Communicating Climate Change (and other issues)

[nflwxman]

BTW, as a former Bastardi AccuWx subscriber and a Twitter follower, I don't think he purposely misleads. He is wrong, a lot, but he is almost like a weenie with a BS in met. He may does have a political bias, but I doubt anyone pays him to doubt AGW.

BTW, AGW may be correct. I don't know the science well enough to say one way or the other. I just do notice which people so strongly support it, just as Terry seems to note which people doubt it. I don't think I'm as quick to label people as in the pay of big oil. Or big solar and big turbine, or whichever Solyndra and General Electric type companies might benefit from AGW being accepted as fact and anti-AGW efforts becoming approved policy.

Ed,

I also would like to believe that about Bastardi. I'm also a huge winter weather weenie myself and would always get excited as a teenager when he called for epic east coast winters...every year. Regardless, Bastardi is a scientist, not a politician as Gore. That's why we as hobbyists and scientists in the climate and weather arena should hold him especially accountable (what other way is there to do it?). The politicians will be held accountable by elections.

In my mind, AGW is a scientific fact. All major scientific professional organizations that deal with our fields acknowledge the anthropogenic portion of the recent warming (see AMS statement). Unless someone can come up with alternate proposals that can withstand peer scruntity explaining the long term warming and recent lack of cooling (despite cold PDO, low solar activity), the scientific consensus of AGW should remain in tact. I think many of us just want the public to recongize the scientific consensus of the issue first and foremost. The policy decisions that come afterwards are certainly wide open for discussion with no easy path. In reality, the science is the easy part of this whole issue.

[ORH_wxman]

Ed,

I also would like to believe that about Bastardi. I'm also a huge winter weather weenie myself and would always get excited as a teenager when he called for epic east coast winters...every year. Regardless, Bastardi is a scientist, not a politician as Gore. That's why we as hobbyists and scientists in the climate and weather arena should hold him especially accountable (what other way is there to do it?). The politicians will be held accountable by elections.

In my mind, AGW is a scientific fact. All major scientific professional organizations that deal with our fields acknowledge the anthropogenic portion of the recent warming (see AMS statement). Unless someone can come up with alternate proposals that can withstand peer scruntity explaining the long term warming and recent lack of cooling (despite cold PDO, low solar activity), the scientific consensus of AGW should remain in tact. I think many of us just want the public to recongize the scientific consensus of the issue first and foremost. The policy decisions that come afterwards are certainly wide open for discussion with no easy path. In reality, the science is the easy part of this whole issue.

That's over-simplifying it, but I do agree the science is easier than policy.

However, much of the policy would be dependent on the science being able to accurately pin down the rate of change in our climate. That ability eludes the science at the moment. The range of uncertainty is quite great and therefore would have a large impact on what type of policy changes are put into place going forward.

If the current rate of warming went essentially unchanged for the next 100 years, that would most likely entail very managable changes in our climate. Many believe it would actually bebeneficial if the warming is kept under 1.0C or 1.5C depending on the source...however, that part is mostly irrelevant to this part of the debate. The relevant part would be that changes are mostly gradual and well within our ability to adapt.

A large acceleration in warming that would result in rises of 3C-4C by 2100 would likely be extremely difficult to deal with and cause many unmanagable changes to our climate and surrounding environment.

One scenario calls for much different policy than the other. The science supports both scenarios. There in lies the main crux of the issue when it comes to policy and the science.

[nflwxman]

That's over-simplifying it, but I do agree the science is easier than policy.

However, much of the policy would be dependent on the science being able to accurately pin down the rate of change in our climate. That ability eludes the science at the moment. The range of uncertainty is quite great and therefore would have a large impact on what type of policy changes are put into place going forward.

If the current rate of warming went essentially unchanged for the next 100 years, that would most likely entail very managable changes in our climate. Many believe it would actually bebeneficial if the warming is kept under 1.0C or 1.5C depending on the source...however, that part is mostly irrelevant to this part of the debate. The relevant part would be that changes are mostly gradual and well within our ability to adapt.

A large acceleration in warming that would result in rises of 3C-4C by 2100 would likely be extremely difficult to deal with and cause many unmanagable changes to our climate and surrounding environment.

One scenario calls for much different policy than the other. The science supports both scenarios. There in lies the main crux of the issue when it comes to policy and the science.

That's a fair point. There is much uncertainty regarding future climate warming. Although, one could counter in claiming that we have already done a fair amount of damage with 1 degree of warming since preindustrial times. Yes, at this point, AGW hasn't had widescale impacts that effect many. However, it's clear that ecosystems are being degraded, arctic ice extent is falling, extreme heat appears to becoming more common, and sea level rise is measureable At what point does the risk management of climate change become a larger issue in the policy arena? I couldn't answer that if I tried...there are way too many factors involved.

I think that's why for me personally, I'd like to focus on the science of what HAS happened. The raw statistics of all the forcings in climate provide a very distinct picture. If we could get the public to agree that man has caused the recent warming, that is a very small step towards addressing the risk management question. Sadly, we have politicians that believe we are in a "cooling" period.

[ORH_wxman]

That's a fair point. There is much uncertainty regarding future climate warming. Although, one could counter in claiming that we have already done a fair amount of damage with 1 degree of warming since preindustrial times. Yes, at this point, AGW hasn't had widescale impacts that effect many. However, it's clear that ecosystems are being degraded, arctic ice extent is falling, extreme heat appears to becoming more common, and sea level rise is measureable At what point does the risk management of climate change become a larger issue in the policy arena? I couldn't answer that if I tried...there are way too many factors involved.

I think that's why for me personally, I'd like to focus on the science of what HAS happened. The raw statistics of all the forcings in climate provide a very distinct picture. If we could get the public to agree that man has caused the recent warming, that is a very small step towards addressing the risk management question. Sadly, we have politicians that believe we are in a "cooling" period.

I think most of this is already true. Most skeptics (save a few crazy politicians and a few outliying skeptics) believe that man has caused a significant amount of the warming since 1950. There are some differing opinions on exactly what percentage it is (nearly 100% or maybe 50%? 70%?).

Some would believe in a cooling period because the warming has stopped in the global temperature record since about 2001-2002. There isn't a long enough period to call it a cooling though...especially since its been a flat line more than a cooling (though the GISS trend is very slightly negative since then...but statistically insignificant).

The damage done to certain ecosystems is certainly documented...though we have to be careful in assigning what was the cause....anthropogenic climate change? Pollution? Land usage changes? We should be striving for a cleaner environment regardless...however...blaming all of our influence on ecosystems just on the climate side is a dangerous game and could further cause polarization in the climate debate.

[nflwxman]

I think most of this is already true. Most skeptics (save a few crazy politicians and a few outliying skeptics) believe that man has caused a significant amount of the warming since 1950. There are some differing opinions on exactly what percentage it is (nearly 100% or maybe 50%? 70%?).

Some would believe in a cooling period because the warming has stopped in the global temperature record since about 2001-2002. There isn't a long enough period to call it a cooling though...especially since its been a flat line more than a cooling (though the GISS trend is very slightly negative since then...but statistically insignificant).

The damage done to certain ecosystems is certainly documented...though we have to be careful in assigning what was the cause....anthropogenic climate change? Pollution? Land usage changes? We should be striving for a cleaner environment regardless...however...blaming all of our influence on ecosystems just on the climate side is a dangerous game and could further cause polarization in the climate debate.

Yes, there are obviously skeptics out there that see a middle ground between alarmism and denialism. Somehow, they are not the ones providing the "counter points" on major news networks. It's the bastardis and watts of the world that get into the mainstream. That's why I particularly feel the need to hold them accountable.

Speaking of public data.

You would be shocked how many individuals in the US...

1)) Don't believe the climate has warmed

2) Believe the climate has warmed and that humans are not the cause

3) Believe excess CO2 concentrations are a great thing because they are "plant food"

Here is a poll in the US that back these findings as of July. This split (55/45) is inexplicably low given the scientific consensus. I would image the disinformation campaign (of which the scientists I mentioned above propogate) of the last decade is the reason why the public is so split.

http://www.rasmussen...y/energy_update

Heck, my uncle knows i'm a climate scientist and he argues with me on the human influence every time we have family dinners.

[donsutherland1]

Yes, there are obviously skeptics out there that see a middle ground between alarmism and denialism. Somehow, they are not the ones providing the "counter points" on major news networks. It's the bastardis and watts of the world that get into the mainstream. That's why I particularly feel the need to hold them accountable.

I strongly agree. IMO, the major news networks and, for that matter, all news organizations would do well to apply the code of ethics offered by the Society of Professional Journalists.

The first principle is that journalists should "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

While such a standard might reduce some of what is covered by the media regarding climate change, the information provided would be more reliable, more consistent, and more trustworthy. The audience would be better informed and public understanding of the issue would likely be stronger than it is today.

[dabize]

Don,

That would be great advice if it was applied to the skeptics with the same alacrity with which it has been applied to scientists.

Unfortunately, the conventional/corporate media have not tended to do this, possibly out of laziness, but more likely in deference to their funding sources.

Hence the tendency to present people like Watts and Bastardi as serious counterpoints to actual scientists such as Mann and Hansen - often in a food-fight type of debate format that prompts the viewer to split the difference between the viewpoints being presented.

To me, communication is most effective that bypasses words, and shows the results of the science directly:

[ben4vols]

I think most of this is already true. Most skeptics (save a few crazy politicians and a few outliying skeptics) believe that man has caused a significant amount of the warming since 1950. There are some differing opinions on exactly what percentage it is (nearly 100% or maybe 50%? 70%?).

I don't think that is true. Most skeptics do not even agree on the amount of warming and most certainly would not ascertain that 50 to 70% of whatever warming is from anthropogenic sources. Roy Spencer who considers himself a "lukewarmer" would probably not agree with your statement.

[Sugarloaf1989]

I am just curious as to if alpine glaciers are ever mentioned in the sceme of climate change as my understaning was that tropical glaciers in particular where a very good indicator of the state of the cryosphere?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think most of this is already true. Most skeptics (save a few crazy politicians and a few outliying skeptics) believe that man has caused a significant amount of the warming since 1950. There are some differing opinions on exactly what percentage it is (nearly 100% or maybe 50%? 70%?).

Some would believe in a cooling period because the warming has stopped in the global temperature record since about 2001-2002. There isn't a long enough period to call it a cooling though...especially since its been a flat line more than a cooling (though the GISS trend is very slightly negative since then...but statistically insignificant).

The damage done to certain ecosystems is certainly documented...though we have to be careful in assigning what was the cause....anthropogenic climate change? Pollution? Land usage changes? We should be striving for a cleaner environment regardless...however...blaming all of our influence on ecosystems just on the climate side is a dangerous game and could further cause polarization in the climate debate.

I do not think you are a skeptic.

You are a believer in science, you don't object to factual science whenever it collides with a preconceived notion. Being skeptical about how this plays out it not what a skeptic is at this point. The "deniers" have completely taken over climate skepticism because at this point there is no doubt about this.

But there is doubt about the future of it. That is skepticism in a sort but it makes you a full believer.

And there might only be a few Watts, Basterdi's, Goodard, Christy's at this point, but there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of folks like me who are deniers. And these guys like guys like me are the arm of science to the general public, the general public ignores science we inform our family's friends, co-workers, anyone who will listen.

You know it's going forward it will continue to warm.

There are thousands of delusional people who think any time now geomag or lowered solar output is going to cause the Earth to start cooling, ice will recover fine, Greenland is all natural.

They are the new skeptics. The rest of us just argue over semantics. While they sit and spew lies far to pubically and loudly.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Don,

That would be great advice if it was applied to the skeptics with the same alacrity with which it has been applied to scientists.

Unfortunately, the conventional/corporate media have not tended to do this, possibly out of laziness, but more likely in deference to their funding sources.

Hence the tendency to present people like Watts and Bastardi as serious counterpoints to actual scientists such as Mann and Hansen - often in a food-fight type of debate format that prompts the viewer to split the difference between the viewpoints being presented.

To me, communication is most effective that bypasses words, and shows the results of the science directly:

That is a sweet little video but piomas is just some joke and it's wrong, the literature says so.

I use this graph it's so much better.

Video's do not work, nothing works.

This forum right now is nearly void of deniers, as soon as something happens they can chew on comes bout they will come out of the wood work. It's insanity, but for now the only safe place is WUWT where you can avoid reality.

[donsutherland1]

Don,

That would be great advice if it was applied to the skeptics with the same alacrity with which it has been applied to scientists.

Unfortunately, the conventional/corporate media have not tended to do this, possibly out of laziness, but more likely in deference to their funding sources.

Hence the tendency to present people like Watts and Bastardi as serious counterpoints to actual scientists such as Mann and Hansen - often in a food-fight type of debate format that prompts the viewer to split the difference between the viewpoints being presented.

I agree. There are factors that have led to the kind of coverage that has been provided. Those factors range from financial (ratings-related) to psychological (the desire to be "fair," which leads to a sort of equivalance that could not be justified by scientific merits, alone).

To me, communication is most effective that bypasses words, and shows the results of the science directly...

I also agree, but that approach does not fit all of the media. Indeed, Bastardi, Goddard, etc., all understand the power of imagery. Bastardi's use of SST charts, not DMI's ice products, in discussing Arctic sea ice, Goddard's use of PIOMAS data (on which he grafted a purported trendline), etc. are examples of how they are using imagery to paint a picture that does not fairly illustrate the climatic evolution. Lacking detailed knowledge about the DMI products or PIOMAS ice volume data, at least a share of those exposed to the charts, could well reach erroneous conclusions, as the data has the appearance of being legitimate.

At this stage, there's no single website to which the general public can go to verify the credibility of climate-related sources and information. Many good sites exist, but the information is sufficiently fragmented that it does not reach the scale necessary for members of the general public (as distinguished from those who are reasonably knowledgeable about information sources) to differentiate between good and bad information. That fragmentation of information is regularly exploited in undermining public confidence in basic conclusions of climate science.

[Sugarloaf1989]

A question for the climate change experts on this board. What caused this sudden climate shift in 1845:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 105, NO. D4, PP. 4657-4666, 2000

doi:10.1029/1999JD901095

Chronological refinement of an ice core record at Upper Fremont Glacier in south central North America

Chronological refinement of an ice core record at Upper Fremont Glacier in south central North America

Paul F. Schuster

David E. White

David L. Naftz

L. DeWayne Cecil

The potential to use ice cores from alpine glaciers in the midlatitudes to reconstruct paleoclimatic records has not been widely recognized. Although excellent paleoclimatic records exist for the polar regions, paleoclimatic ice core records are not common from midlatitude locations. An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s. Volcanic events (Krakatau and Tambora) identified from electrical conductivity measurements (ECM) and isotopic and chemical data from the Upper Fremont Glacier were reexamined to confirm and refine previous chronological estimates of the ice core. At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736 ± 10 A.D.) with the ¹⁴C age date (1729 ± 95 A.D.). The δ¹⁸O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, the sampling interval for δ¹⁸O is sufficiently large (20 cm) such that it is difficult to pinpoint the LIA termination on the basis of δ¹⁸O data alone. Other research has shown that changes in the δ¹⁸O variance are generally coincident with changes in ECM variance. The ECM data set contains over 125,000 data points at a resolution of 1 data point per millimeter of ice core. A 999-point running average of the ECM data set and results from ƒ tests indicates that the variance of the ECM data decreases significantly at about 108 m. At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.

Received 12 March 1999; accepted 18 October 1999; published 27 February 2000.

Citation: Schuster, P. F., D. E. White, D. L. Naftz, and L. D. Cecil (2000), Chronological refinement of an ice core record at Upper Fremont Glacier in south central North America, J. Geophys. Res., 105(D4), 4657–4666, doi:10.1029/1999JD901095.

[PhillipS]

I am just curious as to if alpine glaciers are ever mentioned in the sceme of climate change as my understaning was that tropical glaciers in particular where a very good indicator of the state of the cryosphere?

Tropical glaciers have been mentioned at various times but I don't think that they have had their own thread. By all means start one if they are of interest to you.

[TerryM]

I think this piece by Kevin presents a good overview for the general public.

http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/Sea-Ice-Loss-2012-What-Do-The-Records-Mean

Terry

[dabize]

That is a sweet little video but piomas is just some joke and it's wrong, the literature says so.

Friv is that really you?

PIOMAS is vindicated. You are wrong if this isn't a joke.

[dabize]

I think this piece by Kevin presents a good overview for the general public.

http://doc-snow.hubp...he-Records-Mean

Terry

I was just sending that link out to a fellow faculty member here who is trying to raise consciousness about AGW here. It looks like a really good site.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv is that really you?

PIOMAS is vindicated. You are wrong if this isn't a joke.

Yes, I was being sarcastic to show that is doesn't matter.

The folks at Watts do not want real info or data, this is a lalaland freak show circus at this point.

No disrespect to Christians but folks who go around building museums showing humans lived with Dino's in the 6000K yr old Earth are just as delusional. Nothing convinces them otherwise.

It's on that level.

[ORH_wxman]

There's a lot of apparent emotional anger in this thread toward "deniers".

I think the anger is misplaced at least from a partial standpoint. Those who deny any change in climate are just as bad as those who deliberately misinterprete data (or don't even look at it at all) to promote the idea that climate change is catastrophic. The public is going to distrust climate science every time one of these people comes out and says hurricanes/tornadoes/snowstorms/etc are all getting worse or stronger and/or more frequent because of AGW when there has been no scientific proof to those claims.

Websites such as those run by Joe Romm are just as bad as Goddard's site. They both distort the data into a picture they want to see and want others to see. Both are a strong example of confirmation bias.

[Sugarloaf1989]

Tropical glaciers have been mentioned at various times but I don't think that they have had their own thread. By all means start one if they are of interest to you.

Honestly I am no climate expert and I am not keen to look foolish.

[TerryM]

Websites such as those run by Joe Romm are just as bad as Goddard's site. They both distort the data into a picture they want to see and want others to see. Both are a strong example of confirmation bias.

Do you really believe this to be true?

One of the sites you claim are equally wrong spouts nonsense and makes thinks up to such an extent that other denier sites dismiss his claims.

The other site has been wrong both in over and under estimating the damage to be expected, the timing of ice loss and measured methane out gassing. There is an attempt by Romm to get the figures correct and an attempt by "Goddard" to deceive.

To say that each site has been in error is correct, to compare the two and claim that each is an example of confirmation bias is incorrect.

Einstein and Galileo both made errors and could reasonably been compared, Bishop Usher made errors, but shouldn't be compared to either of the above.

I produce a constant stream of errors in an honest attempt at deducing the facts. I would hate to be compared to BB or one of his incarnations that either make things up, or quote repeatedly from discredited sources.

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

Do you really believe this to be true?

One of the sites you claim are equally wrong spouts nonsense and makes thinks up to such an extent that other denier sites dismiss his claims.

The other site has been wrong both in over and under estimating the damage to be expected, the timing of ice loss and measured methane out gassing. There is an attempt by Romm to get the figures correct and an attempt by "Goddard" to deceive.

To say that each site has been in error is correct, to compare the two and claim that each is an example of confirmation bias is incorrect.

Einstein and Galileo both made errors and could reasonably been compared, Bishop Usher made errors, but shouldn't be compared to either of the above.

I produce a constant stream of errors in an honest attempt at deducing the facts. I would hate to be compared to BB or one of his incarnations that either make things up, or quote repeatedly from discredited sources.

Terry

Romm has frequently posted about events such tornado outbreaks on his site as "proof" that the weather is getting more extreme due to AGW despite zero evidence supporting his claims.

He also runs stories written by others that often make claims that are not scientifically supported such as the 2012 drought being the worst on record...using 1 cherry picked date where the expanse of the drought using one metric "exceptional" was higher than the previous. To me, this would come across as deception.

Perhaps Romm is just being ignorant. If that is the case, then at least he isn't trying to deceive, but sending out the wrong message to viewers of his website regardless.

Scare mongering with incorrect or scientifically unsupported claims is not the way to make people aware that climate change is a serious issue to be dealt with.

[GaWx]

A question for the climate change experts on this board. What caused this sudden climate shift in 1845:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 105, NO. D4, PP. 4657-4666, 2000

doi:10.1029/1999JD901095

Chronological refinement of an ice core record at Upper Fremont Glacier in south central North America

Paul F. Schuster

David E. White

David L. Naftz

L. DeWayne Cecil

Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/monthly/MONTHLY

One realistic possibility regarding a major cause for this abrupt climatic change was the rather abrupt end to the Dalton Min., a several decade period of reduced solar activity that stretched from the 1790's to ~1835 through three sunspot cycles (see above link). Keeping in mind the 10 year error bars as well as the idea that there may be a several year lag between the sun and our climate (see below), this connection is quite plausible. The sun then proceeded to quiet down again (to a lesser extent than Dalton) ~1875-1915 (covered three sunspot cycles). The global temp.'s did apparently cool down from ~1880 into the early 1910's (according to a graph posted in this forum), which makes me very suspicious about the quieter sun's influence then, too. The start of this apparent cooling around 1880 makes me feel that a five+ year lag is quite possible. The period of ~1950-2000 included the most active 50 year period for the sun on the whole of any in at least 350 years since the Maunder Min. covered ~1645-1715. So, the warming late 20th century could easily have been partially due to the sun's continued high levels of activity into the first years of the 2000's.

It appears that we're now just into a new grand solar minimum that started about 2007-8 and that has brought solar activity down to levels not seen at least since ~1915. Moreover, it is quite possible that this min. will end up bringing activity down to levels not seen in nearly 200 years (Dalton Min.). If we follow these past patterns for grand minima, the sun will quite possibly remain in a quiet phase into the 2040's. These past patterns do tell me to be very wary about how much cooling the current grand solar min. will cause between now and ~2030-2040. I've posted at this BB that I'm giving it til ~2017-8 to see if we finally witness a significant and consistent cooling of the globe begin due to the idea that there may very well be a lag. I have noted that the southern hem. has not been warming like the northern hem. in recent years. I do have to at least wonder if that is largely due to the quieter sun, and, if so, if that is a sign of things to come in the northern hem. Don S. has suggested that it may be due to some sort of balancing between the hemispheres. We'll see.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If this graph doesn't alarm people and this is without the Juggernaut on it. But we can estimate. I believe this is in addition to 4300km3 worldwide not including Greenland or Antarctica from 2002-2010.

Don't insult my intelligence by telling me it was like this in the 30's or 800km3+ in a summer Greenland melt isn't off the charts and should be the throwing the red flag, oh ****, we need to get a reality check.

2012: 800-1000km3*(estimate)

2011: 535km3

2010: 660km3

2009: 400km3(melt season, but the year was crazy because winter warmth, so closer to 500km3

2008: 400km3

2007: 500km3

2006: 300km3

2005: 550km3

'

This has proven to me that we are going to watch our ecosystem be destroyed first with the cryosphere. We have had big time discussions the last couple of years to not under estimate the damage an ecosystem can receive when it has seasonal changes in albedo(Northern Lands), Sea Ice(Ocean), Greenland(dirty ice feedback)).

This is why the alarmist side of the "Pro AGW" coin has been much better foreseeing these changes. This is the most simple, OH DUH there is.

If 800-1000km3 doesn't scare anyone, let's have a 2009 winter again and we can double down on that when the snow-pack to melt is pathetic and black ice is pouring water down the southern slopes.

Let's focus on the underline/bold portion of the program. They are ignoring two to three feet over the next 88 years. Let's do some potential Greenland only scenario's.

1000km3/yr x 88 = 88,000km3/360km3 = 24.4CM = 9.5".

2000km3/yr x 88 = 176,000km3/360km3 = 48.8CM = 1' 7"1/4"

3000km3/yr x 88 = 264,000km3/360km3 = 73.3CM = 2' 5"

I will stop right there. That's it? 3000km3 a year the next 88 years from Greenland reaches the 2-3 foot threshold. We add in the rest of the global ice loss and thermal expansion we can add another 1.5 feet at least. now 3.5 to 4.5 feet look pretty reasonable.

Lawmakers in North Carolina, which has a long Atlantic Ocean coastline and vast areas of low-lying land, voted on Tuesday to ignore studies predicting a rapid rise in sea level due to climate change and postpone planning for the consequences ...

Backed by real estate developers, the Republican-led General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase.

North Carolina is among the states most vulnerable to sea level rise with its long coastline and thousands of square miles of low-lying land. A 2012 study by the U.S. Geological Survey says sea levels along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina to Massachusetts are rising three to four times faster than the global average.

Global sea level rise has been projected to rise two to three feet by the end of the 21st century,

but in hot spots, the increase may be greater.

I can't believe how this get's treated, it's unbelievable. The federal govt should put a ban on any relief for North Carolina for Sea Level Rise damage for 25 years after this law eventually get's repealed which it will and when they go asking for billions of federal $$ for help, nope. Let them learn maybe it will get us somewhere on this major issue.

[SVT450R]

If this graph doesn't alarm people and this is without the Juggernaut on it. But we can estimate. I believe this is in addition to 4300km3 worldwide not including Greenland or Antarctica from 2002-2010.

Don't insult my intelligence by telling me it was like this in the 30's or 800km3+ in a summer Greenland melt isn't off the charts and should be the throwing the red flag, oh ****, we need to get a reality check.

2012: 800-1000km3*(estimate)

2011: 535km3

2010: 660km3

2009: 400km3(melt season, but the year was crazy because winter warmth, so closer to 500km3

2008: 400km3

2007: 500km3

2006: 300km3

2005: 550km3

'

This has proven to me that we are going to watch our ecosystem be destroyed first with the cryosphere. We have had big time discussions the last couple of years to not under estimate the damage an ecosystem can receive when it has seasonal changes in albedo(Northern Lands), Sea Ice(Ocean), Greenland(dirty ice feedback)).

This is why the alarmist side of the "Pro AGW" coin has been much better foreseeing these changes. This is the most simple, OH DUH there is.

If 800-1000km3 doesn't scare anyone, let's have a 2009 winter again and we can double down on that when the snow-pack to melt is pathetic and black ice is pouring water down the southern slopes.

Let's focus on the underline/bold portion of the program. They are ignoring two to three feet over the next 88 years. Let's do some potential Greenland only scenario's.

1000km3/yr x 88 = 88,000km3/360km3 = 24.4CM = 9.5".

2000km3/yr x 88 = 176,000km3/360km3 = 48.8CM = 1' 7"1/4"

3000km3/yr x 88 = 264,000km3/360km3 = 73.3CM = 2' 5"

I will stop right there. That's it? 3000km3 a year the next 88 years from Greenland reaches the 2-3 foot threshold. We add in the rest of the global ice loss and thermal expansion we can add another 1.5 feet at least. now 3.5 to 4.5 feet look pretty reasonable.

I can't believe how this get's treated, it's unbelievable. The federal govt should put a ban on any relief for North Carolina for Sea Level Rise damage for 25 years after this law eventually get's repealed which it will and when they go asking for billions of federal $$ for help, nope. Let them learn maybe it will get us somewhere on this major issue.

So 9 years = a climate trend i am not doubting the losses and if it will continue or not but it's kind of hypocritical when others are bashed showing global temperatures in the same range if not longer.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So 9 years = a climate trend i am not doubting the losses and if it will continue or not but it's kind of hypocritical when others are bashed showing global temperatures in the same range if not longer.

That is comparing apples to pork steaks. They are not comparable.

[TerryM]

So 9 years = a climate trend i am not doubting the losses and if it will continue or not but it's kind of hypocritical when others are bashed showing global temperatures in the same range if not longer.

I don't think that ice loss should be compared to climate trends. As I understand it the 30 year standard for climate is because of the noise in the data as well as cyclic phenomena whose cycle is less than 30 years. With ice loss we're looking at the structural breakdown of features. When we've eroded through to darkened areas of ice in Greenland it's going to be difficult to cover them up again, and whenever they're the top layer melt accelerates.

I think of it as more akin to a situation where a flooding river takes out a few of the flood control dams up stream. The next flooding seasons are probably going to be worse until the dams are rebuilt, and some of the ice features took thousands of years to build.

It seems reasonable to assume that Greenland ice melt will accelerate as more low albedo surfaces are revealed and enhanced. A freak cold year followed by a freak warm one would have been a wash when there was a thick layer of ice covering the darkened areas. Now, with no safety feature in place, the above situation only pauses the melt for one year, then it's back to the increasingly rapid melt.

Greenland melted back further than it has today during the Holocene Optimum, and recovered, but there were few anthropomorphic particles embedded in the ice. This time I think it goes all the way down, and the particles are flushed away before there's any chance of sustainable rebound.

I've been asking on a few sites if there has been any evidence of Fjords straightening, widening or deepening that has recently been observed. I haven't had any replies yet, but will post to the Greenland thread when answers arrive. I think that for a very rapid melt out some alteration of the present fjord structure has to occur.

Terry

[dabize]

I don't think that ice loss should be compared to climate trends. As I understand it the 30 year standard for climate is because of the noise in the data as well as cyclic phenomena whose cycle is less than 30 years. With ice loss we're looking at the structural breakdown of features. When we've eroded through to darkened areas of ice in Greenland it's going to be difficult to cover them up again, and whenever they're the top layer melt accelerates.

I think of it as more akin to a situation where a flooding river takes out a few of the flood control dams up stream. The next flooding seasons are probably going to be worse until the dams are rebuilt, and some of the ice features took thousands of years to build.

It seems reasonable to assume that Greenland ice melt will accelerate as more low albedo surfaces are revealed and enhanced. A freak cold year followed by a freak warm one would have been a wash when there was a thick layer of ice covering the darkened areas. Now, with no safety feature in place, the above situation only pauses the melt for one year, then it's back to the increasingly rapid melt.

Greenland melted back further than it has today during the Holocene Optimum, and recovered, but there were few anthropomorphic particles embedded in the ice. This time I think it goes all the way down, and the particles are flushed away before there's any chance of sustainable rebound.

I've been asking on a few sites if there has been any evidence of Fjords straightening, widening or deepening that has recently been observed. I haven't had any replies yet, but will post to the Greenland thread when answers arrive. I think that for a very rapid melt out some alteration of the present fjord structure has to occur.

Terry

Terry - what I find most striking about the GRACE GIS loss curve is that it now barely pauses for winter mass accretion - the loss is really accelerating noticeably.

Not sure what you mean about fjord "straightening/widening/deepening" - surely any geomorphological changes in fjords would be very long term? Not like cutoff/oxbow lake formation on the Mississippi.........

[Derecho!]

Speaking of potentially exaggerated GW effects....

Contact: Dr. Barnaby Smith

[email protected]

44-079-202-95384

Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

Parched soils trigger more storms

Afternoon storms are more likely to develop when soils are parched, according to a new study published this week in Nature which examined hydrological processes across six continents.

The results have important implications for the future development of global weather and climate models which may currently be simulating an excessive number of droughts.

The research team included scientists from the UK, Holland, Austria and France and was led by Dr Chris Taylor from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in the UK.

The scientists examined imagery from weather satellites which track the development of storm clouds across the globe. When they matched up where new storms appeared alongside images of how wet the ground was, they were somewhat surprised.

Dr Chris Taylor from NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, "We had been looking at storms in Africa and knew that rain clouds there tended to brew up in places where it hadn't rained in the previous few days. We were surprised to see a similar pattern occurring in other regions of the world such as the US and continental Europe. In those less extreme climates, with more vegetation cover, we expected the soil wetness effect would be too weak to identify."

The researchers compared their observations with six global weather and climate models used to simulate climate change. They found that the existing models do the wrong thing, triggering rain over wetter soils.

The implication is that existing climate models are more likely to go into a vicious circle whereby dry soils decrease rainfall, leading to even drier soil conditions. The paper concludes that fixing this problem is a priority for scientists developing the climate models.

Dr Taylor added, "Both heat and moisture are critical ingredients for rain clouds to build up during the afternoon. On sunny days the land heats the air, creating thermals which reach several kilometres up into the atmosphere. If the soil is dry, the thermals are stronger, and our new research shows that this makes rain more likely."

Co-author Dr Françoise Guichard from CNRM-GAME (CNRS and Meteo-France) said, "We need to improve climate models so that we get a better idea of what global climate change will mean on smaller regional scales over land."

###

The research team came from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in the UK, CNRM-GAME (CNRS and Meteo-France) in France, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and the Vienna University of Technology in Austria.

[donsutherland1]

Another day and another tweet by Joe Bastardi using DMI's SST charts to argue that Arctic sea ice had increased in recent weeks (all the data: CT, DMI, JAXA, and NSIDC show otherwise). As I replied to Bastardi via Twitter to inform him about the correct charts, his continued usage of the SST charts rather than DMI's ice products makes it appear that his use those charts is deliberate. It is unlikely that he could repeatedly make the same error after having been informed of the correct charts and their URL. Perhaps there is another possibility that I'm missing and I hope that there is.

Seemingly, rather than accept the fact that Arctic sea ice had continued to decline in recent weeks, which did not require him to accept any explanation for that decline e.g., role of AGW, and thus would have allowed him to maintain his skepticism on climate change, he used the SST charts to construct an artificial illusion of ice growth. He attempted to sustain an account that lacks objective merit, whether one measures ice by extent, area, or volume. If this hypothesis of what might have occurred is accurate--and the repeated use of the SST charts creates at least the perception that it is--such an approach to bolster an otherwise unsustainable narrative is not much different from an athlete's taking PEDs to bolster his performance on the playing field. At least that's the perception that is created. I hope it's not fact.

If accurate, that would be a truly sad outcome. It would be an outcome that is wholly inconsistent with his many years of tireless dedication, passion, enthusiasm, and generous sharing of meteorological knowledge and insights that have enriched the field and all who share his passion for the weather. Even if he never explains his incorrect use of the SST charts, he would do well to stop that practice, as it is so corrosive to the body of his good work in the field of meteorology. Doing so does not require him to embrace AGW. Doing so only requires a respect for the facts, and that is a minimal obligation that should be the starting point for any reasonable discussion.

Finally, this also is the last that I will mention of this particular issue. The relevant point is that one should be wary of claims that seem to run counter to all the data. One should try to be reasonably familiar with the sources of data, the proper uses of those sources along with their limitations, and then verify the data to the extent possible.