New Research

[knocker]

NEW CORES FROM GLACIER IN THE EASTERN EUROPEAN ALPS MAY YIELD NEW CLIMATE CLUES

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Researchers are beginning their analysis of what are probably the first successful ice cores drilled to bedrock from a glacier in the eastern European Alps.

With luck, that analysis will yield a record of past climate and environmental changes in the region for several centuries, and perhaps even covering the last 1,000 years. Scientists also hope that the core contains the remnants of early human activity in the region, such as the atmospheric byproducts of smelting metals.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/italianalps.htm

[Guest]

NEW CORES FROM GLACIER IN THE EASTERN EUROPEAN ALPS MAY YIELD NEW CLIMATE CLUES

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Researchers are beginning their analysis of what are probably the first successful ice cores drilled to bedrock from a glacier in the eastern European Alps.

With luck, that analysis will yield a record of past climate and environmental changes in the region for several centuries, and perhaps even covering the last 1,000 years. Scientists also hope that the core contains the remnants of early human activity in the region, such as the atmospheric byproducts of smelting metals.

http://researchnews....italianalps.htm

Now that will be interesting WS - any chance they will do it closer to home, like the western Alps and possibly the Iceland icecap to get a more overall view?

[knocker]

Now that will be interesting WS - any chance they will do it closer to home, like the western Alps and possibly the Iceland icecap to get a more overall view?

I've no idea Mike but I suspect it would depend on three things. The results from this research, funding and a suitable glacier.

[Guest]

I've no idea Mike but I suspect it would depend on three things. The results from this research, funding and a suitable glacier.

True, no doubt the first will be surmountable once the happy days are here again but we are in the laps of the gods with the suitable glacier.

[knocker]

Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone. Instead, evidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling. Understanding this counterintuitive response to radiative warming of the climate system has the potential for improving climate predictions at seasonal and longer timescales.

http://iopscience.io..._7_1_014007.pdf

Edited January 13, 2012 by weather ship

[Village]

I am still very sceptical that we will see any change in the very poor level of long term climate predictions. The sheer time scale and the billions upon billions of permutations for the future which are thrown up with just the smallest alteration of even one variable makes it almost impossible to be even close.

[laserguy]

I am still very sceptical that we will see any change in the very poor level of long term climate predictions. The sheer time scale and the billions upon billions of permutations for the future which are thrown up with just the smallest alteration of even one variable makes it almost impossible to be even close.

The villification (not a wordplay on your moniker,Village!) of CO2 has nothing to do with climate. How many more times? Repeat over and over and over until y'all as bored with the whole phoney business as I am.

[Devonian]

The villification (not a wordplay on your moniker,Village!) of CO2 has nothing to do with climate. How many more times? Repeat over and over and over until y'all as bored with the whole phoney business as I am.

Lg, it's simply and plain wrong to say CO2 has nothing to do with climate. I don't believe that's what you really think.

So, is it the case you don't think CO2 is a ghg? Otoh, if you accept CO2 IS a ghg then you are wrong to say CO2 has nothing to do with climate. It's one or the other not both

[Village]

I am interested in the way in which the process of climate prediction for the longer term is currently based purely with synthetics and how it is that people believe in a model a an accurate representation of the future when clearly it can never be. Unless one can artificially model the changes and interactions of each atom (which currently is absolutely beyond our reach) one hasnt a hope in hell of coming with any meaningful representation of the future of world climate.

Even if one could simulate the behaviour of each atom and its relative charge and electron count each time one runs the synthetics one would get a different result.

Edited January 17, 2012 by jethro
Removed snipe - anymore and I won't bother taking the time to save the rest of the post, it will be deleted.

[jethro]

Pretty much depends upon whether you are looking for accuracy to the point of tenths of a degree in temperature rise or work within the parameters of a range of 1 - 5c. The former is impossible and not what is claimed by anyone, the latter is possible.

I'm pretty sure there are no weather forecasts which predict temperatures to within tenths of a degree, they all work within a larger temperature range; if I look at the daily model runs (actually, if someone who's less of an idiot than me and actually understands them takes a look) then it's possible to say whether cooler or warmer weather is expected. That's good enough for most folk on a daily basis, there are some people who expect more detail, who want to know within tenths of degree what they can expect (especially in winter when longing for snow) but that's really just mis-guided expectation and wishful thinking. The same applies to climate models.

Of course all models, both short term and climatic long term ones come with the caveat of 'as far as we know' - if new discoveries are made which have the potential to impact upon outcome then that additional information will be added and may change the final result.

[Methuselah]

Lg, it's simply and plain wrong to say CO2 has nothing to do with climate. I don't believe that's what you really think.

So, is it the case you don't think CO2 is a ghg? Otoh, if you accept CO2 IS a ghg then you are wrong to say CO2 has nothing to do with climate. It's one or the other not both

Absolutely, Dev...Didn't you know that two and two makes five?

I am interested in the way in which the process of climate prediction for the longer term is currently based purely with synthetics and how it is that seemingly inteligent people believe in a model a an accurate representation of the future when clearly it can never be. Unless one can artificially model the changes and interactions of each atom (which currently is absolutely beyond our reach) one hasnt a hope in hell of coming with any meaningful representation of the future of world climate.

Even if one could simulate the behaviour of each atom and its relative charge and electron count each time one runs the synthetics one would get a different result.

And I'd like to know just who these 'believers' are, Village. Or is the claim just vintage strawman?

[Devonian]

I am interested in the way in which the process of climate prediction for the longer term is currently based purely with synthetics and how it is that seemingly inteligent people believe in a model a an accurate representation of the future when clearly it can never be. Unless one can artificially model the changes and interactions of each atom (which currently is absolutely beyond our reach) one hasnt a hope in hell of coming with any meaningful representation of the future of world climate.

Even if one could simulate the behaviour of each atom and its relative charge and electron count each time one runs the synthetics one would get a different result.

Intelligent people? I don't know about that, but while I can't model every atom in a river I know water flows down hill and I know rain fills rivers or causes floods - you don't need to know what every molecule or atom or electron is doing to know that and you can model it. It is not the case the future is not predictable.

It is the case what you say can't be done can be done. Not with absolute accuracy but not with no accuracy at all. Either end of the spectrum, absolute accuracy or your it's absolutely impossible are manifestly wrong.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Devonian

[loafer]

The difference is that we know how water flows and we know the exact effect of gravity.

Whilst I don't agree with the "you can't possibly predict" views above, I would contend that the margin of error and probability of outcome of climate models is so large as to "lost in the noise", a quote you will recognise from the latest IPCC report.

[Village]

Pretty much depends upon whether you are looking for accuracy to the point of tenths of a degree in temperature rise or work within the parameters of a range of 1 - 5c. The former is impossible and not what is claimed by anyone, the latter is possible.

That is my point precisely. Since the difference in future climate terms between 1c and 5c is literally worlds appart. Its therefore meaningless.

[jethro]

That is my point precisely. Since the difference in future climate terms between 1c and 5c is literally worlds appart. Its therefore meaningless.

Claiming that the models cannot predict because we don't know enough - as per your above, original post on this topic and claiming the range is too large to be meaningful, are two completely separate arguments.

I grabbed the 1 -5c range out of thin air, it wasn't a quote from an IPCC paper, I can't actually remember what their range is, it may well be smaller than that.

[Methuselah]

That is my point precisely. Since the difference in future climate terms between 1c and 5c is literally worlds appart. Its therefore meaningless.

Can you please show the mathematical/logical proof of that statement, V?

[Devonian]

The difference is that we know how water flows and we know the exact effect of gravity.

Whilst I don't agree with the "you can't possibly predict" views above, I would contend that the margin of error and probability of outcome of climate models is so large as to "lost in the noise", a quote you will recognise from the latest IPCC report.

I'd agree if models varied between a lot of warming and a lot of cooling - but they do not. The direction the planet's climate is going is clear, the magnitude is (I agree, and I've never thought otherwise) uncertain.

Indeed, I'll go further, I think there is some new evidence (comments J Annan) that warming may be on the lower side of the projections. Whether this is right or no we do not know but I am open to the possibility warming may be either high or low end of the projections. I see little likelihood it's outside the 1-5C or indeed 2-4C envelope for CO2 doubling. Whatever, the warming already seen is notable, much more and we'll all see it.

Edit, oh and both that atmosphere and water can be considered as fluids.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Devonian

[Village]

Intelligent people? I don't know about that, but while I can't model every atom in a river I know water flows down hill and I know rain fills rivers or causes floods - you don't need to know what every molecule or atom or electron is doing to know that and you can model it. It is not the case the future is not predictable.

It is the case what you say can't be done can be done. Not with absolute accuracy but not with no accuracy at all. Either end of the spectrum, absolute accuracy or your it's absolutely impossible are manifestly wrong.

The future cannot be created because you say so.

You may missunderstand how synthetic modelling works, but quite how you can arrive at the conclussion that we can recreate the real world in the future fails me. I think you are missunderstanding the way which models are created. Models simply make a poor copy from the outside inwards. In practice they dont reproduce reality so all we do is tweak the variables after the event to try to reproduce a copy of the past. Programers then use that same copy to pretend we can predict the future world.

And of course it is wrong and so they go away again and fiddle with the input over and over again. Its the wrong approach.

We dont have and cant demonstrate that we can produce the future in any way shape or form.

Can you please show the mathematical/logical proof of that statement, V?

Are you nuts? can you show a mathematical statement to prove that the real world is reality?

Claiming that the models cannot predict because we don't know enough - as per your above, original post on this topic and claiming the range is too large to be meaningful, are two completely separate arguments.

I grabbed the 1 -5c range out of thin air, it wasn't a quote from an IPCC paper, I can't actually remember what their range is, it may well be smaller than that.

This is the same IPCC which simply downgraded average global temperatures 100 years forth by 2C ? In a pen stroke! LOL Edited January 17, 2012 by Village

[VillagePlank]

Models simply make a poor copy from the outside inwards. In practice they dont reproduce reality so all we do is tweak the variables after the event to try to reproduce a copy of the past. Programers then use that same copy to pretend we can predict the future world. And of course it is wrong and so they go away again and fiddle with the input over and over again. Its the wrong approach.

Programmers do not create models.

Models are dervied from mathematical thesis' that are demonstrable by evidence; a clear example is that we pretty much know where the moon is going to be in some 3000 years, because Newton's laws predicts it so well. In case you missed it, Newton was not a computer programmer - computers came by some few hundred years later. If you want to get into where the moon is with a few feet error (instead of, say, 100 metres out) then you can get to it using Einstein's relativistic spacetime arguments. You'll be right, then, to within a few centimetres. Computing still had a few decades to go before one could be said to be programming. Programming really came of age with the Turin machine ie treating memory and code as the same thing.

It would take more effort than I can be bothered to waste to explain to you that there are clear, unambiguous laws that prevent the complexity of weather being vectored up to predict climate. It's rather like the difference between counting to ten in halves and calculating the mean of all of those halves. The point is that these are different things. One is predictable, one isn't.

But, I digress.

Edited January 17, 2012 by jethro
I sympathise, but rules is rules.

[jethro]

This is the same IPCC which simply downgraded average global temperatures 100 years forth by 2C ? In a pen stroke! LOL

As I said, as more information is gleaned it is fed into the models, the end result changes.

Would you rather they didn't add new information and simply stuck with old data? Hardly scientific.

[Gray-Wolf]

most all of us take out personal and household insurance on probabilities with far less chance of occuring than the planets climate 'experts' view of us encountering the 'worse case scenario' of climate change and ,as each year passes, we move closer to the WCS (due to inaction over pollutants/exhaust gasses) and learn more of the dangers we face. Why should we protect ourselves in such a way whilst neglecting our planet? Odd?

[jethro]

Mostly because the law requires us to.

[knocker]

Mostly because the law requires us to.

I thought that only applied to house insurance with a mortgage?

[jethro]

I thought that only applied to house insurance with a mortgage?

Car insurance isn't optional (well it is if you lodge vast sureties with some government dept), I've got to have Public Liability too.

[Coast]

The public is being urged to take part in a survey of hedgehogs to see if climate change is having an impact on their hibernation and survival. Recent research has shown that populations of hedgehogs have dropped by at least a quarter in the past decade, with numbers declining over the long term from an estimated 30 million in the 1950s to 1.5 million in 1995.

Conservationists say the species has been hit by the loss of habitat in the countryside, such as hedgerows and grassland, more intensive agriculture, use of pesticides which reduce their food sources and more badgers. In urban areas, tidier and more sterile gardens divided up with impassible fences and walls also pose a problem for the mammal.

But the People's Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) and the British Hedgehog Preservation Society (BHPS) are now urging people to help them with a survey to see if changes to the climate are also having an impact on hedgehogs. The charities said research in the 1970s revealed a direct link between hibernation and climate, showing hedgehogs emerged up to three weeks earlier in the south west of England than Scotland, with inactivity relating to coldness and length of winter. Typically the species hibernates between November and the end of March when food is scarce, in order to conserve energy.

Dr Pat Morris, who conducted the original research, said: "Age, sex and weather all appear to influence the timing of hedgehog hibernation. For example, young animals may remain fully active into December, no doubt seeking to develop sufficient fat reserves to ensure survival during subsequent hibernation. "Also, adult females that have had late litters or may still be lactating will need to feed intensively before hibernating, causing them to be active for longer than adult males. "However, mild weather can also delay hedgehogs entering into hibernation or elicit premature awakening, impacting on the creature's fat reserves and breeding times and consequently affecting the long-term survival of the species."

The conservation groups said that while organisations are monitoring native British wildlife or studying the timing of natural events such as plants coming into flower, no study was focusing on changes to the behaviour of a single mammal species. So now the PTES and BHPS are hoping to harness the power of "citizen science" by getting members of the public to record sightings of hedgehogs as they start to emerge in spring after hibernation.

The survey starts on February 1 and can be completed online. It is hoped that the information gathered by the public can help scientists understand hedgehogs, including their hibernation, better.

http://www.google.co...41326799046598A

More details here:

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/72269-hedgehog-hibernation-could-hold-clue-to-climate-change/