Climate Change In The News - Spring 2013

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yes and we still spend billions on green taxes

Lets not forget the billions on fossil fuel subsidies, billions on sea level rise defences and losses, billions on health effects from burning fossil fuels, etc., etc...

[4wd]

Or the invoked feedback mechanisms were grossly exagerrated.

Maybe the net effect of known and unknown feedbacks is increasingly negative.

[cyclonic happiness]

I wish the temperatures in this country would respond (relatively speaking) to the global warming stuff.

Folk here and in the states that I know have said it's been one of the longest and weirdest winters they've ever known.

[Methuselah]

Which have nothing to do with with the subject Pete.

We're at 9th warmest globally which makes for an eyebrow lifting 'why?' considering the forecast was for an ever increasing global temperature. This was a forecast from the IPCC not by a newspaper. I think that in itself gives it some credence unless we're now saying the IPCC speaks BS and their material is worth less than that of a newspaper?

I'm not saying that there won't be periods where temps flatten out for short periods, I'm saying that a question needs answering. Why are the temps levelling off? It can't be the quiet sun because according to the so called consensus, It doesn't have any real effect. If we can't answer that question, we'll never be able to project temperatures and the whole exercise will become pointless, if it isn't already.

All I was saying is that, in my opinion, nothing that comes from that particular source is ever likely to be 'irrefutable'...It's not even as if it's telling us anything we don't already know, either.

In fact, it's a great shame that the real story - whatever that turns out to be - is being lost in all the politically-motivated hyperbole...

[knocker]

Maybe the net effect of known and unknown feedbacks is increasingly negative.

Could you elaborate on that and any links to Paper(s) on the subject would be appreciated.

[Methuselah]

Or the invoked feedback mechanisms were grossly exagerrated.

Maybe the net effect of known and unknown feedbacks is increasingly negative.

Or it could be that the sun has suddenly and unexpectedly (one or two guesses notwithstanding) gone quiet? If so, I think we should just thank our lucky star...

[VillagePlank]

Global temperatures in February were the 9th warmest on record, with January and February combined being the 9th warmest also.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...c/global/2013/2

... and UK GDP is about the best it's ever been. Some might say record-breaking, yet again. And, at least, the UK economy is growing (very) strongly, too

Src: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_gdp_history#copypaste

I've been very good. I haven't cherry picked the last five or ten years, and I've taken all the data I could get hold of to come to a view.

(tongue firmly in cheek)

Edited March 18, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[knocker]

A new twist.

Teenager Sues Alaska for Failing to Protect His Melting Home

An 18-year-old Yup’ik Eskimo who could lose his home to melting tundra is suing the state of Alaska for failing to take action on climate change.

Ice flowing down the Kugkaktlik River in the springtime—a highway that provides access to the nearest towns—is carving away at the bank on which Nelson Kanuk’s home sits because the ground is increasingly soft due to thawing permafrost.

http://www.truthdig....69tklFE.twitter

Edited March 18, 2013 by knocker

[4wd]

It will be dismissed, since Alaska is not to blame and rivers move over time due to a wide range of natural reasons.

The case has no more validity than if those with property on a crumbling coastline were to blame their problems on rising sea levels caused by Government inaction.

In short it's a politically inspired stunt and it would be interesting to know who had put them up to it.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It will be dismissed, since Alaska is not to blame and rivers move over time due to a wide range of natural reasons.

The case has no more validity than if those with property on a crumbling coastline were to blame their problems on rising sea levels caused by Government inaction.

In short it's a politically inspired stunt and it would be interesting to know who had put them up to it.

Just to be clear 4wd, are you now claiming that the northern hemisphere's permafrost is not melting/thawing and causing extra erosion to occur? Or do you just have insider knowledge that tells you the permafrost definitely isn't thawing in that particular location?

A silly lawsuit that will never get far, but if it draws attention to people losing their homes because of changes in the permafrost, then that's a good thing imo.

[Gray-Wolf]

This is a problem for 'today' with both infrastructure and homes being increasingly impacted. Coastal erosion is a very big issue with whole villages now being re-located. With us now expecting more GAC12 type events the coasts are now increasingly exposed to poundings from seas once 'locked solid' by ice.

4 knows full well the issues on his coastline with the glacial drift suffering from increased rainfalls 'swelling' the clay's and leading to slippage ( as in Whitby) but those deposits are far more stable than ones previously cemented together by ice. So the double whammy is gloop that was once solid permafrost pounded by swells once open water arrives.

[knocker]

The Obersulzbach Glacier, is situated in the uppermost part of the Obersulzbach Valley, which feeds the Salzach River system in Austria. The Salzach is fed by many glaciers covering over 100 square kilometers (Koboltschnig and Schoner, 2011). These glaciers melt all summer providing considerable runoff to the numerous hydropower projects along the Salzach, that can produce 260 MW of power. The Verbund Power Plant producing 13 MW is seen below, at blue arrow.

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/obersulzbach-glacier-retreat-austria/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Methuselah]

But, it is a fact - or it at least appears to be a fact - that GW has stabilized...Why is that?

[knocker]

I personally think this wrong.

Climate debate cut from national curriculum for children up to 14

Exclusive: New draft guidelines for key stages 1 to 3 criticised by scientists for 'abdicating duty to future generations'

• Leo Hickman: Teachers should be given free rein to teach climate change in schools

Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed "our duty to future generations".

The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the "efficacy of recycling", again as a chemistry subject.

The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue.

"What you seem to have is a major political interference with the geography syllabus," said the government's former science adviser Prof Sir David King. He said climate change should be taught alongside the history of – successful – past attempts to curb chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), which is blamed for the depletion of the ozone layer, and air pollution caused by coal fires and cars

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/17/climate-change-cut-national-curriculum?CMP=twt_gu

[Polar Maritime]

[pottyprof]

In fact, it's a great shame that the real story - whatever that turns out to be - is being lost in all the politically-motivated hyperbole...

I certainly can't argue with that....

[pottyprof]

No, it wasn't.

Yes it was. Why do you think the projections are way off? I mean in the all singing all dancing reports and charts from the IPCC, not the one from a comic. They projected an always increasing global temperature with the 'odd' year failing to hit forecasts.... not 15 years worth. Or has this now become a sliding scale opt out to save face?

[knocker]

Don Easterbrook is a zombie

Don Easterbrook is back, and his misunderstanding of Greenland’s climate history rides again in two remarkable posts at µWatts — attempted demolitions of the new paper every denier worth his (or her) salt is frothing at the mouth to claim has been rubbished, the 11,300 year global paleoclimate reconstruction of Marcott et al¹. Unfortunately Easterbrook is as far off the mark in his two essays at µWatts (one, two) as he has ever been, which makes not only him look stupid, but everyone who relies on his “work′.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/don-easterbrook-is-a-zombie/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FRbRF+%28Hot+Topic%29

[knocker]

Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum†like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?

Abstract

[1] A future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, with total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25% over a 50 year period from 2020 to 2070, is imposed in a future climate change scenario experiment (RCP4.5) using, for the first time, a global coupled climate model that includes ozone chemistry and resolved stratospheric dynamics (WACCM). This model has been shown to simulate two amplifying mechanisms that produce regional signals of decadal climate variability comparable to observations, and thus is considered a credible tool to simulate the sun's effects on earth's climate. After the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cools relative to the reference simulation by up to several tenths of a degree Centigrade. By the end of the grand solar minimum in 2070, the warming nearly catches up to the reference simulation. Thus, a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yes it was. Why do you think the projections are way off? I mean in the all singing all dancing reports and charts from the IPCC, not the one from a comic. They projected an always increasing global temperature with the 'odd' year failing to hit forecasts.... not 15 years worth. Or has this now become a sliding scale opt out to save face?

The long term trend is for increasing temperatures, but that doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last, or every January should be warmer than the previous. The only way that would work is if there was no internal variability, which I doubt is your position.

The trend over the last 15 years is still upward anyway, it's just not statistically significant because of the short time frame.

[Gray-Wolf]

We appear to have members of the community who wilfully ignore the reductions in TSI at ground level from human pollution and ,as a recent paper showed, medium sized volcanic activity and yet bang on about how a solar slowdown will head us into another glaciation???

We cannot rely upon the sunshade from our polluting ,or Mother Natures 'belches' ,to always provide us with the level of dimming/cooling that it provides us with currently. The loss of TSI at the surface , compared to what arrives at the top of the atmosphere is measured in whole number percentages (i.e. far ,far greater than the modeled reductions from a 'grand minimum')

and so any drop in volcanic activity, or clean air technology being more widely used in Asia, will lead to a rapid increase in TSI at the surface even midst a 'Maunder type' minimum.

On top of that we have rapid changes to the planets albedo already ongoing leading to a greater absorbtion, and re-emission, of the TSI that reaches the surface (which is then intercepted by record high CO2 and CH4 levels in the atmosphere above). All in all I think that any plunge into a grand Minimum will not even be noticed amidst the rapid climate shift we are now entering into ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes it was. Why do you think the projections are way off? I mean in the all singing all dancing reports and charts from the IPCC, not the one from a comic. They projected an always increasing global temperature with the 'odd' year failing to hit forecasts.... not 15 years worth. Or has this now become a sliding scale opt out to save face?

Hi P.P.!

I think you have to use your own brain on this one and look at what we see GHG's doing in the lab and what we have seen them doing in the paleo record?

I mean, if you lived in the younger Dryas you may well be moaning about the folk who were banging on about orbital forcings but the science would be there to show you what you ought to expect. If you had lived in that time you might have then found that you would have been better served in looking for why the warming had halted than questioning the science behind the warming now would n't you? (seeing as a ten year period then brought 8c's worth of warming to Greenland.... with most probably occuring in a single year....according to Dr Alleys 2,000 paper on the event)

[knocker]

The link in this article to Professor John Abraham's thorough rebuttal of Monckton's science is interesting but you need a bit of time to watch it.

You’d think, in the middle of the worst drought in 70 years, with farmers in crisis, that their national political body might be thinking about the big picture of climate change and how best to communicate that to farmers.

In Marlborough, where the drought is hitting hard, the local Federated Farmers chapter is sponsoring a talk by crank Lord Monckton. I asked Conor English, Federated Farmers CEO, what he thought about this and he said

“We have 24 Provinces and they get all sorts of speakers on all sorts of things. We simply don’t know.â€

http://hot-topic.co....bRF (Hot Topic)

Edited March 19, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Prof. Sir John Beddington CMG FRS, Government Chief Scientific Advisor speaking at the AVOID Symposium on 'Avoiding dangerous climate change'.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another top quality debunking on often used "sceptic" line of argument : we've seen no global warming since the year xxxx

On this occasion, it's SkS debunking and article by David Rose in the daily mail, that was discussed a few days ago.

It seems like we have to debunk this myth on a weekly basis, as it keeps popping up in the mainstream media. So, yet again, this is global warming:

Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

The overall warming of the Earth over the past 15 years was larger than over the previous 15 years. Global warming has not stopped; it's not even slowed down.

The rest is here http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html