Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 10:43 PM GMT on April 28, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.

When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.

The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.

Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.

Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)

Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.

This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.

Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?

A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.

r






Figure 1: Simplistic summary of Arctic sea ice

Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 82 - 32

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Quoting TomTaylor:
true.


How tornado numbers relate to a warmer world is not understood well at all. Dr masters has a blog post on it from a while back basically saying that under a warmer world there would be less sheer (due to the decrease in difference in temps from the equator to the poles) but greater CAPE values (due to more available moisture from greater evaporation in a warmer world).


Is that over oceans and land?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Quoting atmoaggie:
Some red-faced-creating facts:

Try hard enough and you can see whatever you want to see. And many really, really want to see tornado super outbreaks increasing as a result of CO2, sick as that sounds.
true.


How tornado numbers relate to a warmer world is not understood well at all. Dr masters has a blog post on it from a while back basically saying that under a warmer world there would be less sheer (due to the decrease in difference in temps from the equator to the poles) but greater CAPE values (due to more available moisture from greater evaporation in a warmer world).
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting Snowlover123:


Good Morning, TomTaylor!

1) Earth has generally warmed since the LIA, I agree,

2) Sea Levels have generally been rising, with a plateu in later data, I generally agree.

3) There is a problem with your third point. You ignore something that is known as Climate Feedbacks. Without any Climatic Feedbacks, the doubling effect of co2 is roughly 1 Degree F. However, co2 creates feedbacks. The Climate Models assume that most of the feedbacks from doubling co2 will be positive, so it has catacylsmic amounts of warming. Nope. co2 creates increased evaporation from the water to form clouds. Low Level Clouds have a net cooling impact.

Cosmic Rays also play a role in cloud formation. If the feedbacks (which we know little about) are all negative, it can hide all of the co2 induced warming.

Mornin to you

I see you agree with what I said too...good to hear. About the climate models and they're failure to predict feedback loops, time will tell what happens
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Does anyone on this planet understand all the good Gulfstream Kinetic Energy can do for us as far as climate change is concerened?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Do we also have a similar graph for severe weather events other than tornadoes?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Great graph Atmoaggie. I am sure that Gulfstream Kinetic Energy can send the trend on this graph the other way possibly eliminating more than 1/3 of these tornadoes some of which are the more violent tornadoes.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Quoting atmoaggie:
Some red-faced-creating facts:

Tornado counts are going up over the years. No one, except the most devout, has any expectation that CO2 nor temperature changes are the cause. Population growth and changing observing systems have a huge role in these numbers. (Phunny how changing observation systems aren't well-considered in most other time-series of phenomena).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/2010/13

Strong tornadoes (F3+) appear to decreasing in direct opposition to the causes of increased overall counts. The trend is clearly not on an increase. To say that strong tornadoes would increase with AGW is to assume the effect hasn't begun yet. (Which would be in opposition to all of the other trends that are assumed to be a consequence already.)
Though more structures are in the way of strong tornadoes, changes in code and building practices could play a role, as well. (EF scale determined by damage done, a partly subjective determination, at best, and very difficult to keep consistent when the type of structures and the number of structures change significantly).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/2008/13
(Note: would have grabbed a younger version, but the NCDC doesn't make a plot of only the strong tornadoes any more for some reason.)

So, where is climate change? Those mentioning that this week's super outbreak can be looked at as a fairly clear indicator that climate scientists have been pretty much correct in stating that just such things would occur as the planet warms are apparently in direct opposition to observations.

Try hard enough and you can see whatever you want to see. And many really, really want to see tornado super outbreaks increasing as a result of CO2, sick as that sounds.


That's for March through August what does it look like from January to December?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Some red-faced-creating facts:

Tornado counts are going up over the years. No one, except the most devout, has any expectation that CO2 nor temperature changes are the cause. Population growth and changing observing systems have a huge role in these numbers. (Phunny how changing observation systems aren't well-considered in most other time-series of phenomena).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/2010/13

Strong tornadoes (F3+) appear to decreasing in direct opposition to the causes of increased overall counts. The trend is clearly not on an increase. To say that strong tornadoes would increase with AGW is to assume the effect hasn't begun yet. (Which would be in opposition to all of the other trends that are assumed to be a consequence already.)
Though more structures are in the way of strong tornadoes, changes in code and building practices could play a role, as well. (EF scale determined by damage done, a partly subjective determination, at best, and very difficult to keep consistent when the type of structures and the number of structures change significantly).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/2008/13
(Note: would have grabbed a younger version, but the NCDC doesn't make a plot of only the strong tornadoes any more for some reason.)

So, where is climate change? Those mentioning that this week's super outbreak can be looked at as a fairly clear indicator that climate scientists have been pretty much correct in stating that just such things would occur as the planet warms are apparently in direct opposition to observations.

Try hard enough and you can see whatever you want to see. And many really, really want to see tornado super outbreaks increasing as a result of CO2, sick as that sounds.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting Neapolitan:
Again: linking to a story published to the internet less than an hour old is not "sifting through the archives" regardless of how some may misinterpret the meaning. When this evening's network newscasts show video of today's royal wedding or space shuttle launch, no one can be sanely or correctly accused of "sifting through the archives" for that material. So I accept your unspoken apology.

At any rate, I have yet to see a single article or blog post stating that this week's devastating tornadoes were a direct result of GW/CC. Not even on any of the wacko conspiracy sites. However, I have read numerous posts mentioning that this week's super outbreak (for that's what it was, in every sense of the word) can be looked at--along with the increasing, and increasingly severe/extreme, weather events around the planet--as a fairly clear indicator that, so far, climate scientists have been pretty much correct in stating that just such things would occur as the planet warms.

And, frankly, I don't believe we've really seen anything yet.

The planet is heating up--quickly--and our burning of fossil fuels is largely to blame. That's the increasingly solid theory, and no amount of obfuscation, misinformation, disinformation, double-speak, political rhetoric, or red-faced denial is going to change that.


So are you for the use of Gulfstream Kinetic Energy to get us out of this mess such as Arctic Ice melting,hurricane damage,tornado damage,severe weather,warming oceans,rising ocean PH,rising sea levels,coral bleaching and off of fossil fuels?


"And, frankly, I don't believe we've really seen anything yet."

You are correct we are at the tip of the iceberg like the polar bear is.


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Again: linking to a story published to the internet less than an hour old is not "sifting through the archives" regardless of how some may misinterpret the meaning. When this evening's network newscasts show video of today's royal wedding or space shuttle launch, no one can be sanely or correctly accused of "sifting through the archives" for that material. So I accept your unspoken apology.

At any rate, I have yet to see a single article or blog post stating that this week's devastating tornadoes were a direct result of GW/CC. Not even on any of the wacko conspiracy sites. However, I have read numerous posts mentioning that this week's super outbreak (for that's what it was, in every sense of the word) can be looked at--along with the increasing, and increasingly severe/extreme, weather events around the planet--as a fairly clear indicator that, so far, climate scientists have been pretty much correct in stating that just such things would occur as the planet warms.

And, frankly, I don't believe we've really seen anything yet.

The planet is heating up--quickly--and our burning of fossil fuels is largely to blame. That's the increasingly solid theory, and no amount of obfuscation, misinformation, disinformation, double-speak, political rhetoric, or red-faced denial is going to change that.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting Snowlover123:


Dr. Spencer is without power in Alabama. FYI


Perhaps that will reduce his carbon footprint.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Dr. Rood Gulfstream Kinetic Energy can restore Arctic Sea Ice as well as reduce the amount of tornadoes ocurring in April and May generally the two worst months.I am also thinking Gulfstream Kinetic Energy can prevent the tornadoes from going so far to the SE where most of the population centers are.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Meanwhile, sifting through the archives desperately scrounging up the most baseless, frivalous, articles and subsequent premature findings from biased, propaganda-laced sources is no short of trying to make a case--a conclusion driven by an endless agenda against corporations and free enterprise--that truly does not exist. And perhaps you might get lucky and someday it will, but as we all know the study of climate science is long term, and impulsive, kneejerk reactions from any source; peer-reviewed or not; isn't going to do one much good.

Again, you are not fooling anyone, anymore. :-) I'll tell you what though. Since you are so determined with this, I'll do my share of "scrounging around" later in the cellar to try to lend you a five gallon bucket to help bail out the water in that sinking boat...

By the way, to correct the %u2019t from being where apostrophes should be in your article, try to refrain from copying and pasting from Microsoft word. Just a tip. :-)

Psst: it's not "sifting through the archives" to present an article published just over an hour ago. Just sayin'...

BTW: I cleared the improperly-translated HTML character entities within a minute of posting; if you'd like some help cleaning them up in your quote, feel free to drop me a WU Mail and I'll be more than happy to walk you through the process. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Bragging by Fox (or its sycophants) that the network has the most viewers in the country is like bragging that your restaurant is the busiest one in town serving roadkill. ;-)

There's an excellent article on Salon.com this morning talking about Texas Governor Rick Perry's call for a day of prayer to help end the drought. The writer says, "Calling for prayer while refusing to recognize the EPA's regulations on greenhouse gases seemed like an act of willful ignorance, as if Texas were sticking its fingers in its ears and humming as loud as it could to drown out what amounts to a warning of a future climate-change-induced catastrophe."

But then he calls for an end to just ridicule alone (even if denialist tenets are just that):

"The bigger issue is that, as the effects of climate change become more tangible, weather more unpredictable, and ordinary conditions more disastrous, progressives will have to offer more than sniggers to those who feel threatened by changes they don't understand.

"Of course, as those of us who are pro-science argue, the changes are in fact perfectly understandable if you just look at the evidence on climate change. But we know there are lots of reasons why people don't trust science, from the psychological (we tend to valorize information that confirms our existing beliefs and rationalize away information that doesn't) to the political (oil companies have a vested interest in marginalizing real climate science and disseminating misinformation). Of course, better science education wouldn't hurt -- and by "better," I mean education that doesn't openly flout scientific consensus on evolution and climate change, as Texas education policy now does."

It really is a good article, and something even deniers can agree with, at least in part.

http://www.salon.com/news/science/?story=/politic s/war_room/2011/04/29/battistoni_science
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I think Snowlover is Roy Spencer!


Dr. Spencer is without power in Alabama. FYI
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:


What about the percentage that is yellow and red compared to blue - for the globe (global warming anyone)? Sure, it doesn't really reflect sea surface temperatures because the anomalies are generally too small (within the white used for anomalies less than +/-2.5°C , but here:



Good Morning Mike!

Based off of that graph, it's hard to tell. If I were to guess, I'd say 55/45 Warm.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting TomTaylor:
AND YET IT'S STILL RISING.


Need I prove you wrong again?

At the end of the day snowlover, you proved nothing.

1. Earth is still warming.
2. Sea levels are in fact rising.
3. Humans are still at least partially responsible

You achieved nothing.


I thought for once I had a reasonable opponent.

oh well


Good Morning, TomTaylor!

1) Earth has generally warmed since the LIA, I agree,

2) Sea Levels have generally been rising, with a plateu in later data, I generally agree.

3) There is a problem with your third point. You ignore something that is known as Climate Feedbacks. Without any Climatic Feedbacks, the doubling effect of co2 is roughly 1 Degree F. However, co2 creates feedbacks. The Climate Models assume that most of the feedbacks from doubling co2 will be positive, so it has catacylsmic amounts of warming. Nope. co2 creates increased evaporation from the water to form clouds. Low Level Clouds have a net cooling impact.

Cosmic Rays also play a role in cloud formation. If the feedbacks (which we know little about) are all negative, it can hide all of the co2 induced warming.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
The signal sounded like crickets chirping, but the encoded message transmitted from the camp atop the frozen Arctic Ocean was music to the ears of the USS New Hampshire submarine crew.



Using a digital "Deep Siren" tactical messaging system and a simpler underwater telephone, officials from the Navy's Arctic Submarine Laboratory at the camp last Saturday were able to help the submarine find a relatively ice-free spot to surface and evacuate a sailor stricken with appendicitis.

The alternative could have been a ruptured appendix, or an emergency surgery on the table in the captain's dining room, said a relieved Dan Roberts, a senior chief and corpsman who handles the crew's medical needs. "It would have been rough."

The low-frequency system is built by Raytheon Co, which has been working on it for several years with $5.2 million in initial seed money from the Navy.

Raytheon is the latest player trying to tackle the persistent challenge of communicating with submarines while they are traveling deep under the sea to avoid detection. Past systems have proven too complicated, and too expensive.

The new system could revolutionize how military commanders stay in touch with submarines all over the world, allowing them to alert a submarine about an enemy ship on the surface or a new mission, without it needing to surface to periscope level, or 60 feet, where it could be detected by potential enemies.

At present, submarines use an underwater phone to communicate with associates on top of the ice or with other submarines, but those devices are little more than tin cans on a string and work only at shorter distances. Submarines can also trail an antenna once they surface to periscope depth, or around 60 feet, but that makes them easier to detect.

Captain Rhett Jaehn, the No. 2 official in charge of submarine operations and the officer in charge of the ice camp 150 miles north of Prudhoe Bay, said the Deep Siren was heavily used during the exercises and played a key role in facilitating the evacuation of the sick sailor.

Improving the ability to communicate with submarines at any depth and longer distances is a huge step forward, said Matthew Pesce, a former submariner who now works for the Arctic Submarine Laboratory, which organizes biannual ice exercises in the region, where submarines practice tactics and procedures.

Pesce is based in Hawaii, but joined the USS New Hampshire for the exercises as adviser for Arctic equipment and issues, including the Deep Siren system. He said the system worked well, but some transmissions did not come in completely, possibly due to the alignment of the submarine.

Dave Desilets, spokesman for Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon, said Deep Siren had reached a technology readiness level of 7 on a scale of 1 to 9, and was ready to move into production, but did not yet have a production order in hand.

The new product, which includes separate laptop computers for sending and receiving, is already generating interest from foreign countries, and two foreign sea trials are planned this year, said Stephen Moynahan, a senior Raytheon engineer.

Moynahan came to the ice camp in early March to test how the system works under the ice canopy
where varying salinity levels and long ice keels distort how sound travels.

He said the sales prospects were promising, noting that Britain successfully tested Deep Siren in the Mediterranean last year, proving a range of more than 100 miles.

Raytheon also offers a variant with buoys that can be quietly deployed by a submarine in its waste discharge, waiting to surface until the submarine is far away, and then relaying messages via satellite link.

Moynahan said the new system, initially conceived by a Scottish submariner named Robert Kerr, provided only limited messaging ability, not bandwidth for transmitting huge chunks of data, but said its simplicity made it effective, especially in the current difficult budget environment.

"This is a really big deal. This is a game-changing technology," said Moynahan, who served as the rifleman guarding against polar bear attacks during a visit to the camp by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and other top lawmakers and defense officials on Saturday. No bears turned up.

Pesce said the system helped the submarine find a place to surface since locating ice-free waters in the Arctic was a little like "looking upward through a straw," he said.

Wow, what a shock, empirical evidence strikes again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:


See the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/28/noaa-scientist-rejects-g lobal-warming-link-tornadoes/

But they make a good point about the ingredients for tornadoes, and see my previous comment; "the jet stream has slowed down" - which means less wind shear and therefore less helicity for tornadoes (otherwise, you just get nontornadic storms, and if shear is very low, your average pulse type summer storms which only produce localized downbursts, since without shear thunderstorms rain on their updrafts and kill themselves).


The jet sure wasn't slow yesterday. I think they are looking at what wind shear does in the subtropical jet over the oceans not over land. It is possible that while the shear in the tropical oceans decrease that this may cause the shear over land to increase. Any studies done on this?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
These guys need to look at how much heat we are putting into the GOM? Most of the heat for those tornadoes is in the GOM. We need to cool it down some. The GOM is sort of a moisture generator and weather patterns move that heat over the Midwest and Southeast just waiting for the next funnel boundary to come along.Why add more fuel to the fire? We need to remove the fuel.


NOAA Scientist Rejects Global Warming Link to Tornadoes


A top official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected claims by environmental activists that the outbreak of tornadoes ravaging the American South is related to climate change brought on by global warming.

Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAA%u2019s Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, said warming trends do create more of the fuel that tornadoes require, such as moisture, but that they also deprive tornadoes of another essential ingredient: wind shear.

%u201CWe know we have a warming going on,%u201D Carbin told Fox News in an interview Thursday, but added: %u201CThere really is no scientific consensus or connection [between global warming and tornadic activity]%u2026.Jumping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.%u201D

Asked if climate change should be %u201Cacquitted%u201D in a jury trial where it stood charged with responsibility for tornadoes, Carbin replied: %u201CI would say that is the right verdict, yes.%u201D Because there is no direct connection as yet established between the two? %u201CThat%u2019s correct,%u201D Carbin replied.

Formerly the lead forecaster for NOAA%u2019s Storm Prediction Center, Carbin is a member of numerous relevant professional societies, including the National Weather Association, the American Meteorological Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the International Association of Emergency Managers. He has also served on the peer review committee for the evaluation of scientific papers submitted to publications like National Weather Digest and Weather and Forecasting.

This evaluation by a top NOAA official contradicted pronouncements by some leading global warming activists, who were swift to link this season%u2019s carnage to man-made climate change.

%u201CThe earth is warming. Carbon emissions are increasing,%u201D said Sarene Marshall, Managing Director for The Nature Conservancy's Global Climate Change Team. %u201CAnd they both are connected to the increased intensity and severity of storms that we both are witnessing today, and are going to see more of in the coming decades.%u201D

Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, an activist and author who believes industrialized societies expend too much money and energy combating global warming, instead of focusing on more immediate, and easily rectifiable, problems, doubted the tornadoes have any link to warming trends.

%u201CWe've seen a declining level of the severe tornadoes over the last half century in the U.S.,%u201D Lomborg told Fox News.%u201CSo we need to be very careful not just to jump to the conclusion and say, %u2018Oh, then it's because of global warming.%u2019%u201D

In fact, NOAA statistics show that the last 60 years have seen a dramatic increase in the reporting of weak tornadoes, but no change in the number of severe to violent ones.

For many, the high casualties of 2011 recalled the so-called %u201CSuper Outbreak" of April 1974, which killed more than 300 people. %u201CYou have to go back to 1974 to even see a tornado outbreak that approaches what we saw yesterday,%u201D W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), told Fox News.

Asked earlier, during a conference call with Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley about the possibility that climate change is playing a role in the tornado outbreak, Fugate shot back: "Actually, what we're seeing is springtime. Unfortunately, many people think of the Oklahoma tornado alley and forget that the Southeast U.S. actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer -- and we are seeing that, obviously, in the last week and yesterday.%u201D

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Quoting TomTaylor:
That doesn't matter, the graph is still valid, and your point is completely irrelevant.

But if you really do dislike that graph, I'll use your graph



Just roughly going over the graph, you can see there are a few plateaus, and even a few drops. AND YET IT'S STILL RISING.


Need I prove you wrong again?

At the end of the day snowlover, you proved nothing.

1. Earth is still warming.
2. Sea levels are in fact rising.
3. Humans are still at least partially responsible

You achieved nothing.


I thought for once I had a reasonable opponent.

oh well


I think Snowlover is Roy Spencer!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Actually, I don't have him on ignore, or at least not under his current handle.
LOL well you're doing an outstanding job of ignoring him.

And he seems to think you have him on your ignore
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
GW signal #8,718:

Climate Change Spells Extinction for a Mountain Species, Research Shows

Study demonstrates clear connection between warming and rising extinction rates of the American pika for the first time, with implications for many species

Scientists have long understood that climate change has an effect on the numbers and distribution of animal species, but exactly how big an impact and why has remained largely speculative, until now.

New research shows that the American pika, the mountain-dwelling relative of the rabbit roughly half as big as a football, began rapidly fleeing lower elevations and dying off in the Great Basin region of the U.S. West a decade ago.

The change coincides with the time frame when human-generated greenhouse gas emissions began to leave a massive imprint on climate and sea levels, scientists say, and the implications are considerable for a multitude of species.

"The rules of the extinction game have changed," said Erik Beever, a research ecologist at the U.S. Geologic Survey's Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center in Montana and lead author of the peer-reviewed paper, which will soon be published in the print edition of the journal Global Change Biology.

Reuters Article...

When are we going to stop being stupid?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting Snowlover123:


It is outdated.
That doesn't matter, the graph is still valid, and your point is completely irrelevant.

But if you really do dislike that graph, I'll use your graph



Just roughly going over the graph, you can see there are a few plateaus, and even a few drops. AND YET IT'S STILL RISING.


Need I prove you wrong again?

At the end of the day snowlover, you proved nothing.

1. Earth is still warming.
2. Sea levels are in fact rising.
3. Humans are still at least partially responsible

You achieved nothing.


I thought for once I had a reasonable opponent.

oh well
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting MichaelSTL:
I wonder why all of that snow is melting...


+AO Ridge in Russia. Nothing new there.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Well, nice to see you all again. Good night.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting TomTaylor:
Tell me snowlover, how many plateaus or drops do you see in this graph?.


It is outdated.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:


A blogger to refute a peer reviewed paper... LOL
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


Sea Levels are the lowest in 6 years, which solidifies the skeptic's claims of a plateu in recent years, yes, the graph does tell.
Tell me snowlover, how many plateaus or drops do you see in this graph?


And yet the overall trend is rising.

Global warming refers to a warming climate. Climate = average weather conditions over a period of time. Typically climate is measured in 30 yr intervals. But it can be as little as 10, or as many as 100.

However, it is never expressed as one year.

Which is why the little plateau you're pointing out is entirely irrelevant. Great attempt though.

Quoting Neapolitan:

Ah, again you misunderstand. My explanations aren't for the denialists who linger around here; they are instead for the undecided or simply curious who stop by to learn. Answering falsehoods with scientific truth can be a thankless job--like arguing with an intransigent little brother--but it must be done. You're certainly free to ignore them, but I may be operating under a different mandate than you, so I can't. I just can't.


Ah, I see. Well, to each his own
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting TomTaylor:
Just curious Nea, but for someone who claims to be so smart, I honestly don't know why you (or anyone for that matter) waste your time with RMuller.


It's no different than arguing with a little brother; in the end you are getting no where.

Ah, again you misunderstand. My explanations aren't for the denialists who linger around here; they are instead for the undecided or simply curious who stop by to learn. Answering falsehoods with scientific truth can be a thankless job--like arguing with an intransigent little brother--but it must be done. You're certainly free to ignore them, but I may be operating under a different mandate than you, so I can't. I just can't.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting TomTaylor:

The graph didn't end in 2000, like you claimed they always do, so it proves your case wrong nonetheless.

Either way, your graph helps




Sea Levels are the lowest in 6 years, which solidifies the skeptic's claims of a plateu in recent years, yes, the graph does tell.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Something else for cyclonebuster:


Why twister outbreak? La Nina eyed as key factor

1974's record tornadoes also happened during that periodic ocean cycle

The experts are still assessing just how many twisters tore across the South on Wednesday, but already the outbreak is being described as "historic" and possibly greater than the biggest one on record.

Also being assessed are what factors went into the massive outbreak. A leading candidate: La Nina, the periodic ocean cycle that cools the waters off South America and can impact weather globally.

Emerging research suggests La Nina's impact "cascades downstream into thunderstorms," Russell Schneider, director of the U.S. Storm Prediction Center, tells msnbc.com.

La Nina could be influencing where thunderstorms form in the tropics and what happens to the jet stream, he adds.

In a La Nina, the jet stream tends to move north through the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes, keeping cold air on the northern side while the southern side tends to have warm, humid air. Cold fronts that would dry out the atmosphere on the south side are blocked, which means wet storms there.

And when a northern front pushes into the south, twisters can happen.

"This deadly event occurred because we had an unusually strong jet stream winds digging into the deep South with ample heat and moisture in place," says NBC News meteorologist Bill Karins. "The winds were also changing in direction with height (wind shear), giving any strong thunderstorm a significant chance of producing a tornado."


It also looks like it won't end anytime soon either, the pronouncements of a weakening La Nina aside - because those claims are only based on ocean temperatures, not the more important atmospheric circulation, measured with the Southern Oscillation Index:



Which has also been breaking record after record for the past half year or more; I have already seen them rescale that graph twice, from 25 to 30, then 35 (coincidentally, the latest peak appears to have occurred right when the outbreak occurred).


I am thinking the warm hot moist air coming off the GOM is 1/3 of the problem we are having with severe weather and tornadoes.We need to cool it a bit.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431

Viewing: 82 - 32

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.