Heads and Tails: Still thinking about Spring 2012

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 05:45 AM GMT am 02. Juni 2012

Share this Blog
13
+

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

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 186 - 136

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Quoting Xandra:
Very good news!

Dr Peter Gleick has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute. Welcome back Dr Gleick!

June 6, 2012

PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
I brought that up in comment #146--and, yes, it's excellent news. And, frankly, to be expected; that purported "fake" memo he leaked was far too close to things the lying manipulators at Heartland say to possibly be anything but genuine.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Yesterday in Masters' forum, I posted that the CPC is now predicting a 50% chance of an El Nino in the second half of this year. What I didn't make note of in that comment was that when we do move into an El Nino, things are going to really start cooking:

Hot

Also, the sun--which has been at a near-record minimum for several years--is now ramping up the wattage, and that's not going to help at all:

Sol

NASA summarizes the situation thusly:

We conclude that the [apparent] slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

Bottom line: it's going to be very warm over the next few years. 2013 should be a record, and 2014 may top it. And so on. But I can wager good money right now that denialists will claim, "Well, it's just El Nino. And poorly-sited thermometers. And a global socialist conspiracy. And Al Gore. And, besides, it snowed yesterday in Alaska. And when the next La Nina comes in 2015 or whenever, the globe will cool down and that's when the next ice age will start."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Very good news!

Dr Peter Gleick has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute. Welcome back Dr Gleick!

June 6, 2012

PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT

The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute. An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute. This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.

Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history. The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment. We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

"I am glad to be back and thank everyone for continuing their important work at the Pacific Institute during my absence," said Dr. Gleick in a statement. "I am returning with a renewed focus and dedication to the science and research that remain at the core of the Pacific Institute’s mission."

Source
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


It will be gone in a week..........


I just finished looking through the melt charts for the different regions of the Arctic - those regions that melt out each year.

Looks to me that when the ice is in it's melt crash it goes down quickly to about 0.1 million km2 and then the melt slows way down.

I'll agree that the Bering will probably be basically ice free within a week but that last tenth could hang on for a few days more.

You can see the regional charts here...

Link
Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting BobWallace:
Here's another look at what has happened/is happening in the Bering Sea.



Last winter saw more than usual freezing. Now that ice is rapidly thawing. If it continues at the current rate the ice should be gone in a couple of weeks.

That's later 'free of ice' than last year (look at the left side), but there was more than normal freezing.



It will be gone in a week..........
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Please don't bore us with inconsequential reports where the education and/or affiliation of the authors is not referenced. You're silly article did not include any footnoted references to credible scientific publications, universities, or governmental research organizations. For all I know your article was written by a couple of high school chenistry students who at least had the decency to use spellcheck.

You could learn a lot about the effects of CO2 by a simple Google search and concentrate on reading current research being done by credible professionals at credible scientific organizations.

I just learned tonight that CO2's positive effect on Global Warming may be more than just radiative forcing. If you take the time to read the abstract and then the full text pdf. file, you may learn something. Not just about the effects of CO2, you may actually learn what a professionally written scientific publication looks like.

Importance of carbon dioxide physiological forcing to future climate change

From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration influences climate both directly through its radiative effect (i.e., trapping longwave radiation) and indirectly through its physiological effect (i.e., reducing transpiration of land plants). Here we compare the climate response to radiative and physiological effects of increased CO2 using the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) coupled Community Land and Community Atmosphere Model. In response to a doubling of CO2, the radiative effect of CO2 causes mean surface air temperature over land to increase by 2.86 ± 0.02 K (± 1 standard error), whereas the physiological effects of CO2 on land plants alone causes air temperature over land to increase by 0.42 ± 0.02 K. Combined, these two effects cause a land surface warming of 3.33 ± 0.03 K. The radiative effect of doubling CO2 increases global runoff by 5.2 ± 0.6%, primarily by increasing precipitation over the continents. The physiological effect increases runoff by 8.4 ± 0.6%, primarily by diminishing evapotranspiration from the continents. Combined, these two effects cause a 14.9 ± 0.7% increase in runoff. Relative humidity remains roughly constant in response to CO2-radiative forcing, whereas relative humidity over land decreases in response to CO2-physiological forcing as a result of reduced plant transpiration. Our study points to an emerging consensus that the physiological effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on land plants will increase global warming beyond that caused by the radiative effects of CO2.


The abstract and the full article are available at the following link:

Link


CO2, now the GHG that just keeps giving and giving. I think I will plant another shade tree and double my efforts by removing atmospheric CO2 while staying a little cooler in the shade.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
Here's another look at what has happened/is happening in the Bering Sea.



Last winter saw more than usual freezing. Now that ice is rapidly thawing. If it continues at the current rate the ice should be gone in a couple of weeks.

That's later 'free of ice' than last year (look at the left side), but there was more than normal freezing.

Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting JupiterKen:
And then there is this...
Link


Please don't bore us with inconsequential reports where the education and/or affiliation of the authors is not referenced. You're silly article did not include any footnoted references to credible scientific publications, universities, or governmental research organizations. For all I know your article was written by a couple of high school chenistry students who at least had the decency to use spellcheck.

You could learn a lot about the effects of CO2 by a simple Google search and concentrate on reading current research being done by credible professionals at credible scientific organizations.

I just learned tonight that CO2's positive effect on Global Warming may be more than just radiative forcing. If you take the time to read the abstract and then the full text pdf. file, you may learn something. Not just about the effects of CO2, you may actually learn what a professionally written scientific publication looks like.

Importance of carbon dioxide physiological forcing to future climate change

From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration influences climate both directly through its radiative effect (i.e., trapping longwave radiation) and indirectly through its physiological effect (i.e., reducing transpiration of land plants). Here we compare the climate response to radiative and physiological effects of increased CO2 using the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) coupled Community Land and Community Atmosphere Model. In response to a doubling of CO2, the radiative effect of CO2 causes mean surface air temperature over land to increase by 2.86 ± 0.02 K (± 1 standard error), whereas the physiological effects of CO2 on land plants alone causes air temperature over land to increase by 0.42 ± 0.02 K. Combined, these two effects cause a land surface warming of 3.33 ± 0.03 K. The radiative effect of doubling CO2 increases global runoff by 5.2 ± 0.6%, primarily by increasing precipitation over the continents. The physiological effect increases runoff by 8.4 ± 0.6%, primarily by diminishing evapotranspiration from the continents. Combined, these two effects cause a 14.9 ± 0.7% increase in runoff. Relative humidity remains roughly constant in response to CO2-radiative forcing, whereas relative humidity over land decreases in response to CO2-physiological forcing as a result of reduced plant transpiration. Our study points to an emerging consensus that the physiological effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on land plants will increase global warming beyond that caused by the radiative effects of CO2.


The abstract and the full article are available at the following link:

Link
Member Since: Mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


I got the above Arctic Feedback Loop chart from the Arctic Climate Emergency website. This chart depicts a great many of the topics we have been discussing here for the past few days. The below link will take you to a page that website that has a powerful PPT presentation. Even though much of the data is several years old, it is a very educational tool to help understand why it is so important to understand how the the climate in the Arctic regions affects global weather patterns.

Link


My idea removes industrial age GHG emissions which will cool the planet back off....... They attack the root cause.
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
And then there is this...
Link
Member Since: Mai 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306


I got the above Arctic Feedback Loop chart from the Arctic Climate Emergency website. This chart depicts a great many of the topics we have been discussing here for the past few days. The below link will take you to a page that website that has a powerful PPT presentation. Even though much of the data is several years old, it is a very educational tool to help understand why it is so important to understand how the the climate in the Arctic regions affects global weather patterns.

Link
Member Since: Mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I hear what you are saying, Cyclone. I am not in a position to influence the ones that could help and my piggy bank does not even rattle any more.




Those who are in such a position are doing the WORLD a great injustice...........
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting Neapolitan:
I realize this is just the US, and not the world as a whole. But, still... The NCDC has released its national State of the Climate data for May, and it is a doozy. I'm fairly certain Dr. Masters will discuss the unprecedented warmth in the next several days, but I thought I'd mention a couple of salient features.

30 or states saw their warmest springs on record. Only two of the contiguous 48 states saw near normal temps:

Hit

Spring (March - May) was by far the warmest ever in the United States (note the blue spike at the far right):

Hit


...and June 2011-May 2012 was by a good margin the warmest 12 month period recorded in the US since 1895. And all 11 of the 11 warmest 12 month periods have taken place since 2000, with threee of the top 5 taking place in the past 14 months:

Hit

But I wouldn't worry too much about it; Bastardi swears the cooling trend is already underway; it's just been masked by all that dadgummed heat. :-)


This is a NOAA OUCH also Neopolitan....

Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting cyclonebuster:




However,notice on this graph the decline in decade progression from the 80's through the 2000's. Notice each decade progression is lower than the previous decade. That's just another sign of a warming planet.
I have told this crowd numerous times over the decade I have been here how to reverse this alarming trend and still no one listens to my idea. Why is that? Do you want a cooler Earth or not?


I hear what you are saying, Cyclone. I am not in a position to influence the ones that could help and my piggy bank does not even rattle any more.


Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
Quoting biff4ugo:
Note that the lowest year, the third lowest year, the average 2000 extent, and this year are all tracking the same extent and loss angle on the 15% ice graph, for this time of year. And note that area is about a million sqare km less that typical for the 1980's at this time of year.

1.3 mil km2 is the size of California and Montana together.




However,notice on this graph the decline in decade progression from the 80's through the 2000's. Notice each decade progression is lower than the previous decade. That's just another sign of a warming planet.
I have told this crowd numerous times over the decade I have been here how to reverse this alarming trend and still no one listens to my idea. Why is that? Do you want a cooler Earth or not?
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Note that the lowest year, the third lowest year, the average 2000 extent, and this year are all tracking the same extent and loss angle on the 15% ice graph, for this time of year. And note that area is about a million sqare km less that typical for the 1980's at this time of year.

1.3 mil km2 is the size of California and Montana together.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


Take a look at where the Bering Sea it - it's way out in the Arctic boonies. It melts out every year. It's not part of "the polar ice cap".

The Bering melt will not pull down overall Arctic sea ice volume because it hasn't been contributing to end-of-season volume to start with.



What happens is when the ice melts out sooner in the Bering sea due to warmer SST's and climate conditions set up by GHG's, the sea in that area begins to warm more and flows through the Bering strait into the Northern Arctic and into the Chukchi Sea and that warmer water melts the ice in that area. Remember,when the ice disappears, you now have the darker warmer water exposed absorbing more incoming solar energy which heats it up faster. The ice is no longer there to reflect it.You can see the progression beautifully on this loop when you run it.

Link
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting biff4ugo:
Just looking at that graph...and I don't know the area it is looking at or who did it...from Cyclone...
No. The graph looks like the whole sea melts every year since 1979. that is to say the black line of sea ice extent drops to zero every summer.
Not much chance for a significant mass loss if the whole thing melts every year.


Problem is it is happening sooner every summer which is indicative of a warming planet. Similar to an ever advancing tropical environment into Northern Latitudes due to a warming planet....
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting BobWallace:
Here's something that's been interesting me.

The top image is Arctic sea ice extent using a 15% threshold. The bottom is Arctic sea ice extent using a 30% threshold.








As I understand it blocks of area are scored ice/no ice based on having a minimum percentage of their area covered by ice. In the second graph a block would be called no ice if it had a 25% ice cover but counted as yes-ice in the first.

Given that I've got that straight, it looks to me like there's an awful lot of 15% extent that's barely iced (more than 15% but less than 30%). Using the 15% threshold says that we're above the previous record years. Using the 30% threshold says we're setting a record.

If I'm reading all that correctly then it looks like it will take little melting to bring the 15% graph down quickly.
I believe your assessment of the situation is correct. That is, if, as it appears, there are a whole lot of grids currently with between 16% - 29%, once those melt enough to fall below 16% extent should drop precipitously.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Quoting biff4ugo:
Just looking at that graph...and I don't know the area it is looking at or who did it...from Cyclone...
No. The graph looks like the whole sea melts every year since 1979. that is to say the black line of sea ice extent drops to zero every summer.
Not much chance for a significant mass loss if the whole thing melts every year.


Take a look at where the Bering Sea it - it's way out in the Arctic boonies. It melts out every year. It's not part of "the polar ice cap".

(If you find the map hard to read, the Bering is the medium blue blob at the top. All of the medium blue areas are 'seasonal ice' regions. They freeze in the winter, melt in the summer.)

The Bering melt will not pull down overall Arctic sea ice volume because it hasn't been contributing to end-of-season volume to start with.

Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Here's something that's been interesting me.

The top image is Arctic sea ice extent using a 15% threshold. The bottom is Arctic sea ice extent using a 30% threshold.








As I understand it blocks of area are scored ice/no ice based on having a minimum percentage of their area covered by ice. In the second graph a block would be called no-ice if it had a 25% ice cover but counted as yes-ice in the first.

Given that I've got that straight, it looks to me like there's an awful lot of 15% extent that's barely iced (more than 15% but less than 30%). Using the 15% threshold says that we're above the previous record years. Using the 30% threshold says we're setting a record.

If I'm reading all that correctly then it looks like it will take little melting to bring the 15% graph down quickly.
Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Thanks Bob,

I found one, but they don't indicate change over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ceres_2003_2004 _clear_sky_total_sky_albedo.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/arc hive/4/40/20120324205105%21Ceres_2003_2004_clear_s ky_total_sky_albedo.png

The cool thing is that an analysis of Total Sky change between different years and over time, would take the effect of changing cloud cover into effect.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
Just looking at that graph...and I don't know the area it is looking at or who did it...from Cyclone...
No. The graph looks like the whole sea melts every year since 1979. that is to say the black line of sea ice extent drops to zero every summer.
Not much chance for a significant mass loss if the whole thing melts every year.


That graph covers only the Bering Sea, which tells you nothing about ice in the Arctic Ocean. The Bering normally melts out every summer and refreezes every winter according to local conditions. Further north into the Arctic Ocean proper there has been enormous and recent loss of thick, multi-year ice, as shown in the ice volume curve in #161.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
Has anyone seen an annual albido trend map and or graph of regions of the Arctic? that would give me a better understanding of energy balances in the Arctic. It might easily take into account thin, darker ice, seasonal variation through averageing, etc.


They're out there, it seems.

Here's an article from 1963 that talks about albedo maps for the Arctic...

Link

But I didn't find the maps themselves on line. Perhaps someone else can turn them up.

Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Just looking at that graph...and I don't know the area it is looking at or who did it...from Cyclone...
No. The graph looks like the whole sea melts every year since 1979. that is to say the black line of sea ice extent drops to zero every summer.
Not much chance for a significant mass loss if the whole thing melts every year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
What I mean is on the Bearing Sea Ice Area, from summer of 1989 to winter of 1993 was %u201Call%u201D above the 33 year period of record mean. 2002-2006 was consistently below the mean. (the red line)
Again 2008 %u2013 2010 had predominantly more ice between Alaska and Russia than average. 2011 slightly below, then this year is above average sea ice area on the Bering Sea.
I%u2019m sure some of this is due to the arctic dipole pressure trends, but if there is a trend in the last decade, it is positive and over the 30 year record, it is pretty close to average.


I'd suggest you pay more attention to ice volume as opposed to how much of the surface freezes over. Again, the pond outside my window displays 100% area and extent freeze several times each winter.

Arctic sea ice volume is dropping. If extent/area is staying fairly high that can mean only that the ice, overall, is thinning. At some point the ice is almost certainly going to get so thin that it will seasonally melt.

Here are the sea ice volumes for the last several years. Going down....





Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
I realize this is just the US, and not the world as a whole. But, still... The NCDC has released its national State of the Climate data for May, and it is a doozy. I'm fairly certain Dr. Masters will discuss the unprecedented warmth in the next several days, but I thought I'd mention a couple of salient features.

30 or states saw their warmest springs on record. Only two of the contiguous 48 states saw near normal temps:

Hit

Spring (March - May) was by far the warmest ever in the United States (note the blue spike at the far right):

Hit


...and June 2011-May 2012 was by a good margin the warmest 12 month period recorded in the US since 1895. And all 11 of the 11 warmest 12 month periods have taken place since 2000, with threee of the top 5 taking place in the past 14 months:

Hit

But I wouldn't worry too much about it; Bastardi swears the cooling trend is already underway; it's just been masked by all that dadgummed heat. :-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Has anyone seen an annual albido trend map and or graph of regions of the Arctic? that would give me a better understanding of energy balances in the Arctic. It might easily take into account thin, darker ice, seasonal variation through averageing, etc.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
What I mean is on the Bearing Sea Ice Area, from summer of 1989 to winter of 1993 was “all” above the 33 year period of record mean. 2002-2006 was consistently below the mean. (the red line)
Again 2008 – 2010 had predominantly more ice between Alaska and Russia than average. 2011 slightly below, then this year is above average sea ice area on the Bering Sea.
I’m sure some of this is due to the arctic dipole pressure trends, but if there is a trend in the last decade, it is positive and over the 30+ year record, it is pretty close to average.


Perhaps,true for extent but what about it's mass?
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
What I mean is on the Bearing Sea Ice Area, from summer of 1989 to winter of 1993 was “all” above the 33 year period of record mean. 2002-2006 was consistently below the mean. (the red line)
Again 2008 – 2010 had predominantly more ice between Alaska and Russia than average. 2011 slightly below, then this year is above average sea ice area on the Bering Sea.
I’m sure some of this is due to the arctic dipole pressure trends, but if there is a trend in the last decade, it is positive and over the 30+ year record, it is pretty close to average.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Longvista:
"I stand by my accusation. There is too much of a pattern here for this to be an honest poster."

Well, Mr GreenTortunloni,BobWallace,Some1Has2BtheRookie, Neapolitan, Birthmark, cyclonebuster,BaltimoreBrian,et al. It makes no difference what you believe of my background since everyone is incognito on this board anyway. How ridiculous your accusation is. I did not volunteer my background, I was asked. I'll happily post my entire CV, with links to my papers that are available if everyone else does --- but I'll have to consider the risk of having my home picketed for my skepticism of your dogma on AGW. But for what it's worth, you can take it to the bank that I have represented myself accurately to the extent that I have. I tried to engage this board but my feeling that we would end up going around in circles has been justified. Actually, it appears to be more of a narrow, like-minded circle jerk. I understand now why it is so one-sided. You guys just seem to want to impress each other with whatever new piece of data (legit or not) that you can glean from whatever obscure source. I represent no one but myself. This board is a hostile place that will produce nothing.
- Longvista

This is a discussion board. Such boards rarely produce anything other than entertainment and (hopefully) education.
Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting no1der:


That graph is of Bering Sea ice, which is all seasonal first-year ice and its extent responds to local temperatures and wind directions. The strong positive ice-area anomaly there this winter resulted from persistent regional temperatures 6-8C below normal. Over on the other side of the Arctic, the opposite was happening - warm temperatures and negative ice anomalies in the Kara Sea. All part of this winter's bizarre setup of the polar jet stream...


Let's not forget warmer oceans caused by GHGs also help melt the ice from below and cause much thinner ice to form during the winter. Even though the area may be more extensive it does not mean it is more massive. That is the reason for the quick melt off along with weather conditions.. Extent doesn't really mean anything if the ice is thin........
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting biff4ugo:
POST #137... that graph looks like alot more positive anomaly sea ice area time than negative. Isn't that a good thing?


That graph is of Bering Sea ice, which is all seasonal first-year ice and its extent responds to local temperatures and wind directions. The strong positive ice-area anomaly there this winter resulted from persistent regional temperatures 6-8C below normal. Over on the other side of the Arctic, the opposite was happening - warm temperatures and negative ice anomalies in the Kara Sea. All part of this winter's bizarre setup of the polar jet stream...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
fyi. I have been honest to the extent that I have, too.

POST #137... that graph looks like alot more positive anomaly sea ice area time than negative. Isn't that a good thing?


If what you are referring to is the most recent year "high area freeze", remember that's only one of many parts of the Arctic.

This last freeze year was unusual in that there was a lot of ice on the "North America" side and not a lot on the "Europe" side. A lot of ice formed Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea. That ice is just about all melted now.

The Barents and Kara Seas remained largely ice-free for most of the winter, only freezing over quite late in the season. That thinner ice is melting now.

This year the ice seems to be less evenly distributed than usual. Hard to way how that will affect the final melt numbers. It could result in an increase in remaining ice, even an increase in multi-year ice, because the areas most often flushed through the Fram seem to contain less ice than normal.
Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Meanwhile,we are having a cool start to the summer here in N.E. North Carolina. I consider June 1st the beginning of the summer. Got down in the upper 50's last night. the beginning of another ice age ,perhaps? snicker:)
Member Since: Juni 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting biff4ugo:
fyi. I have been honest to the extent that I have, too.

POST #137... that graph looks like alot more positive anomaly sea ice area time than negative. Isn't that a good thing?


Extent wise yes Mass wise no.
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting Neapolitan:
Consider for a moment the enormity of that statement. Over the course of, say, half a century, the planet will have picked up the equivalent of another ocean, with all stored, transported, and released energy that goes along with it.

Ulp...


I figured out how to let that energy escape back to space and let the planet cool and reform its ice......... Anyone interested??????
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
fyi. I have been honest to the extent that I have, too.

POST #137... that graph looks like alot more positive anomaly sea ice area time than negative. Isn't that a good thing?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Longvista:
"I stand by my accusation. There is too much of a pattern here for this to be an honest poster."

Well, Mr GreenTortunloni,BobWallace,Some1Has2BtheRookie, Neapolitan, Birthmark, cyclonebuster,BaltimoreBrian,et al. It makes no difference what you believe of my background since everyone is incognito on this board anyway. How ridiculous your accusation is. I did not volunteer my background, I was asked. I'll happily post my entire CV, with links to my papers that are available if everyone else does --- but I'll have to consider the risk of having my home picketed for my skepticism of your dogma on AGW. But for what it's worth, you can take it to the bank that I have represented myself accurately to the extent that I have. I tried to engage this board but my feeling that we would end up going around in circles has been justified. Actually, it appears to be more of a narrow, like-minded circle jerk. I understand now why it is so one-sided. You guys just seem to want to impress each other with whatever new piece of data (legit or not) that you can glean from whatever obscure source. I represent no one but myself. This board is a hostile place that will produce nothing.
- Longvista


Should you go back and read post# 63, you will discover that I have already acknowledged and congratulated you on your studies and the academic achievements you have acquired for yourself. What I bring into question is your approach to the topic of the AGWT. Anyone that works within any of the fields of science should be better able to formulate a conversation concerning the sciences. When you read Professor Rood's writings you will notice that he uses the language of someone that works within his field of science. You, on the other hand, will use language that is not easily identifiable with any of the sciences. You come posed as a skeptical scientist yet you have already claimed your biggest reason for your skepticism is based on a movie! A MOVIE! A movie that is narrated by someone you obviously have a great disdain for! How can anyone consider that to be a scientific approach to the discussion?! How can anyone claim to be a scientist and yet will use such trivial and pointless reasons to base their skepticism on?! That is not scientific skepticism! That is an opinion based upon your own bias!

You want some credibility here, or anywhere where scientific topics are being discussed? Read post# 119 and then come tell us why you are still a skeptic of the AGWT. A skeptic with a true scientific reason for being skeptical of the theory! Unless you can invalidate a scientific theory using actual science, you are just one the whatnots that wants to play with the conversation and not actually add anything to it. As a scientist, you cannot see this for yourself?!?!?!

I have long told everyone here my credentials. I am not a scientist. I came here to learn more of the subject on the AGWT. I have read both sides of the issue and followed through with discovering the accuracy of the debating points. Here is why I find the AGWT to be a valid theory:

1. The Laws of Physics support the AGWT.
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics support the AGWT.
3. Chemistry supports the AGWT.
4. Observations support the AGWT.
5. No competing scientific theory better explains the observations concerning the changing climate than does the AGWT. NONE! Not even in the same room with the AGWT!

When you can use science to make null and void any of these points, then you have something worth listening to. Your love or disdain for politicians, narrators and commentators have no bearing on the topic at hand. The very least you can do is to use your advanced education and sound more like you have earned one. Geeeeeze! I am just a rookie and I know better than to use your approach to the discussion of the topic. Oh, as far as my academic achievements are concerned, let it suffice that both Jethro Bodine and I gradjeated from the 6th grade.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
Must-See Colbert Report On North Carolina GOP Bill To Make Use Of Climate Science Illegal

Only Stepen Colbert can use humor to highlight the sheer idiocy of the current Republican dominated legislature in North Carolina. They are completely ignoring their own scientific studies. It's shameful!!

It's a must see video:

Link
Member Since: Mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
I see our "scientist" has stormed off in a huff, no doubt to peddle his, er, CV in other fora populated by people less knowledgeable about the climate and how it's changing. C'est la vie... (But on a side note, I have to ask: why would an MIT-educated PhD who's published more than 120 times and who has been involved with over 100 scientific presentations spend any time at all on an internet forum that by his own admission he knew going in would be "hostile" to his ideology-based, conservative view of climate change denialism? That is, if he knew he wouldn't receive the validation he sought, why stop by when there are numerous other sites that would provide such validation for him in spades? And on the other hand, if it wasn't validation he sought, why would he storm out the door when challenged? Methinks he doth protest too much.)

In other news, Peter Gleick has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick was cleared last month of faking any of the Heartland documents he leaked. And, while most of us don't condone his actions in their entirety, one would have to admit that his doing so highlighted the absolute and utter hypocrisy of the Heartland Institute, which, in turn, led to their ill-timed, ill-designed "Climate Scientists Are Murderous Sociopaths" campaign, which--again, in turn--likely means the end of that particular malignant tumor of denialism.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Quoting Longvista:
"I stand by my accusation. There is too much of a pattern here for this to be an honest poster."

Well, Mr GreenTortunloni,BobWallace,Some1Has2BtheRookie, Neapolitan, Birthmark, cyclonebuster,BaltimoreBrian,et al. It makes no difference what you believe of my background since everyone is incognito on this board anyway. How ridiculous your accusation is. I did not volunteer my background, I was asked. I'll happily post my entire CV, with links to my papers that are available if everyone else does --- but I'll have to consider the risk of having my home picketed for my skepticism of your dogma on AGW. But for what it's worth, you can take it to the bank that I have represented myself accurately to the extent that I have. I tried to engage this board but my feeling that we would end up going around in circles has been justified. Actually, it appears to be more of a narrow, like-minded circle jerk. I understand now why it is so one-sided. You guys just seem to want to impress each other with whatever new piece of data (legit or not) that you can glean from whatever obscure source. I represent no one but myself. This board is a hostile place that will produce nothing.
- Longvista


Actually, I specifically said I didn't care about your background other than the fact that I thought you lied about it.

You didn't try to engage this board. That is another lie; or maybe technically you tired to engage it but you didn't try to engage it honestly. You came with a disingeneous ploy: ask some questions as if you are nieve, drawing out people who have opinions contrary to those nieve questions, and then suddenly become full of facts to refute those opinions.

If you really wanted answers, you got a bunch. You could have then done the research on your own. Insted you magically had a bunch of retorts.

So now, having been responded to politely initially (except perhaps by me), you now throw a temper- tantrum and declare the board a circle jerk.

If you really are from academia, you must be one of those professors who got tenure and then sat on their butt for years collecting administrative power and insulating themself from the rigours of honest science. They are useless in the real world where physics and facts don't care what committee you sit on. If you can't handle having your ideas challenged, maybe this board isn't for you.

For what it is worth, everyone of hte posters on here, inculding me have had our ideas challenged and challenged each other. We have also been, for the most part, careful to state what is opinion and what the provinence of our facts are, or risk being called out.

I personally don't bother with chasing down every theory or question because my mind was made up a long time ago and even 10% chance of disaster is good enough for me to take action, Especially when the cost of action is a cleaner planet. I want solutions and I have little patience with precious attitudes like yours, even were it honest.

Member Since: Juni 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Longvista:
"I stand by my accusation. There is too much of a pattern here for this to be an honest poster."

Well, Mr GreenTortunloni,BobWallace,Some1Has2BtheRookie, Neapolitan, Birthmark, cyclonebuster,BaltimoreBrian,et al. It makes no difference what you believe of my background since everyone is incognito on this board anyway. How ridiculous your accusation is. I did not volunteer my background, I was asked. I'll happily post my entire CV, with links to my papers that are available if everyone else does --- but I'll have to consider the risk of having my home picketed for my skepticism of your dogma on AGW. But for what it's worth, you can take it to the bank that I have represented myself accurately to the extent that I have. I tried to engage this board but my feeling that we would end up going around in circles has been justified. Actually, it appears to be more of a narrow, like-minded circle jerk. I understand now why it is so one-sided. You guys just seem to want to impress each other with whatever new piece of data (legit or not) that you can glean from whatever obscure source. I represent no one but myself. This board is a hostile place that will produce nothing.
- Longvista


And I think with that post you demonstrate that you are not a scientist. Perhaps a guy who made a living doing research, but not a scientist.

You bring tired old denier points to the forum without bothering to look at both sides while declaring that you've looked at both side of the issue.

We spend time showing your some facts and where you can find others, but you show no interest in learning any science.

This board is hostile only to trolls and to people who start with a belief and are unwilling to consider a challenge their belief.

Best way for you to continue your denier-dom is to pitch a fit and storm away. That's how science works, isn't it?



Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
"I stand by my accusation. There is too much of a pattern here for this to be an honest poster."

Well, Mr GreenTortunloni,BobWallace,Some1Has2BtheRookie, Neapolitan, Birthmark, cyclonebuster,BaltimoreBrian,et al. It makes no difference what you believe of my background since everyone is incognito on this board anyway. How ridiculous your accusation is. I did not volunteer my background, I was asked. I'll happily post my entire CV, with links to my papers that are available if everyone else does --- but I'll have to consider the risk of having my home picketed for my skepticism of your dogma on AGW. But for what it's worth, you can take it to the bank that I have represented myself accurately to the extent that I have. I tried to engage this board but my feeling that we would end up going around in circles has been justified. Actually, it appears to be more of a narrow, like-minded circle jerk. I understand now why it is so one-sided. You guys just seem to want to impress each other with whatever new piece of data (legit or not) that you can glean from whatever obscure source. I represent no one but myself. This board is a hostile place that will produce nothing.
- Longvista
Member Since: August 5, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 9


Evidence of Impending Tipping Point for Earth

ScienceDaily (June 6, 2012) — A group of scientists from around the world is warning that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems, and climate change may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere, a planet-wide tipping point that would have destructive consequences absent adequate preparation and mitigation."It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," warns Anthony Barnosky, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of a review paper appearing in the June 7 issue of the journal Nature. "The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations."

The Nature paper, in which the scientists compare the biological impact of past incidents of global change with processes under way today and assess evidence for what the future holds, appears in an issue devoted to the environment in advance of the June 20-22 United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The result of such a major shift in the biosphere would be mixed, Barnosky noted, with some plant and animal species disappearing, new mixes of remaining species, and major disruptions in terms of which agricultural crops can grow where.

The paper by 22 internationally known scientists describes an urgent need for better predictive models that are based on a detailed understanding of how the biosphere reacted in the distant past to rapidly changing conditions, including climate and human population growth. In a related development, ground-breaking research to develop the reliable, detailed biological forecasts the paper is calling for is now underway at UC Berkeley. The endeavor, The Berkeley Initiative in Global Change Biology, or BiGCB, is a massive undertaking involving more than 100 UC Berkeley scientists from an extraordinary range of disciplines that already has received funding: a $2.5 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and a $1.5 million grant from the Keck Foundation. The paper by Barnosky and others emerged from the first conference convened under the BiGCB's auspices.

"One key goal of the BiGCB is to understand how plants and animals responded to major shifts in the atmosphere, oceans, and climate in the past, so that scientists can improve their forecasts and policy makers can take the steps necessary to either mitigate or adapt to changes that may be inevitable," Barnosky said. "Better predictive models will lead to better decisions in terms of protecting the natural resources future generations will rely on for quality of life and prosperity." Climate change could also lead to global political instability, according to a U.S. Department of Defense study referred to in the Nature paper.


Link
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting BobWallace:


Now if we can use DNA residue to bring back dinosaurs and genetically modify them to produce milk and taste good.

Laying eggs, forgot about eggs.

Wonder what sort of shine a nice pair of dino-skin Italian loafers would take?







This conversation has begun to stray from the main topics. However, before I toddle off to bed, I have to share a few more comments:

Unless the wife drags me to a society wedding, I stopped spit-shing shoes in 1974 when I left the Marine Corps. So I'm not going to order any dino-skin loafers.

Speaking of dinosaurs, I've come to realize why Rush Limbaugh is not concerned about AGW. During previous mass extinction events, it seems that cockroaches and certain reptilian creatures survived with no problems. So Rush has it covered on multiple fronts.

Good Night All!!

Member Since: Mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting BobWallace:
Projecting and exponential trend suggests we could see a summer melt-out very soon. 2015 +/- a couple of years. And once/if that happens it will likely be followed by longer and longer periods of a melted Arctic until winter refreeze.

That's the Arctic Ocean turning into a season ice body somewhat like the Great Lakes.
Consider for a moment the enormity of that statement. Over the course of, say, half a century, the planet will have picked up the equivalent of another ocean, with all stored, transported, and released energy that goes along with it.

Ulp...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Agave in the hot dry climates for Tequila.

Sugar Cane in the hot wet climates for Rum.

Civilization is hereby saved from the perils of AGW.


Now if we can use DNA residue to bring back dinosaurs and genetically modify them to produce milk and taste good.

Laying eggs, forgot about eggs.

Wonder what sort of shine a nice pair of dino-skin Italian loafers would take?





Member Since: Februar 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting BobWallace:

Probably we should be looking for ways to ferment plants that grow in very hot climates.

Rum might still be on the menu....


Agave in the hot dry climates for Tequila.

Sugar Cane in the hot wet climates for Rum.

Civilization is hereby saved from the perils of AGW.
Member Since: Mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Like I said the fight for Arctic sea ice is over in the North Arctic. Why? Because the ice is to thin. Like the Duran Leonard fight No Mas really means No Mass in the North Arctic. After a record extent in the Bering Sea comes a record melt off due to No mass......







Y'all with me yet on my Tunnel idea in order to restore proper mass?
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting robodave:

(you forget to mention that hexafluoroethane remains in the atmosphere for 10,000 years)

And what do you think happens if solar starts to be used on the same scale that coal or nuclear is used? That's the point of this new research. Solar PV is in fact dirtier than coal and cannot replace it.

I would have thought this would be clear long ago. The inefficiencies, the expense, and so on. And the facts that came out about the manufacturing of solar PV. All pointed to its ineffectiveness.

Something similar happened with Ethanol. It was debunked too.

So much wasted time because we refuse to adapt to a changing world. There's going to be far more at stake than the fact that our world changed. Our very survival depends on our adaptive strategies. And yet... we continue to try to bring back the past in a futile effort to combat the changes.



Perhaps you can now realize the beauty of these now and how they protect our climate system......

PATENT PENDING
Member Since: Januar 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402

Viewing: 186 - 136

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.