In The News

[songster]

Well, his thesis is that you see slight global warming immediately before an ice age. So far, so interesting.

He goes on to say that this warming manifests as warmer tropics and colder poles, thus increasing the temperature gradient and moisture flow from the tropics towards the poles and triggering the growth of the polar ice caps. Given that we're currently seeing the poles warming faster than the tropics, and a net loss of ice (in the Arctic at least), I'm not sure why he thinks current conditions presage an ice age. It boils down to saying "What happened before the last Ice Age was the exact opposite of current conditions, therefore we're about to slip into another Ice Age". There's a gigantic logical hole in the middle of his argument.

[jethro]

Well, his thesis is that you see slight global warming immediately before an ice age. So far, so interesting.

He goes on to say that this warming manifests as warmer tropics and colder poles, thus increasing the temperature gradient and moisture flow from the tropics towards the poles and triggering the growth of the polar ice caps. Given that we're currently seeing the poles warming faster than the tropics, and a net loss of ice (in the Arctic at least), I'm not sure why he thinks current conditions presage an ice age. It boils down to saying "What happened before the last Ice Age was the exact opposite of current conditions, therefore we're about to slip into another Ice Age". There's a gigantic logical hole in the middle of his argument.

You missed a bit......

You skipped out the part that happens prior to the expansion of the ice caps:

" So, as more water vapor's carried to the poles the southern icecap calves and thickens, the extreme center of the northern pole gradually becomes ice-free and the lower latitudes experience heavier snowfalls that gradually start migrating towards the south. That's exactly what's happening now."

I've no idea if his theory is correct, none of us, do but if we're going to discuss it can we at least discuss all of it, not just the bit we want to hear.

[pottyprof]

You missed a bit......

Yeah he did. Seems to me that some people can't help having selective blindness. It's funny too how he accuses other parties of misrepresentation when he does it himself. (see contrail thread)

Do you think this is being done deliberately to wind people up Jethro? If so, we might need to apply the rules considering we have zero tolerance on this kind of thing.....

[Gray-Wolf]

We fostered a Frog from the first week in Jan onward as ,for reasons unknown , it had come out of hibernation just prior to the second 'chilly spell' of the year (we released him to the pond in the 3rd week of March). My guess for his 'emergence' was the ease off of Decembers ice and snow. When i saw this paper it hit home just how sensitive the polar/sub polar areas are to climate shift;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02424.x/abstract

I'd read some stuff on the reindeer in Northern Europe and the trouble they were encountering due to freezing rain but neglected to think about the wider environmental 'upsets' such 'odd weather' could bring.

[jethro]

Yeah he did. Seems to me that some people can't help having selective blindness. It's funny too how he accuses other parties of misrepresentation when he does it himself. (see contrail thread)

Do you think this is being done deliberately to wind people up Jethro? If so, we might need to apply the rules considering we have zero tolerance on this kind of thing.....

I like to be charitable and give folk the benefit of the doubt but when it's repetitive, over several threads, I'm afraid charity goes out the window and grumpy mare takes over.....

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't think anybody doubts that the sun and our orbit around it has a huge influence on climate but certain things in the arcticle you posted Jethro, just don't add up.

" Ultimately, Kukla warns, human activities may have an impact more on water vapor in the atmosphere than any real affect on global temperatures. "

Sure isn't increasing water vapour in the atmosphere going to have an impact on temperatures, no?

" So, as more water vapor's carried to the poles the southern icecap calves and thickens, the extreme center of the northern pole gradually becomes ice-free and the lower latitudes experience heavier snowfalls that gradually start migrating towards the south. That's exactly what's happening now."

It isn't just the center of the north pole that's losing its ice though, sea ice is in a multi decadal decline all over the Arctic, and snow cover is still in a long term decline, more so in Spring and Summer when the extra albedo is most needed.

Edited April 4, 2011 by pottyprof
To remove unneeded comment

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/glaciers-melting-at-fastest-rate-in-350-years-study-finds-2261414.html

Maybe the IPCC 'Glacier Gaff' will prove to be true after all?

[songster]

You missed a bit......

You skipped out the part that happens prior to the expansion of the ice caps:

" So, as more water vapor's carried to the poles the southern icecap calves and thickens, the extreme center of the northern pole gradually becomes ice-free and the lower latitudes experience heavier snowfalls that gradually start migrating towards the south. That's exactly what's happening now."

Thanks for pointing that out, I had indeed missed that part - mea culpa. However, as BFTV points out, it still doesn't fit with observation. It's not the centre of the Arctic that's melting out, it's the edge of the sea ice that's moving northwards. We've lost the winter ice in low latitudes like the Gulf of St Lawrence, Hudson Bay is freezing later and melting earlier each year, and so on. The lower latitudes are not by and large experiencing heavy snowfalls (although the last couple of years have been anomalous due to the jet stream meanders that need more work to explain them) - but overall NH snow cover in spring is in a long term decline. The southern ice cap is not thickening, nor is the Greenland ice cap: both are losing mass.

I certainly don't dispute Kukla's expertise in how ice ages start, or his evidence for what's happened at the start of previous ice ages. I do dispute that it's the same process happening how, because the actual observations just do not square with the model he's putting forward.

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hi Folks,

Another months worth of climate temp data now in and the end of March sees -.04 Degrees against the latest 30 year running means.

See http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Graph not yet available on that site until Thursday.

Dr Maue’s running 8 day means indicate that April is still looking cold with the next 8 days globally at -.17

This all looking consistent with the PDO in negative territory.

If we look further ahead at what is forecast later in the year ....... and its cold ............. Here's the projection from the Beijing climate modal:

(see this link for detailed discussion: http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=822. I've cherry-picked the headline news below)

Cool temps over the tropical Paciific very evident. In fact it has alot of the globe painted blue the latter part of the year with even a look of a cooling AMO !!

For those thinking that the latter part of the year may see a return or possible return of El Nino, the above would suggest not ... and of course fits with a -PDO pattern.

Further discussion on what Joe laminate floori thinks of this, is here: http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=803.

Be interesting to see how this continues to pan out.

Y.S

[jethro]

Thanks for pointing that out, I had indeed missed that part - mea culpa. However, as BFTV points out, it still doesn't fit with observation. It's not the centre of the Arctic that's melting out, it's the edge of the sea ice that's moving northwards. We've lost the winter ice in low latitudes like the Gulf of St Lawrence, Hudson Bay is freezing later and melting earlier each year, and so on. The lower latitudes are not by and large experiencing heavy snowfalls (although the last couple of years have been anomalous due to the jet stream meanders that need more work to explain them) - but overall NH snow cover in spring is in a long term decline. The southern ice cap is not thickening, nor is the Greenland ice cap: both are losing mass.

I certainly don't dispute Kukla's expertise in how ice ages start, or his evidence for what's happened at the start of previous ice ages. I do dispute that it's the same process happening how, because the actual observations just do not square with the model he's putting forward.

I think perhaps his comments about the centre of the pole melting have been taken too literally, I don't get the impression from that article that the meaning was, as been interpreted here. I cannot think of any process, either manmade or natural that would create an ice Polo Mint at the North Pole. If you think about it, if the ice gets to the point he is suggesting "the extreme centre of the northern pole gradually becomes ice-free" then it would have to be preceded by melting at the edges first, less and less ice until even the centre gradually becomes ice free. That is happening.

What he is suggesting is that whilst ice ages in the past have been caused by the orbit of the Sun, it is not the measure of the Sun at the poles which causes the glaciation but the changes wrought elsewhere on the Planet which drives the change. He postulates that currently those changes are happening and we may be accelerating a descent into the next ice age.

His theory hinges on him being correct that it was the orbit of the Sun which caused the previous changes (pretty much an undisputed theory) that the changes this brought, by the way of warming to the Tropics, resulted in more water vapour being transferred to the poles and whether or not the similar changes being seen now, will result in the same.

There has been speculation and some evidence that the diminishing ice in the Arctic will lead to colder, snowier winters in lower latitudes - I think it was the METO which published a study on this, either late last year or earlier this year so there seems to be some support for this part of his theory. I think GW also has speculated the same on here.

Where it falls apart for me is when he says both the poles cooled whilst the Tropics warmed and that is what is currently happening, but the Arctic is warming, not cooling. Isn't it? Also, everything I've ever read on ice ages says glaciation started moving southwards from a frozen pole but he's suggesting an almost ice free pole with snows and ice at lower latitudes - would/could the ice encroach both north and south?

[songster]

By "lower latitudes" I think he means Canada/Greenland, i.e. the core of the Laurentide and Greenland ice sheets. Did those Northern Hemisphere ice sheets start expanding against a backdrop of an ice-free Arctic Ocean? Possibly. Moist air from open water at the Pole would certainly end up falling as snow over the surrounding land surface - see also lake effect snows near the Great Lakes. If that persisted through the year unmelted, then yes, it would feed glaciers and thicken ice caps. However, for him to be right about the current situation we'd have to see snow and ice accumulating over time in Greenland/Siberia/Canada - we don't. We're seeing (some) snowier winters, but the snow then melts out in the spring and summer. The glaciers aren't expanding, the measured ice mass balance in Greenland is negative - and accelerating down.

Maybe his prediction is that once the Arctic Ocean becomes ice-free, that will trigger expansion of the Greenland ice cap by putting a large accessible reservoir of moist air in a place where it can start dumping snow on the cap. Eventually, the Greenland cap (and maybe ice sheets in Canada/Siberia?) expand sufficiently that the albedo effect cools the planet down enough for the Arctic to freeze over again - and at that point, the re-freeze is a positive feedback tipping the planet into full glaciation.

I'll believe it if the extra snows start lasting through the spring / summer unmelted. Extra snow in the winter has close to bugger all effect on albedo, it just makes our lives that much more miserable :-)

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd agree that the paper is based on what used to occur 'naturally' (without our weighting the scales with freed carbon that should have not been in the atmospheric equation?).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110405102202.htm

Sunblock on for spring?

[jethro]

I'd agree that the paper is based on what used to occur 'naturally' (without our weighting the scales with freed carbon that should have not been in the atmospheric equation?).

http://www.scienceda...10405102202.htm

Sunblock on for spring?

So do you agree that the weighted scales tip the balance in favour of hastening an ice age?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'll believe it if the extra snows start lasting through the spring / summer unmelted. Extra snow in the winter has close to bugger all effect on albedo, it just makes our lives that much more miserable :-)

For some of us- not all of us! I don't think I was the only one who didn't feel miserable during that record-breaking December.

Not sure if the tipping of the scales suggests hastening an ice age- perhaps an era of temporary regional cooling in the mid-latitudes (partially offsetting rapid warming at high latitudes and the equator) and then more warming afterwards?

[Coast]

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,294441.story?track=rss

Uh huh.....

[Thundery wintry showers]

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

Looks like they still have a fair way to go with their research then, but it's very interesting that their findings to date support the data of the mainstream scientists- and well done to the Berkeley team for being honest about it in spite of the vested interests of its leaders. I see the mentions further down the article of the implied confirmation bias of some disappointed "sceptic" groups ("global warming is being overestimated, therefore their results must be wrong!"- the opposite of how science should work)

[Gowon]

http://www.latimes.c...story?track=rss

Uh huh.....

Those are his preliminary findings, his initial assessment is only based on 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies — by NOAA, NASA and Met Office — welcome new peer-reviewed research. But he said the Berkeley team had been "seriously compromised" by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

Geophysicist explains how the Sun controls climate, not CO2

[knocker]

Why are the world's plant and animal species continuing their inexorable northward/southward migrations? Surely wildlife is not influenced by 'AGW propaganda'...

A grassy Antarctica.

One plant species that grows in Antarctica appears to be thriving according to a team of UK scientists. Antarctic Hairgrass (Deschampsia antarctica) is more effective at absorbing organic nitrogen from the soil than the mosses that it lives alongside. This finding has implications for understanding how the nitrogen cycle works and is published this week in the first issue of the journal Nature Climate Change – part of the Nature series.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=1444

[Coast]

Now we have to cut down eating meat!

£650-a-year nitrogen pollution 'could be reduced by eating less meat'

The pollution costs every person in Europe up to £650 a year in damage to water, climate, health and wildlife, a major new study warns. The annual cost of nitrogen pollution on air, soils, water, increased greenhouse gases and damage to wildlife is up to £282billion, the report by 200 experts from 21 countries warns. That works out at £650 a year for everyone in Europe. Humans have roughly doubled the global supply of reactive nitrogen to make fertilisers over the last century.

Meat and dairy animals eat large amounts of plant food grown using nitrogen-based fertilisers added to the soil. British scientist Dr Mark Sutton said: ‘The amount of livestock we choose to have is critical in determining the scale of impacts.’ In Europe people are eating 70 per cent more meat and dairy products than they need for a healthy diet. Dr Sutton said the scientists are not suggesting people become vegetarian but they could cut down on meat – to a so-called ‘demitarian’ diet. Britain’s chief scientist Professor Bob Watson said: ‘Nitrogen is absolutely essential for human well-being. The challenge is how do we capture the benefits of nitrogen and minimise the impacts.’

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/860475-650-a-year-nitrogen-pollution-could-be-reduced-by-eating-less-meat#ixzz1JCh9ZyID

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/press/nitrogen_challenge.asp

[Harry]

Now we have to cut down eating meat!

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/860475-650-a-year-nitrogen-pollution-could-be-reduced-by-eating-less-meat#ixzz1JCh9ZyID

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/press/nitrogen_challenge.asp

Lol, weren't we recently told that eating meat was GOOD because, in very brief and layman's terms, cows fart a lot producing a lot of methane (and CO2) which contributes (albeit relatively small) to global warming.

I give up sometimes

[Gowon]

Now we have to cut down eating meat!

http://www.metro.co....t#ixzz1JCh9ZyID

http://www.ceh.ac.uk...n_challenge.asp

C02 hasn't lived up to it's hype so they're looking for other ways to keep the funds coming in.

Professor David Evans states that carbon warming is too minor to be worth worrying about;

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

[jethro]

Let me get this straight.....they want us to cut down on eating meat because the creatures we eat,consume plant material which has been fertilised with Nitrogen based fertiliser?

Did they forget that if we all eat more veg instead of meat then we'll be the ones consuming the Nitrogen fertilised plants? The net result would be????

We just need to grow more Beans and Peas, both for us to eat and as feedstuff for the animals too. All Legumes take Nitrogen from the air and "fix" it in the soil via their roots, storing it in nodules on the root system - basic crop rotation means where you grow Legumes one year, you plough the roots into the soil and plant a Nitrogen needy crop (all leafy veg) the following year. We've known this since at least Victorian times.

[Rob]

Let me get this straight.....they want us to cut down on eating meat because the creatures we eat,consume plant material which has been fertilised with Nitrogen based fertiliser?

Did they forget that if we all eat more veg instead of meat then we'll be the ones consuming the Nitrogen fertilised plants? The net result would be????

We just need to grow more Beans and Peas, both for us to eat and as feedstuff for the animals too. All Legumes take Nitrogen from the air and "fix" it in the soil via their roots, storing it in nodules on the root system - basic crop rotation means where you grow Legumes one year, you plough the roots into the soil and plant a Nitrogen needy crop (all leafy veg) the following year. We've known this since at least Victorian times.

Cut down on meat, never! :blink:

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-5207B59-2&_user=10&_coverDate=01/19/2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=60ee908b2204f368177ccb057bf379b7&searchtype=a

Thanks to my visits to 'the other place' I came across this (above). My mum and Gran always blamed the space programme for the weather but maybe it was the nukes???

[jethro]

Thanks for that GW, it's an area which has interested me for some time so it's great to see a new study being done.

For anyone interested in this topic here's an old thread discussing it:

If we managed to artificially cool the world during the Atomic era, then the signature sharp rise in temperatures in recent decades is less indicative of it being caused by a rise in CO2 emissions. The steep rise being caused by these emissions has never made sense if the known properties of CO2 is applied - it is the early rise in emissions which should have had the most marked impact upon global temperatures.

Temperatures back in the early decades of the 20th century were only slightly cooler than the recent warm decades, possibly even as warm, (certainly in the USA, the '30's were the hottest decade) - followed by the cooler Nuclear years then a sharp rise as the atmosphere cleared.

Gradual warming since the start of the industrial era, coupled with recovery from the last deep Solar minimum (Dickensian times) surely must indicate a climate less sensitive to changes in CO2 than has been suggested.