Is this year what we can expect?
Is this year what we can expect?
In recent weeks a question I have been asked often, “is this year, the last couple of years, like what we can expect in the future?” The question is often asked quietly, perhaps by a planner, say, someone worried about water in their city. The question follows from not only a perception that the weather is getting “weird,”, but also some small aspect of experience in their job. For example, a water manager recently said they were seeing their local river showing a distinct change to sporadically high flow in the winter, smaller spring flows, and extremely small flow late in the summer. Is this what I should expect in the future? The short answer is yes.
This question of expectation has rolled around in my head for years. I am a gardener with aspirations for small farmer. Over the last 30 years, I have definitely pushed my planting earlier in the year. When I was in Maryland, I felt wet, cool Mays were becoming the “norm,” with my tomatoes sitting in sodden soil. At the same time I would recall plots I had seen in some recent presentation that showed modeled shifts in the warm-cold patterns suggesting springtime cooling in northeastern North America. These are the sorts of casual correlations that lead people to think are we seeing a new “normal.”
In 2008 I wrote a blog about the changes in the hardiness zones that are reported on the back of seed packages. These are the maps that tell us the last frost date, and there were big changes between 1990 and 2006. These changes in the seed packets caught the attention of a lot of people. Recently, NOAA published the “new normal.” This normal relies on the definition of climate as a 30 year average. (AMS Glossary) What was done - at the completion of the decade NOAA recalculated a 30 year average. That is, 1981-2010 rather than 1971-2000. This average changed a lot, with notable warming of nighttime minima. There was some regional reduction of summertime maxima; that is, cooling. All in all, the average temperature went up, with most of the increase in nighttime minimum, a fact that is consistent with both model simulations and fundamental physics. This also came with another update of those hardiness zones.
When trying to interpret climate information and determining how has climate changed and how will it change, the combination of observations, fundamental physics, and models provide three sources of information. The combination of this information and the determination of the quality of that information is subject to interpretation. In the case of determining whether or not we are already experiencing the climate of warming world and how that change will be realized in the next decades it depends on how we use the models.
In my previous entry on heat waves, I implied how to use these pieces of information together. There are fundamental physics in the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air; hot air holds more water; warm water evaporates more quickly. The question of the model is - how well does the model represent the movement of that moisture? For the heat wave example, it is important how well do the models represent persistent high pressure systems over North America in the summer? Are these high pressure systems represented well by the models for the right reasons? The answer to the model question has a range of answers. The model does represent these systems, but if you are an expert in summertime persistent high pressure systems, then you can provide a long list of inadequacies. How can we glean information about the quality of the model? If we look at weather models, then we were able to predict the heat wave – even with the inadequacies that the expert or skeptic can list. Returning to the climate model, do we see like events in the current climate, and do these events change as the planet warms? The answer is yes. Then can we use this to guide our development of plans to adapt to climate change? The answer is yes, if we can connect the model back to data and the fundamental physics. This does become a matter of interpretation – how strong or weak is that connection?
The more I work with planners the more I hear the need for interpretive information, expert guidance, advisories about climate and climate change. People start with the notion that they want digital data from climate models that looks like current weather data. Once presented with 1) the logistical challenges of using that data, 2) the complex nature of the uncertainties associated with that data, and 3) the relative importance of climate to other parts of their decision package – once presented with these facts, they move to the need for advice. This makes sense - most of us want a narrative weather forecast, rather than model output. And the models play the same role in the use of weather forecasts as they do in climate projection. The models guide our thinking, with the ultimate forecast based on that guidance refined by observations and fundamental physics.
This entry started with the question I hear more and more – is this year what we can expect more of in the future? I have a mantra which is that on average the surface of the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. What we are seeing here is weather changing in a warming, more energy laden, environment. The extraordinary extremes that we have seen in the last year and are seeing this year are quite solidly connected to both fundamental physics and the guidance from climate and weather models. Hence, my answer, as I walk around my garden, thinking how to get better tomatoes next year, thinking about my irrigation system in my doddering retirement, is yes, what we are seeing this year tells me about what to expect in a future that is relevant to me - not something far off.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index
Why don't you put that "cherry-picking" definition away unless you want to use it to describe yourself? You are definitely a legend in your own mind calling the aforementioned scientists' work "anti-science." You can sit in your little cubicle for the rest of your life telling yourself that it's warming and the sky is falling, while dwelling on models and fraud that, as you say, have been "thoroughly debunked". The only anti-science around here is what you and your cohorts post. I don't know what your game is, but your world is crashing down on you quickly.
No truer words have ever been spoken...
Link
robodave – Might I suggest you try to improve your reading comprehension skills? I never once used the word “science” nor did I claim anyone to be a scientist in my response to you. What I spoke of was of inventions and observers. Please show where I even “implied” the word science. I am not responsible for what you take out of a conversation but, since I never used the words science, scientist or even scientific studies you will need to show me how I implied it. Should you be able to interpret the words invention or observations into the word science then you imply much more than I did.
Many think of Albert Einstein as a brilliant scientist. They would only be half correct. Einstein was not a scientist. Einstein had an uncanny ability to ask, “what if” and form theories based upon these thought experiments. Einstein never tested any of his theories. He left this to others to do.
You are also absolutely incorrect in your statement that Galileo was not "the start of science". He is credited with not only being the father of science but, also, the father of modern science. - Link - Try doing a little more reading before making such absurd and non factual comments. Perhaps that would dissuade you from making such comments, in the future. Perhaps but, probably not very likely.
Yes, there was history before 1500 A.D.. Did you skip over my reference to the date of 1440 A.D.? Guess what. There is a RECORDED history before 1500 A.D. as well. Again, you imply much more than I have.
“Does it really have to be surprising that there's a marriage between great thinkers and religion and that religion happens to be the one that's always playing catch up?” A marriage? Really? I never it saw it this way. Truly, there are those with devout religious beliefs that are also great thinkers. The problem lies with their religious beliefs influencing their thinking ability. Albert Einstein, for instance, was devout in his religion and whenever he tried to come up with “a theory of everything” he always kept his thought processes along the lines of how God would have done it. He firmly believed that God would not have a universe that contained randomness and that everything would need to be orderly. This was Einsein's greatest problem in believing in quantum physics. Perhaps, just perhaps, if he had not tried to envision how God did it then he may have actually devised his own “theory of everything”. Even his best friend once told Einstein to quit telling God what to do.
As for the rest of your comments? When you can give me proof of the following, I will listen to you. Until you do so, you have only proven yourself less knowledgeable of the science than am I.
1. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
2. Industrialization has not increased the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere beyond what is naturally occurring, in nature.
3. Trees, and other plant life, are not natural carbon sinks.
4. Man’s activities have not caused deforestation beyond the natural influences of nature.
5. A warming Earth will not melt the Arctic permafrost.
6. Methane is not released as a result of a melting permafrost.
7. Methane is not a greenhouse gas.
8. The world’s oceans are not natural carbon sinks.
9. CO2, when introduced into the oceans does, not form carbonic acid.
10. Acidification of the oceans is not occurring and, even if it were, is not caused by increasing amounts of carbonic acid.
Yes, you could ask me to prove the reverse of these but, has scientific studies already not done so? Would you take my word/opinion over that of the scientist that have dedicated their education and studies to these fields? Am I really that much more knowledgeable than they are that you would take my word/opinion on this over there studies and findings? ... I would hope not but, I Do have an idea that I would like to sell to you. Interested?
%u201CThe good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50 percent of the current amount of sea ice, the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures,%u201D he said here."
The bad news is it isn't predicted to be 50% less than what it is now. It is predicted to be GONE. But then again there are those who like to sugar coat it.
The government experts predicted that Arctic sea ice would be "gone" in 2008. In the link I posted a couple of posts back, the same expert is now not predicting the end of Arctic ice until 2030 when he won't be around to take the heat when he is wrong again.
Link
Don't I wish; he's a Nobel Prize winner, an Academy Award winner, a Grammy Award winner, Time Magazine's Person of the Year, a wonderful humanitarian, and one the world's great statesmen, no doubt about it. So thank you. That's easily one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me. ;-)
However, after reading the nonsensical PDF to which you linked, I feel safe in giving it my very own seal:
Shush they will say that is a downward trend!
"Lie to me" ? - great show!
and is this long term in human lifespan years or long term for a 4.6 billion year old planet 93 million miles from its star?
is it science when a theory's predictions keep getting pushed further in time?
its the same with apocalypse doom sayers...when the anti-christ never shows up, they just move the goal posts.
on and on and on...
I would like to say to you all it has been fun exchanging points with everyone. My crane has arrived in Fort McMurray Alberta so it is off to work for awhile. Hopefully I will see you all in a couple of months. I also have to say I am sorry for the job as my Demag CC6800 crawler ( which is fairly big )will be picking material to increase production of the oil sands. All you AGWT folks can blame me now for actually helping contribute to Global Warming but hey it pays the bills. ROFL PEACE OUT signed The Edge
Hells bells, get busy so we don't pay another nickel to Chavez.
BHO's first good move.
By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
August 5, 2011
Reporting from Seattle— Shell Exploration was conditionally cleared Thursday to proceed with the most ambitious oil and gas drilling program ever attempted in the U.S. Arctic, a plan that would offer access to a crucial new domestic energy supply in one of the most environmentally fragile regions on Earth.
After years of legal wrangling by Shell and Arctic conservationists, the exploration plan in the Beaufort Sea off the coast of Alaska was tentatively approved by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which could clear the way for Shell to begin drilling three exploratory wells as early as next July.
Several key hurdles remain, including federal permits for discharging air pollutants and disturbing the whales, seals, walrus and polar bears that reside near the proposed drilling sites, and those hurdles could easily delay the drilling further, though opponents by now are running short of legal options.
A decision is expected as early as next week on the additional crucial issue of Shell's plan for cleaning up any oil spilled during drilling operations — a matter of concern because of the fragility of the Arctic environment and the difficulty in cleaning up oil amid ice floes, the towering waves of Arctic storms and the long hours of dark once the autumn drilling season winds to a close.
Conservationists also fear that drilling could disrupt a key resting and feeding area in Camden Bay for endangered bowhead whales.
Shell has a separate application under review to launch up to six exploratory wells in the nearby Chukchi Sea, an operation that also could get underway next year if approvals are in place.
"Shell has come back with the largest and most aggressive drilling proposal we've ever seen in the U.S. Arctic. We've never seen anything of this scale before in this country," said Holly Harris, attorney for the environmental law group Earthjustice, which has battled drilling plans in the Arctic.
"This is a disaster waiting to happen…. Scientific integrity and government accountability took their familiar back seat to oil company profits and power today," she said.
But officials in Alaska who have long been frustrated with lengthy court delays over opening production on what they see as a crucial and obvious new energy resource welcomed the federal agency's decision, which followed an earlier approval that was tied up by court orders for additional environmental reviews.
"Approval of this exploration plan is fantastic news for Alaska's oil and gas industry and is a welcome shot in the arm for Alaska's long-term economic good health," Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said. "I'm confident this will ultimately be the first of many developments to keep oil flowing through Alaska's economic lifeline, the trans-Alaska oil pipeline."
Shell has pursued its Arctic exploration program for years and spent large amounts of money on scientific studies and response plans, only to face new delays based on continuing concerns that the remote, delicate Arctic region could perhaps not withstand industrial operations offshore and the kind of oil disaster that occurred with last year's BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
After its earlier exploration plan was held up once again last year, Shell came back this spring with an even more ambitious proposal and warnings that the company could not afford to wait forever to get them approved.
"The conditional approval of our plan of exploration is welcome news and adds to our cautious optimism that we will be drilling our Alaska leases by this time next year," Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.
But in a conference call organized by the Alaska Wilderness League, conservation leaders and Robert Thompson, an Inupiat resident of Kaktovik, an indigenous village on the Beaufort Sea, expressed doubts that even a small part of a major oil spill could be effectively cleaned up.
Link
Falling Gas Prices Create Unexpected Bounty but Are They Enough to Revive Economy? - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - December 08, 2008
CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE:
CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE
That works out to about 0.0132 degrees Celsius, or 0.02376 degrees Fahrenheit, per year for the past 32 years and some months. That is, by any measure, incredibly fast.
Another one of those blatherers who thinks she knows what transpired at Accuweather. Unless you have a contact there, you have absolutely no idea. From what information I can gather, JB left Accuweather because they didn't want to pay enough. After all, he was the star there and is probably one of the most highly-visible meteorologists in the country. He was the attraction and asked for more than they were willing to give. All of this innuendo that he was fired for his climate beliefs has no basis in fact. Hey, it's similar to global warming "science." It seems that all who believe in the fallacy of AGW detest Joe Bastardi, because he is an affront to their religion.
A star? Joe "The worst professional long-range forecaster on Earth" Bastardi. He wasn´t a star. Accuweather got tired of Bastardi's BS and fired him. Bastardi couldn´t even read a temperature anomaly map Link
Yes, that's incredibly fast but not so fast as Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming ;) Link
Yeah, Spencer seems to have a lot of problems with validity and accuracy. But that's okay; the denialist throngs groveling at his feet don't really care about things like that anyway.
So the peer review process is proven broken?
Edit, and you proved it?
Are you referring to his most recent paper? The flawed one? The one he placed in a geography journal rather than a climate one? The one about which other climate scientists have said, "The paper should have never been published"? That one?
Perhaps your incessant misdirection, and disinformation campaign is what I question.
Once again, you subvert the actual question on "Peer Review", which this paper did go through.
I feel your pain, and see you shout often ....
That was an interesting read in that link. Thank you.
A taste if you will.....
Link
Edit: Do the current models used code for this?
LOL! Talking Heads smarter than Spencer! LOL!
<>img src="
First, Gnight all :)
Second, CB, do you have the permits for the 45 mile wide, current sucking, climate changing tool you want to place in international waters, in hurricane alley ?
I still think the folks in England and on the East Coast will want a say in it.
(Video deleted)
Do you need permits in international waters? BTW it is about 40 miles wide not 45.
Yes, "peer review". In a fringe geography journal, not in something like, you know, a climate journal. Now, is my saying that "misdirection" or "disinformation"? Of course not. Only in the denialosphere is truth frowned upon.
I do so hope you're right with your oft-touted theory. But from everything I've read, there's no real evidence at all that somehow clouds are going to save us from what we're doing to ourselves through our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels.
Trenberth said it shouldn't have been published. He's got a lot of credibility. He's probably the worst "scientist" in the climate field. What about all of his failed predictions? Where's the missing heat?
..."Great Spirit...come.."
Phunny,,thats the USS Skate
USS Skate (SSN-578) (Date and Location unclear)
Not, the USS Nautilus which went under the North Pole.
Operation Sunshine - under the North Pole
Navigator's report: Nautilus, 90N, 19:15U, 3 August 1958, zero to North Pole On 25 April 1958, she was underway again for the West Coast, now commanded by Commander William R. Anderson, USN. Stopping at San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle, she began her history-making polar transit, operation "Sunshine", as she departed the latter port 9 June. On 19 June she entered the Chukchi Sea, but was turned back by deep draft ice in those shallow waters. On 28 June she arrived at Pearl Harbor to await better ice conditions. By 23 July her wait was over and she set a course northward. She submerged in the Barrow Sea Valley on 1 August and on 3 August, at 2315 (EDST) she became the first watercraft to reach the geographic North Pole.[5] From the North Pole, she continued on and after 96 hours and 1,590 nmi (2,940 km) under the ice, she surfaced northeast of Greenland, having completed the first successful submerged voyage around the North Pole. The technical details of this mission were planned by scientists from the Naval Electronics Laboratory including Dr. Waldo Lyon who accompanied Nautilus as chief scientist and ice pilot.
In the following months, Skate, as the first ship of her class, conducted various tests in the vicinity of her home port. In early March 1959 , she again headed for the Arctic to pioneer operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. The submarine steamed 3,900 miles (6,300 km) under pack ice while surfacing through it ten times. On 17 March, she surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. When the submarine returned to port, she was awarded a bronze star in lieu of a second Navy Unit Commendation for demonstrating "... for the first time the ability of submarines to operate in and under the Arctic ice in the dead of winter...." In the fall of 1959 and in 1960, Skate participated in exercises designed to strengthen American antisubmarine defenses
Thank you, Ossqss. I will do some study on this and get back with what I am certain will be more questions.
Should you be asking ME about "models", I will readily admit that the only types of models I am familiar with are the types that Bruce Springstein and Rod Steward were married to. LOL
Where's the missing heat? If you some day start to read scientific papers (which I can understand when I read what you've written that you have never done) you will find the "missing" heat but it seems that you rather choose to listen to the disinformation campaigns from people with economic and political interests, for instance these people Link Link
These people do not care about the future for the next generation and millions of people. Do you care?
A New Kind of Crime Against Humanity? The Fossil Fuel Industry's Disinformation Campaign On Climate Change Link
Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast Link
No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism” Link
Just Put the Model Down, Roy Link
Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity Link
Link
Climate change? You mean the miniscule tenths of a degree that may or may not have occurred in the past century. Disinformation? I think more disinformation has been performed by the people we thought we could trust such as NOAA, NASA, and the Climategate manipulators. I would also think public opinion supports my side according to the latest polls. The governments around the world have spent untold billions on this climate fraud, which is no comparison to what "Big Oil" has spent. Crime against humanity? You truly have lost your mind.
"untold billions" ? The only untold billions that have been spent by economies are on disaster relief and ecological clean ups.
On the other hand, there is no reason to not believe in global warming. What is the worst that happens? Clean energy and and foreign oil free America? Oh, wait, the grants for all the fraudulent scientists are the reason America is bankrupt (as opposed to all the corruption a la Haliburton).
No reason to not believe? It's all a scheme about carbon trading and more taxes that will possibly kill the American economy that's already on the brink of total collapse. I'd say that is a good reason. Bob Lutz, the former GM chairman, who I might add is for getting the US away from fossil fuels and taxing gas more, hasn't nothing to say good about the "science" of global warming:
Now that he has retired, he [Lutz] is freer to talk about things like taxes on fuel in the US. He advocates higher taxes on gasoline to encourage a movement towards smaller cars, something that the customer base might not be so keen on.
%u201CAs I tirelessly try to explain to US government officials, you get the vehicle parc that you pay for with fuel prices. If you insist on having the US motor fuel price at one third what people in Europe pay, then the American public will buy large cars.%u201D
He believes that the US should be moving to a vehicle parc that looks more like the one in Europe. %u201CFrankly, I think that is an intelligent direction to head in.%u201D
Lutz wants an immediate 25 cent per year increase to federal tax on a gallon of fuel. %u201CWe've got a country that is, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt with an enormous debt load. If we make motor fuel more expensive we are driving the right behaviour on the part of the public. If you did it on the basis of 25 cents a year, people would know that next year and the year after it's going to be more expensive and that would change purchasing behaviour.%u201D
Lutz is well aware of the political reality though. %u201CThey say that touching fuel tax is the 'third rail' of American politics. There is not a politician in America that is willing to advocate higher fuel taxes.%u201D But, nevertheless, market forces are driving the price of gasoline up and lifting interest in more fuel-efficient cars.
Which brings us on to alternative powertrains and more specifically GM's Volt. Lutz sees the car as a genuine game-changer because it removes the range anxiety that come with full electric vehicles' battery limitations. It's a familiar argument and sure to be played up in the marketing, but Lutz sees it as a bridging technology and is convinced that much better batteries are coming.
%u201CFor the next 10-15 years the lithium-ion battery with range extension is an optimal solution but it will ultimately be rendered redundant by improvements in batteries. If you can get 350 miles on the battery, who needs a range extender. And improvements to lithium-ion batteries are inevitable, there's a lot of investment going into that, especially in Korea where there is a lot of government funding. Advanced solutions are being actively pursued that would, in an initial stage, triple the energy storage in a lithium-ion battery and improve it in the longer term by a factor of ten.%u201D
What about that comment that must have caused consternation in the GM public relations office that global warming was a 'total crock of shit'. Does he stand by that? Yes, he does but he laments the politicisation of the debate, especially in the US.
%u201CTrue science welcomes debate. There's mutual respect for differing theories. Not so with global climate change. That is a political movement and seems designed to heavily tax carbon-based fuels. It's going to end in a big taxation scheme.%u201D He lists a whole load of predictions that he says the global warming lobby %u2013 from the IPCC to Al Gore - have got wrong.
Lutz is clearly coming at the alternative powertrain area from the standpoint that fossil fuels are being steadily exhausted. %u201CThe parc of hybrids and electrics will gradually build and this will largely be as a result of government policy because we in the Western world want to wean ourselves off fossil-fuels, not because of CO2, but because of where the fossil-fuel is located.%u201D
Link
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/another-frosty -start-for-southeast-queensland/18512
The most recent global climate report fails to capture the reality of the changing Arctic seascape, according to MIT researchers.
The Arctic — a mosaic of oceans, glaciers and the northernmost projections of several countries — is a place most of us will never see. We can imagine it, though, and our mental picture is dominated by one feature: ice.
Yet the Arctic sea ice is changing dramatically, and its presence shouldn’t be taken for granted, even over the course of our lifetimes.
According to new research from MIT, the most recent global climate report fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100, among other predictions. But Pierre Rampal, a postdoc in the Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS), and colleagues say it may happen several decades earlier.
It’s all in the mechanics
Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC issues reports that represent an average of many findings, and is sometimes criticized for forecasting according to the “lowest common denominator” of climate research. Still, many policymakers put large stock in its predictions, so Rampal says it is important to continuously evaluate and improve their accuracy.
After comparing IPCC models with actual data, Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off: Arctic sea ice is thinning, on average, four times faster than the models say, and it’s drifting twice as quickly.
The findings are forthcoming in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans. Co-authors are Jérôme Weiss and Clotilde Dubois of France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Université Joseph Fourier and Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, respectively, and Jean-Michel Campin, a research scientist in EAPS.
Part of the problem, Rampal says, may be inadequate modeling of mechanical forces acting on and within the ice in the Arctic basin. Thus far, the IPCC models have largely focused on temperature fluctuations, which are one way to lose or gain ice. But according to Rampal, mechanics can be just as important: Forces such as wind and ocean currents batter the ice, causing it to break up. Ice that’s in small pieces behaves differently than ice in one large mass, which affects its overall volume and surface area.
“If you make a mistake at this level of the model, you can expect that you are missing something very important,” Rampal says.
The seasonal tug of war
Rampal says mechanical forces can play a significant role in winter, when little melting occurs but when strong winds and ocean currents can wreak drastic effects on the ice’s shape and movement.
Traditionally, in winter, most of the Arctic Ocean was covered with a thick sheet of ice. But today’s winter ice cover is thinner, meaning it breaks up more easily under the influence of winds and currents. It eventually looks like an “ensemble of floes,” Rampal says, instead of one large mass. In summer, natural melting due to warmer temperatures opens the door to even more breakup. (Scientists refer to these patches of floes as “pancake ice,” because the small circular pieces look like — yes — pancakes on a griddle.)
During both seasons, ice in this state is prone to escaping from the Arctic basin, most commonly through the Fram Strait, a wide swath of ocean between Greenland and the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard. The smaller the floes, the more likely they are to be lost through the Fram Strait, where they melt on contact with warmer waters to the south.
So, several factors are connected in a positive feedback loop: Thinner ice breaks more easily; smaller chunks of ice drift more quickly; and drifting ice is more prone to export and melting at lower latitude. But Rampal also cites examples of negative feedback loops, which may counteract some of the ice loss. For example, large cracks in winter’s ice cover help create new ice, since the extremely cold air in contact with the liquid ocean promotes refreezing, which leads to a sheet with greater surface area than before.
‘You’d better start now’
Because “everything is coupled” in these intricate feedback loops, “it’s hard to predict the future of Arctic sea ice,” Rampal says. Doing so will require more thorough modeling and real-world observations, especially of mechanical forces and other ice phenomena that have been poorly understood. Rampal is now working on a project with researchers at MIT and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, whose goal is to combine models and observations for a more accurate picture of the state of the world’s oceans.
Bruno Tremblay, an associate professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at McGill University, agrees that “the dynamic of sea ice is really important,” and inadequate modeling of mechanical forces is “part of the reason [the IPCC report] can’t predict correctly the future of sea ice decline.” Still, he cautions against jumping to overly grim conclusions, citing a need to consider subtle changes in the Arctic atmosphere: At some point, for instance, “maybe the wind no longer aligns itself with the Fram Strait, and that reduces ice export,” he says.
Although it’s impossible to say for sure when we might see an ice-free Arctic, the IPCC itself has acknowledged that its 2007 report may have painted too rosy a picture. “If you look at the scientific knowledge things do seem to be getting progressively worse,” said Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair, in an interview reported by The New York Times shortly after the report’s release. “So you’d better start with the interventions even earlier. Now.”
Neopoitian my Tunnel idea prevents a lot of that in the video!
There was no surfacing by any submarine at the North Pole in 1958. And the picture given in post 333 doesn't give a location, only the blogger does.
When the Nautilus traversed the Arctic Ocean under the sea ice, they found continuous ice cover 10 to 50 feet thick. And they did not surface at the North Pole. I've read accounts of the voyage, from Pearl Harbor to Iceland. The journey began July 23, 1958 and ended in Iceland August 7.
I've read some detailed accounts, but this site give an accurate summary.
The submarine traveled at a depth of about 500 feet, and the ice cap above varied in thickness from 10 to 50 feet, with the midnight sun of the Arctic shining in varying degrees through the blue ice. At 11:15 p.m. EDT on August 3, 1958, Commander Anderson announced to his crew: "For the world, our country, and the Navy--the North Pole." The Nautilus passed under the geographic North Pole without pausing. The submarine next surfaced in the Greenland Sea between Spitzbergen and Greenland on August 5. Two days later, it ended its historic journey at Iceland. For the command during the historic journey, President Dwight D. Eisenhower decorated Anderson with the Legion of Merit.
A little fact checking would be good. Where did this fake meme come from?
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index