In The News

[Methuselah]

This one might cause some 'discussion'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jan/31/the-future-al-gore-review

[BornFromTheVoid]

This one might cause some 'discussion'?

http://www.guardian....-al-gore-review

Discussion? On a climate thread? About Al Gore?

If a discussion manages to happen without the usual litany of Gore bashing ad hominen attacks, it may be one of the first signs that this area has turned a corner. But as I haven't read the book, I'll hold off on discussing it for now.

[keithlucky]

http://notrickszone....gets-cancelled/

[Gray-Wolf]

http://notrickszone....gets-cancelled/

So a clade of coral symbiont's off Abu Dhabi is more heat tolerant than some of there neighbours?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1200570X

How does this impact the bleaching events we see in Australasia and Indian oceans/Caribbean? How is this a cancelled catastrophe???

Any help folks?

[knocker]

Yes how is this a cancelled catastrophe???

Already around 30 per cent of coral reefs are severely damaged and more than half of coral reefs worldwide may be lost within the near future because of global warming. A better understanding of how corals respond to rising sea temperatures is important for predicting the fate of coral reefs and to optimise reef conservation.

"Gulf corals are living at the limit of their tolerance," said co-author Professor John Burt from the New York University Abu Dhabi. "We have observed an increased frequency of coral bleaching events in this area, and we need to act now to protect and understand these ecosystems that hold the answers to many important climate change related questions."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/nocs-hdc020113.php

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://notrickszone....gets-cancelled/

Yes, certain corals can survive at much warmer and indeed, much colder temperatures than many associate with corals, that's nothing new.

The problem lies in the rate of change to the corals environment. If it gets too warm or too acidic too quickly, they can't just "up sticks" and head to a more habitable setting. But if you actually read that blog, and followed the link to the National Oceanography Centre which the author claims as his source, you would see that the blog author is making some woefully inaccurate statements and is just cherry picking to suit his agenda.

The report itself states things like:

Even a temperature rise of just one degree Celsius can harm the symbiotic algae, which in turn can increase mortality in corals. The associated loss of symbiotic algae is known as “coral bleaching†because the white skeletons of the corals become visible through the tissue depleted from the algal pigments.

Already around 30 per cent of coral reefs are severely damaged and more than half of coral reefs worldwide may be lost within the near future because of global warming. A better understanding of how corals respond to rising sea temperatures is important for predicting the fate of coral reefs and to optimise reef conservation.

“Gulf corals are living at the limit of their tolerance,†said co-author Professor John Burt from the New York University Abu Dhabi. “We have observed an increased frequency of coral bleaching events in this area, and we need to act now to protect and understand these ecosystems that hold the answers to many important climate change related questions.â€

Those quotes, from the actual report, seem quite different to the blogs title of

Corals Surviving Just Fine In Warm Waters – Another Predicted Catastrophe Gets Cancelled

Your incessant link spamming to misleading blogs is getting a bit tiring too, Keith.

[pottyprof]

Discussion? On a climate thread? About Al Gore?

If a discussion manages to happen without the usual litany of Gore bashing ad hominen attacks, it may be one of the first signs that this area has turned a corner. But as I haven't read the book, I'll hold off on discussing it for now.

It's never been off limits here. People do have views about him and some views rightly so. I'd certainly use the names Al Gore and Piers Corbyn in the same sentence but as for what Gore has achieved, he did bring 'Global Warming' to everyone's attention,

Is he ultimately incorrect? I don't think so. He very cleverly used Hollywood theatricals to try and wake up America. The UK and most of Europe had already woken up to anthropogenic problems through the second half of 70's. He woke up the debate on the subject in America, which at the end of the day was his goal. Thinking about recent surveys done in the states I'd say job done.

See.. It's not all bad.

Edited February 5, 2013 by pottyprof

[Gray-Wolf]

Much the same as myself though in that what once appeared a very 'extreme' viewpoint, on what we ought to be preparing for, is now almost conservative in nature?

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's never been off limits here. People do have views about him and some views rightly so. I'd certainly use the names Al Gore and Piers Corbyn in the same sentence but as for what Gore has achieved, he did bring 'Global Warming' to everyone's attention,

Is he ultimately incorrect? I don't think so. He very cleverly used Hollywood theatricals to try and wake up America. The UK and most of Europe had already woken up to anthropogenic problems through the second half of 70's. He woke up the debate on the subject in America, which at the end of the day was his goal. Thinking about recent surveys done in the states I'd say job done.

See.. It's not all bad.

Other than the comparison with Mr Corbyn, which I'll have to disagree with, I generally agree with your post.

[knocker]

When I did my OU degree a few years ago Gore's 1992 book, "Earth in The Balance" was one of the set books.

[VillagePlank]

Your incessant link spamming to misleading blogs is getting a bit tiring too, Keith.

Can you point me to a link that you have posted that points to the uncertainty of (i) clouds, and (ii) solar influence on the climate, please. Given, let's say 90% certainty in AGW, I would expect 1 in 10 of your posts to posit some uncertainty, and I pick clouds and solar because they are the most prominent. A scientist is always interested in boundary conditions.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[BornFromTheVoid]

Can you point me to a link that you have posted that points to the uncertainty of (i) clouds, and (ii) solar influence on the climate, please. Given, let's say 90% certainty in AGW, I would expect 1 in 10 of your posts to posit some uncertainty, and I pick clouds and solar because they are the most prominent. A scientist is always interested in boundary conditions.

I'd say certainty is higher than 90%, not that it matters here.

I've posted a few links/papers related to what you've said, go have a look. Ain't got time to go searching for you.

Any particular reason why you picked up on that quote to make your... request? I make the presumption, of course, that you're not a fan of agenda driven cherry picking and dis-information.

[knocker]

Never underestimate the clout of Big OIl.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/01/1525441/exxon-chevron-2012-profit/

[BornFromTheVoid]

UAH appears to be the first to offer up the January global temperature. The anomaly for them is 0.51C (based on 81-10 average), making it the joint 7th largest positive monthly anomaly recorded since 1978.

This I think is very impressive considering the weak -ve ENSO, continued low solar activity, 6th largest northern hemisphere snow cover and close to average sea ice cover.

http://www.drroyspen...l-temperatures/

[Gray-Wolf]

I am becoming quite concerned that the past 15yrs of changes are starting to show impact. We know the majority of warming goes into the oceans and so we could have mis-labelled some of this new energy as 'natural' variation. It is only now that it shows contrary to other natural forcings that we start to see it's impact more clearly?

With sea ice so young and fragile (as the ice drift shows us) we could see a melt out comparable with the late noughties by the start of Aug this summer giving another 4 weeks of extra warming to areas once reflecting solar (if you doubt it look at the F.Y. melt in the C.A. last season). Where once we looked for ice min. maybe we should be looking at a mid point measure reflecting peak solar and ice levels to enable us to better understand the energy potential as it alters?

We know snow melt is nearly 4 weeks earlier in parts of the north (even after high snow levels like 2012/13) so maybe it's time to take a serious look at changes in the energy budget snow melt/young ice(transmits 3 times the energy through the ice than older ice)/ice melt bring to the global energy budget so we can compare it to other known forcings (like El-Nino?) and the energy they bring above the 'average' levels?

[Gray-Wolf]

We deserve to have a look at it thougfh knocker! That is a spike worthy of a Nino year surely????

[knocker]

It surely is GW.

[knocker]

Predicting a low carbon future for Toronto: A tale of two outcomes in the plan to reduce GHGs

February 6, 2013 (Ottawa, ON) - Cities are major players in the climate change game. More than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas and over 70% of global GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions can be attributed to cities. A case study of Toronto demonstrates alternative strategies for how the city can implement a low carbon urban infrastructure plan by 2031. Two scenarios are described: one based on Toronto’s current policies was found to reduce GHG emissions by 31%; and another suggests aggressive alternatives that could reduce GHG emissions by 71%. Strategies under the aggressive scenario include retrofitting all existing buildings, using renewable heating and cooling systems, and the proliferation of electric cars. This study is published in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/story/10.4141/news.2013.02.06.113#.URKWMpF4eNl

[knocker]

Smartphones, tablets help UW researchers improve storm forecasts

The next advance in weather forecasting may not come from a new satellite or supercomputer, but from a device in your pocket. University of Washington atmospheric scientists are using pressure sensors included in the newest smartphones to develop better weather forecasting techniques.

“With this approach we could potentially have tens or hundreds of thousands of additional surface pressure observations, which could significantly improve short-term weather forecasts,†said Cliff Mass, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/02/06/smartphones-tablets-help-uw-researchers-improve-storm-forecasts/

[VillagePlank]

It surely is GW.

Of course.

No sensible rational person would say the Earth's climate isn't warming. Even basic pre-undergraduate mathematics shows this to be the case. It's the attribution that is the question. Well, I say that, but, I guess most, here, are wholly convinced on one way. I still have seen no reference from an AGW'r that questions solar input. There's plenty of peer reviewed science out there. Even the latest leak with the IPCC report says so. Any apologies for the solar fans? I don't think so.

It's curious, isn't it.? The arrogance of the +/-3st band. I wish they'd studied mathematics.

I call it astroturfing.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

Of course.

No sensible rational person would say the Earth's climate isn't warming. Even basic pre-undergraduate mathematics shows this to be the case. It's the attribution that is the question. Well, I say that, but, I guess most, here, are wholly convinced on one way. I still have seen no reference from an AGW'r that questions solar input. There's plenty of peer reviewed science out there. Even the latest leak with the IPCC report says so. Any apologies for the solar fans? I don't think so.

It's curious, isn't it.? The arrogance of the +/-3st band. I wish they'd studied mathematics.

I call it astroturfing.

I do not think anyone dismisses solar b.w.? why would they ? surely all our energy originates from there (discounting the internal heat that is?) but we are still not seeing either proxy past episodes nor current variations, across all outputs, that would do the trick?

We are ,however, seeing the planet alter in a way that must impact it's energy distribution?

As far as the discussions here are concerned why dismiss anyone who does not want to engage in the math? When you play pool you 'see' the angles and take the shot, no need to do the math? A lot of what goes on in these threads is by 'seeing' the results and not computing them. I've always maintained that a 'pull back' view of what is occurring is all I can muster and , in reality, we still do not know all inputs nor their weighting/interactions so how can we 'meaningfully' go down that route? The best tool for our discussions is seeing what is happening now, figuring why and looking at the past to see if we have anything similar to guide us. There are plenty of folk out there doing the close up work (and crunching the numbers) so we can look at the abstract and add that into our overview of what 'we' see happening.

The changes across the pole over the past 7 years are big enough to see from space and I'd imagine the changes this drives to our 'energy budget' (even before we figure how much the extra GHG burden means to it all) are huge. Both poles are heat sinks and so our 'balanced' energy budget has a portion spent on those heat sinks. Over the past 15yrs we must have seen changes to that side of the energy budget with a month shaved off when snow reflects the incoming solar (and burns up energy in melt) and near half the reflective capacity of the Arctic ocean gone for 2 months (and the chance for absorption of the energy once wasted back into space plus the energy spent on ice melt at that time of year freed up for other duties)

Surely you can see why folk would want to look at real change than search for imagined inputs?

Edited February 7, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

I think my last post was a little over the top, and shows me at a moment of weakness. Apologies to all who are/were offended.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[BornFromTheVoid]

After having the baseline for ENSO monitoring changed to 1981-2010, the NCDC have removed 2012's title of warmest La Nina year on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

[Gray-Wolf]

It did seem a little naughty calling it a nina year with the majority of it spent in neutral and nino territory but it did show how warm a year it was? With this year starting so warm I have to wonder just how things will pan out for the northern summer and how that will stack the year? Will MetO be correct???

[knocker]

Poll: Americans Back Climate Change Regulation, Not Taxes

DURHAM, N.C. -- Now that President Obama has put climate change back on the table in his second inaugural address, a new national poll finds growing public support for regulating greenhouse gas emissions and requiring utilities to switch to lower-carbon fuel sources.

The percentage of Americans who think climate change is occurring has rebounded according to the Duke University national online survey, and is at its highest level since 2006. The study also finds that while Americans support regulating greenhouse gas emissions, they do not favor market-based approaches such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.

http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/news/poll-americans-back-climate-change-regulation-not-taxes

Edited February 9, 2013 by knocker