In The News

[laserguy]

Anyone think we'll stay below 1.5c?

Anyone care?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Anyone care?

Plenty do.

[Gray-Wolf]

Plenty do.

again I think folk would care more if they fully understood the dangers and that , instead of being something for our grand-kids to deal with, the dangers are becoming ever more manifest right now?

i await this summer in the hope that my area will not fall foul to the type of flooding that we have seen recently as many of the traders have declared that they cannot continue if they face another hit (and many residents are still not 'straight' after being impacted last June/July). Both types of event ,River flooding due to stalled weather patterns and flash flooding due to enhanced capacity of the air to hold moisture and stalled out storms sitting over a small geographical area, are both linked with current levels of AGW impacts. If low ice levels played any role in this then what will last years record losses have added into such impacts

With continued food price hikes due to multiyear crop reductions due to drought /flooding/heatwaves impacting major production areas and 'weather events' impacting daily living how can folk fail to care?

A max of 4 weeks before we are back into melt season and ,last year, this signaled the beginning of the northern hemisphere's issues. Let us hope it does not prove so this year?

[knocker]

Glaciers as Climate Indicators

Glaciers cover about 15.9 million square kilometers of Earth’s land surface (2009 figures), slightly less than the size of Russia. Ice sheets in Antarctica and in Greenland store most of the glacier ice on Earth, occupying 95.5 percent of glacier area and containing 99.4 percent of glacier volume. Other glaciers are located on all of Earth’s continents except Australia. (The term glacier in the Satellite Image Atlas includes ice sheets, a long-held definition also used by the Scott Polar Research Institute and the American Geosciences Institute.)

Glaciers have waxed and waned throughout the history of Earth in response to several factors: the global climate, the latitudinal position of the continents, the geographic position and elevation of mountain ranges, and slight changes in the Earth’s orbit. Presently, glaciers around the world are responding to natural warming after the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s, as well as to the warming that human activity has caused through increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

For example, since the late 19th century, all of Iceland’s glaciers have decreased in area and thickness. Although Iceland’s glaciers retreated from 1930 through 1970, they advanced during 1970 to 1995. Since 1995, however, the decrease has been quite dramatic. If the climate continues to warm, glaciers in Iceland will probably decrease by 40 percent during the 21st century and will virtually disappear by 2200.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, both of which are human activities, are critical factors in the Earth’s observed warming.

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/a-cold-look-at-planet-earth-learning-from-the-worlds-frozen-places/

[keithlucky]

http://www.scientifi...permafrost-thaw

Thought I'd better stick this in here too!

Appears to imply that a less than 1.5c warming is the only 'safe' course of action for the planet?

Anyone think we'll stay below 1.5c?

No global warming temps at a standstill http://www.thegwpf.org/

[BornFromTheVoid]

No global warming temps at a standstill http://www.thegwpf.org/

Why do you think temperatures haven't climbed much in recent years? Have the laws of physics regarding CO2 ceased to function?

Do you think temperature will remain steady?

[keithlucky]

Why do you think temperatures haven't climbed much in recent years? Have the laws of physics regarding CO2 ceased to function?

Do you think temperature will remain steady?

Look don"t blame me if the fact that Global Warmist and Global realists agree GW is not happening .

[BornFromTheVoid]

Look don"t blame me if the fact that Global Warmist and Global realists agree GW is not happening .

I'm just looking for your opinion, not blaming you for anything

[knocker]

Forecast is for more snow in polar regions, less for the rest of us (Journal of Climate)

A new cli­mate model pre­dicts an increase in snow­fall for the Earth’s polar regions and high­est alti­tudes, but an over­all drop in snow­fall for the globe, as car­bon diox­ide lev­els rise over the next century.

The decline in snow­fall could spell trou­ble for regions such as the west­ern United States that rely on snowmelt as a source of fresh water.

http://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2013/02/22/forecast-is-for-more-snow-in-polar-regions-less-for-the-rest-of-us-journal-of-climate/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Finally, something that actually justifies the term "Alarmist nonsense!"

http://science-pope.com/2013/02/i-bet-you-didnt-know/

Seems like the "warmist" equivalent of WUWT, Climate Depot and GWPF.

[jonboy]

Finally, something that actually justifies the term "Alarmist nonsense!"

http://science-pope....you-didnt-know/

Seems like the "warmist" equivalent of WUWT, Climate Depot and GWPF.

Well one extreme to the other what a load of scare mongering b*******

[Methuselah]

Finally, something that actually justifies the term "Alarmist nonsense!"

http://science-pope....you-didnt-know/

Seems like the "warmist" equivalent of WUWT, Climate Depot and GWPF.

Oh dear. In space, no one can hear you laugh!

[Gray-Wolf]

Thing is BFTV the only time I've heard such is from deniers explaining to me what I believe?(or have claimed). It would not surprise me to find the fossil fuel lobby funding such sites as well?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thing is BFTV the only time I've heard such is from deniers explaining to me what I believe?(or have claimed). It would not surprise me to find the fossil fuel lobby funding such sites as well?

I know what you mean and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a parody site.

I just thought pointing out the actual alarmist nonsense might shed some perspective on the realistic pieces in here that are so often labelled as lefty/greeny/liberal/warmist propaganda (usually followed by a link to WUWT for some rebuttal!).

[Polar Maritime]

[knocker]

A few comments on the NAO by Arnold H. Taylor from his book, "The Dance of Air and Sea: How oceans, weather, & link life together. Plus a link to the Woods Hole study.

During the first 100 years or so after people started collecting reliable pressure readings over the North Atlantic, the observed values of the NAO index never went up or down by too much. Then about 30-40 years ago the index started to first become more negative in the 196os and 1970s. before swinging in the opposite direction (Fig. 7.2). This last increase corresponded to a noticeably longer growing season in Europe and milder winters in the mid Atlantic region of the United States. These stronger values of the NAO were then followed by a decline at the beginning of the new millennium. It seems that the NAO has been swaying back and forth more wildly from decade to decade during the late 2oth century. By extracting a 218-year-long temperature record from Bermuda brain coral, researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have been

able to infer that this recent variability is greater than in any period as far back as the 18oosY They have concluded that anthropogenic (human related) warming does not appear to be altering whether the NAO is in a positive or negative phase, but it does seem to be increasing the NAO"s variability.

Exactly how these fluctuations from decade to decade might continue to increase over the coming century is not known at present. Based on the simple model described in Chapter 7,14 and using current estimates of how global warming might continue, Figure 10.2 presents one possible scenario. In this picture the oscillations of recent decades continue through the century. In the absence of suitable forecasts, the predictions were made assuming the Southern Oscillation varies over the next 100 years as it did during the previous century. The model predicts a series of mild, wet winters in Europe, with cold conditions over the eastern half of the North American continent, around 2030 and 2075, with the opposite situation around the next few years and then around 2050. While the model can make definite forecasts and the results are intriguing, it still has to be borne in mind that there is no guarantee that the dynamics of the region's climate will continue to behave in the simple way they appeared to have done over the past 150 years.

http://www.scienceda...90113101200.htm

Edited February 25, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

China's pollution problem

It's no secret that China is faced with some of the world's worst pollution. Until now, however, information on the magnitude, scope and impacts of a major contributor to that pollution – human-caused nitrogen emissions – was lacking.

A new study co-authored by Stanford Woods Institute biologist Peter Vitousek reveals that amounts of nitrogen (from industry, cars and fertilizer) deposited on land and water in China by way of rain, dust and other carriers increased by 60 percent annually from the 1980s to the 2000s, with profound consequences for the country's people and ecosystems.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-china-nitrogen-pollution-022513.html

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/26/global-warming-planetary-airflow-extreme-weather-us-eu

Low Arctic ice weirding our weather? Fancy that! Looking at the current 'Arctic Weirding', with huge areas shattered by the full moon tides, I have to wonder how fast this ice will melt out now come springs warmth?

I think folk should now be keeping more of an eye on how fast the bulk of the ice melts that waiting for the min? Surely it is how long water is open over peak insolation that approaching autumn equinox?

[4wd]

What are they linking to, it just goes to an American site rather than an article on the site?

I find the continuing attempts to link weather events to ice loss smack of desperation frankly.

[BornFromTheVoid]

What are they linking to, it just goes to an American site rather than an article on the site?

I find the continuing attempts to link weather events to ice loss smack of desperation frankly.

It's from a peer reviewed study that will be published soon, which is why it hasn't got an page yet. But there are plenty of review articles posted, such as in New Research.

Do you still think it smacks of desperation?

[4wd]

Yes, because basically there is such determination to persuade 'us' that CO2 is the major driving factor that there's a scramble to attribute everything which happens as a symptom.

It is quite simply the fashionable explanation of everything and for some it seems this means all the dodgy bits that don't add up can be overlooked.

[Methuselah]

What are they linking to, it just goes to an American site rather than an article on the site?

I find the continuing attempts to link weather events to ice loss smack of desperation frankly.

Just as I would find the idea that millions of extra square miles' open water wouldn't have any links to weather events to be far-fetched, in the extreme...

Then, I guess, if ice-loss could be connected to solar cycles somehow (in the same way that leprechauns might exist, somehow?), the likes of WUWT would be vaunting each-and-every possible connection under the sun...Pardon the pun.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Rybris Ponce

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yes, because basically there is such determination to persuade 'us' that CO2 is the major driving factor that there's a scramble to attribute everything which happens as a symptom.

It is quite simply the fashionable explanation of everything and for some it seems this means all the dodgy bits that don't add up can be overlooked.

So you can now dismiss a paper before its even published. Do you not see a problem with that?

Does it even matter that a mechanism for the link between sea ice/climate change and extreme weather has been explained further? Does evidence and reasoning matter at all? Or is it all just down to whether it fits in with your pre-conceived ideas?

This paper is about further determining the physical basis for the extreme weather/climate change link. It's not about persuading folk that have been taken in by the big oil propaganda on sites like WUWT.

[laserguy]

It's from a peer reviewed study....

Peer reviewed = you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. 'Peer reviewed' fercrissakes. You know it's time to look away immediately whenever that cobblers-ridden phrase pops up.

[laserguy]

http://www.guardian....e-weather-us-eu

Low Arctic ice weirding our weather? Fancy that!

It's still to reach us after all these years. Looking out my window I'd guess it was... typical fare for a typical Feb' 27th. Where's the disasters and destruction goddamit ? - I wanna know right now!