Sea Ice South (2): Another Brick in the Wall

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 02:26 AM GMT em 19 de Maio de 2011

Sea Ice South (2): Another Brick in the Wall

My previous entry was setting the foundation for understanding the differences between sea ice in the northern and southern hemispheres. It focused on the physical geography of the Earth. Specifically, the distribution of land and ocean are different at the two poles; hence, there is no reason to expect one pole to behave like the other pole - beyond perhaps, they both get very cold in the winter.

This entry will focus on the basics of the physical climate needed to understand sea ice. As summarized in Spencer Weart’s excellent history, we have known for a long time that water vapor and carbon dioxide are ingredients of the atmosphere that are important to our ability to live on the planet. Specifically, based only on the amount of energy coming from the Sun, the temperature of the surface of the Earth should be about zero degrees Fahrenheit. It is the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that holds heat close to the surface for a while, leading to an average temperature closer to, say 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

When thinking about the climate, it is important to remember that the Earth is always cooling to get rid of the energy that comes from the Sun. A good way to experience this cooling and the effects of greenhouse gases is to spend a summer night in Death Valley, CA, and another summer night in the Everglades, FL. Because of the lack of water after sunset it cools down much faster in Death Valley. I like to think of this tendency to cool as a thermal spring always pulling the Earth towards zero degrees.

We have to remember another fact of the Earth, which is the tilt of the axis of rotation that is responsible for the seasons. As a result of this tilt, the solar energy that is directly received at the poles goes through huge cycles every year. In winter it is dark, and there is no direct solar heating of the pole. In the summer there is continuous light, but the heating is weak because the Sun is low in the sky. As a result of this tilt, far more energy comes into the Earth in the tropics than at the poles.

Interestingly, when we look at the energy leaving the Earth, on an annual average basis, there is not a huge difference between the poles and the tropics. What that means is that the “excess” of energy entering the Earth in the tropics is moved towards the poles, where there is a net loss of energy to space. This energy is carried from the tropics to the poles by the oceans and the atmosphere. Without transport of energy to the poles, in winter, when the Sun is not present at the poles, the temperature would drop to 100s of degrees below zero. That does not happen, but it still gets cold – cold enough to make ice.

That’s what the oceans and the atmosphere do. They are fluids that move to even out the distribution of energy – or effectively, heat. Therefore, the role of the atmosphere and ocean is pretty straightforward; they are not random and chaotic and unconstrained. They respond to heating and cooling through well understood physical mechanisms – like gravity and pressure. Another important force is due to the rotation of the Earth (see link at bottom).

One of the interesting things about transport is that it occurs in, let’s say, events or features. A useful metaphor on people’s minds this week is the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin. The Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers carry a LOT of water in a channel to the Gulf of Mexico, where it immediately spreads out of the channel. You might say that it fans out, but it really doesn’t just diffuse into the Gulf. It moves as distinct features, as seen in this 2001 figure of sediment from NASA’s Earth Observatory.



Figure 1: Sediments in the Gulf of Mexico from Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.


The water is channeled by the river basins; it is not like a shallow film of water spread out between Brownsville, TX and Homestead, FL. The water is channeled, and big events, like the spring runoff are responsible for a large portion of the transport. The atmosphere and oceans behave in the same way - heat is transported, preferentially, in certain places, for example in ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream and atmospheric storm tracks.

Let’s focus on the ocean. If a current like the Gulf Stream brings a lot of warm water to Greenland, then what keeps all of that water from piling up in the Arctic? There has to be a return flow, and that return flow takes cold water back towards the tropics. The Earth’s weather is just part of mixing warm and cold.

Okay, it’s time to pull together this information. The temperature at the poles, especially in the winter, is largely determined by oceanic and atmospheric transport of heat. Alternatively, the heating and cooling at the winter pole is not day-to-day determined by the radiative energy from the Sun and greenhouse gas concentrations. The heat transport occurs in preferential locations, and return flow takes cold air and water back towards the tropics in preferential locations. Fluctuations in the preferential locations mean that warm and cold regions move around. Given the information from the previous blog, the North and South Poles are different. Hence sea ice behavior is different.

Sea ice – I am setting the foundation for sea ice. From two blogs ago, one on the Northern Hemisphere, there was a number associated with the melting of the Arctic sea ice. That number is 1 watt per square meter. The melting of the Arctic sea ice that has been observed over a certain amount of time, say a decade or two, is consistent with a sustained, change in the energy balance of 1 watt for every square meter – that’s about a square yard – 3 feet by 3 feet. How much energy does this represent? Let’s go to an iconic figure of the radiative balance the Earth updated by Trenberth et al. in 2009.



Figure 2: The global annual mean Earth’s energy budget for the Mar 2000 to May 2004 period (W m–2). The broad arrows indicate the schematic flow of energy in proportion to their importance. (from Trenberth et al. , 2009)

I am mainly interested in sizes. The amount of energy at the top of the atmosphere from the Sun is about 341 watts per square meter. Ultimately, that is also just about the amount of energy that goes back to space. In the various ways that energy is absorbed and reflected and transported there are numbers in the figures that are 10s watts per square meter. Down at the very bottom of the figure is the amount absorbed by the Earth – in this figure 0.9 watt per square meter. (Very close to 1, I note.)

If we look at the energy that is transported to and away from the poles as well as that associated with energy from the Sun and emitted back to space, then there are several paths that deliver or take away 10s of watts per square meter. A change of 1 watt per square meter can be realized in several ways. And if we get right down to sea ice it gets more complicated. What happens if there is more fresh water in the ocean because of more rain, more snow, more melting of ice sheets? Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. So could it in fact get warmer and freeze more ice in the ocean because the water is less salty? Plausible, I assert – it would become a matter of measurements, and numbers, and untangling the many different paths that energy is provided to and taken away from the surface of the sea.

Next time I will get a little more specific about the southern ocean and its sea ice.

r


(If you want to see cool movies that show how rotation organizes flow go to MIT and look at these movies.)


Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In 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: 333 - 283

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

333. Suebush
07:32 AM GMT em 27 de Maio de 2011
That's good, give us a new visual angle.It is just an editorial and nothing more.

-------------------------
Borse Prada

Prada Scarpe

Member Since: Maio 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
331. Neapolitan
03:13 AM GMT em 26 de Maio de 2011
Quoting RMuller:


I suppose it depends on who is doing the figuring.

Scientists. Not Fox News hosts or ExxonMobil "climate specialists".
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 15274
329. Neapolitan
10:09 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting atmoaggie:
Umm, our better, long-term temperature proxies do not have the temporal resolution to show us warming on the scale of a couple of decades or less. No one knows this well enough to say "it's never grown so warm so fast".

What you see in most ice cores is essentially a 100 year average temperature, plus or minus 30 years. What really happened during those 100 years, on a scale of individual years or decades cannot be determined.

Proxy data quite clearly show that global temperature fluctuations during the interglacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years were much slower--by an order of magnitude--than is the current warming. The fact is, global temps appear to have never risen this fast outside of major catastrophic events such as the PETM (which saw many extinctions after the global temp rose 11.F over a period of 20,000 years).

That just doesn't seem like something we should be inducing out of negligence and/or a desire to enrich a relatively small handful of people.
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 15274
328. sirmaelstrom
09:40 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting biff4ugo:
No. 320
I didn't mean to be so obtuse,
the graphic in your post says that prior to 1998 (say 1996) the change in Global Mean Sea Level is -10 mm, based on the University of Colorado graph, corrected for seasonal trends and glacial rebound, etc.
The Y axis in the graph you posted, is not elevation, it is change in elevation (that is usually what Delta means). That means, to me, that global mean sea level fell a centimeter in 1996.
If the delta refers to some vertical datum or something else, please elucidate. I'm trying to figure out what your graph is saying.
I followed the link. It says that Glacial rebound is making the oceans deeper somehow, that is partially compensating for thermal expansion. I thought rebound made the oceans shallower as the continental shelves sprung back.
All that said, I still don't get your/their graph. Is it pressure or water surface elevation they are measuring the change of?

Thanks,


Ahh...I think I see what you were referring to. I'm not sure why the delta was given on the vertical scale of the graph. I was and still do assume that the y-axis is simply in units of mm Mean Sea Level as an anomaly to some arbitrary zero point. The rate given in the graph of the overall rate (given as 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr) seems to be consistent with the idea that the vertical axis is simply mm of mean sea level.

In short, I think the y-axis is indeed elevation in this graph. I'll admit, the use of the delta does confuse the issue a bit, but I think it's simply included to indicate amount of change from the arbitrary zero level. If the graph was intended to show acceleration rate of change of MSL instead, I think it would have been labelled as dMSL/dt.

I was perhaps a bit abrupt in my response as well, I guess. No hard feelings here.

Edited/Added: I guess 'acceleration of MSL' is not actually what you were assuming the y-axis was. You were indicating that it was 'rate of change of MSL'. Made changes to the post. I still think this in not what is being indicated. If it were 'rate of change of MSL' it would have been labelled 'mm/yr' for the y-axis. In that case, the overall trendline would be 'acceleration of MSL' and the value with correct units would be 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr²

Member Since: Fevereiro 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
327. biff4ugo
08:40 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
No. 320
I didn't mean to be so obtuse,
the graphic in your post says that prior to 1998 (say 1996) the change in Global Mean Sea Level is -10 mm, based on the University of Colorado graph, corrected for seasonal trends and glacial rebound, etc.
The Y axis in the graph you posted, is not elevation, it is change in elevation (that is usually what Delta means). That means, to me, that global mean sea level fell a centimeter in 1996.
If the delta refers to some vertical datum or something else, please elucidate. I'm trying to figure out what your graph is saying.
I followed the link. It says that Glacial rebound is making the oceans deeper somehow, that is partially compensating for thermal expansion. I thought rebound made the oceans shallower as the continental shelves sprung back.
All that said, I still don't get your/their graph. Is it pressure or water surface elevation they are measuring the change of?

Thanks,
Member Since: Dezembro 28, 2006 Posts: 119 Comments: 1638
325. atmoaggie
06:58 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yes. But it's never grown so warm so fast without mass die-offs. Never.
Umm, our better, long-term temperature proxies do not have the temporal resolution to show us warming on the scale of a couple of decades or less. No one knows this well enough to say "it's never grown so warm so fast".

What you see in most ice cores is essentially a 100 year average temperature, plus or minus 30 years. What really happened during those 100 years, on a scale of individual years or decades cannot be determined.
Member Since: Agosto 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
324. Neapolitan
06:52 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting RMuller:


If many scientists in the same field disagree on even what the data are, how can climate science be close to an absolute?

"Many" scientists don't disagree. A handful do. The overwhelming majority are in very close agreement about what's happening.

Quoting RMuller:
Also, the atmosphere is approaching record cold temps in almost every level. Wouldn't that suggest that the cold air in the atmosphere is causing unstable weather by conflicting with the warmer air closer to the surface?

It would suggest that--if only it were true. But your statement is utterly false, as those "record cold temps" aren't really records; they're merely below the average of the last decade.

Quoting RMuller:
That would seem logical to me, but I'm sure that any suggestion that the atmosphere might be cooling would be too difficult for you to acknowledge.

See the previous answer.

Quoting RMuller:
You and others are taking a 150 year climate record that may or may not show warming.

Yes, we're taking a 150-year record. And a 300-year record. And a 500-year record. And a 1,000-year, and a 5,000 year, and a 10,000 year, and a 100,000-year record.

Quoting RMuller:
If it does, the warming is only in tenths of a degree.

There's nothing "only" about rapid warming.

Quoting RMuller:
There is no consensus on climate data or science (even though you believe a consensus is what you believe)

Yes, there is. I define a consensus in this case as "the large majority of people qualified to speak in their field agree that the planet is warming rapidly, and it's because of fossil fuels".

Quoting RMuller:
150 years is meaningless in the Earth's 5 billion year history.

See the fourth paragraph above.

Quoting RMuller:
It's been warmer in the past before man could have had any effect on climate, and I'm sure it will be warmer in the future.

Yes. But it's never grown so warm so fast without mass die-offs. Never.

Quoting RMuller:
It's fallacious to base science on such a small fragment of climate history and attempt to revert us back to the stone age based on questionable science.

Wrong. Plain wrong. And for the record, just once I'd like to hear a denialist explain how not allowing a single industry to ruin the planet for everyone else equates to forcing us back to the stone age. Seriously, what does that even mean?

Now, don't ask me to link once again to the vast amounts if science supporting the above positions; I and others have done so numerous times, so at this point you know where to find the info you need.
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 15274
321. Neapolitan
03:35 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Neapolitan. Tornadoes, Floods, Hurricanes, Landslides, you name it. They all have been occurring long before you were conceived. The world does not revolve around your assertion of any extreme weather event being the outcome of a personal vendetta against the fossil fuels industry. The sooner you understand that, the better for all. Or you can keep fooling yourself. Every time there is something bad happening, you are always the first one ready to pounce on anyone with the intention of debunking any idea, thought, feeling, or belief they share that does not coincide with yours. And you know that.

It would take a truly slanted point-of-view to claim that the recent uptick in the severity and frequency of extreme weather events absolutely has nothing to do with climate change, especially when that's been predicted for years. As Dr. Masters frequently states when talking about the correlation between the two, we don't know. Now, that doesn't mean there is a correlation. But neither does it mean there is not. Stating either with certainty is, at this time, foolish. If you disagree with that assertion, please feel free to try to prove me wrong.

And I truly don't "pounce" an anyone who thinks differently than I do. But science deals in absolutes. If someone comes here and claims that the sun is closer than the moon, I will "pounce" on him. Not because he disagrees with me, but because I know him to be wrong. Period. I suppose that person could respond by calling me an arrogant know-it-all. That's certainly his prerogative--but it doesn't make him anywhere near right.
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 15274
320. sirmaelstrom
03:31 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
№ 318
Quoting biff4ugo:


So does this mean that sea level was falling prior to 1998 since the change in sea level was negative? The axis is delta mm, or change in mm elevation. Negative numbers would mean it was falling. Where was it falling? In Colorado?


No. Nowhere in my post did I say that. I stated that "the global mean sea level has spent some time below the linear trendline over the last couple years". This was in response to RMueller's post where he was alluding to the idea that sea-level rise has slowed over the last few years, which indeed it has. However, as a stated in my post, I don't think the recent slowdown can yet be seen as a change in the long term trend.

№ 317
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'll say what I've been saying: perhaps the only thing dumber than saying with certainty that any particular one of the recent extreme weather events around the globe is a direct result of global warming is saying with certainty that none of them have been.

The depth and breadth of denialism in this country is astounding at times. For years--decades, even--climatologists have been saying that one of the likely side effects of warming will be an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. And now that that seems to be happening, denialists are falling all over themselves trying to claim there is absolutely no link whatsoever between the current warming and the weather events. What's going on nowadays is just par for the course, they say. Normal. Typical. Average.

Right. Keep telling yourselves that...


Some climatologists may be saying that severe events will increase due to warming, and computer models may indeed show this as well--after all, they are designed with this assumption in mind. However, observational evidence does not yet show a connection which is why we cannot attribute recent severe events to global warming, nor can we rule it out. Just following the science here.
Member Since: Fevereiro 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
318. biff4ugo
01:03 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
%u2116s 310 & 311:



On the graph from the Univ. of Col. below, the global mean sea level has spent some time below the linear trendline over the last couple years. I'd say it's still too short to say there's a change in the overall trend. It probably has more to do with the fact that we've seen two significant La Nia events over the last few years. Time will tell.


From here.


So does this mean that sea level was falling prior to 1998 since the change in sea level was negative? The axis is delta mm, or change in mm elevation. Negative numbers would mean it was falling. Where was it falling? In Colorado?
Member Since: Dezembro 28, 2006 Posts: 119 Comments: 1638
317. Neapolitan
12:49 PM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
I'll say what I've been saying: perhaps the only thing dumber than saying with certainty that any particular one of the recent extreme weather events around the globe is a direct result of global warming is saying with certainty that none of them have been.

The depth and breadth of denialism in this country is astounding at times. For years--decades, even--climatologists have been saying that one of the likely side effects of warming will be an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. And now that that seems to be happening, denialists are falling all over themselves trying to claim there is absolutely no link whatsoever between the current warming and the weather events. What's going on nowadays is just par for the course, they say. Normal. Typical. Average.

Right. Keep telling yourselves that...
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 15274
314. sirmaelstrom
04:14 AM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
№s 310 & 311:

Quoting RMuller:
What happened to the big sea level increase predicted by the AGW establishment? Not a rhetorical question. Another prediction in the dust bin of history. Somewhat similar to the Rapture/End of World Prediction.
Link


On the graph from the Univ. of Col. below, the global mean sea level has spent some time below the linear trendline over the last couple years. I'd say it's still too short to say there's a change in the overall trend. It probably has more to do with the fact that we've seen two significant La Niña events over the last few years. Time will tell.


From here.
Member Since: Fevereiro 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
313. Neapolitan
03:36 AM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Yah. That's what I've been wondering. Of course you get the ones who rush to say for certain it's happening when the sea level rises a couple feet...until they realize it's just the tide. Typical knee jerk reactions. Just like we'll probably see Neapolitan tomorrow belching once again about how today's tornado outbreak is a telling tale of the rapidly warming world. He's probably writing an entire novel to present to us tmrw as we speak. All too predictable. All too pathetic.

I'm flattered you remain so obsessed with me, but, seriously, for the benefit of the blog, perhaps it'd be best if you moved on to something else?

For what it's worth, though, I am writing yet another novel. Perhaps I'll send you an autographed copy... ;-)
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 15274
312. sirmaelstrom
03:24 AM GMT em 25 de Maio de 2011
Quoting RMuller:


After reading this article in the past, this is the problem I have with the UAH data set.

Link


The "diurnal cycle effects" referred to in the link you gave seems to be a reference to the orbital drift of some of the satellites. The NOAA-15 satellite--from which some of the channels of the Discover AMSU data comes--is one of these satellites. However, the Ch.5 data and the SST data do not come from this satellite; this data comes from the Aqua satellite which maintains it's orbit's equatorial crossings at 1:30am and 1:30pm, and does not have the bias that the NOAA-15 satellite has. The UAH lower tropospheric temperature estimates also do not use NOAA-15 data.

See the link below for more detail:

Daily Global Temperature Updates on the Discover Website: An Updated Tutorial
Member Since: Fevereiro 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
308. iceagecoming
09:45 PM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
CB, we know the ice cap in Greenland has melted many
times in the past but if your plan works it would be
a monumental attempt at a global thermostat. Decrease
the heat flow north and in theory refreeze the north.
If this works as planned, the EU is going to want have a say at the controls, it would seem to me and some in British Isles. How will much it cost?


A snippet below:

Is summer 2011 set to be a scorcher?

Paul Hudson

Last but by no means least comes Joe Bastardi formerly at Accuweather.com and now at US company Weatherbell, based in New York.

His analysis is often second to none, and he has an army of followers and private clients in America. I contacted him at the weekend, and he has produced a very interesting analysis which you can read on his website by clicking here.

Joe expects a summer warmer and drier than average, a 'decent English summer' as he put it to me. But he also thinks that a long hot summer (he uses the example of 2003 which across Europe was one of the hottest on record) is 'highly doubtful'.

His main reasoning is that temperatures higher up in the atmosphere have cooled dramatically, and are much cooler than during the last hot European summer in 2003.

In fact upper level temperatures at 25,000 ft are cooler than at just about any time in the 13 year data set he showed me.

This he says will act as a lid on the level of temperatures that can be achieved - in short, if temperatures at the surface that you and I experience get too high, the colder than normal temperatures aloft would cause a destabalisation of the atmosphere, leading to higher rainfall.

Finally, a close look at the climate records indicates that blocking weather patterns through Spring which have led to the very dry weather across parts of the country mostly give way to a less settled scenario through the following summer, although there are exceptions to this, like in 1976, 1995 and 2003.

As ever, long range forecasting is fraught with dangers and even the most skilled operators can get it wrong. But a summer along the lines of 1976, although it can't be ruled out, would be a big surprise. But as ever it will be very interesting to see who is right.

And by the way, Mr Bastardi also told me he is more than happy for me to add that he thinks we are in for a prolonged cold winter again this year. Now that would raise a few eyebrows!

Link
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1163
307. biff4ugo
04:50 PM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
So far, still in the La Nina drought/fire season and just when I thought lake levels had come back up to "normal".

On the lighter side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7wdKg8rYL0&featur e=iv&annotation_id=annotation_633970
Member Since: Dezembro 28, 2006 Posts: 119 Comments: 1638
303. sirmaelstrom
05:29 AM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
№ 296
Quoting RMuller:


Maybe we should take UAH records with a grain of salt. After all, they haven't been shown to be exactly objective.
Simply that we are having a debate on what the exact input data are completely demonstrates that climate "science" is nothing of the sort.


What problems do you have with the UAH data set? Certainly it has it's limitations, as do all of the data sets. How has the UAH data "[not] been shown to be exactly objective"?

* * *

№ 294
Quoting Snowlover123:
Global Temperatures at ch5 on Roy Spencer's AMSU have fallen to near -.2. It appears to only be .16 away from breaking record lows.


You're going to go crazy following that thing day-to-day. The recent drop doesn't look all that different than the normal amount of variation we've seen all year. If it were to stay level at the present value for the rest of the month, it looks like the seasonally-adjusted UAH monthly value would be similar to April's (just eye-balling here though). Of course, I think it's more likely that it will rise some, and the May value will be somewhat higher than the April one.
Member Since: Fevereiro 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
302. sirmaelstrom
05:17 AM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
№ 298

Kudos to Bill McKibben for a very well-written piece of political propaganda; what you can't prove with actual evidence, strongly imply as eloquently as possible. To be sure, it's an effective editorial--Mr. McKibben would've made a great lawyer--however, in the end, it is just an editorial and nothing more.
Member Since: Fevereiro 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
301. iceagecoming
03:15 AM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
I find a lot of parallels between supporters of the "theory" of global cooling, and those touting yesterday's "Rapture":

--Both ignore solid and overwhelming scientific evidence and instead use quackery and wishful thinking to support their "theories".

--Both claim that the evidence against their "theories" is flawed, and from people who "just don't get it".

--Both ignore their many previous failed predictions, promising that this time, it's for real.

--Both make huge amounts of money promoting their fakery to the gullible.

--And when it doesn't happen as they predicted, both groups go into hiding for a few days before reappearing to announce a new future date for the next event.

- - - - - - - - - -

Now, to be fair to the Coolists, the Rapturists have been repeating the above cycle for nearly 2,000 years, so they have quite a head start. But to be fair to the Rapturists, at least they don't try to claim it's already happening despite the evidence, which is something the Coolists do.

All of this leads me to one question: has anyone seen Anthony Watts and Harold Camping together? Because part of me wonders whether they may just be one and the same person. ;-)


Hate to say but I already assigned that to you blokes
back at post 71.


Read it and weep.

You sir are a skeptic and therefore do not deserve an
answer, simple empirical evidence gets in the way of
AGW guilt. Same old story, same old song and dance.


Original Sin
the condition of sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's first act of disobedience.
And anything else that can be blamed on us.
Or Perpetual Guilt

some religions teach perpetual guilt/shame as a corrective device, and some people accept those teach- ings as their soul's guide.

ECOguilt as a religion. seems fitting.
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1163
300. iceagecoming
03:09 AM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
Here's more good reading, this time from down under:

Climate change is now critical, says the Climate Commission

"The atmosphere is warming, the ocean is warming, ice is being lost from glaciers and ice caps, and sea levels are rising."

This is the dramatic conclusion of scientists who say climate change cannot be denied, and carbon offsetting is not enough to stop it.

The findings are included in the first report by the [Australian] Government's newly created Climate Commission.

It warns people are to blame for rising temperatures, with the last decade the hottest on record.

"The biological world is changing in response to a warming world," The Critical Decade: Climate Science Risks and Responses report says.

"Human activities - the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation - are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate."

The report also is highly critical of climate change sceptics, whom it claimed were intimidating climate scientists and confusing the public.

The problems are so critical, the report says, Australia must "decarbonise our economy" and move to clean energy sources by 2050, and if steps aren't launched soon, "we will struggle to maintain our present way of life".

Herald Sun Article...

You might be interested to know Australia's Climate Commission isn't an anti-business environmentalist group; two of the six principals are business people, and, in fact, one of them was the President of BP Australasia for a number of years. The new report shows what happens when science is allowed to be heard, and not buried under a mountain of Big Energy-funded denialist malarkey.



woops; here is the real world.




Political cracks appear on carbon reduction


It's been one of the most remarkable things in British politics for many years: The political consensus, across all the main parties, on the need and the speed at which the UK is to cut its carbon emissions to avoid so called 'dangerous climate change'.
And yet, lurking just beneath the surface, there are MPs who privately either express concern at the cost of going green and how, if other countries don't do the same, it might damage the country's competitiveness; or even voice doubts about man made global warming itself, believing the threat is exaggerated.
That said it still came as a surprise to commentators this week when a prominent member of the Cabinet, the Business Secretary Vince Cable, voiced his concerns that the speed and cost of carbon reductions over the coming years could harm prospects for jobs and growth - concerns that are apparently shared by, among others, the Chancellor George Osborne.
In 2008, three budgets were announced taking the country on a path of carbon reduction to 2023. But the next target that has to be set in the next few days will take the country to 2030.
The government have been told that carbon emissions should be cut by 60% compared to 1990 levels by 2030, by the government's advisory body on climate change.
Lord Turner, who heads this body, met with ministers to try and heal a rift which has pitched Osborne, Cable and others against the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne.
In a leaked letter, Cable wrote that he feared the Energy Secretary's plan relies on securing a cap on emissions trading across Europe that may never materialise. If this were not achieved, the UK would be left cutting carbon emissions unilaterally, which would risk putting industry at a disadvantage.
A decision will be made by the Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday and will be watched very closely to see if the UK's remarkable political consensus remains in place.
Any watering down of the UK's carbon reduction plan, which is one of the toughest in the world, would be seen as a major blow by green campaigners that could have far reaching ramifications around the world.

Link
At 13:09 14th May 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

An example of "climate change" bias at the BBC.
Kate Adie, in an introduction to an item about freshwater River Dolphins, on today's From Our Own Correspondent said:
"Last year the Amazon region suffered one of it's worst droughts in recorded history. The river reached it's lowest level for half a century. Scientists do not know how much "climate change" played a part. But some computer models project more water shortages across the region as the planet warms."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011290j/Fro m_Our_Own_Correspondent_14_05_2011/
Now, if scientists don't know how much "climate change" played a part, then don't mention it. Of course, this is a subtle attempt to link the predictions of computer models to actual drought, when there is absolutely no evidence.
Also note the phrases "worst droughts in recorded history" and "lowest levels for 50 years", so apparently "recorded history" only goes back half a century.
Also, "more water shortages .. as the planet warms", implies that warming is the only cause of water shortages, when it they could equally be due to excessive extraction for industry and a growing population.
Clearly Ms Adie has been reading the BBCs own propaganda from Richard Black:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-123 56835

"Domino Dancing"

(All day, all day) Watch them all fall down
(All day, all day) Domino dancing
(All day, all day) Watch them all fall down
(All day, all day, domino dancing)

Germany is next!
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1163
299. iceagecoming
02:54 AM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Gulfstream Kinetic Energy could have prevented many tornado deaths this year! Ya'll with me yet? Are you interested in how?



Sign me up.
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1163
298. Neapolitan
02:29 AM GMT em 24 de Maio de 2011
My sentiments exactly:

A link between climate change and Joplin tornadoes? Never!

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.

It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods — that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity — that is, why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. No, better to focus on the immediate casualties, watch the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown over. Look at the news anchorman standing in his waders in the rising river as the water approaches his chest.

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year drought in the past five years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the past decade — well, you might have to ask other questions. Such as: Should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal mining? Should Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign a permit this summer allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might also have to ask yourself: Do we have a bigger problem than $4-a-gallon gasoline?

Better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 240 to 184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don’t start asking yourself whether there might be some relation among last year’s failed grain harvest from the Russian heat wave, and Queensland’s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France’s and Germany’s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic.

It’s very important to stay calm. If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it’s reassuring to remember what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental Protection Agency in a recent filing: that there’s no need to worry because “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” I’m pretty sure that’s what residents are telling themselves in Joplin today.

Washington Post editorial...
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 15274
294. Snowlover123
09:15 PM GMT em 23 de Maio de 2011
Global Temperatures at ch5 on Roy Spencer's AMSU have fallen to near -.2. It appears to only be .16 away from breaking record lows.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2701
292. NRAamy
06:40 PM GMT em 23 de Maio de 2011
I think it should be investigated by The Discovery Channel... or 60 Minutes.... seriously....

:)
Member Since: Janeiro 24, 2007 Posts: 320 Comments: 31971
290. NRAamy
06:31 PM GMT em 23 de Maio de 2011
I'm good.... glad I'm not in Joplin....
Member Since: Janeiro 24, 2007 Posts: 320 Comments: 31971
288. NRAamy
06:16 PM GMT em 23 de Maio de 2011
cb!!! Tunnel-Man!!!!!!!

:)
Member Since: Janeiro 24, 2007 Posts: 320 Comments: 31971

Viewing: 333 - 283

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

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.

Local Weather

Light Snow
25 °F
Neve Fraca

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.