2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?
The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.
Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.
How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.
Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.
Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.
Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.
Where is the climate headed?
The 2007 United Nations-sponsored IPCC report predicted that global temperatures between 2007 and 2030 should rise by an average of 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. The observed warming over the past 30 years is 15 - 30% below that (but within the range of uncertainty given by the 2007 IPCC climate models.) Most of the increase in global temperatures during the past 30 years occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2000s have seen relatively flat temperatures, despite increasing CO2 emissions by humans. The lower-than-expected warming may be partially due to a sharp decrease in stratospheric water vapor that began after 2000. The missing heat may also be going into the deep ocean waters below about 1,000 feet (300 meters), as part of a decades-long cycle that will bring extra heat to the surface years from now. Regardless, the laws of physics demand that the huge amount of heat-trapping gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere must be significantly altering the weather and climate, even if we are seeing a lower than predicted warming. As wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood said in a recent post,Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well-known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."
Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927. I appeared on PBS News Hour on December 28 (video here) to argue that watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids--an analogy used in the past by climate scientists Tony Broccoli and Jerry Meehl. We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, and heavier flooding rains. Natural weather patterns could have caused some of the extreme events we witnessed during 2010 - 2011, and these years likely would have been naturally extreme years even without climate change. But it strains the bounds of credulity that all of the extreme weather events--some of them 1-in-1000-year type events--could have occurred without a significant change to the base climate state. Mother Nature is now able to hit the ball out of the park more often, and with much more power, thanks to the extra energy global warming has put into the atmosphere.
Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted by the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
We'll know who's right soon enough. I hope the deterioration is not as fast as you think.
In either case, I highly doubt the average person would even come close to understanding the implications of complete arctic sea loss.
Lack of education regarding climate change is what will ultimately destroy us.
Arguably the only issue more threatening than climate change.
The unfortunate side of greed, is that it is an irreversible trait of human culture.
Give me all your money!
Wait a minute. I thought that nearly every galaxy was moving away from us? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Does this mean we heading in the wrong direction? The party is in the other direction????
The presslord influence?
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #42
DEPRESSION EXTRATROPICALE, FORMER FUNSO (08-20112012)
10:00 AM RET January 29 2012
=======================================
At 6:00 AM UTC, Extratropical, Former Funso (975 hPa) located at 33.2S 45.6E has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 70 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving east southeast at 15 knots
Dvorak Intensity:
Storm Force Winds
=================
75 and 100 NM from the center in the northeastern and southwestern quadrants
Gale Force Winds
=================
20 NM radius from the center, extending up to 200 NM in the southeastern quadrant, and up to 230 NM in the southwestern quadrant
Near Gale Force Winds
====================
170 NM radius from the center, extending up to 260 NM in the southeastern quadrant, and up to 290 NM in the southwestern quadrant
Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 34.1S 48.4E - 45 knots (Depression Extratropicale)
24 HRS: 34.7S 50.1E - 40 knots (Depression Extratropicale)
48 HRS: 35.7S 52.2E - 25 knots (Zone depressionnaire)
72 HRS: 36.9S 55.1E - 25 knots (Zone depressionnaire)
Additional Information
======================
After an improving intensity during the night, convection is weakening again and remains displaced far away at 100 NM from the center in the southern part of the system.
At 0400 AM UTC, buoy 33591, very close to the centre of the system, measures a 975 hPa mean sea level pressure. Strong winds radius have been recalibrated with recent 0541 AM UTC ASCAT winds data. Current intensity is maintained at 50 knots and mean sea level pressure. has been re-adjusted.
On a generally east-southeastwards track (on a gradually slow down motion as the system will not move in the mid latitudes westerlies throughout the forecast period), ex-Funso is expected to generate strong winds (storm force winds and then gale to strong gale force winds) up to Monday morning. After that, system is forecast to gradually fill up and might be totally dissipated within the second half of next week.
The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Service on TC FUNSO will be issued at 12:30 PM UTC..
Tropical Cyclone Advice #21
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY TWO (11U)
3:00 PM WST January 29 2012
=================================
At 2:00 PM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category Two (972 hPa) located at 20.1S 111.2E or 365 km northwest of Exmouth and 590 km north northwest of Carnarvon has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 70 knots. The cyclone is reported as nearly stationary.
Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/S0.0/24 HRS
Storm Force Winds
================
45 NM from the center
Gale Force Winds
--------------------
100 NM from the center
Tropical Cyclone Iggy is expected to continue to move very slowly for the rest of today before taking a more southwesterly track on Monday.
On Monday Tropical Cyclone Iggy may move close enough to the mainland to cause gales on the coast between Onslow and Coral Bay though destructive winds are not expected. Gales may extend south to Carnarvon later Monday if Iggy tracks closer to the coast.
Tides will be higher than expected and there will continue to be large swells along the Pilbara and Kimberley coasts.
Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
=================================
A Cyclone WARNING continues for coastal areas from Onslow to Coral Bay, including Exmouth.
A Cyclone WATCH continues for coastal areas from Coral Bay to Carnarvon.
Forecast and Intensity
======================
12 HRS: 20.2S 111.1E - 60 knots (CAT 2)
24 HRS: 20.7S 110.8E - 70 knots (CAT 3)
48 HRS: 22.4S 109.1E - 60 knots (CAT 2)
72 HRS: 24.8S 107.8E - 45 knots (CAT 1)
Additional Information
=======================
System has been located by a combination of microwave and visible imagery. Although the shear has dropped off, there has been little sign of intensification and the FT number has remained at 3.5. The lack of intensification is supported by a recent ASCAT pass that showed little more that 40 knots around the system, and is in contrast to the models which have consistently intensified Iggy over the past few days.
There remains some potential for intensification in the next 24-48 hours as shear is low. Beyond 48 hours Iggy should weaken as it moves over cooler sea surface temperatures and comes under the influence of stronger wind shear.
TC Iggy has remained near stationary over the last 6 hours and should remain so for the next 12 hours before turning to the southwest early on Monday, keeping Iggy over open waters off the WA coast until mid week. Longer term motion will depend on intensification over the next 24 hours.
The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 10:30 AM UTC..
Imagine blowing up a balloon. All points on the balloon are receding from each other. At the same time the balloon in your hand is orbiting the sun (among other motions).
From the news article:
"The force and direction of the flow holds steady across space and through time.
"'It's the same flow at a distance of a hundred million light-years as it is at 2.5 billion light-years and it points in the same direction and the same amplitude. It looks like the entire matter of the universe is moving from one direction to the next,' Kashlinsky said."
No, I don't have a clue how they measured this flow.
At any rate, ice area reached its maximum extent in 2007 at 13.32 km2 on February 27, and it peaked last year at 13.14 km2 on March 9. As of this past Friday (Jan. 27), it stood at 12.4 km2. In the past two weeks, a total of just 17,500 km2 of ice has been added.
Tropical Disturbance Summary
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 07F
18:00 PM FST January 29 2012
======================================
At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression 07F (999 hPa) located at 17.0S 167.0E is reported as slow moving. Position poor based on multisatellite infrared imagery and peripheral surface observations. Sea surface temperature is around 29C.
Organization has improved slightly in the past 24 hours. Convection remains persistent over the eastern flank in the past 24hours and remains displaced to the east of the system center. Low level circulation center difficult to locate. The system lies just to the east of an eastward moving upper trough and in a moderate sheared environment. Cyclonic circulation extends to 500hpa.
Global models have picked up the system and slowly move it southeast with some intensification.
The potential for this system to develop into a tropical cyclone in the next 24 to 48hours is moderate to high.
Tropical Cyclone Advice #22
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY TWO (11U)
6:00 PM WST January 29 2012
=================================
At 5:00 PM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category Two (975 hPa) located at 20.0S 111.4E or 355 km northwest of Exmouth and 590 km north northwest of Carnarvon has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 70 knots. The cyclone is reported as nearly stationary.
Tropical Cyclone Iggy is expected to continue to move very slowly for the rest of today before taking a more southwesterly track on Monday.
On Monday Tropical Cyclone Iggy may move close enough to the mainland to cause gales on the coast between Onslow and Coral Bay though destructive winds are not expected. Gales may extend south to Carnarvon later Monday if Iggy tracks closer to the coast.
Tides will be higher than expected and there will continue to be large swells along the Pilbara and Kimberley coasts.
FESA State Emergency Service (SES) advises of the following community alerts:
BLUE ALERT: People in or near coastal and island communities between Onslow and Coral Bay including the communities of Onslow, Exmouth and Coral Bay need to prepare for cyclonic weather and organise an emergency kit including first aid kit, torch, portable radio, spare batteries, food and water.
Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
=================================
A Cyclone WARNING continues for coastal areas from Onslow to Coral Bay, including Exmouth.
A Cyclone WATCH continues for coastal areas from Coral Bay to Carnarvon.
The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 13:30 PM UTC..
The 2018 Winter Olympics?
Northern Territory
Darwin Regional Forecasting Centre
Tropical Cyclone 3 day Outlook for Northern Region, including the Gulf of
Carpentaria
Issued by the BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY, DARWIN
at 2:15 pm CST Sunday 29 January 2012
Valid until the end of Wednesday.
Existing Cyclones in the Northern Region and Gulf of Carpentaria:
Nil.
Potential Cyclones:
There are no significant tropical lows in the region. The monsoon trough is
expected to refocus over the Gulf of Carpentaria early next week. A low pressure
system is likely to form within the monsoon trough in the eastern Gulf of
Carpentaria or over Cape York Peninsula on Tuesday.
Likelihood of a tropical cyclone being in the Northern region on:
Monday: Very Low.
Tuesday: Very Low.
Wednesday: Low.
NOTE: The likelihood is an estimate of the chance of each system being a
tropical cyclone in the Region for each day...
Very low: less than 5%, Low: 5% to 20%, Moderate: 20% to 50%, High: Over 50%.
Western Australia
Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre
Media: The Standard Emergency Warning Signal should NOT be used with this
warning.
TOP PRIORITY FOR IMMEDIATE BROADCAST
TROPICAL CYCLONE ADVICE NUMBER 23
Issued at 8:46 pm WST on Sunday 29 January 2012
A Cyclone WARNING continues for coastal areas from Onslow to Coral Bay,
including Exmouth.
The Cyclone WATCH from Coral Bay to Carnarvon has been cancelled.
At 8:00 pm WST Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category 1 was estimated to be
355 kilometres northwest of Exmouth and
590 kilometres north northwest of Carnarvon and
is near stationary.
Tropical Cyclone Iggy is expected to continue to move very slowly overnight
before taking a more southwesterly track on Monday.
On Monday it is possible that Tropical Cyclone Iggy may move close enough to
the coast to cause a period of gales between Exmouth and Coral Bay. Destructive
winds are not expected. Gales are no longer expected to occur between Coral Bay
and Carnarvon.
Tides will be higher than expected along the upper west coast.
FESA State Emergency Service (SES) advises of the following community alerts:
BLUE ALERT: People in or near coastal and island communities between Onslow and
Coral Bay including the communities of Onslow, Exmouth and Coral Bay need to
prepare for cyclonic weather and organise an emergency kit including first aid
kit, torch, portable radio, spare batteries, food and water.
Communities between Onslow and Carnarvon should listen for the next advice.
People needing SES assistance can call 132 500. In a life threatening situation
call 000. For more safety tips visit www.fesa.wa.gov.au
Details of Tropical Cyclone Iggy at 8:00 pm WST:
.Centre located near...... 20.0 degrees South 111.4 degrees East
.Location accuracy........ within 55 kilometres
.Recent movement.......... near stationary
.Wind gusts near centre... 120 kilometres per hour
.Severity category........ 1
.Central pressure......... 977 hectoPascals
The next advice will be issued by 12:00 am WST Monday 30 January.
This blog as well.
Agreed
Our culture certainly. But not all cultures and not even all individuals in our culture. It does help to abandon as many of the corporations and their products as possible in the trek through life. Less "need", less "greed".
As to the Arctic Ocean summer ice, about 3 years ago I projected the summer low to be less than 1 million square km for 2013. I hope that does not occur. Once the floating ice is gone the heat absorption of the Arctic Ocean will certainly enhance the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and increase the sea level rise rate.
Once on a large enough scale, the Laws of thermodynamics requires that "eventually" ice must be heated and melted before SST and atmospheric temperatures can continue to rise.
That whole "It's not easy to move heat from a cold sink to a warm sink" thing is at play.
The specific heat capacity of Ice is much higher than air, but lower than liquid water.
The Heat of Fusion for the phase change from ice to liquid water is roughly 80 times greater than the Specific Heat capacity of liquid water, and at least by mass, it's something like 320 times greater than the specific heat capacity of air.
In short, once most of the ice is melted, the SST and air temps in the surrounding regions will increase perhaps many, many times faster.
But don't worry, you have to take a big chunk out of Greenland before that becomes a factor.
The fastest Greenland can possibly melt is 17 years under the worst realistic carbon bomb imaginable.
The fastest it will melt with business as usual and population groth is 70 years, give or take a few.
the IPCC projections for sea level rise suggest they think Greenland will survive for 300 to 500 years.
I find that highly unlikely, since it would totally melt in 7500 years even if the melt rate was constant and linear equal to the average of the past 5 years. It's not. I has been doubling every 5 years for at least the past 10 years.
If the rate of increase in the rate of melting slowed down, so that it doubled only once every 10 years, instead of once every 5 years, it would still be possible for Greenland to totally melt within 100 years.
It is now known that there is a carbon bomb in the arctic and permafrost equivalent to 2 to 4 times the amount of CO2 that man has made in his existence, and this will begin release within the next few decades, certainly since the sea ice will all be gone in summer in 5 or 6 years or so.
We're supposed to hit 700PPM CO2 by the end of the century, even without counting carbon bombs.
With all carbon bombs, it could easily exceed 1000PPM by 2100.
Even if we stopped making CO2 all together, we have a net excess, and Greenland would eventually melt, in 7500 years, AND the carbon bombs would be released anyway. yeah.
What is required to stop global warming is to not only STOP increasing the Keeling Curve, but to lower it back down to pre-industrial levels, and about half of that needs to be done in the next couple decades, BEFORE the carbon bombs get released, else you'll be dealing with another 200 to 400 PPM CO2 on top of what we already have.
Well, technically only galaxies outside our own galaxy cluster, the "local group".
Dark Energy was invented as a patch to explain this accelerating expansion of the universe. Not that anyone knows exactly what Dark Energy is, it's just a label for "That weird force we don't know how to describe."
However, what they are talking about is "something" warps the motion of the cosmos on a very large scale so that it appears to favor one direction over the other, and the "something" does not appear to be part of the universe itself.
6 days out, and still showing a snowstorm. The hype begins....
.LONG TERM /THURSDAY THROUGH SATURDAY/...
THE FAST MOVING PATTERN CONTINUES WITH A SHORT WV MOVING THROUGH
THUR TRIGGERING ISOLD TO SCT -SHSN...MORE NEAR THE LAKE. HIGH
PRESSURE RIDGES SOUTH TO END THE WEEK WITH DRY CONDS...THEN THE
MODELS TAKE THE BIG DIVERGE. THE GFS PRODUCES A SIGNIFICANT
COASTAL LOW...AS USUAL BASED ON THE PHASING OF SHORT WAVES THAT
ARE SCATTERED ALL OVER EAST ASIA. THE ECMWF TAKES THIS STORM...NOT
UP THE EAST COAST...BUT UP THE ST LAWRENCE VLY. THE MODEL SUITE
HAS BEEN ALL OVER WITH THIS SYSTEM FROM IN THE WEST ATLC. FOR NOW
CARRIED CHC OR SLIGHT CHC. THERE`S 6 DAYS TO THE MODELS TO DEBATE
WITH THEMSELVES HOW THE SHORT WVS WILL PHASE. TEMPS DURING THE EFO
WILL BEGIN ABV NORMALS THU AND END THE PERIOD NEAR NORMAL.
Link
An extract:-
"The amount of heat required to melt that amount of ice is almost unimaginable, and easily can explain a lack of acceleration in lower tropospheric warming."
Once the arctic ice has melted, then the source of the heat that melted it will still be there.
A bit like a pan full of ice,on a cooker, once its melted to water at 0/c it will then continue to warm. The overriding factor is that the water then has to be cooled more to re freeze, meanwhile the water will give up some of its heat to the air which in turn will help to melt more surrounding ice.
Greenland has to be the next on the list, then masses of that fresh water will rapidly find its way into the North Atlantic. In fact Greenland will then be like a big ice-cube in a pan of warm water.
We might end up with a dramatic change in the whole Northern Hemisphere weather patterns? Maybe we have already got that now!
My area forecast discussion doesn't mention anything besides the chance for a storm:
.LONG TERM /TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY/...
H9 TEMPS WILL INCR DRASTICALLY ON TUE AND WED AS H9 FLOW INCRS
AHEAD OF SFC LOPRES IN GRTLKS RGN. SOME SUN AND INCRG SLY LOW-LVL
FLOW WILL PROMOTE DP MIXING AND WARMTH...WITH MAXIMA IN THE 60S
BOTH TUE AND WED DESPITE CLD CVR ON THE LATTER DAY.
SHWRS MAY FORM ALONG A SFC TROF THAT WILL MOVE EWD ACRS FCST AREA
ON WED. CDFNT FOLLOWS BEHIND THIS BNDRY...WITH HIPRES FOR RMNDR OF
THE WORK WK. STORM SYSTEM MAY AFFECT RGN BY THE WKEND.
24 Jan 2012 1012.38 1000.25 35.43 10.43 14.40
25 Jan 2012 1012.78 998.40 46.03 10.59 14.78
26 Jan 2012 1013.96 1000.50 41.70 10.98 15.12
27 Jan 2012 1012.88 1003.80 21.06 10.77 15.27
28 Jan 2012 1010.91 1004.70 7.54 10.40 15.23
29 Jan 2012 1010.15 1005.25 1.37 10.13 15.13
Source for SOI values
Yes, and the Northeast will get significantly colder and snowier next week.
That combined with the current PNA and the forecasted -NAO looks very good for snow lovers like myself!
What do you think of the snow possibility next weekend?
Yes, but your scenario is unrealistic. The melt rate cannot keep doubling every 5 years, or even every 10 years. It's not physically possible. Even with "carbon bombs", you'd need to eventually maintain melting all year round (and quite a lot of it) to drain Greenland of its ice. Unless our atmosphere thickens considerably (runaway greenhouse), the arctic winter will prevent year round melting.
The temperature response to CO2 isn't exponential or even linear. Current best estimates show that every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by 3 C. In other words, the more you add, the less effective it becomes.
That being the case, even at 1000ppm the temperature the current worst case would be somewhere between 6C-9C. That's nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but it is far from enough heat to melt Greenland by the end of the century, let alone in 17 years no matter how extreme the scenario.
Or too put it another way, if a scenario arises where the Greenland melts entirely within the century, most of us won't be around to care about it and coastal flooding would be the least of your concerns.
"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of man." Abbot Nanrei Kobori
"Just to be alive billions of years after the origin of life, a being must be tough, resourceful, and lucky: There have so many hazards along the way."
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"
You are certainly correct in saying it can't continue exponentially indefinitely.
But there are certainly other positive feedbacks involved, such as albedo, which can theoretically continue getting worse right up until the Earth reaches minimum albedo.
Mid-lattitude albedos from snowpacks, mountain glaciers, and lake and river ice in winter effects a very large portion of the planet.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice
Look how much bigger the snowpack area is compared to arctic sea ice and greenland ice cap.
All of that is potential positive albedo feedback, since in terms of net WINTER ice loss for AREA, which effects albedo, the snow pack is actually much, much more fragile,e asier to melt, and effects a much, much larger area, over lower lattitudes with more direct sunlight, and hence a much larger daily change in net albedo.
So albedo feedback can go right off the scale long before Greenland or the winter sea ice is removed, particularly during winter, late autumn, and early spring.
The annual melting days anomaly for the NH above 60N is something like plus 16 for NA, +8 for the ocean, and +12 for Greenland and Eurasia.
Since the number of days in a year doesn't change, every melting day you add is a freezing day you lose. It's like a turnover in basketball. It isn't worth one score, it's worth two scores: The opponent lost a basket and you gained a basket, etc.
Since north America is gaining an average of 1.6 annual melting days per year, or 16 per decade, this means that after just 20 years you'll literally lose an entire month's worth of winter.
Now imagine how big a change this is going to be on the positive albedo feedback, just on the North American continent, when a month's worth of snow and ice EVERY YEAR never happens.
If this continues for just another 10 or 20 years, the consequences are going to be absolutely shocking, even if it slows to just +10 annual melting days per decade, it would only take 3 decades to erase an entire month of winter from the calendar.
The folloing links will give you info on basic CO2 "stuff". My back ground is engineering so I am not qualified to judge if this is good bad or other wise.
If you slog through it, you will have a better handle on how CO2 absorbs Sun light etc.
The first lecture introduces the scientific versus not method and how it applies to climate issues.
This link gets you the list of class outlines
Link
From page one:
Meteo 1020 Lecture 1
Introductory Material:
The Scientific Method: The method of practiced skepticism
• We need to contrast science from non-science
• It is important that you can distinguish the difference
between actual science, the current popular batch of
pseudo sciences and even the fundamental difference
between science and religion
The link gets you the PDF for lecture 1
Link
I hope this helps.
I'm doing quite well, actua..... wait.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-20 93264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-N ASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
There are a couple of ways. First, it's helpful to know that manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, those natural CO2 emissions are--and have almost always been--balanced by natural absorption (by both the ocean and vegetation). But now our rising CO2 emissions have upset that natural balance. About 40% of anthropogenic emissions are being absorbed by the oceans (leading to acidification), while the remaining 60% stays in the atmosphere, which is why atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in hundreds or thousands, or even millions, of years. And that CO2 causes warming, as has been empirically proven again and again.
Second, scientists have closely examined the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere and found that as atmospheric CO2 has risen, the percentage of plant-based CO2 has fallen--meaning, of course, that the excess CO2 is, indeed, coming from us.
Most scientists--in fact, all of them worth their diplomas--believe the earth has been here for not millions but billions of years. And, yes, the climate has changed in the past. Many times, in fact. Previous major changes have been caused by such things as Milankovich cycles (slow change) or supercolossal volcanic eruptions (swift change). In short, the climate responds to whatever is forcing it to change--and humans are now the dominant force. (My analogy: a man may have lost weight many times over the years while intentionally dieting, but if he starts losing weight spontaneously though he's not dieting, it would be foolish of him to simply dismiss it by saying, "Well, I've lost weight before.")
The big takeaway: the current warming is occurring many times faster than it did during any of the past slow changes--and it's important to remember that even those slow changes brought about massive disruptions to the biosphere.
Viewing: 451 - 501
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index