Tipping, tipping ... And Thar She Goes! As Arctic summer ice likely disappears by 2022, most Arctic experts say, after being taken aback by the swiftness of this summer's record-breaking melt, reports Fen Montaigne at Environment360. Most experts now agree that the polar summer ice is beyond the point of return, and consequences will be profound, including significant changes in weather patterns for the U.S. and other countries in the northern hemisphere. And you thought 2012 was interesting....
Global Warming Is Real! says an organization of American weather broadcasters, the American Meteorological Society, reports Joe Romm at ClimateProgress. Important, since most Americans rely on and trust their weather broadcasters on weather and climate -- and most Americans want to learn more about climate change from them.
Hot Times in Siberia: Record wildfires in Siberian forests and boglands have burned close to a half million acres during their unusually hot summer, reports Brian Dunbar at the National Atmospheric and Space Administration website. Hotter times for all of us, since the wildfires' huge emissions of carbon dioxide further accelerates global warming...
Ba-a-a-a-ahhhhhd News: There Goes the Goat Cheese. Farmers in Wisconsin (yup, Paul Ryan's home), the top US goat cheese producing state, are being forced to cull goat herds or sell out, as the summer climate-change-enhanced drought destroyed much of the feed crop, sending feed prices soaring, reports Karen Herzog at the Milwaukee Sentinal Journal. The state lost 6,000 goats this past year -- that's a lot of goat cheese, folks...
Siberian Thaw Setting Off Carbon Bomb: A vast outcrop of the Arctic Siberian coast, frozen since the Ice Age, is releasing huge carbon deposits as rising temperatures thaw parts of its coastline, a study in the journal Nature warns, reports Agence France Presse in the Australian News. Released carbon enters a vicious feedback cycle, enhancing global warming further that, in turn, releases yet more Siberian stored carbon. After everything else we just read, this is just what we wanted to hear, yes?
The Climate Change - Hurricane Connection: Wind, Water, and Isaac. Climate change affects not only intensity but size of hurricanes. The extra heat energy vacuumed off the ocean surface can be channeled into absorbing more water and accelerating winds. Hurricanes are braked by the land they pass over. But even a slower hurricane can wreak destruction by quickly dumping vast amounts of water in one area, damaging communities. Thus, even downgraded to a tropical storm, giant Isaac still packs a powerful punch, enhanced by climate change.
Every day is Earth Day, folks, as I was reminded by this view of Emerald Lake that Ben Blonder photographed not far from our research cabin, and generously shares with us. Making the U.S. a global clean energy leader will ensure a heck of a lot more jobs, and a clean, safe future, despite what Mitt Romney thinks. If you'd like to tell Congress that you're voting for candidates that will support clean energy, join the increasing numbers of people doing so here. For more detailed summaries of the above and other climate change items, audio podcasts and texts are freely available.
Besides, the Russians might also appreciate GW more because it would increase the length of their short growing season, increasing their crop yields.
GW is not all bad. It should be viewed as a neutral event, like a sporting event between two teams. There will be winners and losers. Some fans will see the event as negative, others as positive. Russians and Canadians, if polled, might view GW as positive.
There is no evidence that "wildfires' huge emissions of carbon dioxide further accelerates global warming," or that "Released carbon enters a vicious feedback cycle, enhancing global warming further that, in turn, releases yet more Siberian stored carbon."
There has been no observed increase in intensity or size of hurricanes.
These are all wildly exaggerated claims with no basis in fact. This amounts to old-fashioned yellow journalism, scare tactics and hyperbole.
Yes the global average surface temperature of the Earth has increased slightly, and that's a good thing. Over the next twenty to thirty years we'll see a return to colder temperatures and that's when the problems will start.
In fact there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the expectation of further warming.
For starters, you can take two bottle of air and shine an heat lamp on them. They warm up. Put CO2 in one. That one gets hotter. That is because CO2 is better at absorbing infrared heat energy than ordinary air. This is not "yellow journalism, scare tactics or hyperbole". This is a basic physical property of CO2 that has been well known for over 150 years.
When you add CO2 to the atmosphere it behaves the same way; CO2 absorbs heat. That was correctly predicted by climate scientists back in 1981, over 30 years ago.
On the other hand, every time predictions are made of colder climate they are shown to be totally, completely wrong. Let's see what Bastardi said back in February of 2011:
"This winter is on track to become the coldest for the nation as a whole since the 1980s or possibly even the late 1970s. According to AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi, three or four out of the next five winters could be just as cold, if not colder.
He is worried that next winter, for example, will be colder than this one."
Wrong. In fact, last winter was very mild. The past 12 months were the warmest ever recorded on planet Earth.
Weather prediction is not climate dynamics. Just as the Earth experienced the Little ice age from 1600 to 1850, we will again experience another cooling over the next 20 to 30 years, for the same reason. The sun is entering another period of little or no sunspots, harboring the beginning of another cooling period on teh Earth.
Science deals with evidence, testing and verification, not speculation.
One of many such warmer periods is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum about 55 million years ago. There was another much closer event about 6,000 to 8,000 BP called the Neothermal Climatic Optimum, also called the Atlantic Optimim or the Altithermal. Some periods during the dinosaur eras were also much warmer.
Life continued and evolved to meet all of the climate variations on planet Earth.
Stop whinning and go buy swim trunks and sun glasses and get a tan!
The Earth has been warming for the past 15,000 years, during this interglacial period we call teh Holocene. More recently since 1810, as a rerturn from the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling during the long warming. Based on the evidence of solar cycles, we're heading into another cooling period.
It's not necessary to speculate, model or guess about climate. The cycles of climate variation are written in the geologic record. It's only necessary to read them, and view the evidence from contemparary observations.
I have no power to dealy anything. If the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so delicate, it must be very weak.
Now, it’s safe to assume looking how perfectly the ecosystem works it has built controls for all species
Man does not consider itself an animal, but in the eyes of the planet we are just another species
So climate change to cull the growing population, droughts brings famine and disease, bacteria thrives in warmth. Poverty compounds the situation because of its nature to breed(no birth control)
Climate change melts the icecaps leaving less resources and land, so now crowded together, desiease spreads much more easily.
I can go on and on and on
But my point is that population growth is killing us maybe we have stretched the planets resources too far and now it is reducing the population of the dominent species. We don’t view the planet as living organism but when you look at how the ecosystem is meant to work its damn close.
Maybe we are procreating ourselves out of existence!
There’s holes but not to many.
Melting ice caps certainly will reduce land area, but much of the existing northern land mass will be warmer. That means longer growing seasons and more arable land in places such as Russia and Canada, offsetting the loss.
The most agreed upon answer to global population is to have the poor become richer. If we spend billions, even trillions on global warming, we will impoverish ourselves and billions of others. It would be better to industrialize the third world, such as China and India are doing.
If you counter that China and India are major CO2 polluters, remember that a significant portion of that is burning of planet and animal fecal matter. As these countries begin to afford cleaner burning power plants, such as nuclear power, then they will change their fuels accordingly. Besides, just how are you going to get them or any other country to stop emitting CO2? Are you going to beg them? Are you going to boycott them? Are you going to risk it and (once it is invented) give them the ability to change the weather? And if you don't give it to them what do you think they are going to do about it? They might not want you to be in charge of their weather.
Sea surface temperature drives hurricanes. Below 27-28 degrees, tropical storms don't grow. They are powered by evaporation and condensation over the 90K temperature difference through the troposphere. Yet, the development of hurricanes can be suppressed by the presence of large-scale wind shear, which could be increased by enhanced temperature gradients. They don't slow down over land, they lose their energy source because there's no condensation, as there's no water to transport up. Damage from hurricanes is usually from storm surge and winds; rainfall is a minor factor. High forward speed of the storm increases ground level winds, while a low forward speed more likely couples peak storm surge to a high tide. Hotter seas should drive more powerful hurricanes, but its wider effects could also limit the development of a typical storm.
Only time will tell.
Given the last five years, I wouldn't bet on the first ice-free summer being as late as 2022.
Wait until we get a real wet and frothy storm pushing into the San Francisco Bay Area "technology manufacturing breeder reactor". According to Dr. Susan Moser, the storm surge will meet the Sierra watershed run-off inside the Bay and submerge half of SFO International Airport, isolate the strategically placed "First Responders" from an aging population needing handicap access and spread that fine, powdery asbestos brake dust holding out roads together throughout Army Corps of Engineers juris-my-dictional "Waters of the United States."
I think we should spray the Delta for West Nile in advance, and eliminate the need for Captain Hindsight to bother showing up at all...
Which of the following is either a bald-faced lie or ludicrously wrong?
from Antarctic Peninsula Warms Rapidly
Phil--Jones Commented Aug 27, 2012 at 08:22:51 in Green
“You are not good at math are you ?
27 x 10^15 = 27 x 10 ^ 16
The acceleration is very slow and your assertion that it will continue 1,000 years is just wrong."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Phil--Jones/antarctic-peninsula-warming_n_1822425_180956919.html
from Historic Missouri Tree Threatened By Drought
Phil--Jones Commented Aug 25, 2012 at 10:52:06 in Green
“Since I am a scientifically trained college professor I know this."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Phil--Jones/drought-threatens-350-yea_n_1828662_180482589.html
An "A" for "All of the above"
An "A+" for "All of the above and that lying troll is an obvious FOOL !
Never mind DR or Jones, `We'll call you Bruce, to avoid confusion' says Bruce, the chair of the faculty of philosophy at the University of Wallamalloo.
NET-DR also said,
"If you doubt that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and that each molecules does LESS cooling take it up with Dr Hansen."
Gallon responded:09:26 AM on 08/25/2012
"You wanted to impress us that you knew of a log relation for CO2. Well, tell us about it. We want to hear some science from you Larry."
Phil--Jones (aka net-dr): "You weren't smart enough to look it up yourself ? Delta F = 5.35xln C/C0 W m^2"
gallon: 02:26 PM on 08/25/2012
"That only took you about a week to find. Now, for extra credit, what are the roots of this equation?
What does delta F mean?"
Phil--Jones aka net-dr: "Change in temperature in F degrees. The Root is c=c0 since the log of 1 is zero ! "
Actually, Delta F is CO2's radiative forcing impact, not temperature at all. c0 isn't the equation's root, it's the initial CO2 concentration.
Yet, net-dr claims: “I am a college professor and better informed about global warming than 99% of the posters here including you !”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/net-dr/climate-change-this-week-_18_b_1850822_183388652.html
As the above exchange amply shows, NET-DR is a paid shill with no visible science background at all.
Did you catch him calling me out as a high school dropout because I didn't get the deg F?
netdr is a poseur. I am beginning to think he is actually a Heartland attorney. His lack of climate knowledge, and his attitude in dealing with others suggest it.
Nor does he understand scientific notation or logarithms, all of which implies that his old claim that he has a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering also doesn't hold water at all.
In fact, seems to me that he didn't even know that you don't become a college professor with just a bachelor's degree. Which implies he knows zilch about academia.
If so, though we know that all of his climate claims are utter nonsense, it may also be that every single personal claim he's made during the 9 months he's been on the Huffington Post is also bogus. Certain details just don't add up.
Huggs Becky PS Great post though. I can¨'t fan you though because I already have. I like intelligent posts.
Huggs Becky
Larry is a poseur.
I have tried this. I went completely silent for a week. Larry didn't slow down one whit. In fact he made several posts to old comments trying to incite me to a response.
If we don't answer Larry/netdr, his intention seems to completely hijack the climate threads. This is unlike other trolls who will eventually quiet down, as you suggest. We take Larry/netdr to be a professional, who will carry on his disruptive behavior no matter what.
So, certain practises have evolved. If replying directly, some folks offer carefully written science as a quality rebuttal. For myself, I am learning to reply to the post above Larry, such that he will not receive credit for drawing a reply.
But it would be very very difficult just to cede him the run of the place. You can't point to a single discussion where Larry actually engaged in scientific conversation. He always is pushing the fossil fuel perspective, or, just tearing up the conversation.
I dunno lb. If there was anything there to work with. . .
the unfortunate thing is most people do not see the environment as a concern which is odd as it is what keeps them alive .Keep ignoring the fact that the system is changing .It's real
Another study detailing a serious instance of positive feedback: Increased GHG's cause more warming. This thaws and exposes carbon deposits, which then release more GHG's, which in turn causes more warming. And so on.
'The carbon, a potential source of Earth-warming CO2, has lain frozen along the 7,000-kilometre northeast Siberian coastline since the last Ice Age.'
'But atmospheric warming and coastal erosion are gnawing at the icy seal, releasing about 40 million tonnes of carbon a year — 10 times more than previously thought, said a study in the journal Nature.'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/29/thawing-permafrost-frees-millions-of-tons-of-carbon-study/
(of course someone could have said that listening to the band on the Titanic)
A group of science defenders has gathered together to share and discuss HP climate science, how to keep it honest, etc. For now it is set up as a very restricted group. You will recognize all the names. We'll see if we can make this work out. Can't say much in public here. Discretion is the rule.
Please send an email to:
hpacs@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/hpacs
You'll receive a pro forma note from there. Then I can reply directly and privately and tell more. There will be a security step. Hope you understand.
He knows this because ... ???
Actually, he doesn't know.