Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Quoting crucilandia:
do you know what short wave infrared is?

All your logic so far show that you do not.

Like I said till that question is answered... CO2 can't heat the ocean. The rest of what your posting has no relevance.


Insults... Nice. Typical behavior of the religious.

why CO2 cannot heat the ocean?

Quoting crucilandia:
why CO2 cannot heat the ocean?

:-) LOL. Maybe if research some you can find out.

There's Still Time To Cut The Risk Of Climate Catastrophe, Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2009) — A new analysis of climate risk, published by researchers at MIT and elsewhere, shows that even moderate carbon-reduction policies now can substantially lower the risk of future climate change. It also shows that quick, global emissions reductions would be required in order to provide a good chance of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level — a widely discussed target. But without prompt action, they found, extreme changes could soon become much more difficult, if not impossible, to control.Ron Prinn, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and a co-author of the new study, says that "our results show we still have around a 50-50 chance of stabilizing the climate" at a level of no more than a few tenths above the 2 degree target. However, that will require global emissions, which are now growing, to start downward almost immediately. That result could be achieved if the aggressive emissions targets in current U.S. climate bills were met, and matched by other wealthy countries, and if China and other large developing countries followed suit with only a decade or two delay. That 2 degree C increase is a level that is considered likely to prevent some of the most catastrophic potential effects of climate change, such as major increases in global sea level and disruption of agriculture and natural ecosystems.

"The nature of the problem is one of minimizing risk," explains Mort Webster, assistant professor of engineering systems, who was the lead author of the new report. That's why looking at the probabilities of various outcomes, rather than focusing on the average outcome in a given climate model, "is both more scientifically correct, and a more useful way to think about it."

Too often, he says, the public discussion over climate change policies gets framed as a debate between the most extreme views on each side, as "the world is ending tomorrow, versus it's all a myth," he says. "Neither of those is scientifically correct or socially useful."

"It's a tradeoff between risks," he says. "There's the risk of extreme climate change but there's also a risk of higher costs. As scientists, we don't choose what's the right level of risk for society, but we show what the risks are either way."

The new study, published online by the Joint Program in September, builds on one released earlier this year that looked at the probabilities of various climate outcomes in the event that no emissions-control policies at all were implemented — and found high odds of extreme temperature increases that could devastate human societies. This one examined the difference that would be made to those odds, under four different versions of possible emissions-reduction policies.

Both studies used the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved hundreds of runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Quantifying the odds

By taking a probabilistic approach, using many different runs of


Link

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

How come you don't post this graph of the AMSRE sattelite data?
The trend over the last couple of years doesn't seem to support the view that we are losing the Arctic ice.
I know, it is only 8 years worth of data, not the 30 years NSIDC depicts.

But, here is how trends work. Sometimes they change.
THe NSIDC doesn't seem to want that considered, that the trend in the Arctic might be changing.

For those of us living in the midwest, you can't help but believe something is going on. It's been much cooler the last two years.
So, when I look at the AMSRE ice extent and combine that with how my impatients did this year and the first frost coming 17 days earlier than the norm, I begin to question the motivation of those who tout global warming and seem to try hard not to post or deal with what goes against their THEORY.

Yes, it is a theory, that is an unproved, maybe plausible explanation of something. It is not fact

The thing is, in science, when you have a theory, if it is provable, you should be able to predict all outcomes without the theory fitting.
But, alas, I am not a scientist, not even a philosopher. I only know
it's getting colder where I am, Arctic ice extent is growing and yes, even getting thicker and I'm thinking you can't plug that into global warming theory and make your outcomes logical.

I think people use local and regional temperatures to support their argument that global temperatures are falling. NOAA clearly states otherwise.

Quoting cyclonebuster:
I think people use local and regional temperatures to support their argument that global temperatures are falling. NOAA clearly states otherwise.

I'm thinking that since you're the one with the theory, I don't need to prove anything, you do. make it all fit.

Quoting cyclonebuster:
There's Still Time To Cut The Risk Of Climate Catastrophe, Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2009) — A new analysis of climate risk, published by researchers at MIT and elsewhere, shows that even moderate carbon-reduction policies now can substantially lower the risk of future climate change. It also shows that quick, global emissions reductions would be required in order to provide a good chance of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level — a widely discussed target. But without prompt action, they found, extreme changes could soon become much more difficult, if not impossible, to control.Ron Prinn, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and a co-author of the new study, says that "our results show we still have around a 50-50 chance of stabilizing the climate" at a level of no more than a few tenths above the 2 degree target. However, that will require global emissions, which are now growing, to start downward almost immediately. That result could be achieved if the aggressive emissions targets in current U.S. climate bills were met, and matched by other wealthy countries, and if China and other large developing countries followed suit with only a decade or two delay. That 2 degree C increase is a level that is considered likely to prevent some of the most catastrophic potential effects of climate change, such as major increases in global sea level and disruption of agriculture and natural ecosystems.

"The nature of the problem is one of minimizing risk," explains Mort Webster, assistant professor of engineering systems, who was the lead author of the new report. That's why looking at the probabilities of various outcomes, rather than focusing on the average outcome in a given climate model, "is both more scientifically correct, and a more useful way to think about it."

Too often, he says, the public discussion over climate change policies gets framed as a debate between the most extreme views on each side, as "the world is ending tomorrow, versus it's all a myth," he says. "Neither of those is scientifically correct or socially useful."

"It's a tradeoff between risks," he says. "There's the risk of extreme climate change but there's also a risk of higher costs. As scientists, we don't choose what's the right level of risk for society, but we show what the risks are either way."

The new study, published online by the Joint Program in September, builds on one released earlier this year that looked at the probabilities of various climate outcomes in the event that no emissions-control policies at all were implemented — and found high odds of extreme temperature increases that could devastate human societies. This one examined the difference that would be made to those odds, under four different versions of possible emissions-reduction policies.

Both studies used the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved hundreds of runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Quantifying the odds

By taking a probabilistic approach, using many different runs of


Link

So you can find articles... But no facts.

I'm still waiting for you to answer how short wave IR can heat the ocean. If it can AGW is true. If not it is false.

You confusing the issue again. Just answer the question... We are all waiting.

Quoting cyclonebuster:
I think people use local and regional temperatures to support their argument that global temperatures are falling. NOAA clearly states otherwise.

We are waiting for you to answer the question....

OK, there is the absorptions. Now lets think about IR.

Does IR go from warm to cold or cold to warm?

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature):A more general case is of a grey body, the one that doesn't absorb or emit the full amount of radiative flux. Instead, it radiates a portion of it, characterized by its emissivity, ε:


The irradiance j* has dimensions of energy flux (energy per time per area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. ε is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, ε = 1. Still in more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, ε = ε(λ).

To find the total absolute power of energy radiated for an object we have to take into account the surface area, A(in m2):
The constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant or Stefan's constant, is non-fundamental in the sense that it derives from other known constants of nature. The value of the constant is


where k is the Boltzmann constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. Thus at 100 K the energy flux density is 5.67 W/m2, at 1000 K 56,700 W/m2, etc.

The law was deduced by Jožef Stefan (1835-1893) in 1879 on the basis of experimental measurements made by John Tyndall and was derived from theoretical considerations, using thermodynamics, by Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) in 1884. Boltzmann treated a certain ideal heat engine with the light as a working matter instead of the gas. The law is valid only for ideal black objects, the perfect radiators, called black bodies. Stefan published this law in the article Über die Beziehung zwischen der Wärmestrahlung und der Temperatur (On the relationship between thermal radiation and temperature) in the Bulletins from the sessions of the Vienna Academy of Sciences.






Link

Quoting cyclonebuster:
The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature)

Here is your issue. Defeat this than we can talk. :-)

Quoting Stanb999:



Here is your issue. Defeat this than we can talk. :-)

Arctic ice depletion along with with rising GHGS is what is defeating us.

Quoting cyclonebuster:


Arctic ice depletion along with with rising GHGS is what is defeating us.

Isn't Mauna Loa Showing a trailing off?

Isn't the arctic ice recovering?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/04/lawrence-solomon-deep-arctic-ic e-surprises-scientific-expedition.aspx

Ice is recovering in both area and thickness.

Coral Bleaching Increases Chances Of Coral Disease
ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2009) — Mass coral bleaching has devastated coral colonies around the world for almost three decades. Now scientists have found that bleaching can make corals more susceptible to disease and, in turn, coral disease can exacerbate the negative effects of bleaching. A paper in the October issue of the journal Ecology shows that when they occur together, this combination of afflictions causes greater harm to corals than either does on its own."Traditionally, scientists have attributed coral declines after mass bleaching events to the bleaching only," says Marilyn Brandt, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Miami and the lead author on the paper. "This study shows that the interplay between diseases and bleaching can play a much larger role than we realized."

Corals rely on algae that live inside each coral polyp to provide nutrients and supplemental oxygen. Bleaching occurs when these colorful algae die out or leave the polyps, often in response to overly warm conditions. Without their brightly colored algae, the coral's skeleton becomes visible through its transparent tissue, making it appear white. Although the tissue remains intact and can recover over time, this stressful condition can cause corals to stop growing and reproducing.

Warmer water temperatures can also lead to increased incidence of coral diseases, which, unlike most bleaching, can cause irreparable loss of coral tissues. In many cases, bleaching and disease occur concurrently on coral reefs. Brandt and her colleagues wondered if the occurrences of bleaching and disease were linked beyond simply occurring under the same conditions.

"Coral bleaching and coral diseases are both related to prolonged thermal stress," says Brandt. "But we wanted to look closer to find out whether they were interacting and what was actually causing the decline we see."

In the summer and fall of 2005, the same oceanic temperature shifts that contributed to the creation of Hurricane Katrina caused a warm mass of water to settle over the northeast Caribbean and parts of Florida. This sustained warming triggered a mass coral bleaching event that affected up to 90 percent of coral reef cover in the area. Brandt and her colleagues surveyed colonies in the Florida Keys before, during and after this event to determine the relationship between bleaching and coral disease.




Link

Quoting cyclonebuster:
Coral Bleaching Increases Chances Of Coral Disease
ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2009) — Mass coral bleaching has devastated coral colonies around the world for almost three decades. Now scientists have found that bleaching can make corals more susceptible to disease and, in turn, coral disease can exacerbate the negative effects of bleaching. A paper in the October issue of the journal Ecology shows that when they occur together, this combination of afflictions causes greater harm to corals than either does on its own."Traditionally, scientists have attributed coral declines after mass bleaching events to the bleaching only," says Marilyn Brandt, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Miami and the lead author on the paper. "This study shows that the interplay between diseases and bleaching can play a much larger role than we realized."

Corals rely on algae that live inside each coral polyp to provide nutrients and supplemental oxygen. Bleaching occurs when these colorful algae die out or leave the polyps, often in response to overly warm conditions. Without their brightly colored algae, the coral's skeleton becomes visible through its transparent tissue, making it appear white. Although the tissue remains intact and can recover over time, this stressful condition can cause corals to stop growing and reproducing.

Warmer water temperatures can also lead to increased incidence of coral diseases, which, unlike most bleaching, can cause irreparable loss of coral tissues. In many cases, bleaching and disease occur concurrently on coral reefs. Brandt and her colleagues wondered if the occurrences of bleaching and disease were linked beyond simply occurring under the same conditions.

"Coral bleaching and coral diseases are both related to prolonged thermal stress," says Brandt. "But we wanted to look closer to find out whether they were interacting and what was actually causing the decline we see."

In the summer and fall of 2005, the same oceanic temperature shifts that contributed to the creation of Hurricane Katrina caused a warm mass of water to settle over the northeast Caribbean and parts of Florida. This sustained warming triggered a mass coral bleaching event that affected up to 90 percent of coral reef cover in the area. Brandt and her colleagues surveyed colonies in the Florida Keys before, during and after this event to determine the relationship between bleaching and coral disease.




Link

Ha,ha,ha!!!
Coral bleaching isn't caused by temperature. If it was those corals wouldn't be here at all. It was much warmer 60 million years ago. ;-)


Causes of coral bleaching in order.
#1 Ocean storms.
#2 cause. Land use changes in coastal areas.
#3 damage by ships and fishing.
#4 damage by recreational uses. IE: scuba.

Coral bleaching
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Coral bleaching is the whitening of corals, due to stress-induced expulsion or death of symbiotic unicellular algae or due to the loss of pigmentation within the algae[1]. The corals that form the structure of the great reef ecosystems of tropical seas depend on a symbiotic relationship with photosynthesizing unicellular algae called zooxanthellae that live within their tissues. Zooxanthellae give coral its coloration, depending on the particular clade. Under stress, corals may expel their zooxantheallae, which leads to a lighter or completely white appearance, hence the term "bleached".[2]Once bleaching begins, it tends to continue even without continuing stress. If the coral colony survives the stress period, zooxanthellae often require weeks to months to return to normal density [3]. The new residents may be of a different species. Some species of zooxanthellae and corals are more resistant to stress than other species.Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress which can be induced by any of:

increased (most commonly) or reduced water temperatures[4][5]
increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)[6]
changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification)[7][8]
starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton.[9]
increased sedimentation (can be contributed to silt runoff)
pathogen infections
changes in salinity
wind[5]
low tide air exposure[5]
[edit] Temperature change
Temperature change is the most common cause of coral bleaching.[4]

Large coral colonies such as Porites lobata are able to withstand extreme temperature shocks, while fragile branching corals, such as Acropora spp. are far more susceptible to thermal stress following a temperature event [10]. Recent research showed that corals consistently exposed to low stress levels may be more bleaching resistant.

Factors that influence the outcome of a bleaching event include stress-resistance which reduces bleaching, tolerance to the absence of zooxanthellae, and how quickly new coral grows to replace the dead. Due to the patchy nature of bleaching, local climatic conditions such as shade or a stream of cooler water can reduce bleaching incidence. Coral and zooxanthellae health and genetics also influence bleaching.[11]

[edit] Monitoring reef sea surface temperature
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitors for bleaching "hot spots," areas where SST rises 1 degree Celsius or more above the long-term monthly average. Some argue this system detected the massive 1998 bleaching event that was worldwide.[12][13] This corresponded to an El Niño event. At the same time, NOAA Coral Bleaching "Hotspot" program uses a 50k satellite resolution at nighttime, which some argue covers too large of a spatial area and does not incorporate the max SSTs occurring usually around height of daytime, noon.

[edit] Changes in ocean chemistry
Increasing acidification and infection[14] likely exacerbate the bleaching effects of thermal stress.Infectious disease

Bioerosion (coral damage) such as this may be caused by coral bleaching.[15]In 1996, Kushmaro, et al.[16] report that the bleaching agent of Oculina patagonica in the Mediterranean Sea was infectious bacteria attacking the algae. The agent was later identified as Vibrio shiloi. V. shiloi is infectious only during warm periods. Elevated temperature increases the virulence of V. shiloi, which then become able to adhere to a beta-galactoside-containing receptor in the surface mucus of the host coral.[14][17] Then V. shiloi penetrates the coral's epidermis, multiplies there, and finally transforms into a “viable but non-culturable� (VBNC) state, producing both heat-stable and heat-sensitive toxins, affecting zooxanthellae by inhibiting photosynthesis and causing lysis. During the summer of 2003, coral reefs in the Mediterranean Sea appeared to gain resistance to the pathogen, and further infection was not observed [18]. The main hypothesis for the emerged resistance is the presence of symbiotic communities of bacteria living with the corals. One species capable of lysing V. shiloi has gained prominence. This hypothetical bacteria has not been identified.



Link

Here is another sign of man made global warming. We can expect more of this in the future.Right from Jeffs blog.


Surprise! A 70-mph tropical storm popped up seemingly out of nowhere early this morning, in a region of the Atlantic not ordinarily prone to tropical storm formation. Tropical Storm Grace formed at 41.2%uFFFD north latitude, in a remote ocean area near the Azores Islands. This is the farthest northeast an Atlantic tropical storm has ever formed since satellite observations began in the 1960s. Since 1960, only one tropical storm has formed farther north--Tropical Storm Alberto of 1988, which formed at 41.5%uFFFDN, off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Satellite imagery revealed that Grace formed an eyewall and well-defined eye this morning, though the storm's tropical storm-force winds did not extend out very far from the center. Last night, the center of Grace passed about 20 miles west of Ponta Delgada in the eastern Azores, which recorded sustained winds of 31 mph, gusting to 44 mph. Grace formed over chilly waters of about 23%uFFFDC, well below the usual threshold of 26%uFFFDC required for tropical storm formation. Grace's formation was aided by some very cold temperatures in the upper atmosphere (-54%uFFFDC at 200 mb), which made the atmosphere more unstable than usual. The storm won't be around much longer, as Grace is already over much colder waters of 21%uFFFDC, and is headed towards even colder waters.

By the way a later image of this storm has a very clear eye in it and I think it was clearly a hurricane at the time.

Quoting cyclonebuster:
By the way a later image of this storm has a very clear eye in it and I think it was clearly a hurricane at the time.

You're getting a little pathetic. We get a tropical storm during hurricane season, the seventh named storm, and all of a sudden this has to do with global warming?
Have you ever taken a probability course? If so, you probably remember the surprise that it only takes 23 persons in a room for the probability that at least 2 of those in the room share the same birthday.
My point is, that in any particular cycle of events, it would be unusual if nothing unusual happened. Even though we have had an unusually mild tropical storm season, you now find a storm forming in a particular area so unusual that you wish to somehow bring it into a discussion about global warming. You're just being silly.
Where are all those cat 5s? WTF happened man?
How come the ice is lower than last year or the year before? WTF happened man?
How come Manhattan still functions without aqualungs? WTF happened man?
Your theory doesn't fit what's happening. That's what's got you grasping for straws.

In my last message that should have stated that 23 persons in a room have a better than 50% chance of two persons having the same birthday.

Quoting cyclonebuster:
Coral bleaching
From Wikipedia,

Link

Wiki facts, The online source that can be edited by.....Any jerk.

Find a reliable source.


Really WIKI. You make it too easy and even wiki knows about your postings here.


Here is what the page says!!!

Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress which can be induced by any of:

* increased (most commonly) or reduced water temperatures[4][5]
* increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)[6]
* changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification)[7][8]
* starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton.[9]
* increased sedimentation (can be contributed to silt runoff)
* pathogen infections
* changes in salinity
* wind[5]
* low tide air exposure[5]

This should not be used as proof by cyclonebuster.

Quoting martinitony:


You're getting a little pathetic. We get a tropical storm during hurricane season, the seventh named storm, and all of a sudden this has to do with global warming?
Have you ever taken a probability course? If so, you probably remember the surprise that it only takes 23 persons in a room for the probability that at least 2 of those in the room share the same birthday.
My point is, that in any particular cycle of events, it would be unusual if nothing unusual happened. Even though we have had an unusually mild tropical storm season, you now find a storm forming in a particular area so unusual that you wish to somehow bring it into a discussion about global warming. You're just being silly.
Where are all those cat 5s? WTF happened man?
How come the ice is lower than last year or the year before? WTF happened man?
How come Manhattan still functions without aqualungs? WTF happened man?
Your theory doesn't fit what's happening. That's what's got you grasping for straws.

"This is the farthest northeast an Atlantic tropical storm has ever formed since satellite observations began in the 1960s. Since 1960, only one tropical storm has formed farther north--Tropical Storm Alberto of 1988, which formed at 41.5N, off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts."

Man made GHGs are causing this.

Quoting Stanb999:



Wiki facts, The online source that can be edited by.....Any jerk.

Find a reliable source.


Really WIKI. You make it too easy and even wiki knows about your postings here.


Here is what the page says!!!

Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress which can be induced by any of:

* increased (most commonly) or reduced water temperatures[4][5]
* increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)[6]
* changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification)[7][8]
* starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton.[9]
* increased sedimentation (can be contributed to silt runoff)
* pathogen infections
* changes in salinity
* wind[5]
* low tide air exposure[5]

This should not be used as proof by cyclonebuster.

It is just part of the proof and just some of the evidence.

"It is just part of the proof and just some of the evidence"

You are 100% wrong. It is not proof or evidence of AGW. You cannot draw a conclusion from this without proving a causal relationship. You were given several other possible causes for the bleaching. Yet you chose the one that suited your cause. This is absurd.
Do you know the difference between correlation and regression? Perhaps you should learn.
There are millions of phenomenon on Earth and in the universe. I believe that a careful selection of some and using your methods of reasoning could prove that you are my son, brother, grandfather and wife all at the same time.

Another denier heard from:

http://www.economist.com/member/Margaret%20Thatcher/comments

More proof and evidence of global warming. Don't these people think there is already enough Co2 in our oceans we don't need to exacerbate the situation by removing it from the air and placing into the ocean.Why do you think scientists are coming up with such ideas to counter the effects of our warming? There is a cause and effect in everything we do. Some good and some bad.Also,if we increase plankton growth in this manner how much methane do they produce is this good for warming? I think not.

Acidic Clouds Nourish World's Oceans
ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2009) — Scientists at the University of Leeds have proved that acid in the atmosphere breaks down large particles of iron found in dust into small and extremely soluble iron nanoparticles, which are more readily used by plankton.
This is an important finding because lack of iron can be a limiting factor for plankton growth in the ocean - especially in the southern oceans and parts of the eastern Pacific. Addition of such iron nanoparticles would trigger increased absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

"This could be a very important discovery because there's only a very small amount of soluble iron in the ocean and if plankton use the iron nanoparticles formed in clouds then the whole flux of bioavailable iron to the oceans needs to be revised," says Dr Zongbo Shi, lead author of the research from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds.

Water droplets in clouds generally form around dust and other particles. When clouds evaporate, as they often do naturally, the surface of the particle can become very acidic. This is especially true where the air is polluted.

Paradoxically, scientists suggest that large scale industry in countries like China could be combating global warming to some extent by creating more bioavailable iron in the oceans, and therefore increasing carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere.

Link

Cyclone, you're right, there is a cause for each effect. Maybe those guys wanting to add iron to stimulate plankton growth should be careful or they might create plankton that eat whales.

Quoting martinitony:
Cyclone, you're right, there is a cause for each effect. Maybe those guys wanting to add iron to stimulate plankton growth should be careful or they might create plankton that eat whales.

I know I am right!

Quoting cyclonebuster:
By the way a later image of this storm has a very clear eye in it and I think it was clearly a hurricane at the time.

QuikSCAT doesn't support this assertion.

Quoting sullivanweather:


QuikSCAT doesn't support this assertion.

Could be Sully.

(CNN) -- The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.The result of this deglaciation could be conflict as Himalayan glacial runoff has an essential role in the economies, agriculture and even religions of the regions countries.

The Himalayan glaciers form the world's largest ice body outside of the polar caps. Popularly known as the "Water Tower of Asia," they are the source of water for rivers that flow across the continent: the Indus River in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra that flows through Bangladesh, the Mekong that descends through Southeast Asia, the Irrawaddy in Myanmar, the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China and a multitude of smaller rivers that flow through the Indo-Gangetic plains of Northern India.

Satellite data from the Indian Space Applications Center, in Ahmedabad, India, indicates that from 1962 to 2004, more than 1,000 Himalayan glaciers have retreated by around 16 percent. According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China's glaciers have shrunk by 5 percent since 1950s. Dr. Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist, physicist and leader in the International Forum on Globalization, has just returned from a "Climate Yatra," a research journey to the Himalayas to study the impact of climate change and the glacial melt upon communities in Asia.

"Himalayan rivers support nearly half of humanity," Dr. Shiva told CNN. "Everyone who depends on water from the Himalayas will be affected."

One area of increasing concern for Shiva is flooding. "In Ladakh villages have already been washed away due to flash floods," she said.

Link

Arctic Sea Ice Recovers Slightly In 2009, Remains On Downward Trend
ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2009) %u2014 Despite a slight recovery in summer Arctic sea ice in 2009 from record-setting low years in 2007 and 2008, the sea ice extent remains significantly below previous years and remains on a trend leading toward ice-free Arctic summers, according to the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center.
According to the CU-Boulder center, the 2009 minimum sea ice extent was the third lowest since satellite record-keeping began in 1979. The past five years have seen the five lowest Arctic sea ice extents ever recorded.

"It's nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, also a professor in CU-Boulder's geography department. "We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades." The average ice extent during September, a standard measurement for climate studies, was 2.07 million square miles (5.36 million square kilometers). This was 409,000 square miles (1.06 million square kilometers) greater than the record low for the month in 2007, and 266,000 square miles (690,000 square kilometers) greater than the second-lowest extent recorded in September 2008.

The 2009 Arctic sea ice extent was still 649,000 square miles (1.68 square kilometers) below the 1979-2000 September average, according to the report. Arctic sea ice in September is now declining at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade and in the winter months by about 3 percent per decade. The consensus of scientists is that the shrinking Arctic sea ice is tied to warming temperatures caused by an increase in human-produced greenhouse gases being pumped into Earth's atmosphere, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Sea surface temperatures in the Arctic this season remained higher than normal, but slightly lower than the past two years, according to data from University of Washington Senior Oceanographer Mike Steele. The cooler conditions, which resulted largely from cloudy skies during late summer, slowed ice loss compared to the past two years. In addition, atmospheric patterns in August and September helped to spread out the ice pack, keeping extent higher.

The September 2009 ice cover remained thin, leaving it vulnerable to melt in coming summers, according to the CU-Boulder report. At the end of the summer, younger, thinner ice less than one year in age accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover. Second- year ice made up 32 percent of the ice cover, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008.

Link

"A lot of people are going to look at the graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change," said NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos of CU-Boulder's CIRES. "But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome."

I see many of these people here at WU.

Going Green On Hold: Human Activities Can Affect 'Blue Haze,' World's Weather
ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2009) — “Blue haze,” a common occurrence that appears over heavily forested areas around the world, is formed by natural emissions of chemicals, but human activities can worsen it to the point of affecting the world’s weather and even cause potential climate problems, according to a study led by a Texas A&M University researcher.Renyi Zhang, professor of atmospheric sciences who has studied air chemistry for more than 20 years, says blue haze (tiny particles or aerosols suspended in the air) can be negatively affected by human activities such as power plants or fossil-fuel burning.

Team members included researchers from Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, the Molina Center for Energy and Environment in La Jolla, Calif., and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their work is published in the current Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the project was funded by the Welch Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Zhang says man-made activities, mainly large power plants that emit huge amounts of particles into the air, can worsen blue haze and cause previously unforeseen problems.

“The study shows that the natural way of blue haze formation is rather inefficient and that human activities make blue haze conditions worse,” he confirms.

“What happens is that a mix of natural and man-made chemicals speeds up the formation of these particles in the Earth’s atmosphere, and there, they reflect sunlight back into space. The results can affect cloud formations and ultimately, much of the world’s climate.”

When you walk through a forest or even a large grassy area, it’s not uncommon to be able to smell the plants around you, such as pine trees or other vegetation. That smell is nature’s way of naturally making organic gases produced by the plants themselves, often millions of tons per day.

Plants, especially trees, emit such gases through their leaves and when an overabundance of such gases is produced, it creates a blue aura, commonly called a “blue haze.” Perhaps the best example occurs in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park area of the Southeast United States, where blue haze exists almost on a daily basis, but the condition also occurs all over the world.

When man-made activities emit sulfur dioxide into the air, they contribute to blue haze, usually in a negative way, Zhang explains. Aerosols can be produced by many different processes that occur on land and water or in the atmosphere itself, he notes.

Link

Peering Under The Ice Of Collapsing Polar Coast
ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2009) — Starting this month, a giant NASA DC-8 aircraft loaded with geophysical instruments and scientists will buzz at low level over the coasts of West Antarctica, where ice sheets are collapsing at a pace far beyond what scientists expected a few years ago. The flights, dubbed Operation Ice Bridge, are an effort by NASA in cooperation with university researchers to image what is happening on, and under, the ice, in order to estimate future sea-level rises that might result.Since 2003, laser measurements of ice surfaces from NASA's ICESat satellite have shown that vast ice masses in Greenland and West Antarctica are thinning and flowing quickly seaward. Last month, a report in the journal Nature based on the satellite's measurements showed that some parts of the Antarctic area to be surveyed have been sinking 9 meters (27) feet a year; in 2002, one great glacial ice shelf jutting from land over the ocean on the Antarctic Peninsula simply disintegrated and floated away within days. NASA's satellite reaches the end of its life this year, and another will not go up until 2015; in the interim, Operation Ice Bridge flights will continue and expand upon the satellite mission.

In addition to lasers, the plane will carry penetrating radars to measure snow cover and the thickness of ice to bedrock, and a gravity-measuring system run by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory that will, for the first time, plot the geometry and depth of ocean waters under the ice shelves. The gravity study is seen as key because many scientists believe warm ocean currents may be the main force pulling the ice sheets seaward, melting the undersides of ice shelves and thus removing the buttresses that hold back the far greater masses of ice on land.

"What our colleagues see from modeling of these glaciers is that warm ocean water is providing the thermal energy to melt the ice," said Lamont geophysicist Michael Studinger, a co-leader of the gravity team who will be on some of the flights. "To really understand how the glaciers are going to behave, we need the firsthand measurements of water shape and depth." Earlier this year, an icebreaker cruise co-led by another Lamont scientist, Stan Jacobs, sent an automated submarine to look under the region's Pine Island Glacier, which has been moving forward rapidly in recent years. Its bed, where the ice contacts rock, is below sea level, and scientists are concerned about what would happen if a sudden large movement were to introduce seawater underneath. The plane flights, over some six weeks starting Oct. 15, are aimed at providing a wider-scale picture of Pine Island and other targets.


Link

CB? What are your thoughts about this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/#more-11570
...other than to say "Don't confuse me with facts."

Quoting SWFLgazer:
CB? What are your thoughts about this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/#more-11570
...other than to say "Don't confuse me with facts."

I think there is more emphasis on Greenland right now because it is much less massive than Antarctica. In other words we should see a bigger change in ice coverage over a smaller area as warming takes place and if you were to graph the differences the larger land mass would be a much slower melt rate. Antarctica is so massive it will take much longer to melt away than Greenland will.This is one reason why the graph on Greenlands melt rate is exceeding Antarticas now. Once the ice is gone over Greenland then you will see the melt rate increase over Antactica. So I think they want to get the word out that BIG changes are occuring over Greenland knowing the changes won't be as BIG over Antarctica right now.But that too will change.

GISS September analysis shows an amazingly warm month with no latitude bands showing a below normal anomaly.

Sully,
What else should we expect with man made GW?