How Bad Is Global Warming?

[wintler2]

So what kind of signal would not send the same message?

A long term global cooling trend, the opposite of this..

(NASA GISS)

[TVC15]

From the ScienceDaily Greenland thing:

"Among the mechanisms that we suspected might be triggering this acceleration are recent changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which are delivering larger amounts of subtropical waters to the high latitudes," says Straneo. But a lack of observations and measurements from Greenland's glaciers prior to the acceleration made it difficult to confirm.
The research team, which included colleagues from University of Maine, conducted two extensive surveys during July and September of 2008, collecting both ship-based and moored oceanographic data from Sermilik Fjord -- a large glacial fjord in East Greenland.



Straneo adds that the study highlights how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions, which is a connection not currently included in climate models

They got nuthin'.

Just another melty ice loss alert thrown at the wall to see if it sticks.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

Pakistan's lesson on global warming
Julian Hunt
August 27, 2010

The Pakistani crisis is already one of the very first order. About 20 million people have been left homeless, along a path of destruction of 1000 kilometres. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has even compared the challenges the country now faces to those during the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, in which about half a million people were killed in mass violence.

It is small wonder that the President, Asif Ali Zardari, has said it will take at least three years for the country to recover from the disaster, and that he is thinking ahead to ''prepare the capabilities and capacity'' for the ''next monsoon''.

Zardari's comments highlight the fact that one of the key questions arising from the crisis is whether the floods, the worst for at least 80 years (with a fifth of the country estimated to be under water), are linked to global warming and are thus likely to happen again.

The danger is that Pakistan, and the Indian subcontinent in general, will become the focus of much more regular catastrophic flooding, with the problems this would bring for a state at the centre of the campaign against terrorism. This is not just therefore a question of better protecting against natural hazards but also one with profound implications for geopolitics and international security.

Heavy monsoon precipitation has increased in frequency in Pakistan and western India in recent years. In July 2005 Mumbai was deluged by almost 950 millimetres of rain in just one day, and more than 1000 people were killed in floods in the state of Maharashtra. Last year deadly flash floods hit north-western Pakistan, and Karachi was also flooded.

This trend is fuelled by global warming and potentially by any intensification and alteration of the El Nino-La Nino cycle. To understand the reasons global warming is playing a role, look at the main climatic trends in south Asia. In addition to more extreme rainfall, there is also a reduction of ice over the Tibetan plateau and changing precipitation patterns, with less snow at higher levels, plus more rapid run-off from mountains.

How does climate change help explain this? First, the warming in temperatures leads to less snow. Second, the less stable atmosphere causes deeper convection and intense rainfall. The less stable atmosphere also leads to more airflow over mountains and less lateral deviation - so that the monsoon winds and precipitation can be higher in north-western India and Pakistan and weaker in the north-east.

In 2006 there was an unusually intense drought in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam and rain in north-western India. This year, with the strong rainfall in the north-west, there is no pronounced decrease in the north-east. Recent studies in the US have also concluded that the mountain meteorology is changing, but as a result of the aerosols emitted from urban areas of south Asia.

The biggest question is whether the El Nino southern oscillation (Enso), which determines the 10-year oscillations of weather across the Pacific basin and into south Asia and Africa, will change.

Although there is no scientific consensus, it seems likely if the Amazon rainforest continues to disappear, and snow/ice melt significantly increases over the Tibetan plateau, there will be significant changes in Enso climatic fluctuations as rises in temperature over land become comparable with the areas of the Pacific where the temperature fluctuates over a few degrees.

The reason for concern about changing Enso is that, depending on its periodic strength, it greatly affects magnitudes and locations of floods, droughts and hurricanes. Until about 2020-30, these natural fluctuations are expected to be greater than man-made changes (as was pointed out by many scientists in the 1990s).

Given the stakes, not least because of the sizeable proportion of the world population affected, these issues need urgent study and also preparations on the ground by the affected countries. Unless this happens, including better flood-warning systems and water-management infrastructure put in place, societies and governments in the region will be unable to respond to the devastating combination of changing environmental stresses, growing population and geopolitical instability.

Guardian News & Media

Lord Julian Hunt is visiting professor at Delft University of Technology and a former director-general of the Meteorological Office in London.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... 13u3a.html

[wintler2]

Old article, increasingly topical.

Fire and Ice: Melting Glaciers Trigger Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanos
Geologists Say Global Warming Expected to Cause Many New Seismic Events

By Larry West, About.com Guide
2006

Climatologists have been raising alarms about global warming for years, and now geologists are getting into the act, warning that melting glaciers will lead to an increasing number of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions in unexpected places.

People in northern climates who have been looking south and shaking their heads sadly over the plight of people living in the path of Atlantic hurricanes and Pacific tsunamis had better get ready for a few seismic events of their own, according to a growing number of prominent geologists.

Less Glacial Pressure, More Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions
Ice is extremely heavy—weighing about one ton per cubic meter—and glaciers are massive sheets of ice. When they are intact, glaciers exert enormous pressure on the portion of the Earth’s surface they cover. When glaciers begin to melt—as they are doing now at an increasingly rapid rate due to global warming—that pressure is reduced and eventually released.

Geologists say releasing that pressure on the Earth’s surface will cause all sorts of geologic reactions, such as earthquakes, tsunamis (caused by undersea earthquakes) and volcanic eruptions.

"What happens is the weight of this thick ice puts a lot of stress on the earth," said Patrick Wu, a geologist at the University of Alberta in Canada, in aninterview with the Canadian Press. "The weight sort of suppresses the earthquakes, but when you melt the ice the earthquakes get triggered."

Global Warming Accelerating Geologic Rebound
Wu offered the analogy of pressing a thumb against a soccer ball. When the thumb is removed and the pressure released, the ball resumes its original shape. When the “ball” is a planet, the rebound happens slowly, but just as surely.

Wu said many of the earthquakes that occur in Canada today are related to the ongoing rebound effect that started with the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But with global warming accelerating climate changes and causing glaciers to melt more quickly, Wu said the inevitable rebound is expected to happen much faster this time around.

New Seismic Events Already Happening
Wu said melting ice in Antarctica is already triggering earthquakes and underwater landslides. These events aren’t getting much attention, but they are early warnings of the more serious events that scientists believe are coming. According to Wu, global warming will create “lots of earthquakes.”

Professor Wu is not alone in his assessment.

Writing in New Scientist magazine, Bill McGuire, professor of geological hazards at University College in London, said: "All over the world evidence is stacking up that changes in global climate can and do affect the frequencies of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and catastrophic sea-floor landslides. Not only has this happened several times throughout Earth's history, the evidence suggests it is happening again."

[wintler2]

OT, sort of:

2nd climate observation satellite fails
A NASA satellite that aimed to study the impact of aerosols on the climate has plunged into the Pacific Ocean, delivering a $424 million blow to the US space agency.

The failure of the Glory satellite launch was the second bungle for NASA climate science efforts in two years, and closely resembled a botched carbon satellite launch involving the same company, Orbital Sciences Corp. in 2009. ..

A similar mishap took place in February 2009, when a satellite designed to monitor global carbon dioxide emissions plummeted into the ocean near Antarctica after failing to reach orbit, in a setback for climate science.
..

[tazmic]

[wintler2]

You forgot your link, tazmic: http://ihatealgore.com/?p=1772
So wheres it from originally anyway? - which instruments, kept by who, and who did the postprocessing? Cos there is alot of wacky number crunching going on in certain well funded circles.

Back in the real world..
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=48574

[tazmic]

No this was the link:

Time's Up: Lack of global warming has falsified the climate computer models

Thanks for the WMO link on current state of play from "The United Nations' authoritative voice on weather, climate and water", can't get more rigorous than that. I particularly like the un-attributed but associated by reference list of recent weather events. But...oh never mind, you deleted the link.

If we want to understand how bad global warming is, then we need to know what is causing it, what can be attributed to it, and especially what the predictions are. And contrary to popular propaganda, I don't think the science is settled, nor the predictions sound. Strange what retaliation taking such a position leads to.

Anyway, I think you'll find your 'back in the real world' graph in here somewhere.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html

"Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts"

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

"Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions -- 15 years of no warming." (ROGER PIELKE, JR. 2009)

[wintler2]

No this was the link:

Time's Up: Lack of global warming has falsified the climate computer models
Thanks for the WMO link on current state of play from "The United Nations' authoritative voice on weather, climate and water", can't get more rigorous than that. I particularly like the un-attributed but associated by reference list of recent weather events. But...oh never mind, you deleted the link.

I didn't think it was very relevant, so yes i deleted it, before your post. Sorry.
You don't like the WMO? With membership & input from every national met. office in the world? Apart from NASA Goddard and academics, you do know that it is met.offices that collect and aggregate most of the weather data?
Oh, but thats right, you've got a blog post to go by.. [/sarcasm]

If we want to understand how bad global warming is, then we need to know what is causing it, what can be attributed to it, and especially what the predictions are.

Mixing up your tenses a bit there: what do predictions matter for what 'is'?

And contrary to popular propaganda, I don't think the science is settled, nor the predictions sound. Strange what retaliation taking such a position leads to.
Anyway, I think you'll find your 'back in the real world' graph in here somewhere.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html
...

Ah Mr Pielke. Favourite witness of US Republicans and Fox News, detailed page on him on Sourcewatch.
Some of his previous blunders:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05 ... to_roc.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08 ... _wreck.php
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... olf-again/

So is it Pielke that drew that figure? An expert cherry picker can earn reasonable money where i live, but the superwet summer has rotted the crop.

[Sweet Tooth]

Stick a fork in Pielke's ass. The man is finished.

Does anyone - aside from paid (whore) operatives and spite-fueled "Lucifer's Lawyer" contrarians - REALLY HONESTLY believe that the behavior of our species doesn't play an important (i.e. devastating) role in climate change and environmental fuckery?

How can anyone with eyes (and a functioning nose) possibly be that naive?

[tazmic]

If we want to understand how bad global warming is, then we need to know what is causing it, what can be attributed to it, and especially what the predictions are.

Mixing up your tenses a bit there: what do predictions matter for what 'is'?

Ah yes, forgive me for thinking that global warming IS a temporal phenomena. My mistake.

So is it Pielke that drew that figure? An expert cherry picker can earn reasonable money where i live, but the superwet summer has rotted the crop.

I don't know who drew the 'cooling' poster. If you follow the link, you will find Pielke discussing NOAAs analysis of their data showing no significant warming, for a period that is now getting close to being, by their own calculations, significantly inconsistent with their models.

[wintler2]

.. If you follow the link, you will find Pielke discussing NOAAs analysis of their data showing no significant warming, for a period that is now getting close to being, by their own calculations, significantly inconsistent with their models.

Did you see the graph i posted? If so, you may have noticed that from 1990 on is well above the average. It is already significantly warmer. What you seem to be referring to is consistent additional warming, intra-decadal or year on year warming, correct?

[tazmic]

It's a similar graph to what NOAA has analysed, and I'm referring to the data's relevance to

“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

[wintler2]

It's a similar graph to what NOAA has analysed,

Is it? I'm still waiting to hear where your graph comes from, who postprocessed it, etc.

and I'm referring to the data's relevance to

“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Sorry, that sentance doesn't make sense to me, could you explain it?

[Sweet Tooth]

Hey, Tazmic, if you're REALLY interested in the TRUTH about AGW, please check out all the excellent resources available at the following website:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-o ... arming.htm

The time is now to get skeptical about the skeptic community.

YOPJ