Heads and Tails: Still thinking about Spring 2012
Heads and Tails: Still thinking about Spring 2012
In March 2012 I planted potatoes in Colorado and it was 85 degrees F. A couple of weeks ago I put out some basil, and it frosted. As I said in the last blog, following the March heat wave I watched with interest the caster that has weather events and earthquakes on the WU homepage. There was a period of time when there were record highs and, a couple of hundred miles away, record lows.
In my blog Just Temperature, I highlighted several measures and displays of temperature information that made a consistent picture of a warming planet. If I count correctly, we are now at the 327th consecutive month that has been above the 20th century average. That average includes the 1930s, a notoriously warm decade, and it includes all of those warm months since 1985. So that average is by its definition, a high number compared with say, the 1800s. This march of warmer that average months is, by itself, pretty compelling.
In that blog, I also revisited the nice plot adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) It is reproduced here. This figure shows, for the U.S., the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1.
Figure 1: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.
So let’s return to that WU caster information. I wondered about what sort of message I was getting from these little nuggets of information. If I picked a few days from the caster, I counted about as many highs and lows. The folks at Climate Central have developed and published a record temperature tracker. It packs in a lot of information. If you look at the daily maps, then you see the waves of warm records and cold records moving across the continent. I can see the hot days in March when I planted potatoes and the cold days in May when I planted basil. But if you take May as a whole, there were 3,188 daily high records compared with 421 daily lows. If I calculate my ratio, that is more than 7 times as many highs as lows. And that was for May, a month when my impression from the WU caster information and my basil it was relatively cool.
So what about March, when everyone knew it was hot? There were 7,755 records highs and 287 record lows, a ratio of more than 27. The temperature tracker also pulls together information about warm nights and cool days. For a variety of reasons warm nights are of special interest. From a climate scientist’s point of view, warm nights are often associated with the greenhouse effect, primarily due to water vapor and clouds. It doesn’t take a very thick cirrus cloud to maintain warm nighttime temperatures. Or, if it is simply high humidity, then it stays warm. So if the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing because it is getting warmer, then the nighttime temperature should remain high. Therefore, we might expect a trend in increasing nighttime temperatures to be a robust measure of warming. This gets confusing, because it is the daily lows getting higher. If we look at the number of warmest nighttime low records in March 2012, the number was 7,517. There were only 603 records set for coolest daily high. (What does the extra water do about the daytime highs?)
We see here a very warm spring. It’s also been very dry, but I will leave that until a later. (I know I should write shorter, more frequent articles to maintain the excitement amongst my readers.)
The Climate Central record temperature tracker is based on data at the National Climatic Data Center. They keep a nice records table, which also has easy comparisons to last year. If you look at the ratio of January through May of records maximum to record minimums for 2011 and 2012, it shows what an extraordinary year we have had so far. This year the ratio of highs to lows is nearly 12 compared with 1.7 in 2011. The 2011 number is far more similar than 2012 to the information in Figure 1 - still a pretty strong imbalance between highs and lows.
So I want to end this blog with a party trick. We have had 327 months in a row above the average temperature of the 20th century. If we played the game that there was a 50% chance of each month being above (heads) or below (tails) average, we have now rolled heads 327 times in a row. How likely is that? I think that is one half raised to 327th power, which is about 1 chance in a number that is 1 with 98 zeros after it. That makes buying a mega lotto ticket look like a solid investment. We live in a extraordinary spring in an extraordinary times. After a rocky start, my potatoes look pretty good.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index
Isn't it interesting, too, that the only way the denialists know that climate has always changed is because...well, climate scientists told them so? lol
Maybe it's not so much interesting as ironic and entertaining.
Intuitively, it seems unlikely to me that one, single variable (such as CO2) could have such a dominant impact to control the climate. One competing theory has been advanced by Dr. Willie Soon a well-known astrophysicist from Harvard. Perhaps it has been discussed already in detail on this board. Dr. Soon's theory published in 2005 shows a strong link between variation in solar irradiation and arctic temps and suggests to be one of these important variables. The sun has to be considered the major driver of our climate, yes? Has CO2 usurped the sun's influence?
Here is a link to a lay commentary by Soon:
Link
It's not one, single variable. Methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon also play roles. Changes in albedo produced by turning grasslands into asphalt heat-absorbers contribute.
As for Soon - here's what's on his Wiki page...
In 2003 Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[6]
Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[16] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric[which?] temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. [16][17]
After publication, Hans Von Storch, Clare Goodess, and 2 more members of the journal's editorial board, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[9][10] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[18]
Approximately five percent of the Soon-Baliunas study's budget ($53,000) was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.[8] At the time Soon and Baliunas were also paid consultants of the Marshall Institute.[8]
Link
Now I don't see anything there about Soon's thoughts about solar cycles and Arctic sea ice melt. Hard to believe that there's anything to them as we've been in a solar cooling period and the ice has been melting away.
But, here in your 2009 link, we have Soon talking about his research as if it had not been found defective.
13. Longvista 6:12 PM PDT on June 02, 2012
Hello All,
I'm new to this blog. I'm a biological scientist of 35 years and have been been following the climate debate in some detail for the past 6 years.
Longvista, a couple of personal questions:
1. A biological scientist?
I normally take that sort of claim as meaning a Ph.D. level individual engaged in research. Does that fit or are you more like someone with a BA or MS working in some applied field?
2. Have been following the climate debate in some detail for the past 6 years?
It seems that you've followed only one side of the debate. You have presented a list of issues from the denier side, things which can be easily found to be faulty with only a tiny bit of internet research.
Why would someone with a science background not have dug a bit deeper than opinion pieces to learn the science?
I know not what it is that you seek, but a true understanding of what is causing the current global climate change does not appear to among what you are seeking.
Yes, many countless times, the solar influences have been discussed here. Yes, many times, many countless times, observational data has shown that the current climate change is not due to any increases in solar influences. "It's the Sun! It's the Sun!" does not carry any scientific weight when this obvious possibility has been reviewed and peer reviewed countless times. There is absolutely no evidence that increased solar activity is the source of the current climate change.
CO2 is the main event of the current warming we are now seeing. CO2 is not the one, single variable concerning the current warming. Lest we forget, the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory has an operative word that should not be overlooked. "Anthropogenic" is the operative word to the whole AGWT. There are many ways that mankind's activities are adding to the current global climate change. CO2 emissions are but one of them.
Let us say, for the sake of the "It's the Sun!" debate, that solar activity has increased over the past 150 years. Let us even say that it has increased to the extent that is driving a warming of our climate. None of this true of course, but for the sake of this debate we will just say that it is true. This still does not change the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This still does not change the fact that mankind's activities are ever increasing the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. So, even if the Sun was behind the current warming, would it not be also true that our raising the atmospheric levels would only result in trapping more of this heat on Earth?
"Intuitively, it seems unlikely to me that one, single variable (such as CO2) could have such a dominant impact to control the climate." - This may very well be your intuition, but that does not mean that your intuition would be correct does it? My intuition tells me that this plane should never get off the ground -
And yet, it does fly! -
Has CO2 usurped the Sun? Only in its ability to trap heat in our atmosphere! Many an object, in our solar system, will quickly show that the Sun has no ability of its own to trap its heat on a planet's surface. Only a thick enough atmosphere containing greenhouse gases will do that. True, without the Sun there would be little to no heat for greenhouse gases to trap. Guess what? We do have a sun and our greenhouse gases do trap its heat. Are you starting to get the picture?
"It seems that you've followed only one side of the debate. You have presented a list of issues from the denier side, things which can be easily found to be faulty with only a tiny bit of internet research."
This could be a situation of the pot calling the kettle black from what I've seen in your commentary so far. Looks like the Wiki criticism of Soon's work was apparently for a 2003 paper, not the one I was asking about.
Yes, I may be a skeptic, but I am not a denier. I originally had no reason to be skeptical. The AGWT on the surface looked quite pleasing. But when I retired I began to dig below the surface and the skepticism was aroused. Ironically, it was Al Gore's movie that started me on this path. I watched it 4 times because I couldn't believe how misleading it was.
"Why would someone with a science background not have dug a bit deeper than opinion pieces to learn the science?"
This is precisely why I'm here. I asked an honest question about Soon's 2005 paper on solar output variation controlling climate and I get your cynical response. If you had dug a little deeper, you would have realized that the criticized 2003 paper noted in Wikipedia was a review paper, not the one I had asked about. It is easy to see how an ardent/overzealous scientist-proponent of AGWT would want to trash Soon. One thing to keep in mind, Wiki articles, by their very nature, can have very little vetting as seems to be the case with this one-sided attack on Willie Soon. It should have carried a disclaimer regarding a lack of neutrality.
"Approximately five percent of the Soon-Baliunas study's budget ($53,000) was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.[8]"
So I guess you are accusing Soon of being in the tank for Big Oil. I suggest that sources of research funding be kept out of this discussion. That canard works both ways. There's big money on both sides of the issue.
Following the Wikipedia citations, I came across this link of a partial list of skeptical scientists: Link
Do you want to disparage them all as well?
All scientists are trained to be skeptics. You should be more of one.
Not necessarily. Depends on the feedbacks present and their relative magnitudes (negative and positive). The IPCC reports, and the climate modelling they use, presume a more important positive feedback but I understand this is an area of intense debate in the field and the jury is still out..
That's a amazing plane by the way, but having seen the space shuttle fly on top of that Boeing 747......are you getting the picture?
Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.
1) Supporters of AGW rely entirely on computer modeling of the future for their argument for humans' role in climate change. Why hasn't computer modeling been a better predictor of current global temps? Since it has come up short, where does that leave us?
2) These computer models have had a particular problem in dealing with water in the atmosphere. And water is the dominant GHG by far.
3) I've seen people cite stats that '97%' of climate scientists believe in AGW. Where did this stat come from and what credentials determine a 'climate scientist'?
4) From what I can see, the 1930's in the US had equal or warmer temps than today?
5) Many of the main points of Al Gore's movie have been discredited? Kilimanjaro' snow cap for one and the other 9 or so points prohibited by the UK courts for teaching in their classrooms...
Now with your claimed background why in the world would you have asked some of those questions on a forum rather that looking for more direct sources?
BTW, do you not recognize that 1930s US temperature is not 1930s global temperature.
What main points of Gore's movie do you find discreditied? Yes, there are a few points that he either got wrong or where he got ahead of the data - but main points?
The list of scientists that I furnished? No, I do not want to "disparage" them. I want to point out that many are long past involvement in climate science and/or are not actually involved in climate science.
What 'big money' is funding people to misrepresent climate change in the anti-denier direction?
(Sorry about the 2003/2005 thing. I did not read carefully.)
FACT #1: It's been proven beyond all doubt that the atmosphere and the oceans are heating at an increasingly rapid rate.
FACT #2: It's been proven beyond all doubt that that warming is almost entirely--if not completely--due to quickly rising concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs that are now the highest they've been in many hundreds of thousands of years.
FACT #3: It's been proven beyond all doubt that that excess of CO2 is anthropogenic in nature.
Now, debate those basics all you wish, but you may as well spend time arguing that water isn't wet or that fire isn't hot. The thing is, until and unless you--or Willie Soon--can prove that CO2 isn't a warming-inducing GHG or that the 40 trillion liters of it we humans pump into the environment each and every day simply vanishes with no effect whatsoever, I'm afraid you've played out your hand.
(Even if you've truthfully earned a "...PhD from MIT in the biological sciences and my training included a 2 1/2 year postdoctoral fellowship", and if you've truthfully "...authored or co-authored over 120 peer-reviewed scientific articles and reviews and over 100 scientific presentations," you'd be far from the first person whose credibility in one discipline mislead them into believing they had expertise in all of them.)
Soon's work is worthless. It uses silly premises and just-so data to arrive at a conclusion that is inconsistent with reality.
For instance:
All that warming...and no Sun to be found.
Now, if you are going to add some additional hypothesis to account for the winter warming in the Arctic, you'd be better served to just forget it. I'll take the parsimonious answer that explains observation over the non-parsimonious answer 100 times out of 100. It's just good practice.
"I have a PhD from MIT in the biological sciences and my training included a 2 1/2 year postdoctoral fellowship. I have authored or co-authored over 120 peer-reviewed scientific articles and reviews and over 100 scientific presentations." - I say this with all due respect and sincerity, Congratulations! I do not take lightly anyone's efforts to achieve the academic gains that you have acquired for yourself.
"The AGWT on the surface looked quite pleasing. - What an odd choice of a word to use in this context. "Pleasing"? Really? This is the word you would most prefer to use, out of countless descriptors, for the AGWT?
"... when I retired I began to dig below the surface and the skepticism was aroused. Ironically, it was Al Gore's movie that started me on this path. I watched it 4 times because I couldn't believe how misleading it was." - Well, now you have me dazed and confused. How could a single movie, no matter how many times viewed, and by any one person, could cause you to question the actual scientific evidence concerning any scientific study? I wish not to sound crass, but is this not simply an example of shallow thinking?
Allow me some time to study Soon's paper before I comment on it. While I am doing so, do you have any peer reviewed data that would contradict the chart shown in post #59? Should you have any such data, I would find it useful and worth reviewing.
"So I guess you are accusing Soon of being in the tank for Big Oil. I suggest that sources of research funding be kept out of this discussion. That canard works both ways. There's big money on both sides of the issue." - There is big money on both sides of the issue. The vast majority of the money that finances the denial side of this scientific debate will come from entities that wish not to make any changes that will affect their short term bottom lines. The ROI for the oil companies to lobby against any changes that will impact their bottom line is quite significant. So is their ROI on helping to finance any scientific studies that would only cast a shadow of a doubt on the validity of the AGWT. They do not have to disprove the AGWT. They only have to bring a small degree of doubt concerning its validity. Personally, I prefer that they were required to disprove the AGWT. They did try to do so, in a way, when they helped to finance the BEST study. Sadly, for them, the BEST report verified the data that they had questioned all along. This study was headed by Richard Muller. Perhaps you have heard of him? Yet, I do not see any of them posting this study on their websites or even supplying a link to it. ... Since their vast resources have not been able to do so perhaps you would like to take up this challenge? Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to disprove the AGWT. Should you prove successful you find a Nobel Prize(s), unfathomable wealth and the endearment of the world's population. ... This offer will self destruct when the warming has reached a point of no return. You, as everyone else on this planet, will suffer from your failure to do so. ... Sleep on it. Get back to us tomorrow with your answer as to if you wish to disprove the AGWT. I am reasonably certain that we still have tomorrow left for you to decide.
"All scientists are trained to be skeptics. You should be more of one." - How very, very true! ALL scientists should be skeptics. ALL scientist should also be willing to admit that their skepticism was unfounded whenever they cannot disprove the theory. Saying, "I disagree!" has no real merit unless you can show a sound reason for your disagreement. You simply cannot say, "This goes against my intuitive instincts." and expect such a reply to make null any scientific theory.
BTW it also makes sense that GHGs are also trapping the heat nuclear plants emit into the climate system. Correct???????
I call BS. I don't think you have any of the above.
It isn't that it would make a difference if you had facts to debate. You could be a 6 year old kid and still deserve space here to be a critic or ask questions.
But you're not a 6 year old kid or a retired biologist. You are a ramped up and damped down poser running a straight disingeneous ploy.
record warm MAM (spring). My own garden remains
two weeks advanced for the season. A tomato plant
I put out March 15 (with trepidation) survived with
protection from one freeze March 27 and several frosts,
the last in mid April. It was five feet high June 3 with
a healthy deep red ripe tomato. I expect my first sweet corn today (6/5)
or tomorrow (6/6). Previous record was 6/7 in 2010.
I do use clear plastic mulch for early sweetcorn which advances
it about ten days. Summers in DC are too hot to use it after late May
but it helped a lot at Penn State in 1979, a much cooler summer area.
May this year was exceptional not so much for heat but
for lack of any significant chill at all. The monthly minimum
of 52F is the highest May minimum of record. This was also
the first May in the 140 year record where every single day reached 70F or higher.
I do have to take exception with the odds of 327 consecutive
above normal months having a probability of 1 in 2**327. Global
temperatures (like many meteorological statistics) are autocorrelated such that departures from the mean
persist for months so the actual probability of this occurring is higher
than 1 in 2**327 but the point that it is still miniscule is correct. I'll
ask another poster to state the actual autocorrelation.
FACT #1: It's been proven beyond all doubt that the atmosphere and the oceans are heating at an increasingly rapid rate.
Rapid? What, a tenth of a degree every 10 years or so? I guess so. If the men's 100 meter record were broken by a tenth of a second every 4 years, I'd consider that not too rapid. Yet, its also a fact the Earth right now is in a non-cooling phase. So it could be said; the atmosphere and oceans heat at increasing rates during the cyclical warming phases. That seems pretty normal to me.
FACT #2: It's been proven beyond all doubt that that warming is almost entirely--if not completely--due to quickly rising concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs that are now the highest they've been in many hundreds of thousands of years.
So the warming is almost entirely due to natural rises in CO2 and other green house gases as they are presumed to have been in the distant past. Sounds pretty normal to me.
FACT #3: It's been proven beyond all doubt that that excess of CO2 is anthropogenic in nature.
Never created nor destroyed, just transferred.
What is Energy, Alex.
Correct! Choose again.
I'll take Soap Box Science for $800.
Another Daily Double, how much will you wager?
Hmmm. I'll risk 3 trillion dollars of the American publics' purse , Alex.
Ok, here it is: "This popular italian flavor can also be considered redundant when coupled with scientific fact.."
What is Neapolitan.
Correct! Well done.
How Juvenile!!
You obviously are a disciple of 'Soap Box Science'
Inaction to curb CO2 emissions is going to cost all of civillization many, many Trillions of dollars in destroyed coastal cities, infrastructure losses, agricultural losses and forced migration of 100s of millions of displaced people.
If you have children or grandchildren you should feel a moral obligation to understand the 'true science' of AGW and the potential risks to societies worldwide.
If you want them to live in extreme poverty with minimal food and extremely hostile weather conditions then continue to bury your head in Tar Sand.
Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy | Environment | The Guardian
As far as I can tell only Kerry Emmanuel or Richard Lindzen have reached your extensive publication record. Which one are you?
I don't think so. Recently CO2 past 400ppm in the Arctic while measured 396 - something at Mauna Loa.
Furthermore, CO2 measurements vary a bit over the day and month, monthly averages are reported.
The control is, we use the same spots to measure from month to month.
(Trust my memory even less than normally, I'm a bit under the weather today.)
By April or May 2014 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 should reach Mauna Loa.
How about we pull back a little on our friend?
I also have a Ph.D. from a major university and had a (shorter) research career which produced some major journal papers.
My graduate education had nothing to do with climate so I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to things climate/weather. It's even more irrelevant in this discussion than is a Ph.D. in biology. At least he should be better informed on animal/plant migration and extinction caused by climate change.
I can imagine it possible for LV to have had his head down in his own area of study (or other interests) and is just now tuning into climate science. And that he made his way to the topic via denier-sites.
Let's lay out the science as we understand it. If he's a scientist then the data will drag him to where the truth (best guess) resides.
There is one thing about his first post that does bother me, that's how he seems to have acted when he ran across the " I've seen people cite stats that '97%' of climate scientists believe in AGW." information.
(Pardon, LV we are talking about you, but in front of your face I would assume.)
Now in my field were I to see that the vast majority of researchers held that X causes Y while only a tiny minority claimed that to not be true I would be diving into the data each side had to offer. Not wondering about who did the survey.
When you've got a holding that disproportionate only a couple of things could be going on. A) there are few crackpots/contrarians/believers playing by a different set of rules, or B) a small group of researchers has discovered something new and the rest of the field has yet to recognize.
If I saw 97%/3% I'd be looking at the arguments presented by the 3% and I'd be looking for new data coming from the 3% rather than statements of opinion. (I think I'd also be aware enough to check for cherry-picking.)
Just a little checking would let one know that, yes, the planet has warmed since the 1930s.
Here you can see that volume has again fallen below two standard deviations, meaning that it's decreasing more rapidly than even the steep grade defined by the 79-12 trendline:
--Temperatures in parts of north central Siberia soared into the low 90s today, helping in part to explain why tundra is turning into dark, sunlight-absorbent forest much quicker than previously thought. This is yet another positive feedback that will exacerbate the heating of the north.
--Numerous locations in Maine set new three-day and single-day rainfall records this week.
Feedbacks that drive melting increase.
No magic freezing dragon stirs....
Neapolitan,
Where did you get the data about the temps in northern Siberia reaching the 90s today?? I'd like to share that information elsewhere.
Is 2012 becoming a tipping point??
Thanks
We've seen recently in posts by Dr. Rood and Dr. Masters that increasing temperatures in the Arctic regions are affecting the Jet Stream.
It is the winds aloft, from the Jet Stream, that mix the GHGs across the globe. Is it possible when the Jet Stream begins to slow and at times stay almost stationary that GHGs will remain concentrated in one area longer, hence unusual temperature extremes??
While we all have to deal with the comments of skeptics/denialists/trolls from time to time, either via facts, humor or cursing, I like it when this site becomes a forum for questions, answers and information sharing!!
Used that way a tipping point means the spot in a process, that once it happens, takes extraordinary forces to reverse.
I think we see a continued acceleration of ice loss.
I suspect we're close to a "milestone" the first time in modern times that the Arctic will be essentially free of ice for a few days in the summer.
Some time back I tried to make a list of all the physical forces/factors which might either accelerate the rate of ice loss or dampen/slow down the rate. I'll lay them out here, but recognize that they are for your entertainment only. I'm no climate/ice expert.
--
We can identify several accelerating forces.
1) Thin ice has less albedo effect, it lets more sunshine (heat) pass through and reflects less back. The water below thin ice warms faster.
2) The freeze season is starting later. Spring is coming earlier and fall later.
3) Overall atmospheric temperatures are rising.
4) Snow levels seem to be declining. This lowers albedo and snow acts as an insulator. (This could change with more humidity trapped in warmer air.)
5) Increased open water makes for stronger wave action and physical destruction of the ice. (Longer fetch.)
6) Open water allows for more spreading/melting and increased transportation out of the Arctic.
7) An overall thinner ice pack allows for more motion and more dispersion.
8) Increased organic growth makes the water darker, trapping more heat.
9) Increasing late melt season clouds trap heat and delay the onset of freezing.
10) More energy in the season could/should mean stronger, more destructive storms. More ice transport out of the region. More mixing of ice and warmer water.
11) Overall thinner ice means bottom melt is reaching a larger percentage of the ice volume.
12) Even if the amount of incoming heat remained constant there is less mass to melt. More energy will go into heating water which will delay fall freeze-up.
13) Loss of snow/ice cover on surrounding land masses. Less albedo allowing more heat build-up. And less energy going into melting that land snow/ice.
14) We've just come out of a low solar cycle and have headed into a high output cycle.
15) Surrounding oceans temperatures are increasing which means that what outside water enters the Arctic is going to be warmer. (Will a greater temperature difference between Arctic/Atlantic speed the rate of exchange?)
16) Ice transported out is going to melt quicker, thus reducing resistance to the next pieces from moving out. Less for the winds to push. The drain is more open.
17) There has been an increse in the Arctic diapole, more wind activity which tends to push larger amounts of ice into the warmer/melting Atlantic.
While there are some 'dampening' factors it seems like they would have to be quite strong to overcome the repeated melting we're observing.
1) "The increased loss of heat from newly open areas of ocean - the Titesche effect." Open water exchanges heat more rapidly with air than does ice.
2) Possibly there could be more melt season cloud cover blocking sunlight.
3) Thinner ice at the summer minimum allows more heat to radiate to space during the re-freeze.
4) Thinner winter ice forms large cracks allowing the creation of more ice from the air/water exchange.
Any help on making those lists better greatly appreciated....
Sorry had a busy day. It may take me some time to catch up with everyones’ challenges, and I’ll try if things stay civil.
BobWallace: “Now with your claimed background why in the world would you have asked some of those questions on a forum rather that looking for more direct sources?”
Well, I sensed that this board was heavily pro-AGWT which seems to be true based on the responses so far to my contributions ……… so where else to understand better contrary opinions. I thought there might be some bona fide climate experts to add to the discussion. But maybe not, so we could all end up going in circles. Perhaps many are like me, just wanting to get closer to the truth or at least a better understanding of the field. My message is to the general public is: do not automatically accept what the ‘consensus’ (more on this maybe later) tells you, but be skeptical. I still have serious questions of how that 97% AGW consensus survey was conducted. This whole carbon tax push to control the climate has huge ramifications and we better get it right and not go off half-cocked.
I am definitely not an expert in climate or physical sciences, and I have difficulty weighing the interpretations of much of the climate literature. But I do understand the general process of research science well, having had until recently been involved in a rigorous research environment for quite some time. I also understand what motivates scientists in such an environment. They are subject to all the inherent shortcomings as other members of any other dynamic group: ambition, vested interests, turf-protection, ego, acute need for peer-recognition etc. As such, high profile, opinion-making scientists can be, and many are, biased and rigid-thinking, and will fight tooth-and-nail to protect their interests despite contrary evidence that may challenge them. Be wary.
“BTW, do you not recognize that 1930s US temperature is not 1930s global temperature. “
Yes, but I admit sometimes that I equate the two which I obviously shouldn’t. But there are so many representations of global temps over time I have difficulty determining the gold standard. I suspect there is a lot of cherry-picking going on to make points on both sides of the debate. What to believe? To parse a 1degreeC rise over 100 years with the devices and sites of measurement over that time has to involve enormous variation and statistical error margins to make such decadal comparisons has to be relatively meaningless over such a short period. Are the science and measurements really that precise? I understand some regions such as the arctic has warmed more than the rest of the globe and that is easier to understand the significance. But I’m wary of overinterpretation driven by alarmism and self-interests.
“What main points of Gore's movie do you find discreditied? Yes, there are a few points that he either got wrong or where he got ahead of the data - but main points?”
It’s been a while and I don’t want to watch it again. “Ahead of the data”? I think you are being very generous BobWallace. I believe fundamentally that Al Gore’s movie is an intellectually dishonest (or just plain ignorant) piece of propaganda that only aims to further his narrow brand of over-reactive environmentalism. I could even call it shameless. While watching the movie (several times), I was struck by the open-mouthed awe that the young audience held Gore in as he went through his lecture. Yes, it was a public relations tour-de-force. He gratuitously attributed many ‘bad’ environmental changes (with dramatic photos/footage as evidence) to AGW, such as the Kilimanjaro ice cap disappearing, Lake Chad drying up, Polynesian islands going underwater from rising oceans, coral reefs dying off, selected glaciers disappearing, polar bears facing decimation etc. without acknowledging any other potential responsible factors. There was no direct scientific evidence to back up any of these claims to AGW or even GW in some of the cases from what I can tell but the audience ate it up. And so did the general public for the next couple of years anyway. It was dramatic, and he got the Nobel Peace Prize. ..
One point, Kilimanjaro’s ice cap, for instance, started to recede in the late 19th century, well before any important rise in CO2 and claimed AGW. It turns out that the more recent accelerated loss in the ice cap is more likely due to the deforestation (granted, human-caused and could be considered AGW) on its slopes leading to changes in the local climate, loss of humidity and subsequent sublimation of the ice. Very little melting. I think this is a pretty well accepted scenario. None of this was mentioned by Gore.
Probably the most egregious fault (and what originally got my attention way back) was Gore’s dramatic stage-wide graphical slideshow with him on an elevating platform pointing out the historical up-and-down co-relationship of atmospheric CO2 and global temps as measured by various proxies over eons.
He said something like 'now as you can see here, as CO2 goes up-and-down, so do temperatures', implying that CO2 was driving temps. On closer inspection of the lines in the graph, however, temperature changes actually preceded changes in CO2 by about 1000yrs! How does this support AGWT? In the end what Gore was left with that he could reasonably defend, was that for the past 50years or so there has been a acceleration in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and an accompanying increasein global temps.
In a lawsuit protesting the showing of this movie in UK classrooms, the courts there concluded that after all the evidence was produced in testimony that the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ was defined as a ‘political movie’ and in order to be shown in UK classrooms , caveats on these (9 or 10) inaccuracies had to made clear by the teachers to the pupils. Media accounts of this court case are easily found on the internet.
“The list of scientists that I furnished? No, I do not want to "disparage" them." I want to point out that many are long past involvement in climate science and/or are not actually involved in climate science.”
Shouldn't ignore opinions of well-regarded, retired scientists that have had a productive and respected careers – they are the ones with no allegiance to anyone. Many do have scientific authority to speak about their opinions on AGW. They could be your best source.
“What 'big money' is funding people to misrepresent climate change in the anti-denier direction?”
According to a May report put out by the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. That's very big money to go around. Plus likely hundreds of millions of dollars funneled through the various nonprofit environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and WWF, among many others to various AGW initiatives. Don’t underestimate the power of funding for an academic research director to keep the lab standing. I don't think even Big Oil approaches these numbers. Given the position of the current EPA claiming that CO2 is a pollutant (which personally I find largely independent of the science), I suspect there is a strong motive for investigators to tow the line on AGWT in order to get gov’t funding. The general political atmosphere in the high-end academic centers also fosters this sentiment, MIT included, which is why they ignore Lindzen. Whether Lindzen is correct regarding his thoughts on clouds regulation of warming, time will tell. He and others wouldn't be the first scientists to run against dogma, be vilified, and then found to have been right all along. Lindzen has the freedom to say what he believes because he has tenure; most younger scientists involved do not. I suggest there could be many that would dissent more openly if free to do so but to sustain their careers, they keep quiet in their writings and do not openly question or (God-forbid) oppose AGWT . No mistake, research funding can be an overwhelming incentive to behave and tow the line.
But to be sure, to question AGWT does not mean ‘anti-environment’. Everyone wants clean air and water. But let’s make sure we are smart about it and spend our scarce resources wisely.
BobWallace: I saw this recent article regarding unintended consequences of potent GHGs produced through solar panel manufacturing. What impact do you think this would have on the proposed road to 100% renewables in 20 years? This particular environmentalist is very concerned….
Link
All the major global temperature measurement systems are in close agreement.
I've seen lots of cherry picking on the denier side. Looking at only 1998 (ignoring the extreme El Nino forcing) and a few following years in an attempt to say that warming has stopped, for example.
You're a published scientist. Do you think you could get much past the careful eyes of reviewers at major journals? And, if you happened to get something through, how long would it likely take to have other people in the field rip you a new one?
Science is largely self-correcting.
--
What to believe?
Here's a rough guide. Believe the people most involved in the field. Go with the majority. That won't give you the correct answer all of the time, but it's a good first screen.
Your right arm hurts. You go to the emergency room and the cardio tells you that you're having a heart attack. Take his word or that of the cab driver who took you to the ER?
Not totally comfortable with his diagnosis? Get a second, third opinion (if you have time). If nine out of ten cardios agree on heart attack and show you the data they are using do you go with them or the one that says your shoes are too tight and produces no data nor logical explanation?
My understanding is those GHG are generally trapped and reused or repurposed. They are not released into the atmosphere.
The Chinese manufactures were not doing a good job of that but have been greatly cleaning up their systems.
Those GHGs often have value. Hanging on to them, reusing them or selling them helps the bottom line.
eta: I haven't been able to find the article I read about how US manufacturers are using closed systems in order to trap pollutants. Best I found was an article from a few years back about how it could be done.
It's getting harder to find information about renewables and climate change on Google. Many topics are packed with links to the same C&P denier stuff.
You wouldn't think anyone would intentionally do that, do you? ;o)
I certainly appreciate your thoughtful response. You have highlighted current actions some of which will be positive feedbacks and others which may be negative feedbacks. That is why this science is so difficult to portray accurately and makes future precictive modelling so difficult.
As an example, if a piece of ice is a perfect 8'x8' cube (512 cu. ft.), 384 square feet are exposed to either sun/air influences (87.5%) or water influences (12.5%). However, it the dimensions of the block of ice are 32'x8'x2' the volume is still 512 cu. ft., however the surface area exposed to sun/air or water is now 1092 square feet.
This makes a big difference in how fast the melting will take place.
Now for another question:
Does wave action, in heavy seas, on a block of ice cause any friction heating??
These "self-interests" which might lie about how bad climate change is getting and how likely it might become, who are they?
Who is set to make massive amounts of money from renewable energy in the same manner that fossil fuel industries are set to lose fortunes?
Yes, there will later on likely be hugely successful solar, wind, etc. manufacturers but do they have tens/hundreds of millions to throw at corrupting scientists?
Name a scientist who has worshiping throngs tossing rose petals at them because they are bringing forth data that tells us we are in trouble.
(We've got people like Lord Mockton making good money traveling around talking the denial story.)
Let's do some basic science here. Let's identify the variables rather than hint that they exist, then build our model on factors which are most likely real.
Not only does that wider/thinner block get hit with more sunlight, it has more edge area where warmer water tends to eat away at the ice. More of it is higher in the water where the water is (I'm guessing) slightly warmer.
Additionally it has more surface area for wind to push against and a shallower "keel". Likely to get transported into warmer/melting ice quicker.
--
I can't see how grinding between pieces of ice against each other would not create heat. That energy has to go somewhere. But I've seen no one suggest it's a significant melting factor.
I suspect the greater effect is to break off very small pieces of ice which then, surrounded by warmer air/water, melt quicker. A block of ice in the punch bowl vs. the same amount of crushed ice.
He said something like 'now as you can see here, as CO2 goes up-and-down, so do temperatures', implying that CO2 was driving temps. On closer inspection of the lines in the graph, however, temperature changes actually preceded changes in CO2 by about 1000yrs! How does this support AGWT? In the end what Gore was left with that he could reasonably defend, was that for the past 50years or so there has been a acceleration in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and an accompanying increasein global temps.
Here's my understanding of the long term record.
Previous warming events were initiated by non-CO2 drivers. Orbit change, for example. Then, after significant warming had occurred, the planet began releasing larger amounts of CO2 and that CO2 further warmed the climate. In this case CO2 was not the main initial driver, but a positive feedback/amplifier that was kicked off by the earlier warming.
Something unique, as far as we know, is now happening.
For the first time in the planet's history a very large group of animals have been digging up and burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. And they've been doing that for over 100 years in ever increasing amounts.
Past events show us that once CO2 starts showing up in appreciable amounts warming is increased. We've known the physics of CO2 heat trapping for over 100 years.
That should help us understand that if we somehow trigger large CO2 releases in a novel way the temperature will go up.
---
Gore is a politician who is trained as a journalist. I'm not going to him for my climate science. But I highly admire his attempts to wake us up.
Which do you think more significant - Gore getting Kilimanjaro wrong or other politicians telling us that the planet is not warming and that we can keep on burning all the coal and oil we want for as long as we want?
Here's your non magical freezing Dragon.........
Negative the tipping point was when atmospheric Co2 exceeded 350ppm.....
Correct.......
Yes any movement creates more heating....
So one must ask the question what is making the water and air warmer so as to melt more ice?????
My experience has been that it is easier to get funding if your research is about more 'popular' topics. Subjects like cancer and substance abuse have more money shoved their way than do some esoteric area.
I've never heard anyone say that you had to tailor your results to keep the funds coming. Unless you were dependent on industry money.
What I've seen is that if someone comes up with an interesting outcome it's a lot easier to get the next project funded as opposed to getting funding for 'more of the same'.
I don't know about your experience but mine was pretty much universal that later in their careers most scientists quit keeping up with the field.
They had gotten more involved with university/agency administration, their golf game, or they just had lost that spark that was lit back when they were starting out.
My final major professor was teaching from crumbling legal pad notes he had taken at Harvard. He was spending his time writing undergraduate books for extra income.
I did graduate degrees in three different universities and served on the faculty for a fourth. Perhaps my sample was flawed, but I suspect not.
These days data comes fast and furiously. If you're not at your peak you may not even be keeping up with the stuff in your own field, narrow sub-discipline at most.
In response to his/her claim, I wrote :
I call BS. I don't think you have any of the above.
...... You are a ramped up and damped down poser running a straight disingeneous ploy.
So let me explain:
Ramped Up: starts with questions to lead the discussion into an area where he/she wants to hit hard with dis-information.
Damped down: keeps the hard hitting until later.
Poser: obvious
Disingeneous ploy: favorite tactic of the GOP, etc.: knowing that their major supporters are the anti-science crowd, they ask seemingly obvious common sense questions that are un-answerable within the same level of detail/expertise as the question. To the less than informed, this gives the impression that the expert is confused and hiding behind technical stuff. It's typical of the dumbing down of America.
I stand by my accusation. There is too much of a pattern here for this to be an honest poster.
I'd say no. Any contact between surfaces will exchange movement and therefore exchange heat. Since the surfaces of the ice and water are moving at difference speeds (or past the surface laminar layer, there is internal heating of the ocean), my guess is that there will be some small heating effect. But I doubt it would be significant. The velocities aren't that great.
If the waves were huge, it might cause pressure melting that carried ice off before it could refreeze. But I think physicial stress would much more likely manifest itself in ordinary breaking up of hte ice into smaller pieces that have more surface area to accept ordinary heat from the water, as you noted.
Much more significant would be the transport of heat caused by a turbulent ocean. If you dropped the iceberg into a completely still ocean, it would chill the water around itself as it melted. That cold water would act as a barrier somewhat. Storms and currents that carry heated water into contact with the surface of the ice would have much more melting effect.
Link
Climate Change is already affecting life across the globe. Sadly, one political party continues to bury their heads in the sand.
Link
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index