New Research

[laserguy]

New study shows the Earth is currently keeping pace with emissions and hasn't reached a tipping point; although with current knowledge and projected increases in emissions, there is a possibility we may reach this point by 2030-2050 if emissions are not reduced.

http://www.climatece...-co2-emissions/

I think I've had a post or two removed, so third time lucky? Who cares, I'll almost certainly be dead by then anyway - global warming/tipping points or whatever are always in the future.

[jethro]

I think I've had a post or two removed, so third time lucky? Who cares, I'll almost certainly be dead by then anyway - global warming/tipping points or whatever are always in the future.

But that's a future which will include your children, grand children, great grand children. We've already saddled future generations with mountains of debt, wouldn't it make sense to try to avoid adding to their problems? Regardless of views on AGW, the bottom line is we're running out of fossil fuels, we need to develop new, alternative fuel supplies. If we don't, the future won't be as rosy as we've had it. Does it really matter if Green Energy is developed and paid for via the initiative to fight climate change? IMO, without that initiative we'd probably be sending even more troops around the globe in order to secure future energy supplies, both now and for a long time to come. Again, IMO, I'd far rather we develop our own energy sources; if it takes a climate change industry ten times as large as it is now, I'd rather that than the world leaders squabbling over what's left of fossil fuels.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think I've had a post or two removed, so third time lucky? Who cares, I'll almost certainly be dead by then anyway - global warming/tipping points or whatever are always in the future.

Really? Maybe you need open your eyes to today L.G.?

By the time the papers this years extremes generate complete the peer review process you'll will be in no doubt that things are altering at a pace unexpected but well in line with the remit of AGW forcing.

The cyclone across the Pole is the first fully fledged Arctic cyclone of the 'New Arctic' and it's impacts in the basin and ,esp. the energy it redistributes in the higher lat, N. Hemisphere will provide plenty new meat for future studies? (see my last post above)

[BornFromTheVoid]

It was new to me.

I'd imagine a lot of things are, doesn't make it new research.

If this has become a thread where you post whatever "research" tickles your fancy, then perhaps the title should be changed accordingly?

[songster]

Hmm, in citation research, impact factor is assessed by looking at papers published in the last two years, using that as a metric of immediate interest. So I think it's fair enough to call March 2011 "new research". It's new enough that it'll still be spreading within the research community, and there won't have been much substantive follow-up publication to date.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Hmm, in citation research, impact factor is assessed by looking at papers published in the last two years, using that as a metric of immediate interest. So I think it's fair enough to call March 2011 "new research". It's new enough that it'll still be spreading within the research community, and there won't have been much substantive follow-up publication to date.

Cheers for that, at least here we're getting some reasoning and justification for calling it new research.

Perhaps Keith was aware of this when he posted and not just posting something he'd spotted blog, regardless of the time of publication.

If that's the case, then I apologise for questioning its validity.

[jethro]

I'd imagine a lot of things are, doesn't make it new research.

If this has become a thread where you post whatever "research" tickles your fancy, then perhaps the title should be changed accordingly?

Is it really that important?

Your view is just one of a myriad of views on here, if we chopped and changed things trying to keep everyone happy, we'd all go round in ever decreasing circles. If you don't want to read something, then don't. If you're not interested in something, then so be it. It's hardly an onerous task to skip over one post, not open one link, in an entire thread.

[Methuselah]

Is it really that important?

Your view is just one of a myriad of views on here, if we chopped and changed things trying to keep everyone happy, we'd all go round in ever decreasing circles. If you don't want to read something, then don't. If you're not interested in something, then so be it. It's hardly an onerous task to skip over one post, not open one link, in an entire thread.

I agree, J...Just because a paper is more than six-months' old (and doesn't agree 100% with one's own hypothesis) is hardly grounds for dismissing it?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Is it really that important?

Your view is just one of a myriad of views on here, if we chopped and changed things trying to keep everyone happy, we'd all go round in ever decreasing circles. If you don't want to read something, then don't. If you're not interested in something, then so be it. It's hardly an onerous task to skip over one post, not open one link, in an entire thread.

As songster gave some justification for it being new research, I take back my questioning of it.

Other than that, no, it's not that big a deal, I wasn't looking for things to chop and change over and over, I didn't say I didn't want to read it or that I wasn't interested in it.

If this thread isn't actually for new research then I don't get why it's given the title of new research. When linking to a paper in here, I always tried to make sure it was new. If that's not necessary, I'd like to know.

RP, it had nothing to do with whether I agreed with it or not, nor did I dismiss the paper itself. I actually think it's a good study. I'm not as biased as you think!

[laserguy]

But that's a future which will include your children, grand children, great grand children. We've already saddled future generations with mountains of debt, wouldn't it make sense to try to avoid adding to their problems? Regardless of views on AGW, the bottom line is we're running out of fossil fuels, we need to develop new, alternative fuel supplies. If we don't, the future won't be as rosy as we've had it. Does it really matter if Green Energy is developed and paid for via the initiative to fight climate change? IMO, without that initiative we'd probably be sending even more troops around the globe in order to secure future energy supplies, both now and for a long time to come. Again, IMO, I'd far rather we develop our own energy sources; if it takes a climate change industry ten times as large as it is now, I'd rather that than the world leaders squabbling over what's left of fossil fuels.

Stuff that! When I was a lad we had the fear of nuclear war, the coming ice age, the emergence of AIDS etc etc. Young 'uns these days don't know they're born! AGW is the latest fad fear which will go the same way. Talking about climate change/melting Arctic/energy conservation etc is all well and good but please don't say they are interwoven - it's garbage.

[Methuselah]

Stuff that! When I was a lad we had the fear of nuclear war, the coming ice age, the emergence of AIDS etc etc. Young 'uns these days don't know they're born! AGW is the latest fad fear which will go the same way. Talking about climate change/melting Arctic/energy conservation etc is all well and good but please don't say they are interwoven - it's garbage.

Care to expand?

[jethro]

As songster gave some justification for it being new research, I take back my questioning of it.

Other than that, no, it's not that big a deal, I wasn't looking for things to chop and change over and over, I didn't say I didn't want to read it or that I wasn't interested in it.

If this thread isn't actually for new research then I don't get why it's given the title of new research. When linking to a paper in here, I always tried to make sure it was new. If that's not necessary, I'd like to know.

RP, it had nothing to do with whether I agreed with it or not, nor did I dismiss the paper itself. I actually think it's a good study. I'm not as biased as you think!

There have been lots of papers/studies posted here, not all of them are shiny and new so I think it's fairly clear that it isn't an issue.

Why was it given the title of New? After running the questionnaire thread on how members would like to see this area progress, this section of the forum was closed. It re-opened with the new code of conduct and brand new threads. The idea being that this was a fresh start for the climate area. Calling the thread 'New Research' was an effort to draw a line under the old squabbles and start anew.

[jethro]

Stuff that! When I was a lad we had the fear of nuclear war, the coming ice age, the emergence of AIDS etc etc. Young 'uns these days don't know they're born! AGW is the latest fad fear which will go the same way. Talking about climate change/melting Arctic/energy conservation etc is all well and good but please don't say they are interwoven - it's garbage.

But they are interwoven.

Countries across the world are being made to face the reality of cutting CO2 emissions. These cuts are driven by the desire to curb climate change or at least limit the impacts. In order to comply, new greener energy must be sought and put in place. One is driving the other and it makes no difference whether or not you agree with AGW.

[BornFromTheVoid]

There have been lots of papers/studies posted here, not all of them are shiny and new so I think it's fairly clear that it isn't an issue.

Why was it given the title of New? After running the questionnaire thread on how members would like to see this area progress, this section of the forum was closed. It re-opened with the new code of conduct and brand new threads. The idea being that this was a fresh start for the climate area. Calling the thread 'New Research' was an effort to draw a line under the old squabbles and start anew.

Fair enough. I wasn't involved much then so I wasn't aware that "new" had a different meaning in this regard.

[laserguy]

. These cuts are driven by the desire to curb climate change or at least limit the impacts.

Really?

[jethro]

Really?

Or they be being driven by a desire to eek out the last of the fossil fuels. Either way, the climate change debate is involved.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Evolution of Ocean Temperature and Ice Volume Through the Mid-Pleistocene Climate Transition

http://www.sciencema...nt/337/6095/704

Earth’s climate underwent a fundamental change between 1250 and 700 thousand years ago, the mid-Pleistocene transition (MPT), when the dominant periodicity of climate cycles changed from 41 thousand to 100 thousand years in the absence of substantial change in orbital forcing. Over this time, an increase occurred in the amplitude of change of deep-ocean foraminiferal oxygen isotopic ratios, traditionally interpreted as defining the main rhythm of ice ages although containing large effects of changes in deep-ocean temperature. We have separated the effects of decreasing temperature and increasing global ice volume on oxygen isotope ratios. Our results suggest that the MPT was initiated by an abrupt increase in Antarctic ice volume 900 thousand years ago. We see no evidence of a pattern of gradual cooling, but near-freezing temperatures occur at every glacial maximum.

[knocker]

Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat

The very low summer extent of Arctic sea ice that has been observed in recent years is often casually interpreted as

an early-warning sign of anthropogenic global warming. For examining the validity of this claim, previously IPCC model

simulations have been used. Here, we focus on the available observational record to examine if this record allows us

to identify either internal variability, self-acceleration, or a specific external forcing as the main driver for the observed

sea-ice retreat. We find that the available observations are sufficient to virtually exclude internal variability and selfacceleration

as an explanation for the observed long-term trend, clustering, and magnitude of recent sea-ice minima.

Instead, the recent retreat is well described by the superposition of an externally forced linear trend and internal

variability. For the externally forced trend, we find a physically plausible strong correlation only with increasing

atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent

with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea

ice already today.

Citation: Notz, D., and J. Marotzke (2012),

Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat,

Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L08502, doi:10.1029/2012GL051094.

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/notzdirk/2012GL051094.pdf

[knocker]

Change and variability in sea ice during the 2007–2008 Canadian International Polar Year program

Abstract In this paper we describe sea ice change and variability during the Canadian International Polar Year (IPY) program and examine several regional and hemispheric causes of this change. In a companion paper (Barber et al., Climate Change 2012) we present an overview of the consequences of this observed change and variability on ecosystem function,

climatically relevant gas exchange, habitats of primary and apex predators, and impacts on northern peoples. Sea ice-themed research projects within the fourth IPY were designed to be among the most diverse international science programs. They greatly enhanced the exchange of Inuit knowledge and scientific ideas across nations and disciplines. This interdisciplinary and

cultural exchange helped to explain and communicate the impacts of a transition of the Arctic Ocean and ecosystem to a seasonally ice-free state, the commensurate replacement of perennial with annual sea ice types and the causes and consequences of this globally significant metamorphosis. This paper presents a synthesis of scientific sea ice research and traditional knowledge results from Canadian-led IPY projects between 2007 and 2009. In particular, a summary of sea ice trends, basin-wide and regional, is presented in conjunction with Inuit knowledge of sea ice, gathered from communities in northern Canada. We focus on the recent observed changes in sea ice and discuss some of the causes of this change including atmospheric and oceanic forcing of both dynamic and thermodynamic forcing on the ice. Pertinent results include: 1) In the Amundsen Gulf, at the western end of the Northwest Passage, open water persists longer than normal and winter sea ice is thinner and more mobile. 2) Large areas of summer sea ice are becoming heavily decayed during summer and can be broken up by longperiod waves being generated in the now extensive open water areas of the Chukchi Sea. 3)

http://www.springerl...75/fulltext.pdf

Edited August 13, 2012 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Not too sure that this actually counts as research (Monckton apparently does!) Anyway: http://pesn.com/2011/04/17/9501811_James_Kwoks_Hidro_Tech_Floating_to_the_Top/

[Yozzer]

Anyone know of any research that's been done/in progress related to the greenhouse effect caused by, ahem, greenhouses??? Don't laugh, hear me out!

I was pondering this the other day as I opened my car door and a wall of heat hit me and flooded out, and it got me to wondering if such 'trapping' of heat by human structures can have any significant effect on global warming?

Theoretically it should have an effect, since any structure which allows UV radiation in but does not allow it to escape, will add to atmospheric heat. We already know of urban heat islands, but how much of this heat is generated by the greenhouse effect, and is it exacerbated by, for example, the proliferation of poly-tunnels and the 100s of millions of cars in any significant way?

[BornFromTheVoid]

New study maps Himalayan glacier behaviour

In a study published in Nature today, scientists assembled new datasets from Earth-observing satellites and found that glaciers in the Hindu Kush–Karakoram–Himalaya region (HKKH) lost 12 gigatonnes per year over the period 2003–08, much faster than previously reported...

...On average, HKKH glaciers thinned by 0.26 m per year but there were significant subregional variations related to different climate and glaciology patterns.

In the Jammu–Kashmir subregion, thinning rates reached around 0.66 m per year, while further north and west, in the Karakoram region, they were nearly ten times slower. These findings were unaffected by glacier type (such as debris covered or clean ice).

http://www.esa.int/e...5H_index_0.html

http://www.nature.co...ature11324.html

[Devonian]

Anyone know of any research that's been done/in progress related to the greenhouse effect caused by, ahem, greenhouses??? Don't laugh, hear me out!

I was pondering this the other day as I opened my car door and a wall of heat hit me and flooded out, and it got me to wondering if such 'trapping' of heat by human structures can have any significant effect on global warming?

Theoretically it should have an effect, since any structure which allows UV radiation in but does not allow it to escape, will add to atmospheric heat. We already know of urban heat islands, but how much of this heat is generated by the greenhouse effect, and is it exacerbated by, for example, the proliferation of poly-tunnels and the 100s of millions of cars in any significant way?

I'm sure it happens. But, we've changed the entire atmosphere while only parts (small parts) of the land have either cities or indeed poly tunnels. AIUI waste heat, land use changes are measurable but small compared to atmosphere changes and the effect of that.

[Waterspout]

we've changed the entire atmosphere

Could you show this 'entire' change using this pie chart please, Peter!

Edited August 23, 2012 by Waterspout

[Gray-Wolf]

Could you show this 'entire' change using this pie chart please, Peter!

I do not think it would make good viewing WaterSp? From where I'm sitting the proportion of the chart given over to allowing free water to exist on the planet looks very small (even though it's impact is so very large?) that the increases to that area of the graph would be hard to see?

It's almost as if you could take away the CO2 portion and not notice any big difference to the pie chart at all isn't it? Sadly it would kill most all of the life forms on the planet to make such a teensy weensy alteration though would'nt it?

I think what you mean is a graph that would show how important those mere 'parts per million' are to the planets eco-sphere? We know that without that 'trace gas' we would not be here and it would be a very chilly world indeed. We also know that increasing it (and other GHG's) will lead to a warmer world. I think there are a few graphs available that show us the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere and also show that we have caused the gas to increase it's amounts across the whole of the planets atmosphere over the past decades?

If I'm wrong, and you did want what you asked for, could I ask what it might show for the efforts involved?