are limited.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014002/pdf/1748-9326_9_1_014002.pdf

[knocker]

I don't think we are heading for a grand minimum like the last mini ice age but every indication is that cycle 24 has reached max and is about to fall through the floor and will be relatively short in duration and cycle 25 will be even lower then building back through cycles 26 and 27.

 

In regard to the hiatus/cooling around the 1950's I attach a paper that can explain this around solar flux/magnetic field strength

 

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

 

I also attach an intresting paper that links Uranus and Neptune to solar max and min and their relative intensities

 

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513reference

 

These in my opinion show why we have warmed why we are at a pause and entering a cool period and why come 2100 we will be back to temps associated with the medevial warm period

 

I'm obviously missing something here as there seems to me to be a marked difference with the Solar Flux and Sun Spot numbers for the two cooling periods. Those of the turn of the 19/20th century and the mid 20th. What happens when the magnetic field reverses?

[VillagePlank]

I'm obviously missing something here as there seems to me to be a marked difference with the Solar Flux and Sun Spot numbers for the two cooling periods. Those of the turn of the 19/20th century and the mid 20th. What happens when the magnetic field reverses?

 

Yes, but the theory is that it isn't direct energy - which is the sole basis of demoting the sun. In the same way CO2 is amplified by all sorts of things, so too can energy from the sun, particularly in the UV band. As always, more research required.

[knocker]

Meltwater from Tibetan glaciers floods pastures

 

The earth is warming up, the glaciers are shrinking. However, not all meltwater is causing sea-level rise as feared. In Tibet, as measurements taken by an international team of researchers including the University of Zurich reveal, a significant proportion of the meltwater remains on land. The consequences are, however, equally negative: it can cause lakes without an outlet to overflow and flood valuable pastureland.

 

Glaciers are important indicators of climate change. Global warming causes mountain glaciers to melt, which, apart from the shrinking of the Greenlandic and Antarctic ice sheets, is regarded as one of the main causes of the present global sea-level rise. Tibet’s glaciers are also losing mass clearly, as scientists from the universities of Zurich, Tubingen and Dresden reveal using satellite-based laser measurements. Over the last decade, the research team has detected a “clear loss in mass of around 16 gigatons a year in around 80 percent of the Tibetan glaciers,†says Tobias Bolch, a glaciologist from the University of Zurich involved in the study – that’s more than four times the volume of water in Lake Zurich and around six percent of the total loss in mass of all the glaciers on Earth.

 

http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2014/schmelzwasser-von-tibetischen-gletschern-ueberflutet-weiden_en.html

[knocker]

Arctic cyclones more common than previously thought

Weather data at the Ohio Supercomputer Center reveals in new study hundreds of smaller storms that had previously escaped detection

 

 

Columbus, Ohio (Jan 16, 2014) â€” 

From 2000 to 2010, about 1,900 cyclones churned across the top of the world each year, leaving warm water and air in their wakes – and melting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

 

That’s about 40 percent more of these Arctic storms than previously thought, according to a new study of vast troves of weather data that previously were synthesized at the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC).

 

https://www.osc.edu/press/arctic_cyclones_more_common_than_previously_thought

[jonboy]

01040411.pdf

 

Not new research but shows how sunspot cycle length and solar wind strength correlate with both general temperature increase including the cooling in the 50's

 

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

01040411.pdf

 

Not new research but shows how sunspot cycle length and solar wind strength correlate with both general temperature increase including the cooling in the 50's

 

The cosmic ray theory for global climate change has been largely debunked, and reduced to very little. It certainly cannot be the cause of the mid 20th century temperature trends.

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/nov/05/comprehensive-study-shows-cosmic-rays-are-not-causing-global-warming

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045022/article

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Edited January 17, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[knocker]

You just beat me to it BFTV as I was about to post much the same.

 

Svensmark is still pursuing it with great vigor though so to cover all the bases his latest paper. It's funny it reminds me that many years ago we had a batch of scientists down doing some ozone experiments and they were discussing his 1996 paper. One of them had just written a rebuttal of it.

 

Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation

http://www.dtu.dk/english/News/2013/09/Danish-experiment-suggests-unexpected-magic-by-cosmic-rays-in-cloud-formation

[knocker]

Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics

 

Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus' attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled "Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts". Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project†(Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our  publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

 

Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.Martin RasmussenJanuary 2014

 

http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/

 

 

Edited January 17, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Report

 

Consensus and Controversy

 

The Debate on Man-Made Global Warming

 

http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf

[jonboy]

Hi Knocker that is a must read for all those who wish to debate this topic and highlights what is bad about much of the rhetoric that happens in the climate change threads.

Excellent find 

[Gray-Wolf]

But surely this is the point of the two threads jon? To give our personal interpretation of the science as we believe it to stand? As such it will be filled with our own personal take on things?

 

When we read through science papers we see none of this 'bias', just science doing what science does.

 

If we approach the papers in a healthy sceptical manner we may find that we disagree with the findings due to limitations in the methodology but then we may find ourselves satisfied with the paper and it's findings. We then take this over to the discussion threads and present our 'opinions' there?