New Research

[jonboy]

But GW if it was just looking at the science from a pure perspective that would be fine but more often than not the language used against those who take an opposite view is at best impolite and at worst downright offensive. This is not war we are not in some battle to save earth although clearly some think we are.

As far as I'm concerned the science isn't settled and to say when new research is being done that that area was settled and debunked years ago does not show an open mind. 

Far to many on the Climate Change thread's show closed minds

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you need to understand that folk go from one 'settled' position to the next once the evidence is there to persuade them? There mind is not 'closed' but , for that 'moment' they are content that the world view they hold satisfies their needs?

 

Look at how many 'climate sceptics' we have on the man made thread who 'changed their mind' once the evidence they accepted demanded that change?

 

None of us know anything is absolute fact, we cannot 'prove' that the Sun will rise tomorrow but we tend to favour living our lives as though it will ( and the massive probability is that it 'will') so we can plan and look forward with confidence.

 

The certainty of human driven climate change might not be as secure a 'fact' as the sun rising tomorrow but it serves some of us better to accept the facts for it being so so that we might contemplate what comes next.

 

To sit and wait until catastrophe is upon us before we move our butts to do something about it is just plain daft ( to my way of thinking) but we still find folk who 'demand' that level of evidence before they will accept the needs for mitigation? 

[knocker]

Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America

 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2128&context=usdaarsfacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.au%2Fscholar%3Frlz%3D1C1CHMD_enAU558AU558%26espv%3D210%26es_sm%3D122%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8%26lr%3D%26q%3Drelated%3AAZLwyekJouu7uM%3Ascholar.google.com%2F#search=%22related%3AAZLwyekJouu7uM%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%22

Edited January 19, 2014 by knocker

[jonboy]

But that's the problem catastrophe isn't upon us. If CO2 was the driver we are led to believe why are we in this pause when levels continue to rise. It is no good saying the heat has gone into the oceans etc because it just doesn't equate. If CO2 is the driver no matter what feedbacks you and others claim are at work and responsible for the 'pause' then those feedbacks would always be the primary cause not CO2. Unless the climate has reach a tipping point that means other natural elements take over then I just don't get CO2 as the culprit. Something more fundamental drives our climate and its from the top down not from the bottom up.

[knocker]

But that's the problem catastrophe isn't upon us. If CO2 was the driver we are led to believe why are we in this pause when levels continue to rise. It is no good saying the heat has gone into the oceans etc because it just doesn't equate. If CO2 is the driver no matter what feedbacks you and others claim are at work and responsible for the 'pause' then those feedbacks would always be the primary cause not CO2. Unless the climate has reach a tipping point that means other natural elements take over then I just don't get CO2 as the culprit. Something more fundamental drives our climate and its from the top down not from the bottom up.

 

How doesn't it? Could you be more specific and say why you disagree with the latest paper by Trenberth and Fasullo. The former has been studying this area for around forty odd years. This doesn't necessarily make him right but criticism has to be made within this context.

 

An apparent hiatus in global warming?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf

Edited January 19, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

But that's the problem catastrophe isn't upon us. If CO2 was the driver we are led to believe why are we in this pause when levels continue to rise. It is no good saying the heat has gone into the oceans etc because it just doesn't equate. If CO2 is the driver no matter what feedbacks you and others claim are at work and responsible for the 'pause' then those feedbacks would always be the primary cause not CO2. Unless the climate has reach a tipping point that means other natural elements take over then I just don't get CO2 as the culprit. Something more fundamental drives our climate and its from the top down not from the bottom up.

 

To see the recent slow down in surface air temperatures as discrediting the CO2 impact, requires a very selective perspective.

Saying that the heat goes into the ocean "doesn't equate" isn't good enough, that's simply a convenient blind dismissal.

 

I think we'd both agree other things influence the climate, yes? What about ENSO? That has a large effect on global temperatures, yes? A strong El Nino can add +0.3C or more to the annual mean, likewise, La Nina can take 0.3C from the annual mean. Over short time periods, ENSO alone can easily dominate. So when you draw a line starting at a mega El Nino, then follow your trend line through a period of mainly moderate La Ninas, along a period shorter than climate is measured on, the trend is going to be reduced.

 

What about aerosols? Could increased volcanism and human made aerosols contribute to cooling?

 

Might the lack of coverage in the Arctic mean we're underestimating the current warming?

 

Might the quietest solar cycle in over 100 years contribute a cooling effect?

 

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/comment-page-1/

 

 

Might all this indicate that attempting to playdown the effects of CO2 based on a short period of time on a highly variable dataset is a futile exercise?

Edited January 19, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[Gray-Wolf]

A dismissal of the current 'cool driver dominance' must necessitate a dismissal of the warm driver augmentation of the past warming surge?

 

In the absence of natural influence through the past warming phase ( including the 98' nino) what explanation would you have to cover that warming period?

[jonboy]

So answer me this what are the drivers to ENSO it isn't CO2 it is most likely the change in cloud cover in the tropics or lack of it and the amount of percipitation which can occur on a cyclical scale rather than random. The key is understanding the given strength of any given cycle and its length. Now I believe than external forces influence cloud cover in the tropics and that we have now entered this cooling phase.

Its now about dismissing cool driver dominance or warm drivers its about accepting they are one and the same and at different times cause different effects. Less cloud warmer climate more cloud cooler climate. You can't do that with CO2 can you!!!!!

[knocker]

The three phases of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml

 

A longer set of articles on ENSO starting here (the menu is on the right hand side of the page).

 

Technical Discussion.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/enso-tech.php

Edited January 19, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

So answer me this what are the drivers to ENSO it isn't CO2 it is most likely the change in cloud cover in the tropics or lack of it and the amount of percipitation which can occur on a cyclical scale rather than random. The key is understanding the given strength of any given cycle and its length. Now I believe than external forces influence cloud cover in the tropics and that we have now entered this cooling phase.

Its now about dismissing cool driver dominance or warm drivers its about accepting they are one and the same and at different times cause different effects. Less cloud warmer climate more cloud cooler climate. You can't do that with CO2 can you!!!!!

 

Of course CO2 doesn't drive ENSO. The trade wind variations and feedbacks with ssts are the main drivers.

 

Clouds do of course have huge impact on surface temperatures, but not all clouds have the same effect, thickness and height is what matters. But clouds don't drive anything, only react. Most recent studies suggest that the cloud feedback from CO2 warming may be positive.

[knocker]

If it's of any interest I posted a short article in History three years ago, When The Monsoon failed. it briefly outlines the beginning of ENSO and the number crunching involved.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/64228-when-the-monsoon-failed/

[knocker]

The water cycle amplifies abrupt climate change

 

During the abrupt cooling at the onset of the so-called Younger Dryas period 12680 years ago changes in the water cycle were the main drivers of widespread environmental change in western Europe. Thus, the regional impacts of future climate changes can be largely driven by hydrological changes, not only in the monsoonal areas of the world, but also in temperate areas.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-amplifies-abrupt-climate.html#jCp

[knocker]

Get used to heat waves: Extreme El Nino events to double

 

Extreme weather events fuelled by unusually strong El Ninos, such as the 1983 heatwave that led to the Ash Wednesday bushfires in Australia, are likely to double in number as our planet warms.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-extreme-el-nino-events.html#jCp

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that Knocks! I've got a bee in my bonnet recently about an upcoming Nino. I'm also of the opinion that it will be a normal duration event (unlike the 2010 9 month affair). with the ocean temps as elevated as they are ( and to such depth) I also think that this will prove to be a strong Nino! This will mean only 15/16 years between the past 3 super's and lend credence to the research you link to.

[knocker]

A tad more on the above.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976

[knocker]

Arctic Warmth Unprecedented in 44,000 Years, Reveals Samples of Ancient Moss

 

When the temperature rises on Baffin Island, in the Canadian high Arctic, ancient Polytrichum mosses, trapped beneath the ice for thousands of years, are exposed. Using radiocarbon dating, new research in Geophysical Research Letters has calculated the age of relic moss samples that have been exposed by modern Arctic warming. Since the moss samples would have been destroyed by erosion had they been previously exposed, the authors suggest that the temperatures in the Arctic now must be warmer than during any sustained period since the mosses were originally buried.

 

The authors collected 365 samples of recently exposed biological material from 110 different locations, cutting a 1000 kilometer long transect across Baffin Island, with samples representing a range of altitudes. From their samples the authors obtained 145 viable measurements through radiocarbon dating. They found that most of their samples date from the past 5000 years, when a period of strong cooling overtook the Arctic. However, the authors also found even older samples which were buried from 24,000 to 44,000 years ago.

 

The records suggest that in general, the eastern Canadian Arctic is warmer now than in any century in the past 5000 years, and in some places, modern temperatures are unprecedented in at least the past 44,000 years. The observations, the authors suggest, show that modern Arctic warming far exceeds the bounds of historical natural variability.

 

“The great time these plants have been entombed in ice, and their current exposure, is the first direct evidence that present summer warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic now exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene eraâ€, said Gifford Miller, from the University of Colorado. “Our findings add additional evidence to the growing consensus that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have now resulted in unprecedented recent summer warmth that is well outside the range of that attributable to natural climate variability.â€

 

 

http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-110147.html

Edited January 21, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Now this is interesting.

 

North and Tropical Atlantic Ocean bringing climate change to Antarctica, study finds

 

The gradual warming of the North and Tropical Atlantic Ocean is contributing to climate change in Antarctica, a team of New York University scientists has concluded. The findings, which rely on more than three decades of atmospheric data and appear in the journal Nature, show new ways in which distant regional conditions are contributing to Antarctic climate change.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-north-tropical-atlantic-ocean-climate.html#jCp

Edited January 22, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Asian pollution climatically modulates mid-latitude cyclones following hierarchical modelling and observational analysis

Increasing levels of anthropogenic aerosols in Asia have raised considerable concern regarding its potential impact on the global atmosphere, but the magnitude of the associated climate forcing remains to be quantified. Here, using a novel hierarchical modelling approach and observational analysis, we demonstrate modulated mid-latitude cyclones by Asian pollution over the past three decades. Regional and seasonal simulations using a cloud-resolving model show that Asian pollution invigorates winter cyclones over the northwest Pacific, increasing precipitation by 7% and net cloud radiative forcing by 1.0 W m−2 at the top of the atmosphere and by 1.7 W m−2 at the Earth’s surface. A global climate model incorporating the diabatic heating anomalies from Asian pollution produces a 9% enhanced transient eddy meridional heat flux and reconciles a decadal variation of mid-latitude cyclones derived from the Reanalysis data. Our results unambiguously reveal a large impact of the Asian pollutant outflows on the global general circulation and climate.

 

Review of the new study is here http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2014/01/21/asian-air-pollution-affecting-worlds-weather/#.UuRm_BBFDIV

[knocker]

Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled

 

The tropical carbon cycle has become twice as sensitive to temperature variations over the past 50 years, new research has revealed. The research shows that a one degree rise in tropical temperature leads to around two billion extra tons of carbon being released per year into the atmosphere from tropical ecosystems, compared with the same tropical warming in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134647.htm

[knocker]

Picture of how our climate is affected by greenhouse gases is a 'cloudy' one

 

The warming effect of human-induced greenhouse gases is a given, but to what extent can we predict its future influence? That is an issue on which science is making progress, but the answers are still far from exact, say researchers.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134615.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140125/new-sea-ice-map-offers-long-term-look-climate-change

 

Seems like the 30's warming doesn't even make a dint in the ice across Alaska? The last 7 years stand out as a real departure from the norm?

[skadi]

As a distraction from the current lousy winter charts:

 

I stumbled across an interesting article on the correlation of Arctic warming and Northern Hemisphere blocking.

From the conclusion: No evidence was found for an influence of a warm Arctic for cold European winters...

 

Arctic warming, atmospheric blocking and cold European winters in CMIP5 models T Woollings1, B Harvey2 and G Masato

 

Received 1 November 2013, revised 20 December 2013, accepted for publication 20 December 2013 
Published 15 January 2014

 

Conclusions:

Arctic amplification of global warming is clearly a dramatic environmental change which will have numerous impacts. As described in section 1, there is evidence that the long-term trend in Arctic warming will have a strong influence on midlatitude atmospheric circulation. The associated decrease in the lower tropospheric meridional temperature gradient is one of the competing factors driving changes in the midlatitude jets and storm tracks (Woollings 2010).

However, whether Arctic changes have influenced the midlatitudes in recent years, or whether they will do on the interannual timescale in the near future, is much less clear. Previous modelling work has shown the potential for sea ice perturbations to influence the midlatitude circulation but these signals are weak compared to the natural variability. The analysis of 12 current climate models presented here has not found any evidence of stronger links than this.

We focused on the detrended variability of Barents–Kara Sea temperatures and searched for links with mid-latitude blocking and with European winter temperatures. In contrast to previous work we found no evidence of an influence of a warm Arctic on cold European winters. Removing the long-term trend is key to this difference, and we consider it is more informative to remove this trend when looking for physical links.

Similarly there is only weak evidence in these models of an Arctic influence on Atlantic or Eurasian blocking on this timescale, as correlations are weak and generally not significant. There are positive correlations with Eurasian blocking in some of the models which have the best representation of blocking in CMIP5. However, the significance of these correlations is limited and the direction of causality is not clear.

The atmospheric circulation response to forcings such as sea ice changes is often quite sensitive to the basic state (Kushnir et al2002, Bader et al 2011). Given that blocking is a feature which is still poorly simulated by many models, it is possible that an Arctic influence on the midlatitudes will become more apparent as models improve. For example, increases in horizontal (Berckmans et al2013) and/or vertical (Anstey et al 2013) resolution have been shown to improve blocking and may enable a more trustworthy multi-model assessment in the future.

 

Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014002/article

[knocker]

Awareness of both type I and II errors in climate science andassessment

 

 

Treatment of error and uncertainty is an essential component of science and is crucial in policy-relevant disciplines such as climate science. We posit here that awareness of both “false positive†and “false negative†errors is particularly critical in climate science and assessments, such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientific and assessment practices likely focus more attention to avoiding false positives, which could lead to higher prevalence of false negative errors. We explore here the treatment of error avoidance in two prominent case studies regarding sea-level rise and Himalayan glacier melt as presented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While different decision rules are necessarily appropriate for different circumstances, we highlight that false negative errors also have consequences, including impaired communication of the risks of climate change. We present recommendations for better accounting for both types of errors in the scientific process and scientific assessments.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00115.1

Edited January 29, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Nature can selectively buffer human-caused global warming

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-nature-buffer-human-caused-global.html

[knocker]

Climate change threatens to cause trillions in damage to world's coastal regions

 

New research predicts that coastal regions may face massive increases in damages from storm surge flooding over the course of the 21st century.

According to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, global average storm surge damages could increase from about $10-$40 billion per year today to up to $100,000 billion per year by the end of century, if no adaptation action is taken.

 

http://www.sciencecodex.com/climate_change_threatens_to_cause_trillions_in_damage_to_worlds_coastal_regions-127334