Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 2

[eXpat]

Have you counted for plankton die off?

To the best of my knowledge, none or very few models take in consideration the decrease of phytoplankton (another huge nail in the coffin), but i could be wrong.
In any case is another crucial factor in he scenario.

In the oceans, ubiquitous microscopic phototrophs (phytoplankton) account for approximately half the production of organic matter on Earth. Analyses of satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing, but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends. Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ~1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures. We conclude that global phytoplankton concentration has declined over the past century

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html
and
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/29/nature-decline-ocean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/

[eXpat]

Must-read Hansen and Sato paper: We are at a climate tipping point that, once crossed, enables multi-meter sea level rise this century

Right now, we’re headed towards an ice-free planet. That takes us through the Eemian interglacial period of about 130,000 years ago when sea levels were 15 to 20 feet higher, when temperatures had been thought to be about 1°C warmer than today. Then we go back to the “early Pliocene, when sea level was about 25 m [82 feet] higher than today,” as NASA’s James Hansen and Makiko Sato explain in a new draft paper, “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change.”

The question is how much warmer was it in the Eemian and early Pliocene than today — and how fast can the great ice sheets disintegrate?

We already know we’re at CO2 levels that risk catastrophe if they are sustained or exceeded for any extended period of time (see Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher).

Hansen and Sato go further, saying we’re actually at or very near the highest temperatures of the current Holocene interglacial — the last 12,000 years of relatively stable climate that has made modern civilization possible.
They argue that the Eemian was warmer than the Holocene maximum by “at most by about 1°C, but probably by only several tenths of a degree Celsius.” Their make the remarkable finding, that sea level rise will be highly nonlinear this century on our current business-as-usual [BAU] emissions that:

BAU scenarios result in global warming of the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain.

http://climateprogress.org/

[PeakOiler]

Bump.

I've been tabulating the KBMQ (Burnet, TX) temperatures reported by Weather Underground in an Excel spreadsheet. YTD: 13% of the days in 2011 were record highs and 11% of the days in 2011 saw record lows.



I would consider that many record temperatures in half a year significant, but I could be wrong. One would have to tabulate previous years' data to see if that many record temp days are average.

I think it's kinda weird. Not to mention the exceptional drought conditions as well.

Please note that KBMQ temps are not official NWS data. And there were four days in June when data were not reported.

[mememine69]

Weird Weather, otherwise known as modern day omen worship.

[peeker01]

Further indications that computer climate models are underestimating the amount of heat being
released into space.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... well-2011/

[dorlomin]

Having quickly run through the paper (its available free so people can read it. Ok Im joking PO.com everyone knows what they will think about this paper before reading it ) but what strikes me is this paper will not be measuring warming from radiative forcing but warming from changes in the distribution of warm water on the pacific as that is what causes the short term cyclic changes it is analysing. So it measure the ENSO cycle then decalres that it has measured a response to temperature that resembles the ENSO cycle.

Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO [9], we
conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced.

Wow. Now either they have completly rewritten Pacific meteorology and are hiding how they have done it or they are drawing conclusions not really in the paper.

While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate
sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting
the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the
amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance
variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how
large the feedback difference is.

That bolded is how they got the paper published (Id be willing to bet) the journal editor probibly wanted a very srongly guarded statement that made clear this was pretty out on a limb stuff.

If they have made a great break through then well done them but otherwise I think the conclusions are a wee bit too speculative and coparing apples with oranges.

Very very noteworthy, the equatorial pacific temperature changes will not affect things like polar albedo change and (ok BIG AND) the equator is a heat source to the rest of the planet, heat flows out of the equator to the rest so extrapolating global changes based on an equatorial effect can be a tad misleading.

[PrestonSturges]

From the press article

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

It sounds like they are talking about some very specific parameter, otherwise where are these models that overestimate the speed of global warming? Most models have been much much too cautious, so this whole thing seems pretty puzzling.

[Lore]

From the press article

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

It sounds like they are talking about some very specific parameter, otherwise where are these models that overestimate the speed of global warming? Most models have been much much too cautious, so this whole thing seems pretty puzzling.

Roy, One More Time, Spencer, is struggling and I mean struggling to once again come up with a new silver bullet that shows the climate to be less sensitive then shown by most other scientists. What is this, redux number 52? I would await expert critical reply on this, which is sure to come, as dorlomin indicates, before passing judgment. Especially in view of Roy's record.

Weather is chaotic by nature and subject to short term variability.

Actually, Spencer uses models himself to explain many of his hypotheses. It all depends where your bias lies, I guess, as to which models you believe in.

[dorlomin]

Science is models.

That is where it starts and ends.

The human mind cannot take the whole universe into it and produce results about the future, we have to reduce the perceived universe into an abstraction formed from manipulate-able symbolic units that the mind uses to create models of the environment around it.

Science formalized this process into a mechanism whereby discernable phenomena were reduced to mathematical expressions or symbols (from way back to the Sumerians and before) but <skipping past god knows who many important steps> we get to Kepler who reduced the solar system into a model (that was wrong, but we improved on it) and since then practically everything we do in science is model and compare.

The 'sceptics' take issue with is a very specific type of model called a general circulation model. And even then most of their criticisms tend to be founded on hearsay rather than them actually studying any of them.

[Novus]

The problem is they are trying to use a Climate Model to predict the weather. Doesn't work that way because some years are warm and others are cold and you have patterns such as El Nino to deal with which will mess with any study that isn't 50 to 100 years of data.

[Sixstrings]

Having quickly run through the paper (its available free so people can read it. Ok Im joking PO.com everyone knows what they will think about this paper before reading it ) but what strikes me is this paper will not be measuring warming from radiative forcing but warming from changes in the distribution of warm water on the pacific as that is what causes the short term cyclic changes it is analysing. So it measure the ENSO cycle then decalres that it has measured a response to temperature that resembles the ENSO cycle.

I have no idea what your post means but you clearly know what you're talking about.

Where do you stand on the broader issue Dorlomin.. are you personally convinced we're living in AGW doom? The politics are another matter apart from science, but do you support regressive green taxes and cap and trade? Or is Cid Yama right and it's game over no matter what (which in that case I'd prefer to keep my money).

Just curious here.. I've seen you post about technical aspects but not an overall opinion. (not looking for debate, I just respect your opinion.. you sound like a professional scientist)

[Plantagenet]

Science is models.

That is where it starts and ends.

Science is more complicated than that.

Some science involves modeling.

Some science involves observational data documenting various natural processes in the "real world".

Some science involves controlled laboratory experiments, instrumental analysis, etc..

When the modeling is inconsistent with the "real-world" observational data, then the models are wrong, and need to be re-evaluated and readjusted to bring them into agreement with the "real world" data.

[Lore]

The problem is they are trying to use a Climate Model to predict the weather. Doesn't work that way because some years are warm and others are cold and you have patterns such as El Nino to deal with which will mess with any study that isn't 50 to 100 years of data.

Climate models are used to predict approximate future climate, not weather. That's why they're called climate models and not weather models.

[evilgenius]

I was listening to this Bozo, the co-author, last night on Coast to Coast Am. He actually tried to say that cloud cover cools stuff down. Well, winter days are colder under the influence of high pressure, which is no friend of clouds. Cloudy winter days are warmer, as are nights. Consider also how Venus, our big target to avoid imitating, is the way it is because its cloud cover holds in the heat. He did have valid points to make, but he also way overstepped.

I have noticed how Coast to Coast has become more and more a tool in recent years. Mind you, they have always honored crackpots. What they do about things like global warming, or the philosophy of government, however, is to try to print upon their obvious right wing shenanigans the stamp of sincere scientific and consensual approval. They treat the propaganda in the same manner as when they have someone like Brian Greene on.

[peeker01]

In addition to trapping heat below at night, the tops of the cloud layer reflect significant
amounts of solar heating back into space like a mirror. By the way, he's no bozo, he has a
phd in climatology.

[evilgenius]

That's the point about Venus, as an extreme example. There is energy that can come in through clouds. By the time that energy is radiated back it has changed form so that it now becomes trapped. If his whole hypothesis is that global warming is bunk because of cloud cover he has to do better. I know some of what he says is accurate. He is right about the formulas in the models being off some. He takes that, though, and goes too far.

[dorlomin]

Science is more complicated than that.

Very true.

However I was trying to get into some people that "models" are not some kind of trick being played by climate scientists specifically.

[dorlomin]

Where do you stand on the broader issue Dorlomin.. are you personally convinced we're living in AGW doom?

Well I hold a broad spread of opinions on the matter. Nothing is certain and there is always something we have not taken into account yet so I am prepared to see new developments reduce the threat coming from some like Pielke or Spencer, someone like that may hit upon something we have not considered. If you imagine a bell curve centered arond the 3C temperature increase per doubling of pre industrial CO2 then that would be a good description of where I stand.

As for the methane doom soon type thing, well it lies underneat a lot of water that will freeze every winter. It gets damned dark and damn cold up there in the winter and any heat accumulated in the summer will (largley) radiate off into space and the ice will return. Also water heats very badly from the top, thats why every kettle you ever own has the element at the bottom. Hot water rises, so the sun heat water that generally stays close to the surface.

Doom? Maybe, perhaps even fast. But it is no where near as certain and no where near as widely anticipated among professional scientists as people round here will tell you.

You can try asking actual climate scientists
Bart Verhegen
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/
Former climate modeler William Connoly
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
The most alarmist of them would be Mike Tobis
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/
The least alarmist and most technical SOD
http://scienceofdoom.com/
Least well known and perhaps most approchable Andy Russel
http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/

All I can do is give you my impression from reading a huge amount of opinion on the matter

Each of them will give you a slightly different answer with the caveat it is not their specific area of study.


My impression from having chatted on the blogs with them for several years now is things are serious but there is still a reasonable chance we can avoid the worst of even the IPCC forecasts (not including sea level rise which due to technicallities did not include ice sheet contributions).

Clearly others will be keen to loudly disagree.

[dorlomin]

, the tops of the cloud layer

There is no cloud 'layer'

Also clouds do reflect energy back into space but no one is arguing they dont.

And its not the top of the cloud as such but the whole of the cloud that scatters the light.This is why the thickness of the cloud matters.

reflect significant amounts of solar heating

Its short wave light not heating

back into space like a mirror.

Its nothing like a mirror. That is an analogy for younger school children. It is a mixture of a diffuse scatering among the water droplets and and the absorbtion of the short wave light by the water and its re-emission upwards as longerwave 'blackbody' radiation.

[steam_cannon]

Regarding: Climate Models Proven Inaccurate Propaganda

That bolded is how they got the paper published (Id be willing to bet) the journal editor probably wanted a very strongly guarded statement that made clear this was pretty out on a limb stuff.

This.

No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism”

I received a few emails, tweets, and comments on the blog yesterday asking about an Op/Ed article in Forbes magazine that claims that new NASA data will "blow [a] gaping hole in global warming alarmism".

Except, as it turns out, not so much. The article is just so much hot air (see what I did there?) and climate scientists say the paper on which it’s based is fundamentally flawed and flat-out wrong.

It’s clear after reading just a few words that this article is hugely biased. The use of the word "alarmist" and its variants appeared no fewer than 14 times, 16 if you include the picture caption and the headline. The word "alarmist" is pretty clearly slanted against the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming up, and that humans are the reason*.

The Forbes article is based on a paper published in the journal Remote Sensing. The first author of this work is Roy Spencer — one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change...

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Peaker, what the heck is your deal? You're posting up threads for right wing pr campaigns? Really?