New Research

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi C-Bob!

I'm happy to see you still keep an eye on us in here!!

From what I'm given to believe the impacts that particulate pollution impart are far greater than any solar variation we have measured? The 'Horizon' docu had a guy advising us that climate models had used a figure fro lost solar (due to dimming) of 0.5 to 1% but the global average of deflected solar seems to be nearer to 10% of that arriving here?

Hi there, Gray-Wolf

Still keeping half an eye on the board every now and again, just waiting to pop up and spew my usual stuff when everybody least expects it!

No time at the moment to elaborate further, but the whole crux of the LI hypothesis in the first place was that solar variations were not given their due impact. Just because a scientist (or scientists) say they have taken solar variation into account does not necessarily mean that they actually have. The sunspot cycle clearly correlates with global temperatures, even over the last hundred years, as was shown by a (comparatively) simple mathematical equation, into which were added real-world numerical values.

There's more here than meets the eye...!

=)

[pottyprof]

There's more here than meets the eye...!

=)

Tease!!

[jonboy]

Hi there, Gray-Wolf

Still keeping half an eye on the board every now and again, just waiting to pop up and spew my usual stuff when everybody least expects it!

No time at the moment to elaborate further, but the whole crux of the LI hypothesis in the first place was that solar variations were not given their due impact. Just because a scientist (or scientists) say they have taken solar variation into account does not necessarily mean that they actually have. The sunspot cycle clearly correlates with global temperatures, even over the last hundred years, as was shown by a (comparatively) simple mathematical equation, into which were added real-world numerical values.

There's more here than meets the eye...!

=)

Hi CB

The more I read about the sunspot cycle and the various solar outputs the more convinced I become that gobal temperatures are significantly impacted by solar activity. This is a growing area of research and much will be learnt as we enter this solar minimum. I just hope that we don't find another excuse as temperatures change and blame man for something he cannot control.

[Interitus]

Hi CB

The more I read about the sunspot cycle and the various solar outputs the more convinced I become that gobal temperatures are significantly impacted by solar activity. This is a growing area of research and much will be learnt as we enter this solar minimum. I just hope that we don't find another excuse as temperatures change and blame man for something he cannot control.

What solar minimum is this?

[laserguy]

What solar minimum is this?

This solar maximum is more like a minimum but after this mini-maximum it's heading towards minimum anyway. Or summat like that!

[Interitus]

This solar maximum is more like a minimum but after this mini-maximum it's heading towards minimum anyway. Or summat like that!

Yes this cycle is weak though it's not past the maximum yet, but I wanted to see what he was referring to.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Interitus

[jonboy]

Yes this cycle is weak though it's not past the maximum yet, but I wanted to see what he was referring to.

There is some dispute as to whether we have passed the solar maximum for this cycle. Some believe that has occured in the last 12 months others believe it will occur early next year. Looking at how much activity has dropped off in the last 6 months I believe we are heading away from the maximum. The next cycle will be even low than this one.

[knocker]

A couple of charts.

https://sites.google.com/site/marclimategraphs/

[Admiral_Bobski]

I read recently that something weird has happened on the Sun - solar maximum appears to have peaked and passed in the Sun's northern hemisphere, but activity is still ongoing in the southern hemisphere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528843.700-solar-maximum-oh-you-just-missed-it.html

I have no idea what that means for the cycle as a whole, but it is interesting nonetheless. Of particular interest is this paragraph:

Such a large asymmetry between hemispheres could be a sign of big changes ahead, says Steven Tobias, a mathematician at the University of Leeds, UK, who models what drives the sun's magnetic field. According to his models, such a situation precedes an extended quiet phase called a grand minimum. "Changes in symmetry are more indicative of going into a grand minimum than the strength of the cycle," he says.

[knocker]

CU-NOAA study shows summer climate change, mostly warming

Analysis of 90 years of observational data has revealed that summer climates in regions across the globe are changing -- mostly, but not always, warming --according to a new study led by a scientist from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences headquartered at the University of Colorado Boulder.

"It is the first time that we show on a local scale that there are significant changes in summer temperatures," said lead author CIRES scientist Irina Mahlstein. "This result shows us that we are experiencing a new summer climate regime in some regions."

The technique, which reveals location-by-location temperature changes rather than global averages, could yield valuable insights into changes in ecosystems on a regional scale. Because the methodology relies on detecting temperatures outside the expected norm, it is more relevant to understand changes to the animal and plant life of a particular region, which scientists would expect to show sensitivity to changes that lie outside of normal variability.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/uoca-css111312.php

[knocker]

"Carbon cycle uncertainty increases climate change risks and mitigation challenges."

Projections of greenhouse gas concentrations over the twenty-first century generally rely on two optimistic, but questionable, assumptions about the carbon cycle: 1) that elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will enhance terrestrial carbon storage and 2) that plant migration will be fast relative to climate changes. This paper demonstrates that carbon cycle uncertainty is considerably larger than currently recognized and that plausible carbon cycle responses could strongly amplify climate warming. This has important implications for societal decisions that relate to climate change risk management because it implies that a given level of human emissions could result in much larger climate changes than we now realize or that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a “safe†level could require lower human emissions than currently understood. These results also suggest that terrestrial carbon cycle responses could be sufficiently strong to account for the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide that occurred during transitions between ice age and interglacial periods.

The study was published today in a Journal of Climate paper titled, "Carbon cycle uncertainty increases climate change risks and mitigation challenges." The full text is available at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00089.1.

http://journals.amet...LI-D-12-00089.1

Edited November 13, 2012 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd still maintain that we have more of a worry with AGW (and it's secondary impacts) than we do from Solar variability?

All the proxy evidence shows a reasonably stable Sun with all the major 'earth-shocks' arising from Meteorite/comet impacts or from extended periods of Volcanism?

During glaciations the change in sun's strength (due to our being further away/ turned away) needs augmenting by albedo/carbon cycle changes before we see major changes to the planet's surface.

The past few years have seen upward revisions to the warming we are told to expect from a continuation of our current emissions. This does not include any 'natural' GHG input hike via permafrosts/soil/methane or any impact that the current albedo flip will have. I do not believe that current predictions also include the loss of our current pollution 'sun block' at the values we now believe this has given us in offsetting warming?

[Admiral_Bobski]

And I'd still have to disagree with you GW...!

Still, I shan't argue with you because, well, we've been through it all before. Bottom line: I think our current understanding of climate drivers is wrong. The fact that something as compelling as the LI is so easily swept aside in favour of the pre-assumed "concensus" is, I feel, rather disturbing.

Anyway, I didn't come here to argue. As ever, time will tell...

=)

[Coast]

Snow survey hopes for avalanche of data

More accurate snowfall measurements could improve climate models and estimates of water resources.

Mountains are barometers of climate change, but some of the simplest questions about them are the hardest to answer. How much snow coats their peaks and slopes, for example? And how do these frosty shrouds alter from year to year? This week, an international programme kicks off to answer those questions.

In a two-year project called the Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment (SPICE), spearheaded by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), climate scientists will deploy a suite of state-of-the-art snow gauges at 15 sites in geographically and climatically diverse countries around the world, up to 4,318 metres above sea level (see ‘White noise’). The goal is to make accurate measurements of snow depth and snowfall — the most fragile form of precipitation, which can elude or clog simple collecting devices — and come up with recommendations for the best ways to do snow surveys in different parts of the world. The results could improve climate models and help to predict permafrost stability, ecosystem changes and the availability of water resources in the coming decades.

“Snowfall is an important part of the global hydrological cycle,†says Roger Atkinson, acting head of the WMO’s Instruments and Methods of Observation Programme in Geneva, Switzerland. “If we can’t accurately measure the amount of snowfall, then we won’t be able to know how much water we have and how it will change in the future.†Snowfall also “partly determines whether a glacier grows or retreats,†says Zhang Yinsheng, a climate scientist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research in Beijing, who is not involved in the SPICE project. “People have been debating the fate of Himalayan glaciers for a long time, but we don’t have a proper grasp of even the basics.â€

Although researchers can accurately assess some climate parameters such as temperature, pressure, wind speed and humidity, measuring snowfall remains challenging. Snowflakes are light and drift with the wind, and weather conditions can dramatically affect what proportion of snowfall is actually captured by researchers’ cylindrical metal gauges, says climate scientist Rodica Nitu at Environment Canada in Gatineau, who leads the project. And when the temperature is around freezing, the damp snow tends to stick to the rim of the container, soon forming a cap and preventing further collection.

“Undercatch is a serious problemâ€, says Roy Rasmussen, a climate scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. This is particularly the case with automatic gauges, which can capture as little as 20% of the actual snowfall, he says.

Unreliable snow readings introduce one of the greatest unknowns to climate models, hampering the ability to predict future changes in water resources and mountain hazards, says Rasmussen. And snowfall, like other forms of precipitation, is expected to increase as the globe warms. Better snow data could help modellers to predict the increase in snowfall, and whether it will be sufficient to offset the increased melting of glaciers.

The last major international effort to measure snow was more than 20 years ago, and “there has been a lot of progress since thenâ€, says Rasmussen. One of the main aims of the project is to test the range of recently developed sensors, gauges and windshields. For example, field observations show that shields to reduce the horizontal wind speed above the gauge increase collection enormously. “It’s the most important factor for accurate snow measurements,†says Rasmussen.

New ways of heating the measuring gauges should also prevent snow capping without causing evaporation or air turbulence that blows the snow away. The field is also switching from manual to automated instruments, enabling continuous measurements over large, hard-to-access areas. Relating the two data sets will make records of snow measurements continuous over time, says Nitu.

Zhang says that the project is timely and important, but that it misses crucial regions such as the Himalayas, where SPICE doesn’t have a testing site. Early next year, Zhang and his colleagues will set up a network of stations across the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain ranges, at altitudes up to 6,000 metres, which will gather accurate snow measurements across the region that could augment SPICE’s results.

In the longer term, however, “there will never be enough ground measurements to cover an entire mountainâ€, says Michael Lehning, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos-Dorf, who is involved in the project. Results from SPICE will be used to calibrate airborne and satellite-based sensors, which use techniques such as microwave, radar and laser ranging to survey much larger areas.

“The idea is to push remote sensing to be accurate enough for use in mountains,†says Lehning. “It’s still a long way off, but SPICE is a good starting point.â€

http://www.nature.com/news/snow-survey-hopes-for-avalanche-of-data-1.11799

[Methuselah]

And I'd still have to disagree with you GW...!

Still, I shan't argue with you because, well, we've been through it all before. Bottom line: I think our current understanding of climate drivers is wrong. The fact that something as compelling as the LI is so easily swept aside in favour of the pre-assumed "concensus" is, I feel, rather disturbing.

Anyway, I didn't come here to argue. As ever, time will tell...

=)

G'Day CB...

I'd agree that the drivers are not fully understood and that there are still many that remain undiscovered, but not they are intrinsically 'wrong'...

[Gray-Wolf]

I think this is an important point guys. it is not an 'either /or' but a blend of things. The way things are underastood at present makes the future appear pretty grim and , to me, much of the recent research appear to be merely confirming the worst and not uncovering mitigating factors?

[knocker]

Quite an interesting link here as well.

Ocean currents play a role in predicting extent of Arctic sea ice

Discovery of feedback between sea ice and ocean improves Arctic ice extent forecast.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Each winter, wide swaths of the Arctic Ocean freeze to form sheets of sea ice that spread over millions of square miles. This ice acts as a massive sun visor for the Earth, reflecting solar radiation and shielding the planet from excessive warming.

The Arctic ice cover reaches its peak each year in mid-March, before shrinking with warmer spring temperatures. But over the last three decades, this winter ice cap has shrunk: Its annual maximum reached record lows, according to satellite observations, in 2007 and again in 2011.

Understanding the processes that drive sea-ice formation and advancement can help scientists predict the future extent of Arctic ice coverage — an essential factor in detecting climate fluctuations and change. But existing models vary in their predictions for how sea ice will evolve.

Now researchers at MIT have developed a new method for optimally combining models and observations to accurately simulate the seasonal extent of Arctic sea ice and the ocean circulation beneath. The team applied its synthesis method to produce a simulation of the Labrador Sea, off the southern coast of Greenland, that matched actual satellite and ship-based observations in the area.

http://web.mit.edu/press/2012/ocean-currents-and-sea-ice.html

[Gray-Wolf]

The lack of a mention of 2012's record melt would have me believe that this is not 'brand new' research so I wonder how they did at predicting the scale of the past summers melt?

[knocker]

Simple answer, Use the e-mail address attached to the release. But you have obviously thought of that so I don't know.

Edited November 21, 2012 by knocker

[knocker]

Cold Wind Makes Norwegian Sea Warmer

ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2012) — The Gulf Stream and the warm waters it brings are one reason the climate is milder along the Norwegian coastline than other places so far north. Researchers now know that the Gulf Stream is not only driven from the south, but also drawn northward by Arctic winds.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011085207.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf+html

Further confirmation of the human fingerprint on atmospheric changes. How much more confirmation will some folk require?

[jethro]

http://www.pnas.org/...9.full.pdf html

Further confirmation of the human fingerprint on atmospheric changes. How much more confirmation will some folk require?

It's not necessarily confirmation that folk want, I can't actually think of anyone who say's we've not had any impact. Where the debate is, is the magnitude and the impacts felt on the ground. What irks people is how every single weather event is linked to climate change if it's a negative event but if we get a cold winter, even a global one, it will be dismissed as just weather but if it's followed by a hot summer, well, that will be climate change.

[Methuselah]

It's not necessarily confirmation that folk want, I can't actually think of anyone who say's we've not had any impact. Where the debate is, is the magnitude and the impacts felt on the ground. What irks people is how every single weather event is linked to climate change if it's a negative event but if we get a cold winter, even a global one, it will be dismissed as just weather but if it's followed by a hot summer, well, that will be climate change.

Aye J, it irks me too; and I'm a 'believer' in AGW. Sometimes, folks could be forgiven for believing that, prior to the Industrial Revolution, there was no weather at all?

[BornFromTheVoid]

There are a few here that think we're having no effect on the climate, from what I can see at least.

Within science, attribution of weather events to climate change is based on evidence and probability, not subjective terms like whether it's negative or positive.

Also, we haven't had a below average month globally for over 27 years, so we certainly haven't had any cold "winters" globally. But for cold weather events, some attribution to climate change does occur.

I think what should be more irksome to people, are the claims that climate change is having no impact, while at the same time dismissing out of hand, all attributed events.

[knocker]

UI researcher predicts more intense North Atlantic tropical storms

Main Page Content

Study finds high carbon dioxide levels increase storm strength

Tropical storms that make their way into the North Atlantic, and possibly strike the East Coast of the United States, likely will become more intense during the rest of this century.

That’s the prediction of one University of Iowa researcher and his colleague as published in an early online release in the prestigious Journal of Climate, the official publication of the American Meteorological Society.

The study is a compilation of results from some of the best available computer models of climate, according to lead author Gabriele Villarini, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and assistant research engineer at IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering, and his colleague Gabriel Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Princeton, N.J.

http://now.uiowa.edu...tropical-storms

Edited November 30, 2012 by knocker