Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

As sea ice melts in Arctic, oil & gas industry expected to invest roughly $100 billion there by 2023

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/melting-sea-ice-makes-arctic-drilling-a-risky-business-17018

 

Estimates Arctic could hold 30% of world’s undiscovered gas and 13% of oil:

 

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2_0.pdf

[knocker]

Report Available from Northern Hemisphere Polar Jet Stream Linkages Workshop

 

The Northern Hemisphere polar jet stream and links with Arctic climate change IASC/CliC/IMO/NOAA Workshop was held on 13-15 November 2013 at the Icelandic Met Office in Reykjavik, Iceland. The workshop was successful with 33 scientists who have recently worked on jet stream and Arctic linkages issues. The workshop consisted of summary talks and extensive time for discussion during the sessions and during breaks and meals provided by IMO.  Iceland provided this group of meteorologists and oceanographers with some outstanding weather:  a major storm followed by snow. The agenda and list of participants are provided at the end.  We appreciated the major support of IASC and CliC, and the hospitality of our hosts at IMO.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that Knocks!

 

I firmly believe that circumstances will over ride the need for extended study ( to confirm trend formation) as they next 5 year elapse. The small 'relax' we saw in ice levels across the basin ( in the most perfect year for ice retention I've so far witnessed?) is not something I'd personally expect to see repeated this melt season? I know it's far to early to be making punts on final ice levels but I'm thinking more of the odds of seeing last years synoptic repeated this summer. Though not as extreme as the 07' perfect melt storm last summers combination of factors must still be an outside bet compared to more 'average' conditions? We saw what the last 'average' summer brought us in 2012. 

 

With the prospect of an El-Nino forming over the summer months we must surely see a different set of synoptics than those produced by an mile la Nina moving into La Nada conditions? We have Nada moving into Nino?

 

Should the Nino develop then we stand the chance of seeing Nino conditions drag on through the majority, if not all, of 2015. This will surely drive differing conditions to those of the Nina/Nada summer of 13'? In fact the Nino year of 2010 saw the largest volume losses across the Arctic so do we use that as a guide?

 

With ice levels so low and large swathes of ice at similar thickness/ages any concerted melt forcings could see large areas 'blink out' at the end of July/early Aug (as we saw in 2012) over both years but more so in 2015 if this year provides another high loss year.

 

Then we move into the 'perfect melt storm' first chance of recurrence of 2017.

 

Should we see years with losses approaching those of 2012 ( or besting them) then what chance does the pack stand under the 'perfect melt storm' synoptics? There is no point pretending that we will not encounter such again. With a pack so depleted from 07' and 2012 how do we think the pack would now weather such a storm? Personally i do not think it could fare very well at all and that we may go from seeing 1/3 open water to 2/3rds or more and the majority of these losses prior to mid August.

 

The energy such an event will introduce into the climate system must be significant and must drive recognisable/predictable impacts over the end of summer/Autumn? Will folk still be demanding more evidence when such an event arises?

 

I think we may even see the loss of a recognisable Polar jet around swathes of the hemisphere for a few months as wind speeds aloft drop below those measured as being a 'jet stream'? What type of sluggish weather do we expect to see under such a pattern?

[knocker]

Apologies for a little repetition.

 

World's Oceans Got a Lot Warmer In 2013

 

Global ocean temperatures rose dramatically last year, providing another strong sign that the oft-cited global warming "pause" or "hiatus" since 2000 has happened only at the surface – while the rest of the planet has been heating up at an increasingly rapid pace.

 

This chart from NOAA's National Oceanographic Data Center shows the rise in global ocean heat content in the upper 2,000 meters (the top 6,500 feet) of the oceans since the mid 1950s, with the sharpest rise occurring since about 1990:

 

http://www.wunderground.com/news/where-global-warming-going-ocean-20140205

Edited February 5, 2014 by knocker

[Polar Maritime]

[knocker]

Time to Wake Up: The Climate Denial Beast

 

Published on Feb 5, 2014

February 4, 2014 - In this speech, Senator Whitehouse reveals the "carefully built apparatus of lies" constructed to deceive the public about the reality of climate change.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I think our problem is we are dealing with the folk who have chosen to be fooled?

 

They are just as aware of the facts as you or I but actively chose to deny and ignore these findings? How do you deal with that? They are not in the 'pay' of The Beast, they are not part of the vested interest groups and wish to continue 'profit as usual' for as long as they can, they are the same as you or me apart from this 'wish' to embrace the lies and deceptions above the facts and truths?

 

When I muse over the future I see the eventual collapse of this 'Denial machinery' ( as change becomes undeniable the larger organisations will chose to appear to be 'part of the solution' and not all of the cause). This move into 'Dark Funding' is part of this migration but they are not taking their followers with them. they will leave them bleating on even as they slowly distance themselves from the movement.

 

Eventually the media ( at the behest of their owners) will no longer be 'pushing' the denier message, they will also 'migrate' over to the side of mitigation. All of a sudden the papers will be asking 'Why' we did nothing? The 'Denial Beast' will no longer be there, all that will remain are the vocal minority and so it will be their feet the the blame for inaction is laid. Firstly the bloggers and Politicians but eventually the common posters that have perpetuated the Denial myths and confused the public.......

 

. 

[knocker]

Very well put GW but I'm afraid I don't know the answer. There is a very good book by Clive Hamilton, Requiem For a Species: Why we resist the truth about Climate change. The preface is below.

 

Sometimes facing up to the truth is just too hard. When the facts are distressing it is easier to reframe or ignore them. Around the world only a few have truly faced up to the facts about global warming. Apart from the climate 'sceptics', most people do not disbelieve what the climate scientists have been saying about the calamities expected to befall us. But accepting intellectually is not the same as accepting emotionally the possibility that the world as we know it is heading for a horrible end. It's the same with our own deaths; we all 'accept' that we will die, but it is only when death is imminent that we confront the true meaning of our mortality.

 

Over the last five years, almost every advance in climate science has painted a more disturbing picture of the future. The reluctant conclusion of the most eminent climate scientists is that the world is now on a path to a very unpleasant future and it is too late to stop it. Behind the facade of scientific detachment, the climate scientists themselves now evince a mood of barely suppressed panic. No one is willing to say publicly what the climate science is telling us: that we can no longer prevent global warming that will this century bring about a radically transformed world that is much more hostile to the survival and flourishing of life. As I will show, this is no longer an expectation of what might happen if we do not act soon; this will happen, even if the most optimistic assessment of how the world might respond to the climate disruption is validated.

 

The Copenhagen Conference in December 2009 was the last hope for humanity to pull back from the abyss. But a binding commitment from the major polluting nations to shift their economies immediately onto a path of rapid emission cuts proved too hard. In light of the fierce urgency to act, there was a sense at the Copenhagen conference that we were witnessing not so much the making of history, but the ending of it.

 

Some climate scientists feel guilty that they did not ring the alarm bells earlier, so that we could have acted in time. But it's not their fault. As I will argue, despite our pretensions to rationality, scientific facts are fighting against more powerful forces. Apart from institutional factors that have prevented early action-the power of industry, the rise of money politics and bureaucratic inertia-we have never really believed the dire warnings of the scientists. Unreasoning optimism is one of humankind's greatest virtues and most dangerous foibles. Primo Levi quotes an old German adage that encapsulates our psychological resistance to the scientific warnings: 'Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.'

 

In the past, environmental warnings have often taken on an apocalyptic tone, and it is to be expected that the public greets them with a certain weariness. Yet climate change is unique among environmental threats because its risks have been systematically understated by both campaigners and, until very recently, most scientists. Environmental campaigners, naturally optimistic people, have been slow to accept the full implications of the science and worry about immobilising the public with too much fear. With the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions now exceeding the worst-case scenarios of a few years ago, and the expectation that we will soon pass tipping points that will trigger irreversible changes to the climate, it is now apparent that the Cassandras-the global warming pessimists-are proving to be right and the Pollyannas-the optimists-wrong. In the Greek myth Cassandra was given the gift of prophecy by Apollo, but when she failed to return his love Apollo issued a curse so that her prophecies would not be believed. I think the climate scientists, who for two decades have been sending warnings about global warming and its impacts, must sometimes feel like Cassandras cursed by Apollo, and never more so than now.

 

There have been any number of books and reports over the years explaining just how ominous the future looks and how little time we have left to act. This book is about why we have ignored those warnings. It is a book about the frailties of the human species, the perversity of our institutions and the psychological dispositions that have set us on a self-destructive path. It is about our strange obsessions, our penchant for avoiding the facts, and, especially, our hubris. It is the story of a battle within us between the forces that should have caused us to protect the Earth-our capacity to reason and our connection to Nature-and those that in the end have won out-our greed, materialism and alienation from Nature. And it is about the twenty-first century consequences of these failures.

 

For some years I could see intellectually that the gap between the actions demanded by the science and what our political institutions could deliver was large and probably unbridgeable, yet emotionally I could not accept what this really meant for the future of the world. It was only in September 2008, after reading a number of new books, reports and scientific papers, that I finally allowed myself to make the shift and to admit that we simply are not going to act with anything like the urgency required. Humanity's determination to transform the planet for its own material benefit is now backfiring on us in the most spectacular way, so that the climate crisis is for the human species now an existential one. On one level, I felt relief: relief at finally admitting what my rational brain had been telling me; relief at no longer having to spend energy on false hopes; and relief at being able to let go of some anger at the politicians, business executives and climate sceptics who are largely responsible for delaying action against global warming until it became too late. Yet capitulating to the truth initiated a period of turmoil that lasted at least as long as it took to write this book. So why write it? I hope the reasons will become apparent.

 

Accepting the reality of climate change does not mean we should do nothing. Cutting global emissions quickly and deeply can at least delay some of the worst effects of warming. But sooner or later we must face up to the truth and try to understand why we have allowed the situation that now confronts us. Apart from the need to understand how we arrived at this point, the main justification for the book is that by setting out what we face we can better prepare ourselves for it.

 

Undoubtedly I will be accused of doom-mongering. Prophecies of doom have always been of two types. Some, like those of doomsday cults, have been built on a belief in a 'truth' revealed by a supernatural force or the delusions of a charismatic leader. Sooner or later the facts assert themselves and the prophecy is proven wrong. The second type is based on the possibility of a real disaster but one whose probability is exaggerated. Survivalist communities sprang up during the Cold War because those who joined were convinced that nuclear war would break out, leading to the end of civilisation. There was indeed a chance of that happening, but most people believed it was lower than expected by survivalists and the latter were legitimately accused of doommongering. The same may be said for a number of real but small risks that have led some to forecast the end of the world-the Y2K bug and a collision with an asteroid come to mind.

 

Until recently, catastrophic global warming fell into the latter category, and anyone predicting the end of modern civilisation was arguably guilty of exaggerating the known risks because the prevailing warming projections indicated there was a good chance that early action could prevent dangerous climate change. But in the last few years scientists' predictions about climate change have become much more certain and much more alarming, with bigger and irreversible changes now expected sooner. After a decade of little real action, even with a very optimistic assessment of the likelihood of the world taking the necessary action and in the absence of so-called unknown unknowns, catastrophic climate change is now virtually certain.

 

In these circumstances refusing to accept that we face a very unpleasant future becomes perverse. Denial requires a wilful misreading of the science, a romantic view of the ability of political institutions to respond, or faith in divine intervention. Climate Pollyannas adopt the same tactic as doom-mongers, but in reverse: instead of taking a very small risk of disaster and exaggerating it, they take a very high risk of disaster and minimise it.

 

Ref. Hamilton C., Requiem For a Species, Earthscan, 2010.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that knocks!

 

For me personally it is that governments have been in a position to have full awareness of the upcoming problems and yet, as we saw recently with our own govt., set up consultations packed full with known denialists so as to appear 'rightly confused' when the Hansard records are re-read?

 

If they are knowingly grooming the records so as to look rightly ignorant then they know full well, in the quiet of their own chambers, that action , and urgent action, is needed. The costs of action would cost them their seats ( esp. in these times of austerity?) so the Charade continues.

 

One day soon one politician or another will be caught with the hot Potato.

 

So I am left 'Knowing' that we have squandered our best chance and that it has been a political decision made in full knowledge. My current decision on 'How Bad, When' has me leaning to the next govt. being the ones who will be left looking at the Bill of Billions to plaster over the cracks that we are now seeing arise?

 

Only when things are so bad as to demand a kind of 'War Footing' action, with the voters screaming for action, will a govt. sanction the spending that is needed. Not one party would take the necessary steps now because of The Politics involved in such actions.

 

As it is we sit and wait for even worse climate events to rack up, even more " You cannot ascribe any single event to climate change" pedantry and ever more inaction on curbing the root causes of the disasters ahead........

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

GW - I may have posted something similar recently, but the issue is a global economic one, not a political one. There is far too much at stake from a current 'status quo' perspective, (I could go on at length about how those that control the wealth have over the past thirty years engineered a fantastic self-agrandising system, but I'd be accused of/condemned as being a conspiracy theorist), to allow what is really needed, which is a radical departure from the current 'profit above all else', economic growth is more important than anything else, measure everything by GDP dogma. Any political party which tried to push any alternative agenda to this, (like the Green party for example), would never win another general election. And if you're a career politician that isn't a great career move.

 

Until the stranglehold of big corporate business is broken we are condemned to perpetuate the same destructive rapacious behaviour which has got us where we are now.

[jonboy]

GW - I may have posted something similar recently, but the issue is a global economic one, not a political one. There is far too much at stake from a current 'status quo' perspective, (I could go on at length about how those that control the wealth have over the past thirty years engineered a fantastic self-agrandising system, but I'd be accused of/condemned as being a conspiracy theorist), to allow what is really needed, which is a radical departure from the current 'profit above all else', economic growth is more important than anything else, measure everything by GDP dogma. Any political party which tried to push any alternative agenda to this, (like the Green party for example), would never win another general election. And if you're a career politician that isn't a great career move.

 

Until the stranglehold of big corporate business is broken we are condemned to perpetuate the same destructive rapacious behaviour which has got us where we are now.

 

Absolutely right and its was interesting listening to Christine Lagarde leader of the IMF give the Dimbelby Lecture the other night as she clearly stated that one of the threats to world ecomnomic growth and stability is that destructive rapacious behaviour of the big corporation and super wealthly together with the growing divide between the haves and have nots

 

Here's a link to that speach

http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2014/020314.htm

Edited February 7, 2014 by jonboy

[Methuselah]

Whether one likes it or not, the recent  (last 6 years or so) upsurge in extreme weather in NW Europe is very in line with the MetO's climate predictions...?

Edited February 7, 2014 by No-Time Toulouse

[knocker]

Nurse, the nutty lord is out of bed again.

 

Much to the dismay of Christopher Monckton and his illiterati fans at WUWT, it's still not cooling

 

Christopher Monckton bemoans the fact that except on a few raggedy science denying blogs, there are no headlines screaming that the lower troposphere "hasn't warmed" in 17 years and five months.  He can't manage to get his charts to show cooling but he's managed to show "no warming" since September 1996. (Archived here.)

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/much-to-dismay-of-christopher-monckton.html

[Styx]

As reported internationally, an unprecedented jellyfish 'outbreak' is currently occurring in waters surrounding Tasmania. I live no more than 300m from the waterfront and the seafront is covered in all sorts.

 

There is an usual lack of information being reported on what is actually going on. Simply put, science doesn't know. Could high SST anomaly for so long be contributing to this record bloom? What about the issue around growing acidification rates in the southern ocean. Maybe a combination of factors has seen a certain threshold  reached. The bloom is primarily in southern Tasmanian waters, but perhaps it may extend.

 

What seems unlikely is a sudden change in nutrient levels ( primary spike source: flooding rains off the land, sewage spills ).

 

I was thinking Gray-Wolf may have the knowledge to hypothesise on this one.. but over to any of the other knowledgeable contributors to this thread, or any reader of this post...

 

I haven't been able to find any news that is more definitive apart from what the media has been saying. I also thought I'd put this post in the 'manmade climate change' thread as a 2 year run of uninterrupted heat should surely not be negated as a source of this unusual occurance.

 

Science puzzled by 'beach blobs'

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/mystery-of-the-beach-blobs-unprecedented-marine-invasion-has-science-puzzled/story-fnj4f7k1-1226805052647

Mystery sea-lice outbreak

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/eastern-shore-beaches-sea-lice-outbreak-link-to-jellyfish-bloom/story-fnj4f7k1-1226816165072

Giant jellyfish washes ashore near Hobart

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26062303

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06/unidentified-giant-jellyfish-species-tasmania

Edited February 8, 2014 by Styx

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-53#entry2921188

 

What's is even funnier is Anthony Watts headline in his article.

 

 

Anthony Watts thinks he's onto something (archived here).  It's his Friday Funny.  Thing is it's "funny peculiar" not "funny ha ha".  But Anthony Watts, who can't tell an anomaly from a baseline, thinks it's hilarious writing:

Friday Funny – two guys with a ruler blow up the White House global warming video claims

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/friday-funny-peculiar-at-wuwt-science.html

Edited February 8, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

As reported internationally, an unprecedented jellyfish 'outbreak' is currently occurring in waters surrounding Tasmania. I live no more than 300m from the waterfront and the seafront is covered in all sorts.

 

There is an usual lack of information being reported on what is actually going on. Simply put, science doesn't know. Could high SST anomaly for so long be contributing to this record bloom? What about the issue around growing acidification rates in the southern ocean. Maybe a combination of factors has seen a certain threshold  reached. The bloom is primarily in southern Tasmanian waters, but perhaps it may extend.

 

What seems unlikely is a sudden change in nutrient levels ( primary spike source: flooding rains off the land, sewage spills ).

 

I was thinking Gray-Wolf may have the knowledge to hypothesise on this one.. but over to any of the other knowledgeable contributors to this thread, or any reader of this post...

 

I haven't been able to find any news that is more definitive apart from what the media has been saying. I also thought I'd put this post in the 'manmade climate change' thread as a 2 year run of uninterrupted heat should surely not be negated as a source of this unusual occurance.

 

Science puzzled by 'beach blobs'

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/mystery-of-the-beach-blobs-unprecedented-marine-invasion-has-science-puzzled/story-fnj4f7k1-1226805052647

Mystery sea-lice outbreak

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/eastern-shore-beaches-sea-lice-outbreak-link-to-jellyfish-bloom/story-fnj4f7k1-1226816165072

Giant jellyfish washes ashore near Hobart

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26062303

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06/unidentified-giant-jellyfish-species-tasmania

 

It might be a combination of warming at the surface and general ocean warming. Before jelly reach the stage we generally recognise them (medusa stage), they are polyps attached to the ocean floor. They can be at that stage for years before finally becoming free floating. The environmental conditions determine when the transformation occurs, with temperature being an extremely important one. An experiment done of Mediterranean jellyfish.

 

This study presents a comprehensive analysis on the physicochemical conditions that control the survival and phase transition of Cotylorhiza tuberculata; a scyphozoan that generates large outbreaks in the Mediterranean Sea. Laboratory experiments indicated that the influence of temperature on strobilation and polyp survival was the critical factor controlling the capacity of this species to proliferate. Early life stages were less sensitive to other factors such as salinity variations or the competitive advantage provided by zooxanthellae in a context of coastal eutrophication. Coherently with laboratory results, the presence/absence of outbreaks of this jellyfish in a particular year seems to be driven by temperature. This is the first time the environmental forcing of the mechanism driving the life cycle of a jellyfish has been disentangled via laboratory experimentation. Projecting this understanding to a field population under climatological variability results in a pattern coherent with in situ records

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21072185

 

The oceans have been warming quickly over the past 2 decades and this year, there has been a very large spike in ocean heat accumulation. 

 

With the argo floats, it's probably possible to work out where the main areas of heat accumulation are.

 

SSTS around Tasmania are currently above average, but not massively so.

 

 

 

But if the jellyfish around Tasmania respond similar to the Mediterranean ones with regard to heat, the ongoing surface heat and increased accumulation of ocean heat may be contributing to the current outbreak. All quite speculative of course!

[knocker]

The recent storms and high tides have destroyed coastal defences and iconic buildings that have been there for centuries.

 

 

The South West Observatory

 

http://www.swenvo.org.uk/state-of-the-environment-2010/one-planet-living/climate-change/#.UvZtJ86cSpB

Edited February 8, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

As Kingsand clock tower crumbles, context: sea level rise ~20cm (8") in Cornwall since 1920, abt half due to climate

 

Another view of Kingsand Cornwall clock tower in calmer weather

 

https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/432196760463622144/photo/1

Edited February 8, 2014 by knocker

[Devonian]

As reported internationally, an unprecedented jellyfish 'outbreak' is currently occurring in waters surrounding Tasmania. I live no more than 300m from the waterfront and the seafront is covered in all sorts.

 

There is an usual lack of information being reported on what is actually going on. Simply put, science doesn't know. Could high SST anomaly for so long be contributing to this record bloom? What about the issue around growing acidification rates in the southern ocean. Maybe a combination of factors has seen a certain threshold  reached. The bloom is primarily in southern Tasmanian waters, but perhaps it may extend.

 

What seems unlikely is a sudden change in nutrient levels ( primary spike source: flooding rains off the land, sewage spills ).

 

I was thinking Gray-Wolf may have the knowledge to hypothesise on this one.. but over to any of the other knowledgeable contributors to this thread, or any reader of this post...

 

I haven't been able to find any news that is more definitive apart from what the media has been saying. I also thought I'd put this post in the 'manmade climate change' thread as a 2 year run of uninterrupted heat should surely not be negated as a source of this unusual occurance.

 

Science puzzled by 'beach blobs'

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/mystery-of-the-beach-blobs-unprecedented-marine-invasion-has-science-puzzled/story-fnj4f7k1-1226805052647

Mystery sea-lice outbreak

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/eastern-shore-beaches-sea-lice-outbreak-link-to-jellyfish-bloom/story-fnj4f7k1-1226816165072

Giant jellyfish washes ashore near Hobart

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26062303

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06/unidentified-giant-jellyfish-species-tasmania

 

I'm sure I've heard other reports of abnormal numbers of jellyfish being associated with overfishing.

 

The sea is over fished*, the fish are gone, or at least populations seriously imbalanced, the nutrients are still there so something (sometimes jellyfish - and we don't fish them to destruction) takes advantage?

 

* aren't huge vessels 'sustainably' harvesting krill in vast quantities? Sustainably? Yeah right...

Edited February 8, 2014 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Nurse, the nutty lord is out of bed again.

 

Much to the dismay of Christopher Monckton and his illiterati fans at WUWT, it's still not cooling

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/much-to-dismay-of-christopher-monckton.html

His Lordhip kinda reminds me of those silly 11+ questions: Monckton is to science as quantum physics is to...? Tapeworms?

[Styx]

It might be a combination of warming at the surface and general ocean warming. Before jelly reach the stage we generally recognise them (medusa stage), they are polyps attached to the ocean floor. They can be at that stage for years before finally becoming free floating. The environmental conditions determine when the transformation occurs, with temperature being an extremely important one. An experiment done of Mediterranean jellyfish.

 

This study presents a comprehensive analysis on the physicochemical conditions that control the survival and phase transition of Cotylorhiza tuberculata; a scyphozoan that generates large outbreaks in the Mediterranean Sea. Laboratory experiments indicated that the influence of temperature on strobilation and polyp survival was the critical factor controlling the capacity of this species to proliferate. Early life stages were less sensitive to other factors such as salinity variations or the competitive advantage provided by zooxanthellae in a context of coastal eutrophication. Coherently with laboratory results, the presence/absence of outbreaks of this jellyfish in a particular year seems to be driven by temperature. This is the first time the environmental forcing of the mechanism driving the life cycle of a jellyfish has been disentangled via laboratory experimentation. Projecting this understanding to a field population under climatological variability results in a pattern coherent with in situ records

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21072185

 

The oceans have been warming quickly over the past 2 decades and this year, there has been a very large spike in ocean heat accumulation. 

 

With the argo floats, it's probably possible to work out where the main areas of heat accumulation are.

 

SSTS around Tasmania are currently above average, but not massively so.

 

 

 

But if the jellyfish around Tasmania respond similar to the Mediterranean ones with regard to heat, the ongoing surface heat and increased accumulation of ocean heat may be contributing to the current outbreak. All quite speculative of course!

 

Thanks for this...yes speculation is all we have to go on. I was under the impression though that sea temperatures in the Tasman were rising at the highest pace for any area in the world, I wonder whether this could be changing the balance of life in the sea and triggering imbalances far more readily,  when a combination of other factors come into play aswell. But as you say, speculation it is until there is more investigation. 

 

I'm sure I've heard other reports of abnormal numbers of jellyfish being associated with overfishing.

 

The sea is over fished*, the fish are gone, or at least populations seriously imbalanced, the nutrients are still there so something (sometimes jellyfish - and we don't fish them to destruction) takes advantage?

 

* aren't huge vessels 'sustainably' harvesting krill in vast quantities? Sustainably? Yeah right...

 

..and this is very interesting too.. it wasn't too long ago that a network of marine parks were established off the east and south coasts, as a response to a decline of certain fish species. Perhaps the situation is worse than fully realised...fisherman are just going further out to sea to reach their quotas.

[Gray-Wolf]

I've just looked through these two threads ( man and scept) and , to any casual observer, there appears to be a great difference in content and quality? I'm beginning to think Paul was wiser than I personally gave him credit for in setting up these separate areas.

 

I wholeheartedly appologise for ever doubting you Paul.

 

What I come away with is the impression of a very 'adult' thread , looking at issues and discussing new scientific information, with the odd sojourn to straighten out misinformation arising over on the other thread.

 

The other thread appears totally devoid of any 'new' science of it's own and appears to be purely a thread devoted to criticism of current science ( I avoid the word 'sceptisism' here as , on closer investigation, not one 'critique' appears founded and were it not for 'manipulation and distortion' of the data there would be no room for criticism?) and name calling of both scientists and posters?

 

As such any casual observer would have no problem in discerning which thread brings most useful information to the reader.

 

It took me a while to see your wisdom in this matter but well done to you Paul! ( and the mods for keeping both threads contained!!!)..

 

EDIT: Feline amongst the feral rock doves?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26084625

Edited February 9, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

A Global Perspective on the Recent Storms and Floods in the UK

 

February 2014 - This winter the UK has been affected very severely by an exceptional run of winter storms, culminating in serious coastal damage and widespread, persistent flooding. This paper documents the record-breaking weather and flooding, considers the potential drivers and discusses whether climate change contributed to the severity of the weather and its impacts.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/uk-storms-and-floods

 

The Recent Storms and Floods in the Uk

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_07023.pdf

Edited February 9, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

More evidence indicating role of Pacific in explaining global warming hiatus:

 

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/latest.html#England

[Gray-Wolf]

All the talk of the oceans acquiring masses of heat is put into perspective here.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/

 thanks for that Knocks.... I think this is the paper;

 

 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

 

Seems odd Curry comes out with her 0.06c figure the day before we see a 0.2c figure make the press? Do you think she might be playing games???

 

EDIT: Would this mean that any interruption to the trades would allow 'normal' warming rates to again come to the fore? This may be why the 2010 nino was able to take top of the global temp series even with such a short span ( 9 months instead of 18 months) as we get the 'double whammy' ( comparatively) of the loss of the damping of the Walker cells new found vigor and the ocean heat from the Nino?

 

If that assumption is correct may the  gods help us if we do see a new Nino develop as it stands to ramp up global temps like a 'super' even without being a Super by allowing normal warming rates to the fore ( as the trades die back) and releases the oceans heat......... but then what if it is a Super????

 

EDIT,EDIT: I think this is where the denialists are playing a risky game as they are basing everything on the low temp rise decade and not looking at it as an 'extreme' of the warming regime? If they understood that this was a 'natural' driven 'slowdown' then they would fully understand that we must also see 'normal' rates of warming ( higher than the past decade) and 'enhanced' rates of warming ( far higher than the last decade) as the years roll by? Are they really playing this one phase for all they can knowing that soon enough it will all turn back the right way up??? 

 

It is either that or they are really in for a surprise ( and re-evaluation of their world view?) once warming resumes at 'normal' , or 'enhanced', rates!

Edited February 9, 2014 by Gray-Wolf