New Research

[Gray-Wolf]

Difficult one Four? How many polar lows have you seen in the basin so far this winter? With the Anomalous H.P. systems keeping most L.P. incursions to the fringes of the basin this impact may be another 'change' we need to expect as the Arctic milds out?

If we look at the CAG12 we are told that it was driven by the temp contrast from ice edge to open water but what occurs when that contrast disappears as the ice fails in late summer? Should we expect such storms to be confined to times where we have a stark temp contrast between ice and open water (July early Aug)?

GAC12 was the most severe storm , for that time of year, ever recorded in the basin. How will this 'change' impact global circulation? Will it be by such storms that ice cover is shattered and lost in future years?

I'd be tempted to look more on the paper as a historical document with useful science to bring to bare on arising circulation modifications?

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://www.umass.edu...ctic-hurricanes

Something else which climate models simply do not at present include.

The science is settled, we have been told.

Yep, the science is settled. CO2 is causing the planet to warm. These are the more technical details that do not detract form the main AGW theory.

Even though the IPCCs temperature predictions have been quite accurate, with all this new data and new understanding, climate models and predictions are only going to get better. The fact that the authors managed to model the storms themselves hopefully indicates that these processes will soon be incorporated into future climate models.

This is science, there would be something seriously wrong if things weren't progressing

[pottyprof]

CO2 isn't causing the planet to warm. There has been very little warming over the last 15 years. This is contrary to the increase in CO2. Something else is causing it......

[Methuselah]

CO₂ is certainly keeping the planet warmer than it otherwise would be, all other things remaining equal. It's just very fortunate that solar flux has reduced...

[BornFromTheVoid]

CO2 isn't causing the planet to warm. There has been very little warming over the last 15 years. This is contrary to the increase in CO2. Something else is causing it......

Playing devils advocate for Christmas are we?

[pottyprof]

Playing devils advocate for Christmas are we?

We'll all be gone tomorrow so I can't see what all the fuss is... Apparently it'll all start in Oz with a showering of comets. Then they'll start up the LHC and create a black hole, turning our planet into a giant doughnut. Then a brown dwarf will fall into the hole and make the rest collapse into it... Looks like a crap day for it too.......

[Gray-Wolf]

In this 'non warming' period i'd like to know what the hell has happened to ENSO???

First we have a puny 2010 nino challenging the global temps ftrom the 'super Nino back in 98' and now we have this years taking the 'warmest nina year' record from last year???

Is it just some odd thing with Nin'a and Nino's over this 16 year cooldown?

Still , cold start or not it was one heck of a comeback for global temps? Down in 19th at the start of the year but looking like finishing in the top four years??? and all of this with PDO-ve and Nina's (never mind the dimming!!)...... Blinkin' good job we're not warming eh?

[knocker]

Difficult one Four? How many polar lows have you seen in the basin so far this winter? With the Anomalous H.P. systems keeping most L.P. incursions to the fringes of the basin this impact may be another 'change' we need to expect as the Arctic milds out?

If we look at the CAG12 we are told that it was driven by the temp contrast from ice edge to open water but what occurs when that contrast disappears as the ice fails in late summer? Should we expect such storms to be confined to times where we have a stark temp contrast between ice and open water (July early Aug)?

GAC12 was the most severe storm , for that time of year, ever recorded in the basin. How will this 'change' impact global circulation? Will it be by such storms that ice cover is shattered and lost in future years?

I'd be tempted to look more on the paper as a historical document with useful science to bring to bare on arising circulation modifications?

Talking of polar lows I believe I posted the abstract from Nature Geoscience. If not there is a link in this article.

Arctic Storms: A Climate Danger Nobody’s Talking About

Summer and fall are hurricane season, but for the storms known as polar lows, prime time falls in the dead of winter, when frigid air blows off sea ice to collide with warmer, moister air in the North Atlantic. Polar lows are a lot smaller and weaker than hurricanes, they’re generally shorter-lived, and the only danger they generally pose is to shipping and oil rigs.

However, according to a new study in Nature Geoscience, the dozens of polar lows that roil the Greenland, Iceland and Norwegian seas every year may have an effect on the climate of North America and Europe. And if polar lows move northward with the changing climate, as some studies have predicted, winters in both places could become colder, even as the planet warms.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-storms-the-climate-danger-nobodys-talking-about-15363

[Gray-Wolf]

I find the whole topic dizzying Knocker!

For the longest of time folk have been banging on about a failure of the N.A.D. due to cold meltwater stopping down-welling (all based on one prehistoric flood of Biblical dimensions) only to find that down-welling is strengthening and , to my eye, even extending the current into the basin at summers end forming the 'Laptev Bite'???

I can see how positive temp anoms further south in the drift allow temps to maintain and so allow an extension of the current. I can even see that the cold meltwater from the end of the pack ice could help drag the current down and help keep the current running. but what happens if, for 10 weeks a year, the Arctic ocean becomes as warm as the rest of the northern hemisphere (or even Med. like in the shelf sea areas?) what of the drift then? Does warm seek out cold still and we see waters flowing out of the basin into the north Atlantic to meet with a stalled N.A.D. warming up our latitude (we saw the current stall here before when it's northern route was ice blocked). When then do we see the polar lows? As with 'normal winter' this seems to be a period later in the winter once ice has re-formed in the basin and the exchanges of tropical/polar air masses subside?

The GAC12 was strengthened by the temp difference between ice edge and ocean What happens when there is no more ice edge? Do we see early summer with massive storms like GAC12 smashing up the pack ever earlier leading to open waters for even longer???

To me it appears to all be in flux?

All I hold onto is that warm seeks out cold and cold seeks out warm. In a warming world with a growing forcing towards ever warmer there is only 1 end result?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

In this 'non warming' period i'd like to know what the hell has happened to ENSO???

First we have a puny 2010 nino challenging the global temps ftrom the 'super Nino back in 98' and now we have this years taking the 'warmest nina year' record from last year???

Is it just some odd thing with Nin'a and Nino's over this 16 year cooldown?

Still , cold start or not it was one heck of a comeback for global temps? Down in 19th at the start of the year but looking like finishing in the top four years??? and all of this with PDO-ve and Nina's (never mind the dimming!!)...... Blinkin' good job we're not warming eh?

Is 1998 the warmest year on any of the temperature records now? I thought the HADCRUT 4 update had put 2010 as warmest with 2005 2nd warmest?

We also need to remember that the fastest warming part of the planet, the Arctic, isn't really covered in these global temperature series.

[Interitus]

Thousands of polar lows???

Looking at their annual map of distribution density - 40 polar lows per year over the north east of Scotland?? - http://www.nature.co...ngeo1661-f1.jpg - (well 40 within 125,000km^2 or 200km radius)

It's clear that they're mixing the classical definition of a polar low with all manner of small scale circulation. Of course models and reanalysis won't capture all of this because of resolution and time steps but this should be accounted for by parameterised estimates (as shown in the article). Whether this is the case, is another matter, but this problem applies to all small scale circulations worldwide.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Interitus

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes, sorry BFTV, the piffling Nino took the crown of the 'Super Nino' didn't it.?

I gather we will next have to put up with 'recent warming' once the warm drivers (plus albedo flip and lessened Dimming) kick back into the climate system?

As for the Arctic? well apart from the enegy that used to be spent on melting ice now being unemployed from that task or a portion of the energy that is now trapped that never used to be in the Energy system? To me this must account for 2 big chunks of energy new to the system and the melting ice one still has more ice to melt so can be expected to expand the 'free energy' available for warming once the pack is gone?

What does occur when warm drivers once again rule the roost? Deniers , since the late 90's, have been waiting on the cool drivers to reduce temps but it just has not occured has it? today we see them messing with data and plain lying to make up for that lack of cooling so what happens when warming once again begins in earnest?

[knocker]

New study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level

By comparing reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and sea level over the past 40 million years, researchers based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have found that greenhouse gas concentrations similar to the present (almost 400 parts per million) were systematically associated with sea levels at least nine metres above current levels.

The study determined the 'natural equilibrium' sea level for CO2 concentrations ranging between ice-age values of 180 parts per million and ice-free values of more than 1,000 parts per million.

It takes many centuries for such an equilibrium to be reached, therefore whilst the study does not predict any sea level value for the coming century, it does illustrate what sea level might be expected if climate were stabilized at a certain CO2 level for several centuries.

Lead author Dr Gavin Foster, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton which is based at the centre, said, "A specific case of interest is one in which CO2 levels are kept at 400 to 450 parts per million, because that is the requirement for the often mentioned target of a maximum of two degrees global warming."

The researchers compiled more than two thousand pairs of CO2 and sea level data points, spanning critical periods within the last 40 million years. Some of these had climates warmer than present, some similar, and some colder. They also included periods during which global temperatures were increasing, as well as periods during which temperatures were decreasing.

"This way, we cover a wide variety of climate states, which puts us in the best position to detect systematic relationships and to have the potential for looking at future climate developments," said co-author Professor Eelco Rohling, also from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/nocs-nsd010213.php

[Gray-Wolf]

I cannot see how we can escape the sea level rises that goes with the planets ability to hold onto the near fixed energy we get from the sun?

I've said throughout the threads that we look to at least 5m rises for the 400ppm level (over time) but then we get the 'natural kickback' from the suspended carbon cycle potion that this ice reduction re-animates.

I cannot see how that , over time, we won't de -ice the whole planet as we have added 'extra' carbon into the carbon cycle on top of that available once the ice has gone.

Unless we claw back the carbon we have placed into the carbon cycle (from carbon long removed from the active carbon cycle) then how will this not lead to an eventual melt out of the all the planets ice?

The problem with this is how quickly will this melt occur? We look likely to continue at adding 2ppm for at least the next 10 years pushing us beyond 210ppm even before we look at natural additions. If we have sudden releases of the suspended carbon cycle (methane and Carbon Dioxide) then we may raqpidly approach the 450ppm level which instigated the initial freeze up of Antarctica. If we still have not begun to claw back our emmisions at this time then we are looking at a total melt out and at least two precessional cycles without a cooldown. Not good for anything on the planet.

[knocker]

I'll post an article related to this in another thread.

[4wd]

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012.html

Abstract. We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

[BornFromTheVoid]

An interesting sounding paper. I don't know enough about the statistics to say a whole lot, but I look forward to seeing what people make of it.

The discussion and comments sections were also interesting

[Cloudman]

An interesting sounding paper. I don't know enough about the statistics to say a whole lot, but I look forward to seeing what people make of it.

The discussion and comments sections were also interesting

We know from GCM hindcasts that most of the warming up until 1950 or thereabouts was natural. The odd thing about the paper is that it does not seek to identify the driver of the warming from the analysis over the period 1860 to 1950 then 1950 to date. This would be quite an interesting result as the GCM studies do identify the source of the early 20 th century warming, does this technique agree?

[knocker]

A new approach to assessing future sea level rise from ice sheets

The study, published today in Nature Climate Change, is the first of its kind on ice sheet melting to use structured expert elicitation (EE) together with an approach which mathematically pools experts' opinions. EE is already used in a number of other scientific fields such as forecasting volcanic eruptions.

The ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland contain about 99.5 per cent of the Earth's glacier ice which would raise global sea level by some 63m if it were to melt completely. The ice sheets are the largest potential source of future sea level rise – and they also possess the largest uncertainty over their future behaviour. They present some unique challenges for predicting their future response using numerical modelling and, as a consequence, alternative approaches have been explored.

One such approach is via carefully soliciting and pooling expert judgements – a practice already used in fields as diverse as eruption forecasting and the spread of vector borne diseases. In this study Professor Jonathan Bamber and Professor Willy Aspinall used such an approach to assess the uncertainties in the future response of the ice sheets.

They found that the median estimate for the sea level contribution from the ice sheets by 2100 was 29cm with a 5 per cent probability that it could exceed 84cm. When combined with other sources of sea level rise, this implies a conceivable risk of a rise of greater than 1m by 2100, which would have deeply profound consequences for humankind. The IPCC's report provided figures ranging from 18cm to 59cm for six possible scenarios.

The researchers also found that the scientists, as a group, were highly uncertain about the cause of the recent increase in ice sheet mass loss observed by satellites and equally unsure whether this was part of a long term trend or due to short-term fluctuations in the climate system.

Professor Bamber said: "This is the first study of its kind on ice sheet melting to use a formalized mathematical pooling of experts' opinions. It demonstrates the value and potential of this approach for a wide range of similar problems in climate change research, where past data and current numerical modelling have significant limitations when it comes to forecasting future trends and patterns."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uob-ana010313.php

[knocker]

Major cuts to surging CO2 emissions are needed now, not down the road, study finds

Transforming energy sources is critical, say UC Irvine, other researchers

Irvine, Calif., Jan. 7, 2013 – Halting climate change will require “a fundamental and disruptive overhaul of the global energy system†to eradicate harmful carbon dioxide emissions, not just stabilize them, according to new findings by UC Irvine and other scientists.

In a Jan. 9 paper in Environmental Research Letters, UC Irvine Earth system scientist Steve Davis and others take a fresh look at the popular “wedge†approach to tackling climate change outlined in a 2004 study by Princeton scientists Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow. They had argued that the rise of dangerous CO₂ could be stopped – using existing technologies – by dividing the task into seven huge but manageable “slices.â€

Davis and his co-authors conclude that while the approach has great merit, it’s not working, and it’s not enough.

http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/major-cuts-to-surging-co2-emissions-are-needed-now-not-down-the-road-study-finds/

[knocker]

New study reveals gas that triggers ozone destruction

Scientists at the Universities of York and Leeds have made a significant discovery about the cause of the destruction of ozone over oceans.

They have established that the majority of ozone-depleting iodine oxide observed over the remote ocean comes from a previously unknown marine source. The research team found that the principal source of iodine oxide can be explained by emissions of hypoiodous acid (HOI) – a gas not yet considered as being released from the ocean – along with a contribution from molecular iodine (I2).

Since the 1970s when methyl iodide (CH3I) was discovered as ubiquitous in the ocean, the presence of iodine in the atmosphere has been understood to arise mainly from emissions of organic compounds from phytoplankton -- microscopic marine plants.

This new research, which is published in Nature Geoscience, builds on an earlier study which showed that reactive iodine, along with bromine, in the atmosphere is responsible for the destruction of vast amounts of ozone – around 50 per cent more than predicted by the world's most advanced climate models – in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

The scientists quantified gaseous emissions of inorganic iodine following the reaction of iodide with ozone in a series of laboratory experiments. They showed that the reaction of iodide with ozone leads to the formation of both molecular iodine and hypoiodous acid. Using laboratory models, they show that the reaction of ozone with iodide on the sea surface could account for around 75 per cent of observed iodine oxide levels over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

Professor Lucy Carpenter, of the Department of Chemistry at York, said: "Our laboratory and modelling studies show that these gases are produced from the reaction of atmospheric ozone with iodide on the sea surface interfacial layer, at a rate which is highly significant for the chemistry of the marine atmosphere.

"Our research reveals an important negative feedback for ozone – a sort of self-destruct mechanism. The more ozone there is, the more gaseous halogens are created which destroy it. The research also has implications for the way that radionucleides of iodine in seawater, released into the ocean mainly from nuclear reprocessing facilities, can be re-emitted into the atmosphere."

Professor John Plane, from the University of Leeds' School of Chemistry, said: "This mechanism of iodine release into the atmosphere appears to be particularly important over tropical oceans, where measurements show that there is more iodide in seawater available to react with ozone. The rate of the process also appears to be faster in warmer water. The negative feedback for ozone should therefore be particularly important for removing ozone in the outflows of pollution from major cities in the coastal tropics."

http://www.eurekaler...y-nsr011113.php

I post this before the thread is closed.

Edited January 13, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Black carbon larger cause of climate change than previously assessed

Black carbon is the second largest man-made contributor to global warming and its influence on climate has been greatly underestimated, according to the first quantitative and comprehensive analysis of this issue.

The landmark study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres today says the direct influence of black carbon, or soot, on warming the climate could be about twice previous estimates. Accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide.

It's quite a large PDF

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Very interesting one knocker, will have to find time to have a read of it!

[Gray-Wolf]

It's another toughie as microscopic particle of black carbon are hygroscopic in nature and so form the minute condensation nuclei cited as reducing the raindrop size in areas impacted by the 'dimming phenomina' and so raising the reflectivity of the cloud tops. Efforts to 'clean up' may , in fact, lead to temp rises as clouds return to normal and more TSI reaches the surface?

That said 'cleaning up' will be a priority for the nations now facing the same respitory crisis we faced in our healthcare system prior to the clean air acts.

All in all I guess the planet will deal with it's visible pollutions far faster than it's invisible ones?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Glad to see this place back up and running again

Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core

Efforts to extract a Greenland ice core with a complete record of the Eemian interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) have until now been unsuccessful. The response of the Greenland ice sheet to the warmer-than-present climate of the Eemian has thus remained unclear. Here we present the new North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (‘NEEM’) ice core and show only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian. We reconstructed the Eemian record from folded ice using globally homogeneous parameters known from dated Greenland and Antarctic ice-core records. On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present. Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.

A review of the study with some very interesting implications by the BAS here

Seeing as Greenland was more resistant to the higher temperatures than thought, to account for the 4-8m higher sea levels back then, this paper raises the idea that Antarctica must have made a more significant contribution to SLR than originally estimated, which bring up questions regarding the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

A very interesting study though!