Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 20:36 GMT le 15 août 2012 | +11 |

| Permalink | A A A |
|
|
I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition!
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index
Leaving plant "wastes" on the field stores that carbon for a short time. Probably only until the next year's microbes eat it into CO2 and methane.
More importantly it feeds those microbes and they produce nutrients for the next crop. And the plant material helps the soil absorb rain and hold the water in between rains.
If straw bale houses are being built in large numbers, I'd be very surprised. I live in an area in which there are a lot of alternative builders and there seem to be few straw buildings.
Straw for houses makes huge sense. Hugely insulating, sound deadening, high fire resistance, lower skilled construction, and the carbon in the straw should be sequestered for 100 years or more.
Straw bale houses can be beautiful. You end up with the very thick walls of adobe construction. Deep-set windows and doors. A feeling of mass and strength.
Fresca?
Really, straw building did change the straw market. The price jumped from $0/ton to almost $100/ton. I haven't kept track so don't know the exact price now. Anyway it would be just the local price.
My house is wood frame because straw was just too expensive at the time. Plus, the local building inspector made it clear that he didn't want to see straw buildings in "his" county. Sometimes its easier to just conform.
Straw bale building is cool. Just make absolutely certain that the stucco on the outside is VERY thick and un-cracked. Mice love straw!
Where?
Straw prices around here have stayed fairly flat, I buy a couple bales a year for the garden.
Rodents love seeds, straw not so much.
Building inspectors. Some of those guys....
There are stacked bale (no frame) houses that are now about 100 years old. I wouldn't build a stacked bale in earthquake territory but one with a timber or concrete frame would be fine.
Concrete corners and door posts with a bond beam across the top should be excellent for earthquake and hurricane country. Put a layer of heavy wire, something like concrete mesh on the outside of the bales and stucco over and it would take a major force to bring that structure down. \
Tie the outside wire to the corners and it would be super-strong. Ferrocement walls. Ferrocement boats are incredibly strong.
BTW, rice straw would be an excellent material. The high silicone content of rice straw makes it very rot resistant, in the event some moisture did find its way inside.
I've been posting here about climate change, but the medium isn't ideal. I created the new site to provide a place to discuss the actual effects and impacts (both positive and negative) that have already occurred on the local and regional scale. As a native Ohioan, the focus is on Ohio, but also on the greater Midwest and Lakes region.
Lost in the discussion of climate change on the ordinary person is that it's effects have not been limited to the arctic. The changing climate is evident everywhere. Weather has always been an interest of mine, so I've looked back at old records in the past. And they really illustrate some of the changes. Today, I made a post discussing the old phenomenon of July frosts. I'm not talking 1816 -- year without a summer. Rather, I'm talking circa 1900 -- light frosts used to be a fairly common occurrence even in July in the interior parts of northern Ohio. In recent years, it seems even the far North seldom see summertime frosts. In the case of Ohio, the July frost has become part of lore of yesteryear.
http://ohioclimate.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/july- frost-in-ohio-endangered-species-or-already-extinc t/
Anyways, I welcome anyone to come participate there. As I have other business to do, I won't be making new posts very frequently (maybe once a week or so), but I do intend to maintain it. I don't expect much traffic, but I'd like to counter some of the nonsense that the US warming trend is only an artifact of manipulated data by providing physical evidence of the changes that are independent of any temperature readings.
I would think the changes in Great Lake ice would be a good topic for your blog. Perhaps ice fisherpeople and ice sailors could give some input.
Setting your site up as a central place where one could go for region climate data might be a good service. Have a page of links to reliable data sources.
Good luck and drop periodic summary pieces in here.
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I do plan on exporting the ice data over there. The medium is a little more convenient and makes it a lot easier to upload graphics. Don't need to worry about hosting them elsewhere.
I've always been interested in the weather & climate, so researching some of these events isn't a big deal for me but it does take time. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this blog. But I'm going to try to post about interesting current and historical events when I get some free time. And if I see any studies of interest I'll post them. I read some of the "skeptical" blogs and they sometimes like to call attention to past heat waves and the like to sow doubt, so I figure I might as well post and try to make a more balanced picture. There's a wealth of data out there that really could be made more accessible to the average person, so that they could see that the climate is changing. What it means -- or what we should do about it -- are still debatable. But to say that it's not happening is just asinine.
Some data you might want to take a look out is annual melt out dates for various bodies of water. Might not be a biggie in Ohio, but further north it is something watched very carefully and records can go back for many years.
"Everything about this points in the same direction: we've made the Earth warmer," he said.
This summer has also seen unusual melting of the ice sheet covering Greenland, with NASA images showing that for a few days in July, 97 percent of the northern island's surface was thawing. The same month also saw an iceberg twice the size of Manhattan break free from Greenland's Petermann Glacier.
The change is apparent from an NSIDC graphic showing current Arctic ice cover compared with the 1979-2000 average, Scambos said. The graphic is online at nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ .
"What you're seeing is more open ocean than you're seeing ice," he said. "It just simply doesn't look like what a polar scientist expects the arctic to look like. It's wide open and the (ice) cap is very small. It's a visceral thing. You look at it and that just doesn't look like the Arctic Ocean any more." "
Link
LiveScience.com
Thousands of earthquakes occurring in rapid succession in less than a year under an Antarctic glacier may have been linked to ocean tides, new research suggests.
Scientists investigated seismic activity under David Glacier, a large glacier in East Antarctica about 270 square miles (700 square kilometers) in size. The glacier serves as the outlet from which ice from 4 percent of that region's ice sheet drains out toward the sea.
To learn more about the foundations and behavior of this glacier, the researchers analyzed seismic data gathered from there over a nine-month period between 2002 and 2003 by the Transantarctic Mountains Seismic Experiment array of 42 seismometers. They identified about 20,000 seismic events during this period that were stronger and lasted longer than the shaking typically seen with glaciers.
As we take the ice load off the top of land masses and make the high tides higher seems like we should expect the ground to creak and groan. We're changing the loading.
ScienceDaily.com
ScienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2012) — For six centuries, the ancient Maya flourished, with more than a hundred city-states scattered across what is now southern Mexico and northern Central America. Then, in A.D. 695, the collapse of several cities in present day Guatemala marked the start of the Classic Maya's slow decline. Prolonged drought is thought to have played a role, but a study published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters adds a new twist: The Maya may have made the droughts worse by clearing away forests for cities and crops, making a naturally drying climate drier.
"We're not saying deforestation explains the entire drought, but it does explain a substantial portion of the overall drying that is thought to have occurred," said the study's lead author Benjamin Cook, a climate modeler at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
ScienceDaily.com
ScienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2012) — A new study of nine coastal cities around the world suggests that Shanghai is most vulnerable to serious flooding. European cities top the leader board for their resilience.
These finding are based on a new method to calculate the flood vulnerability of cities, developed by a team of researchers from the Netherlands and the University of Leeds. The work is published in the latest edition of the journal Natural Hazards.
The index does not just look at the likelihood of a city's exposure to a major 'once in a hundred years' flood. The researchers have been careful to include social and economic factors in their calculations too.
ScienceDaily.com
(thought this was interesting, but my opinion - would be to solve the problem at it's source - not treat the symptoms > less chance of "blowback")
ScienceDaily (Aug. 20, 2012) Even though it sounds like science fiction, researchers are taking a second look at a controversial idea that uses futuristic ships to shoot salt water high into the sky over the oceans, creating clouds that reflect sunlight and thus counter global warming.
The point of the paper -- which includes updates on the latest study into what kind of ship would be best to spray the salt water into the sky, how large the water droplets should be and the potential climatological impacts -- is to encourage more scientists to consider the idea of marine cloud brightening and even poke holes in it. In the paper, he and a colleague detail an experiment to test the concept.
As long as we keep emitting CO2 at the levels we are, we will continue to destroy the oceans and the important role they play in the world's food chain.
While some form(s) of geo-engineering may eventually be required, the likeliehood of unintended consequences scares the #*@$#% out of me.
Since reading more about the isostatic rebound of Greenland as it sheds mass (1,000 gigatonnes this year??), I've wondered if that would cause significant seismic activity. If so, how strong would the tremors be??
How strong? I guess it would depend on how much built up force there is and whether it releases in a series of small movements or lets go all at once.
At the nasty end of things, a big shake could drop a bunch of ice into the ocean and make a big wave, I would imagine. Some serious water sloshing in the Arctic could do interesting things to shelf ice.
Here's an interesting article from the viewpoint of a professor of geophysical and climate hazards...
Link
--
eta: The Greenland ice sheet is generally more than a mile thick. It won't melt overnight, so I'd think gradual unloading with the possibility of small adjustments in land height/rebound and smallish tremors. Guessing....
MotherJones.com
(also has a quote and a link to Dr. Master's Blog (8/20/12)
The National Interagency Fire Center reports that 2012 just broke the record for most acreage burned by wildfires as of this date. The previous record was set in 2006, another mega-drought year.
That's nearly 7 million acres or 10,893 square miles that have burned so far this record hot and dry year. Currently 39 large fires and fire complexes are actively burning 1,401,968 acres.
Wildfires have big costs. So far in Utah this year there have been more than 1,000 wildfires that have cost over $50 million to fight. The Chips Fire in Northern California%u2014at just shy of than 50,000 acres%u2014has a running tab of over $17 million as of six days ago and it's still going strong.
Wildfires also have intimate costs. Like the "fire-walker's" solo journey into the night. And tragic costs. Like the 20-year-old firefighter on the Steep Corner Fire in Idaho who died when a tree fell on her on August 12. Or the inmate-firefighter who died fighting the Buck Fire in Southern California on Sunday.
I know that you two, maybe others, that post on here regularly live in an area that could be impacted by Isaac. Since I'm not capable of understanding the many charts and graphs, of potential tracks and intensity, I will not resort to either forecasting or wishcasting. I just want you two to know that taking the time to prepare your homes and families is far more important than blogging your our sake on the Climate Blog. That same sentiment applies to any lurkers who live in any area that may be impacted by the approaching storm.
Multiple Factors, Including Climate Change, Led to Collapse and Depopulation of Ancient Maya
ScienceDaily.com
ScienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2012) — A new analysis of complex interactions between humans and the environment preceding the 9th century collapse and abandonment of the Central Maya Lowlands in the Yucatán Peninsula points to a series of events -- some natural, like climate change; some human-made, including large-scale landscape alterations and shifts in trade routes -- that have lessons for contemporary decision-makers and sustainability scientists.
In their revised model of the collapse of the ancient Maya, social scientists B.L. "Billie" Turner and Jeremy "Jerry" A. Sabloff provide an up-to-date, human-environment systems theory in which they put together the degree of environmental and economic stress in the area that served as a trigger or tipping point for the Central Maya Lowlands.
Previous to the collapse, the Maya occupied the area for more than 2,000 years, noted the authors, "a time in which they developed a sophisticated understanding of their environment, built and sustained intensive production [and water] systems, and withstood at least two long-term episodes of aridity."
Revision of artic ice melt out dates.
Arctic cap on course for record melt: scientists
RawStory.com (AFP - Agence France-Presse)
The Arctic ice cap is melting at a startlingly rapid rate and may shrink to its smallest-ever level within weeks as the planet's temperatures rise, US scientists said Tuesday.
Researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder said that the summer ice in the Arctic was already nearing its lowest level recorded, even though the summer melt season is not yet over.
"The numbers are coming in and we are looking at them with a sense of amazement,"said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the university.
"If the melt were to just suddenly stop today, we would be at the third lowest in the satellite record. We've still got another two weeks of melt to go, so I think we're very likely to set a new record,"he told AFP.
The planet has charted a slew of record temperatures in recent years. In the continental United States, July was the hottest ever recorded with temperatures 3.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 Celsius) higher than the average in the 20th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Most scientists believe that carbon emissions from industry cause global warming. Efforts to control the gases have encountered resistance in a number of countries, with some lawmakers in the United States questioning the science.
From that link...
I suspect the new number will be 2013 to 2016. For the cautions, perhaps 2013 to 2020.
Another year like this one and it's likely 2013 or 2014. And nothing terribly special happened this year.
We're likely to end up with only 2.0 to 2.5 thousand km3 of Arctic sea ice remaining. We've seen a year to year drop of 2.5 thousand km3 twice in the last six years.
We've averaged 0.7 thousand km3 per year loss over the last decade and the last melt year could easily be a very rapid melt of thin, broken up ice. A sudden collapse.
The ice surrounding the North Pole is now in the meter to 1.5 meter thick range. The small amount of remaining thick ice is pushed against the north side of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago and is starting to transport out via the Fram Straight.
2030? Very unlikely, IMHO.
This image is a bit weird for most of us since it puts Greenland at the top, it's usually at the bottom. I'll flip it...
When the Russians started putting their ice labs on the pack in the 1950s they would just plop them down on 20'+ thick ice. Now they have to search for some 2 meter ice that is likely to hang on during the melt.
That blob of yellow on the east side of Greenland. It will totally melt this year. It's getting pushed into warmer Atlantic Ocean water and more of the red/yellow stuff will follow it over the next few weeks.
While we don't know what the weather patterns will do next year, we know a few things for certain going into the 2013 melt season:
1. Much less multi-year ice will be in the Arctic Sea.
2. 2013 will see peak solar radiation.
3. CO2 will be higher than this year.
4. CH4 will be higher, maybe much higher, than this year.
Back to one of my favorite subjects, the psychology of CC/AGW - Why do the majority of meteorologists (as opposed to climate scientists) not believe in climate change and anthropogenic global warming? That trend seems to pervade this site as well. I find the vitriol spewed by many regulars at Dr. Master's Tropical Weather Blog when someone mentions CC/AGW fascinating. Even when Jeff himself writes on the subject, some blog regulars get upset.
I don't have an answer regarding the cause of this phenomenon, nor have I seen anything published that presents a believable hypothesis regarding it's cause.
Those of us who frequent Dr. Rood's blog and discuss the issues related to AGW/CC are a definite minority among the participants here at Wunderground. Are any of you regulars here meteorologists?
Yes, Earth has warmed, many times in the past. Who is to say this was not human induced warming 3 million years before the present??
More pertinent question, why did it cool, and with variable duration, won't see many posting these articles round these parts. What energy source could make these changes possible? Could this be the reality? Enjoy.
Figure 1 | Ice-age climate and solar variability. A 3-million-year record of
δ18O (ref. 8) (a); orbital obliquity (blue) compared with integrated summer
insolation (red)3 (b); and summer insolation for the Northern Hemisphere
(on 21 June at 65° N; red) and the Southern Hemisphere (on 21 December
at 65° S; blue)6 (c). δ18O is considered a proxy of global ice-volume change,
which is assumed to occur mostly in the Northern Hemisphere over this
interval. From 3 to 1 million years ago, δ18O varies primarily at the 41,000-
year period characteristic of obliquity and integrated insolation. From
1 million years ago to the present, longer cycles of climate change, with a
roughly 100,000-year period, are more obvious. The double-headed arrow
indicates a transition more gradual than abrupt over the time indicated.
"It is widely accepted that variations in Earth’s orbit affect glaciation, but
a better and more detailed understanding of this process is needed. How
can the 41,000-year glacial cycles of the early Pleistocene be explained, let
alone the ~100,000-year glacial cycles of the late Pleistocene? How do the
subtle changes in insolation relate to the massive changes in climate known
as glacial cycles? And what are proxy climate records actually measuring?
The field now faces these important questions, which are made all the
more pressing as the fate of Earth’s climate is inexorably tied to the vestige
of Northern Hemisphere glaciation that sits atop Greenland, and to its
uncertain counterpart to the south. ■"
Maureen Raymo is in the Department of Earth Sciences, Boston
University, 685 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215,
USA. Peter Huybers is in the Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, Harvard University, 20 Oxford Street, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02138, USA.
Link
The last interglacial period sensu lato (Marine
Isotope Stage 5; MIS 5), 75–130 ka before present,
is considered an interval of relative warmth throughout
the circum-Arctic region. A compilation of qualitative
climate proxies from deep-sea sediments, ice cores,
and terrestrial near-shore sequences (LIGA members,
1991) revealed conditions about 4 °C warmer than
present in northeastern Canada and Greenland for the
early warmest portions of the last interglacial (sensu
stricto), ca. 115–130 ka BP (MIS 5e). Plant macrofossil
and fossil insects from east-central Greenland
indicate that mean summer air temperatures were about
5 °C above present (Bennike and Böcher, 1994). The
NorthGrip ice core in Greenland reveals the most
detailed arctic climate history for the last interglacial,
indicating mean annual temperatures 5 °C warmer than
present (NGRIP members, 2004). A quantitative
pollen-based climate reconstruction from Bol'shoy
Lyakhovsky Island in the Laptev Sea (Siberia),
suggests that mean July air temperatures were 4 to
5 °C higher than present during the Eemian climatic
optimum (Andreev et al., 2004a)
Link
2013 may also be a El Nino year with warmer water entering the Arctic from the west.
---
eta: NOAA in August 2012...
"El Nio conditions are likely to develop during August or September 2012."
"Yes, Earth has warmed, many times in the past. Who is to say this was not human induced warming 3 million years before the present??"
Do you even read your stuff before you post?
And what do 41,000 and 100,000 year temperature change periods have to do with the 150 rapid warming period we're now observing?
Lastly, who has claimed that the Earth has not been really hot before?
(BTW, most climate scientists would agree that there is an ice age coming. It will get here in several thousand years after humans have quit 'artificially' raising the Earth's temperature. You have my permission to sit up waiting on it to appear.)
--
eta: In addition to cherry-picking should we add the category of "grab and sling"?
I'm of the opinion that many TV Weathercasters have most of their undergraduate education in Broadcast Journalism or Communications, with at best a minor in meteorology. Certainly, the major TV outlets have meteorologists on their staffs, but unless they have pleasant appearances and soothing voices they will never appear on camera.
Also, the station management probably does not want to lose viewers by having their broadcasters discussing anything as controversial as Climate Change.
I had a TV weatherman/meteorologist admit that he downplayed any talk of climate change because any mention brought lots of complaints to the TV station.
Got to hang on to those eyeballs....
Thanks for that bit of cheerful news!
If I was a betting person, I'd put money on 2013 as the most probable year, with 2014 a close second.
I'm very anxious to see what the methane emissions amount to in the next few months.
I find the vitriol spewed by many regulars at Dr. Master's Tropical Weather Blog when someone mentions CC/AGW fascinating. Even when Jeff himself writes on the subject, some blog regulars get upset.
I think there are a few things going on over at Jeff's blog.
First, it's mostly about tropical weather, actually mostly about Southeastern US storms. Little interest is shown to a storm that might hit Central America or Asia. That has to pull in a lot of red state folks who are fighting facts.
Second, there are a lot of big-storm junkies who seem to type with one hand on the keyboard and one "in their laps". Just look at the historical big storm admiration that goes on when the weather isn't amusing. Those folks seem to really resent talk about anything other than storms. (With the exception of their personal chatter.)
Finally, there is a large group of teenie-weenies who, I would suspect, are drawn in by the storm-chaser videos. They're likely on their way to becoming part of the 'junkie' group. "Don't step on my drugs, man."
I started coming to WU because I am curious about and interested not only in severe weather, but many other natural phenomena. I am particularly concerned about the current rapid (from a long-term earth history perspective) climate change and consequences in the natural environment that threaten the very existence of our civilization.
Like many of you here at the R.Rood CC blog, I am interested in a broader spectrum of natural science than many of the typical WU storm junkies. They don't really seem interested in climate science, or even science at all, unless it specifically relates to current weather issues. They are, however, extremely interested in modelling (the subject of Dr. Rood's current blog post), and argue endlessly about the merits and accuracy of the various tropical storm models, waiting breathlessly for the next "run." Then they race to see who can post the data and plots first, often with duplicate posts between several people. However, when modelling science is applied to CC, they seem to either ignore it, or completely discount it.
I agree that the psychology of this is fascinating.
The science of AGW is fundamentally a matter of physics, and a very simple 19th century physics at that (optical spectrometry). Yet, the same people who might not dare to hazard an "opinion" about gravity, for example, when confronted with the evidence for AGW, will:
- feel free to bring any number of crackpot or discounted "theories"
- discard generations of work by geologists, paleoclimatologists and geochemists
- slander any knowledgeable scientists as venal and self-interested charlatans
- instead embrace a few rusty old wingnuts
- insist that "a few ppm" of CO2 can't possibly have any effect
- having rejected all science, mutter darkly about mysterious "natural cycles"
...and so on. We all know the pattern too well.
Their problem seems to be ontological and not educational.
And given the psychological costs of truly informed acceptance, I can see how denial is an attractive alternative, no matter how contorted and blinkered a position one must hold.
Ancient biomolecules from deep ice cores reveal a forested southern greenland.
It is difficult to obtain fossil data from the 10% of Earth's terrestrial surface that is covered by thick glaciers and ice sheets, and hence, knowledge of the paleoenvironments of these regions has remained limited. We show that DNA and amino acids from buried organisms can be recovered from the basal sections of deep ice cores, enabling reconstructions of past flora and fauna. We show that high-altitude southern Greenland, currently lying below more than 2 kilometers of ice, was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects within the past million years. The results provide direct evidence in support of a forested southern Greenland and suggest that many deep ice cores may contain genetic records of paleoenvironments in their basal sections.
Link
Arctic Coryphodon data sets do more than tell researchers about the diets of large mammals living in the Arctic 50 million years ago; they also add another piece to the puzzle about how groups of mammals migrated from Asia to North America.
Link
Climate Fluctuations 115,000 Years Ago: Were Short Warm Periods Typical for Transitions to Glacial Epochs?
ScienceDaily (Mar. 7, 2010) — At the end of the last interglacial epoch, around 115,000 years ago, there were significant climate fluctuations. In Central and Eastern Europe, the slow transition from the Eemian Interglacial to the Weichselian Glacial was marked by a growing instability in vegetation trends with possibly at least two warming events. This is the finding of German and Russian climate researchers who have evaluated geochemical and pollen analyses of lake sediments in Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Russia.
Writing in Quaternary International, scientists from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), the Saxon Academy of Sciences (SAW) in Leipzig and the Russian Academy of Sciences say that a short warming event at the very end of the last interglacial period marked the final transition to the ice age.
Link
So friggin' what?
Do you believe any previous changes in Earth temperature were caused by magic or do you hold that they had physical reasons?
If magic, then please just go away.
If physical forcings then please state the physical forces now causing the planet to heat. The forces other than human-produced greenhouse gases.
If it's not cherry-picking it's grab-and-sling....
[deletia]
C'mon, stop wasting time on the little stuff and go right to PETM.
Viewing: 201 - 242
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index