690 replies to this topic

[Weather Ship]

Unprecedented, man-made trends in ocean's acidity

Nearly one-third of CO₂ emissions due to human activities enters the world's oceans. By reacting with seawater, CO₂ increases the water's acidity, which may significantly reduce the calcification rate of such marine organisms as corals and mollusks. The extent to which human activities have raised the surface level of acidity, however, has been difficult to detect on regional scales because it varies naturally from one season and one year to the next, and between regions, and direct observations go back only 30 years.
Combining computer modeling with observations, an international team of scientists concluded that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions over the last 100 to 200 years have already raised ocean acidity far beyond the range of natural variations. The study is published in the January 22 online issue of Nature Climate Change.

http://www.eurekaler...h-umt011912.php

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks BFTP!

I've just been 'elsewhere' and had this brought to my attention.

The positive AO this winter may well be in the process of delivering some of that 'Dome' into the trans polar Current as we speak! As to it's impacts across Europe? I'm not quite clear on how this 'cooling' would occur? Are we looking at the swamping of the N.A.D.? is that really possible with such a long timeframe 'flood' of fresh water (not exactly going to be like the last 'surge' to stop the transport?) I find it a far more likely scenario that this water will just become part of the Artcis ocean as it travels toward Fram?

Seems that a lot is going on 'up North' these days with Methane plumes, Fresh water run off from Siberia on the Alaskan side of the Basin, and now a 'dome' of 'Fresh' water in the middle of the beaufort Gyre?

Only another 8 weeks and the summer melt will be upon us! Who says it's boring watching the ice.

EDIT: It would be very interesting if, like the end of the N.A.D., the water descended in that area and served to speed up the current dragging ever warm waters by our shores???

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 23 January 2012 - 17:33 .

[John Mason]

John Mason, on 23 January 2012 - 13:21 , said:

Hi all,

Just dropping by to say hello to Vill and to suggest that he might enjoy reading the following recent guest-post on SkS, by Kate from Climatesight:

http://www.skeptical...odels-work.html

Cheers - John

Vill said: "thanks John, I guess now that you have tracked me down we can say that I have been Dev'd again right!"

My advice is to follow the link I provided, because it would help you to understand climate models, which you clearly do not, having confused them with economic models, which are far more fail-prone because, despite its myriad complexities, the climate is rather more straightforward than a bunch of panicking financiers!

I've known you are on here for ages, but thought I might be able to offer some guidance that would help you see the difference in computer models as developed for completely different situations - climatology vs. economics. Hence posting the link to where I mostly hang out these days, with those scurrilous Antipodean pro-science types! I rather like them because the arena is - mostly - science.

Cheers - John

[loafer]

http://www.metoffice...output-research

That the 20th century saw a "solar maximum" and the 21st will see the reverse is interesting. Of course the nasty CO2 makes it largely irrelevant. Apparently. Thank goodness the models are so accurate.

[Devonian]

loafer, on 23 January 2012 - 22:16 , said:

http://www.metoffice...output-research

That the 20th century saw a "solar maximum" and the 21st will see the reverse is interesting. Of course the nasty CO2 makes it largely irrelevant. Apparently. Thank goodness the models are so accurate.

Indeed, so far the models are doing well.

[Seselwa]

loafer, on 23 January 2012 - 22:16 , said:

http://www.metoffice...output-research

That the 20th century saw a "solar maximum" and the 21st will see the reverse is interesting. Of course the nasty CO2 makes it largely irrelevant. Apparently. Thank goodness the models are so accurate.

"It's important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system."

In other words GIGO!

I can see the tabloids getting hold of this and blowing it right out of proportion.

Edited by Higrade, 23 January 2012 - 23:12 .

[Gray-Wolf]

I still wonder if we have 'modelled' the loss of the Arctic sea ice with enough clarity to be sure of it's impacts alone never mind all the other impacts associated with such a 'Rapid' (relatively) warming?

The 0.08c decline dies not seem the stuff of 'ice ages ' now does it?

[pottyprof]

John Mason, on 23 January 2012 - 20:30 , said:

I rather like them because the arena is - mostly - science.

Cheers - John

Hi John. There is a huge difference between questioning the science and rubbishing the science and those that question the science are still tarred with the same brush as those who rubbish it. The climate models are throwing out questionable data at times and there are a million and one excuses why they get it wrong. Solar influence is one such mechanism that we have modelled wrongly for years and then there is the rounding of figures which can cause huge amounts of differences in the output. These have been ignored in the past by people who wouldn't accept they were wrong but yet claimed "the science was settled". When this happens, is there any wonder why there is so much scepticism?

[loafer]

Devonian, on 23 January 2012 - 22:26 , said:

Indeed, so far the models are doing well.

Do you mean the models which predicted rising global temperatures which even the IPCC say will not happen for the forseeable?

Or do you mean the other models they could have used which will come out with different results?

[John Mason]

pottyprof, on 24 January 2012 - 12:53 , said:

Hi John. There is a huge difference between questioning the science and rubbishing the science and those that question the science are still tarred with the same brush as those who rubbish it. The climate models are throwing out questionable data at times and there are a million and one excuses why they get it wrong. Solar influence is one such mechanism that we have modelled wrongly for years and then there is the rounding of figures which can cause huge amounts of differences in the output. These have been ignored in the past by people who wouldn't accept they were wrong but yet claimed "the science was settled". When this happens, is there any wonder why there is so much scepticism?

Hi Prof,

There sure is! At Skeptical Science we soon spot those out simply to rubbish science - quite a few are "known operatives" in any case. Questions on the other hand are always welcome - provided they are posted in the right thread where they are on-topic, they will usually be answered.

Sure the climate models are far from perfect. They improve as time goes by, but don't confuse excuses with reasons - if they underperform either way (and for example they grossly underestimated Arctic sea-ice loss) we need to and do try and work out the reasons for that, rather than saying the dog ate the homework.

Is science ever settled? I don't think so, at least in terms of details. Certain principles have withstood the test of time in all of the scientific disciplines, but there are always uncertainties to clear up, and climatology is no exception to this. It requires scepticism to identify and attempt to address uncertainties - without it we would still be wondering how to make wheels!

Cheers - John

[Devonian]

loafer, on 24 January 2012 - 13:09 , said:

Do you mean the models which predicted rising global temperatures which even the IPCC say will not happen for the forseeable?

Or do you mean the other models they could have used which will come out with different results?

I mean something like this from this article.

[Cycles]

Would like to pass on this information about a new climate publication called

"Natural Climate Pulse"
Handbook to understanding what is actually going on with our climate (major update to the original eBook released in 2007)
<P>

• The Big Political "Hoax" about Carbon dioxide and temperature
  
• WHAT THE MEDIA IS NOT TELLING YOU!

<P>.. topics in this Handbook include scientific evidence showing ..

• Carbon Dioxide is actually a good gas
  
• 
  
• Where Carbon Dioxide comes from, and the carbon cycle and temperature

• Manipulated Censorship of scientific research and media

• Earth was actually warmer 1,000 years ago

• There was actually less ice in the Arctic 6,000 years ago

• Carbon Dioxide levels are actually the same today as 1,000 years ago

• Cyclical 100 year fluctuations in Carbon Dioxide levels are normal

• What is actually causing the Arctic ice to melt

• What are the actual causes for Global warming

• Climate forecast

Very Dangerous Global Cooling Coming Soon Great volcanoes and a Year of No Summer More Dangerous than - global warming</P>

It can be found at http://www.globalwea...imatePulse.html

If we can designate one person on the forum to review it, I can send a pdf copy.
Regards
Cycles

[John Mason]

That's one hell of a Gish Gallop (albeit bullet-pointed), SC!

Cheers - John

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Cycles, on 24 January 2012 - 18:11 , said:

http://www.globalwea...imatePulse.html

Thanks for the link. I'd advise others not to visit, though ,

Edited by Boar Wrinklestorm, 25 January 2012 - 07:17 .

[Gray-Wolf]

So it's going to go Viral then Boar?

I think I'd have to agree that " a year without summer" would be more damaging , in the short term, to humanity than the years of global warming to come this decade? In fact any return to the Little Ice age would be devastating for us in the temperate regions? Luckily we are not about to let the rainforest's regenerate this time are we so the CO2 'mop' that produced/augmented that period is not present today?(LOL)

[Cycles]

Boar Wrinklestorm, on 25 January 2012 - 07:17 , said:

Thanks for the link. I'd advise others not to visit, though ,

Untitled.png

Boar:
Has anyone had problems with their antivirus? This is the first report I have had.
Cycle

[Gray-Wolf]

Cycles, on 25 January 2012 - 13:36 , said:

Boar:
Has anyone had problems with their antivirus? This is the first report I have had.
Cycle

[Weather Ship]

New CU-Boulder-led study may answer questions about enigmatic Little Ice Age

A new University of Colorado Boulder-led study appears to answer contentious questions about the onset and cause of Earth's Little Ice Age, a period of cooling temperatures that began after the Middle Ages and lasted into the late 19th century.
According to the new study, the Little Ice Age began abruptly between A.D. 1275 and 1300, triggered by repeated, explosive volcanism and sustained by a self- perpetuating sea ice-ocean feedback system in the North Atlantic Ocean, according to CU-Boulder Professor Gifford Miller, who led the study. The primary evidence comes from radiocarbon dates from dead vegetation emerging from rapidly melting icecaps on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, combined with ice and sediment core data from the poles and Iceland and from sea ice climate model simulations, said Miller.

http://www.eurekaler...a-ncs013012.php

[Weather Ship]

Perhaps a slight revision of the first sentence?

New study shows correlation between summer Arctic sea ice cover and winter weather in Central Europe

Potsdam/Bremerhaven, 26 January 2012. Even if the current weather situation may seem to speak against it, the probability of cold winters with much snow in Central Europe rises when the Arctic is covered by less sea ice in summer. Scientists of the Research Unit Potsdam of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association have decrypted a mechanism in which a shrinking summertime sea ice cover changes the air pressure zones in the Arctic atmosphere and impacts our European winter weather. These results of a global climate analysis were recently published in a study in the scientific journal Tellus A.

http://www.awi.de/en...9471343efa32d0e

[Weather Ship]

CU-Boulder study shows global glaciers, ice caps, shedding billions of tons of mass annually

Study also shows Greenland, Antarctica and global glaciers and ice caps lost roughly 8 times the volume of Lake Erie from 2003-2010

Earth's glaciers and ice caps outside of the regions of Greenland and Antarctica are shedding roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.
The research effort is the first comprehensive satellite study of the contribution of the world's melting glaciers and ice caps to global sea level rise and indicates they are adding roughly 0.4 millimeters annually, said CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. The measurements are important because the melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, along with Greenland and Antarctica, pose the greatest threat to sea level increases in the future, Wahr said.

http://www.eurekaler...a-css020612.php