In The News

[loafer]

Hmm. You are honestly going to suggest that we ignore the next IPCC report because it doesn't accord with your views, and selected alterative research does? It might just be worth having a think about that.

When you visit the Christmas lights, do you only point at the blown bulbs?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Can't say that's the impression I got of GW's post? I thought it was more so that if you have trouble trusting the IPCC, then just go an look at the individual papers that they try to summarise in their reports and the latest studies on those topics that haven't been included.

You're sure to get a better all round picture of what's going on then

@BFTV - thanks - I was aware that they had lobbied for the removal of his predecessor - I wasn't aware they were believed to have chosen his replacement - any evidence, or just a leap of faith?

You can call it a leap of faith if you wish, I consider it pretty obvious. If they want rid of someone that has a lot of support, they need to choose an alternative candidate. These guys aren't idiots!

[Gray-Wolf]

No Loafer! just be aware of how the report is put together and the pressures the organisation is put under to expurgate certain areas of science and , as BFTV says, go back to the science to see how much of the findings are used? Better still look for the most recent science concerning itself with the various disciplines?

The point being that the science is what we should use for our info and not someones take on what that science tells us that is then thinned further by forced omissions?

Which would you rely on ? Chinese whispers or the original typed message?

[loafer]

BFTV - they chose the replacement from one of two Deputy Directors...they didn't insert JR Ewing.

There has been as much contraversey around his green energy interests and potential conflicts of interest, after all.

G-W - In the spirit of your post and our mutual desire to focus on science, I look forward to reading posts by you which comment positively on research which does not affirm your existing views.

[BornFromTheVoid]

BFTV - they chose the replacement from one of two Deputy Directors...they didn't insert JR Ewing.

There has been as much contraversey around his green energy interests and potential conflicts of interest, after all.

Yep, lots of sceptic spun controversy that resulted in plenty of apologies and had no substance... as per usual.

The previous chairman was looking very likely to retain his place, until Exxon Mobil got involved and the Bush administration did its bidding. While obviously they couldn't hand pick someone off the street to fill the place, it's quite clear to me that Pachauri was "their" candidate.

[pottyprof]

All they need is Widow Twankey and they'll have the full set...............

[Gray-Wolf]

G-W - In the spirit of your post and our mutual desire to focus on science, I look forward to reading posts by you which comment positively on research which does not affirm your existing views.

Then you must have missed the occasions i have posted such in the hope that they would prove true? Sadly not one has to date?

My personal grounding in the Earth Sciences naturally means I favour this area of research and the ongoing changes there are not disputed and appear to be accelerating in their impacts?

If you could point me to science that i am lacking in then I'd gladly give it a read? Through all my years of posting my requests for folk, skeptical of AGW's role in climate shift, to bring me the 'good news' that shows us , with the same level of surety ( i.e. that most scientists in that field accept the findings) as we see for the general 'Climate Change due to man made influences' (99% for the IPCC's TAR5) science, I've not seen one paper?

I know new ideas begin with one thought but they generally already have the background science to help prove that the thought was correct (a 'moment of Crystallization' of existing facts in fact?).

[knocker]

Melting Glaciers Raise Sea Level

Anthropogenic climate change leads to melting glaciers and rising sea level. Between 1902 and 2009, melting glaciers contributed 11 cm to sea level rise. They were therefore the most important cause of sea level rise. This is the result of a new assessment by scientists of the University of Innsbruck. They numerically modeled the changes of each of the world’s 300 000 glaciers. Until 2100, glaciers could lead to an additional 22 cm of sea level rise.

Since 1900 the global sea level has risen by approximately 20 cm. Melting glaciers are one of the causes – along with warming and thereby expanding sea water, melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and changing terrestrial water storage in dammed lakes and groundwater reservoirs. A team of scientists at the University of Innsbruck has now assessed the contribution of melting glaciers to sea level rise during the 20^th century. They numerically modeled each of the world’s roughly 300 000 glaciers and used thousands of on-site measurements to validate the model results. “These calculations show that between 1902 and 2009, glaciers contributed about 11 cm to sea level riseâ€, says Dr. Ben Marzeion from the Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics. “This means they were the most important cause of sea level change.†Surprisingly, melt rates were more or less constant over time: While temperatures during the first decades of the 20^th century were considerably lower, glaciers were larger and extended into lower and thus warmer areas. Additionally, brief but strong warm episodes in the Arctic led to strong glacier retreat in the Arctic in the 1930s and 1950s.

http://www.uibk.ac.at/public-relations/presse/archiv/2012/333/

[keithlucky]

New study from USA global warming does not exist http://johnosullivan...t-doesnt-exist/

[knocker]

New study 1979? Is this the one?

Summary and Conclusions

We have examined the principal attempts to simulate the effects of increased atmospheric CO₂ on climate. In doing so, we have limited our considerations to the direct climatic effects of steadily rising atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ and have assumed a rate of CO₂ increase that would lead to a doubling of airborne concentrations by some time in the first half of the twenty-first century. As indicated in Chapter 2 of this report, such a rate is consistent with observations of CO₂ increases in the recent past and with projections of its future sources and sinks. However, we have not examined anew the many uncertainties in these projections, such as their implicit assumptions with regard to the workings of the world economy and the role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle. These impose an uncertainty beyond that arising from our necessarily imperfect knowledge of the manifold and complex climatic system of the earth.

When it is assumed that the CO₂ content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes. This range reflects both uncertainties in physical understanding and inaccuracies arising from the need to reduce the mathematical problem to one that can be handled by even the fastest available electronic computers. It is significant, however, that none of the model calculations predicts negligible warming.

The primary effect of an increase of CO₂ is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earth’s surface and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere. A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture, which is an even more powerful absorber.of terrestrial radiation. We have examined with care all known negative feedback mechanisms, such as increase in low or middle cloud amount, and have concluded that the oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principal conclusion that there will be appreciable warming. The known negative feedback mechanisms can reduce the warming, but they do not appear to be so strong as the positive moisture feedback. We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO₂ to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C. Our estimate is based primarily on our review of a series of calculations with three-dimensional models of the global atmospheric circulation, which is summarized in Chapter 4. We have also reviewed simpler models that appear to contain the main physical factors. These give qualitatively similar results.

One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased heat into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer. The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well-mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so. It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical gyres lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermocline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.

Our estimates of the rates of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appreciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly. One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO₂ loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable. The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed.

The warming will be accompanied by shifts in the geographical distributions of the various climatic elements such as temperature, rainfall, evaporation, and soil moisture. The evidence is that the variations in these anomalies with latitude, longitude, and season will be at least as great as the globally averaged changes themselves, and it would be misleading to predict regional climatic changes on the basis of global or zonal averages alone. Unfortunately, only gross globally and zonally averaged features of the present climate can

now be reasonably well simulated. At present, we cannot simulate accurately the details of regional climate and thus cannot predict the locations and intensities of regional climate changes with confidence. This situation may be expected to improve gradually as greater scientific understanding is acquired and faster computers are built.

To summarize, we have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warmings due to a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ to negligible proportions or reverse them altogether. However, we believe it quite possible that the capacity of the intermediate waters of the oceans to absorb heat could delay the estimated warming by several decades. It appears that the warming will eventually occur, and the associated regional climatic changes so important to the assessment of socioeconomic consequences may well be significant, but unfortunately the latter cannot yet be adequately projected.

http://www.nap.edu/o...id=12181&page=1

Edited December 20, 2012 by knocker

[Hiya]

Melting Glaciers Raise Sea Level

Anthropogenic climate change leads to melting glaciers and rising sea level. Between 1902 and 2009, melting glaciers contributed 11 cm to sea level rise. They were therefore the most important cause of sea level rise. This is the result of a new assessment by scientists of the University of Innsbruck. They numerically modeled the changes of each of the world’s 300 000 glaciers. Until 2100, glaciers could lead to an additional 22 cm of sea level rise.

Since 1900 the global sea level has risen by approximately 20 cm. Melting glaciers are one of the causes – along with warming and thereby expanding sea water, melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and changing terrestrial water storage in dammed lakes and groundwater reservoirs. A team of scientists at the University of Innsbruck has now assessed the contribution of melting glaciers to sea level rise during the 20^th century. They numerically modeled each of the world’s roughly 300 000 glaciers and used thousands of on-site measurements to validate the model results. “These calculations show that between 1902 and 2009, glaciers contributed about 11 cm to sea level riseâ€, says Dr. Ben Marzeion from the Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics. “This means they were the most important cause of sea level change.†Surprisingly, melt rates were more or less constant over time: While temperatures during the first decades of the 20^th century were considerably lower, glaciers were larger and extended into lower and thus warmer areas. Additionally, brief but strong warm episodes in the Arctic led to strong glacier retreat in the Arctic in the 1930s and 1950s.

http://www.uibk.ac.a...rchiv/2012/333/

Have sea levels really risen 11cm in the last 100 years?

[4wd]

No, it says 20cm since 1900.

There's no evidence of acceleration though.

Sea levels have been rising at a surprisingly steady rate since anyone tried to measure them.

It's not a simple task since land can rise or fall locally for geological reasons.

Satellites can theoretically measure average sea-levels very accurately, but a great deal of calibration and adjustment seems to be required.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Back in the real world, there is loads of evidence sea level rise accelerating.

http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

With Greenland melt doubling every 4 years recently (and Antarctica following suit) I'd expect sea levels to rise much faster as the planet warms.

[knocker]

Back in the real world, there is loads of evidence sea level rise accelerating.

Very true BFTV. I can understand dissention over the effect of increasing CO² on feedback loops, negative and positive, etc but the sea level rise is irrefutable. The ostrich syndrome seems to be gaining strength.

[4wd]

Very true BFTV. I can understand dissention over the effect of increasing CO² on feedback loops, negative and positive, etc but the sea level rise is irrefutable. The ostrich syndrome seems to be gaining strength.

Who denies sea level rise, acceleration of sea level rise is not proven.

The tiny bit of ice (as %) which has melted for whatever reason the last 50 years certainly won't have made sea levels rise quicker than before.

With Greenland melt doubling every 4 years recently (and Antarctica following suit) I'd expect sea levels to rise much faster as the planet warms.

Not evidence, speculation based on modelling.

[4wd]

[knocker]

Who denies sea level rise, acceleration of sea level rise is not proven.

The tiny bit of ice (as %) which has melted for whatever reason the last 50 years certainly won't have made sea levels rise quicker than before.

I refer you to BFTV's link.

[4wd]

That is one study, for all we know with pre-conceived agenda.

I soon found other studies saying no change in rate.

It seems it depends on who is funding the research.

As I wrote late yesterday there's a lot of fudge factor available as almost no land can be certainly known to be not rising or falling itself.

It is very difficult to measure a 1mm change in an endlessly churning and restless ocean.

[knocker]

ABSTRACT

Boon, J.D., 2012. Evidence of sea level acceleration at U.S. and Canadian tide stations, Atlantic Coast, North America.

Evidence of statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise relative to land is found in a recent analysis of monthly mean sea level (mmsl) at tide stations on the Atlantic coast of North America. Serial trend analysis was used at 11 U.S. Atlantic coast stations and 1 Canadian station (Halifax, Nova Scotia) with record lengths exceeding 75 years to examine change in the linear trend rate of rise over time. Deriving trend estimates that apply in the median year of fixed-length mmsl series, reversals in rate direction (increasing or decreasing) were observed around 1939–40 and again in the mid-1960s except at the northeasternmost stations in the latter period. What has not been observed until recently is a sharp reversal (in 1987) followed by a uniform, near-linear change in rise rate that infers constant acceleration at eight mid- to NE Atlantic tide stations, change not seen at SE U.S. Atlantic stations. Quadratic regression and analysis of variance applied to mmsl series over the last 43 years (1969–2011) confirms that addition of a quadratic term representing acceleration is statistically significant at 16 tide stations from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Previous quadratic model studies have focused on sea level series of longer spanning periods with variable serial trends undermining quadratic expression of either accelerating or decelerating sea level. Although the present 43-year analysis offers no proof that acceleration will be long lived, the rapidity of the nascent serial trend increase within the region of interest is unusual. Assuming constant acceleration exists and continues, the regression model projects mmsl by 2050 varying between 0.2 and 0.9 m above mean sea level (MSL) in the NE region and between −0.3 and 0.4 m above MSL in the SE region.

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00102.1

Research from the US Geological Survey (USGS) shows that sea levels are rising much faster between North Carolina and Massachusetts than anywhere else in the world. The news comes less than two weeks after North Carolina's Senate passed a bill banning state agencies from reporting predictions of increasing rates of sea-level rise.

Asbury Sallenger, an oceanographer at the USGS in St Petersburg, Florida, and his colleagues published their report today in Nature Climate Change¹. They analysed tide-gauge records from around North America from between 1950 and 2009, and found that the rates of sea-level rise along the northern half of the eastern seaboard — from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Boston, Massachusetts — are increasing three to four times faster than rates of sea-level rise globally.

http://www.nature.com/news/us-northeast-coast-is-hotspot-for-rising-sea-levels-1.10880

[knocker]

A fudge factor?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Source?

EDIT: Also sea levels are rising faster than the IPCC's predictions

http://iopscience.io.../044035/article

Edited December 21, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[PeteG]

Presumably the rate of sea-level rise along the northern half of the eastern seaboard is a result of melting ice on Greenland. It obviously takes time for the water released to spread out round the planet.

It would be interesting to know if there was a seasonal variation in sea-level as melting slows/stops during the winter.

[knocker]

I beiieve one theory is to do with the slowing down of the GS but can't remember the details.

[knocker]

Ups and Downs of Biodiversity After Mass Extinction

The climate after the largest mass extinction so far 252 million years ago was cool, later very warm and then cool again. Thanks to the cooler temperatures, the diversity of marine fauna ballooned, as paleontologists from the University of Zurich have reconstructed. The warmer climate, coupled with a high CO₂ level in the atmosphere, initially gave rise to new, short-lived species. In the longer term, however, this climate change had an adverse effect on biodiversity and caused species to become extinct.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221081615.htm