Is this year what we can expect?
Is this year what we can expect?
In recent weeks a question I have been asked often, “is this year, the last couple of years, like what we can expect in the future?” The question is often asked quietly, perhaps by a planner, say, someone worried about water in their city. The question follows from not only a perception that the weather is getting “weird,”, but also some small aspect of experience in their job. For example, a water manager recently said they were seeing their local river showing a distinct change to sporadically high flow in the winter, smaller spring flows, and extremely small flow late in the summer. Is this what I should expect in the future? The short answer is yes.
This question of expectation has rolled around in my head for years. I am a gardener with aspirations for small farmer. Over the last 30 years, I have definitely pushed my planting earlier in the year. When I was in Maryland, I felt wet, cool Mays were becoming the “norm,” with my tomatoes sitting in sodden soil. At the same time I would recall plots I had seen in some recent presentation that showed modeled shifts in the warm-cold patterns suggesting springtime cooling in northeastern North America. These are the sorts of casual correlations that lead people to think are we seeing a new “normal.”
In 2008 I wrote a blog about the changes in the hardiness zones that are reported on the back of seed packages. These are the maps that tell us the last frost date, and there were big changes between 1990 and 2006. These changes in the seed packets caught the attention of a lot of people. Recently, NOAA published the “new normal.” This normal relies on the definition of climate as a 30 year average. (AMS Glossary) What was done - at the completion of the decade NOAA recalculated a 30 year average. That is, 1981-2010 rather than 1971-2000. This average changed a lot, with notable warming of nighttime minima. There was some regional reduction of summertime maxima; that is, cooling. All in all, the average temperature went up, with most of the increase in nighttime minimum, a fact that is consistent with both model simulations and fundamental physics. This also came with another update of those hardiness zones.
When trying to interpret climate information and determining how has climate changed and how will it change, the combination of observations, fundamental physics, and models provide three sources of information. The combination of this information and the determination of the quality of that information is subject to interpretation. In the case of determining whether or not we are already experiencing the climate of warming world and how that change will be realized in the next decades it depends on how we use the models.
In my previous entry on heat waves, I implied how to use these pieces of information together. There are fundamental physics in the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air; hot air holds more water; warm water evaporates more quickly. The question of the model is - how well does the model represent the movement of that moisture? For the heat wave example, it is important how well do the models represent persistent high pressure systems over North America in the summer? Are these high pressure systems represented well by the models for the right reasons? The answer to the model question has a range of answers. The model does represent these systems, but if you are an expert in summertime persistent high pressure systems, then you can provide a long list of inadequacies. How can we glean information about the quality of the model? If we look at weather models, then we were able to predict the heat wave – even with the inadequacies that the expert or skeptic can list. Returning to the climate model, do we see like events in the current climate, and do these events change as the planet warms? The answer is yes. Then can we use this to guide our development of plans to adapt to climate change? The answer is yes, if we can connect the model back to data and the fundamental physics. This does become a matter of interpretation – how strong or weak is that connection?
The more I work with planners the more I hear the need for interpretive information, expert guidance, advisories about climate and climate change. People start with the notion that they want digital data from climate models that looks like current weather data. Once presented with 1) the logistical challenges of using that data, 2) the complex nature of the uncertainties associated with that data, and 3) the relative importance of climate to other parts of their decision package – once presented with these facts, they move to the need for advice. This makes sense - most of us want a narrative weather forecast, rather than model output. And the models play the same role in the use of weather forecasts as they do in climate projection. The models guide our thinking, with the ultimate forecast based on that guidance refined by observations and fundamental physics.
This entry started with the question I hear more and more – is this year what we can expect more of in the future? I have a mantra which is that on average the surface of the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. What we are seeing here is weather changing in a warming, more energy laden, environment. The extraordinary extremes that we have seen in the last year and are seeing this year are quite solidly connected to both fundamental physics and the guidance from climate and weather models. Hence, my answer, as I walk around my garden, thinking how to get better tomatoes next year, thinking about my irrigation system in my doddering retirement, is yes, what we are seeing this year tells me about what to expect in a future that is relevant to me - not something far off.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index
Did you even read the article? The article actually supports GW theory. What is being questioned is if a higher CO2 level will help retain soil moisture due to the fact that the pores in the leaves of the grasses become more closed. This will cause the plants to release less water vapor and therefore draw less water form the soil. The article also states that some of the range farmers depend on the grasses that are more adapted to cooler temps than are the grasses more adapted to warmer temps. It is the grasses better adapted to warmer temps that would see any benefits. The article also does not point out that when the pores in the leaves start to close then they become less effective as a carbon sink as well.
Perhaps so but it should be choked with multi-year ice.
August 3, 2011
Arctic sea ice at record low for July
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for July 2011 reached the lowest level for the month in the 1979 to 2011 satellite record, even though the pace of ice loss slowed substantially during the last two weeks of July. Shipping routes in the Arctic have less ice than usual for this time of year, and new data indicate that more of the Arctic's store of its oldest ice disappeared.
Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for July 2011 was 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles). This is 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month, set in July 2007, and 2.18 million square kilometers (842,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.
On July 31, 2011 Arctic sea ice extent was 6.79 million square kilometers (2.62 million square miles). This was slightly higher than the previous record low for the same day of the year, set in 2007. Sea ice coverage remained below normal everywhere except the East Greenland Sea.
Conditions in context
During the first half of July, Arctic sea ice extent declined at a relatively fast pace (see July 18 post). But ice loss slowed substantially over the latter half of the month as the weather changed.
Through July, sea ice declined at an average pace of 90,200 square kilometers (34,800 square miles) per day, which is slightly faster than the average for 1979 to 2000 of 84,400 square kilometers (32,600 square miles) per day. Ice loss slowed towards the end of July as a high-pressure cell centered over the northern Beaufort Sea broke down and a series of low-pressure systems moved over the central Arctic Ocean. This change brought cooler conditions and likely pushed the ice apart into a thinner but more extensive ice cover.
July 2011 compared to previous years
Average Arctic sea ice extent for July 2011 was the lowest for July in the satellite data record. The previous lowest year for July was 2007, which went to break the record for the lowest ice extent at the end of the melt season. Including 2011 the linear trend for July now stands at -6.8% per decade.
New ice age measurements show decline in oldest, thickest ice
Researchers look at ice age as a way to estimate ice thickness. Ice thickness matters to the overall stability of the ice cover, because older ice grows thicker over multiple seasons, while newly formed ice tends to be thin and vulnerable to melt. While the amount of older sea ice has increased somewhat since September 2007, an updated analysis of satellite-derived sea ice age recently published by James Maslanik and co-authors show the oldest ice (ice older than five years), has continued to decline.
Until recently, the central Arctic Ocean and Canadian Archipelago served as refuges for some of the oldest, thickest ice. However, the new data show that ice age is now declining in these areas. A map of ice age for the third week of July, combined with sea ice concentration for July 31, 2011 (Figure 4) shows that in the eastern Beaufort Sea, the ice has essentially melted back to the edge of the multi-year ice cover (ice older than one year). Multi-year ice is more resistant to melting completely in summer, so it is not yet clear how much more ice will melt. Another tongue of old ice extends from near the pole towards the New Siberian Islands.
Between late March and late July first-year (younger) Arctic sea ice has declined by 30%, multi-year ice has declined by 14%, and the oldest ice, or ice older than 5 years, has declined by 16% . For background information on ice thickness, see the new post on NSIDC's Icelights.
Ice loss in Arctic shipping routes
Over the past few weeks, the sea ice edge has retreated from the shores of Siberia and Eurasia, potentially opening up much of the Northern Sea Route, the shipping lane that runs along the Eurasian Arctic coast from Murmansk on the Barents Sea, along Siberia, and through the Bering Strait. Higher resolution data such as the Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE) indicate that some ice remains, particularly in the East Siberian Sea, but the reduced ice cover in the region has already made the route feasible this year. Taking advantage of the early retreat of sea ice in the Kara and Barents seas, the tanker Perserverance set sail on June 29, 2011 from Murmansk, Russia, aided by two icebreakers and completed the passage on July 14. The company plans to send six to seven more ships through the Northern Sea Route this summer.
On the other side of the Arctic, the Northwest Passage is still choked with ice. However, data provided by Stephen Howell of Environment Canada show that ice loss in the Northwest Passage is well ahead of average (Figure 5), nearly matching last year when, according to Canadian Ice Service (CIS) analyses, sea ice in the Parry Channel (the northern part of the Northwest Passage) reached the lowest levels in the CIS records dating back to 1968. Whether a navigable channel does indeed open this year will depend on weather conditions through the next few weeks, but so far, it looks possible.
Link
Excellent point as usual. I believe psychologists refer to the phenomenon as "selective perception".
Or selective hearing!
July 7, 2011
One of the driest places on the planet got a wintry blast this week. The Atacama Desert region in Chile was coated with its heaviest snow cover in nearly two decades, the BBC reported. An estimated 80 centimeters (31.5 inches) piled up in the normally arid region
A cold front moved through the region this week, bringing colder than usual weather, even though it’s the Southern Hemisphere winter, to Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. The temperature in Santiago, Chile, plunged to minus 8.5 degrees Celsius(17.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on July 6. Authorities rescued 36 people that were stranded by the snow on a bus for hours, according to local news reports.
Sir, allow me to bring back to the forefront an issue that has racked my simple brain "for a few years now" that I posted on your previous Topic and since edited..
No matter what the debate, let us be deligent in our own research and not blindly follow "anyone".
Let us not depend on graphs and factoids for our only source of knowledge.
Let us occasionally look out of the box that we all are so guilty of being trapped in as we pursue our chosen professions. "Stop and smell the roses, if I may".
Let us be stewards.
That being said:
Let us look at our coral reefs worldwide.
The only thing we have heard lately from "the powers that be" is that coral reefs wordwide are being destroyed by ocean acidification throwing off the PH which in itself kills the coral.
Is this the whole story?
Maybe not???
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2011/04/research.html
Could ther still be other causes???
http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/sanctuary_resources/m orecoral.html
****But wait a minute...How can newly planted coral flourish in an ever increasing acid enviroment???****
That's worth repeating..."HOW CAN NEWLY PLANTED CORAL FLORISH IN AN EVER INCREASING ACID ENVIROMENT"?
http://www.floridakeysdivectr.com/florida-keys-co ral-reef-restoration.html
The takeaway from this is that we don't hear "the rest of the story", nor do we have all the answers.
Regional threats include new diseases that sweep through populations of organisms living on the reefs. For example, in 1983, an unknown disease,possibly a virus, is believed to have come through the Panama Canal from the Pacific Ocean. This disease killed most of the spiny sea urchin population, first in Panama then throughout the Caribbean and to the Western Atlantic reefs of the Florida Keys and Bahamas.More than 99% of the spiny sea urchins were killed. The virus seems to still be present,because spiny sea urchins are now uncommon on Caribbean reefs.
The consequence of the die-off of the spiny sea urchin has been unlimited growth of algae on coral reefs. The spiny sea urchin population fed on the
algae populations found on the coral reefs. For example, in the early 1980%u2019s, coral covered more than 60% of the reefs in Jamaica. Now, coral covers less than 10% of the reef. Algae are taking over the reefs
everywhere.
So where does that leave us?
Did a rise in ocean acidification create an enviroment that actually creates a virus friendly soup?
Will the corals flourishing in the successfull projects eventually succumb to another viral infection? If so, will it get blamed on acidification atacking the coral directly or acidification enabling a virus?
Is it possible to vaccinate coral reefs?
Is it unreasonable to ask that at least a pentance of Gov't funds routed to Climate Change be shared with research in this area? As we all know there are numerous Agencies duplicating climate change research and even more in shovel ready projects.
What if they're wrong about the true culprit here and there may indeed be "possible cure"?
Just asking...
Several hundred thousand Somalis and Kenyans, now starving, might appreciate some brainpower devoted to better planning initiatives as opposed to scoring points on GW.
There is a need for debate on GW, causality matters in terms of what is going to happen in the long term. In the meanwhile, we also need to become better at addressing the cards of drought, flood, and famine we've been dealt today, rather than focusing our energies to excess accusing each other of playing with a stacked deck.
Oh but you also forgot about the heat causing Coral Bleaching. What about the heat factor?
August 3, 2011Carbon dioxide remains the undisputed king of recent climate change, but other greenhouse gases measurably contribute to the problem. A new study, conducted by NOAA scientists and published online today in Nature, shows that cutting emissions of those other gases could slow changes in climate that are expected in the future.
Discussions with colleagues around the time of the 2009 United Nations’ climate conference in Copenhagen inspired three NOAA scientists – Stephen Montzka, Ed Dlugokencky and James Butler of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. – to review the sources of non-carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gases and explore the potential climate benefits of cutting their emissions.
Like CO2, other greenhouse gases trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere. Some of these chemicals have shorter lifetimes than CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore cutting emissions would quickly reduce their direct radiative forcing — a measure of warming influence.
“We know that recent climate change is primarily driven by carbon dioxide emitted during fossil-fuel combustion, and we know that this problem is going to be with us a long-time because carbon dioxide is so persistent in the atmosphere,” Montzka said. “But lowering emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide could lead to some rapid changes for the better.” Scientists know that stabilizing the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere would require a decrease of about 80 percent in human-caused CO2 emissions — in part because some of the carbon dioxide emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. In contrast, cutting all long-lived non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent could diminish their climate warming effect substantially within a couple of decades. Cutting both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions to this extent could result in a decrease in the total warming effect from these greenhouse gases this century, the new paper shows.
For the new analysis, the researchers considered methane; nitrous oxide; a group of chemicals regulated by an international treaty to protect Earth’s ozone layer; and a few other extremely long-lived greenhouse gases currently present at very low concentrations.
The new review paper describes the major human activities responsible for these emissions, and notes that steep cuts (such as 80 percent) would be difficult. Without substantial changes to human behavior, emissions of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases are expected to continue to increase.
The climate-related benefits of reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases have limits, Montzka and his colleagues showed. Even if all human-related, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions could be eliminated today, it would not be enough to stabilize the warming influence from all greenhouse gases over the next 40 years – unless CO2 emissions were also cut significantly.
The scientists also noted in the paper the complicated connections between climate and greenhouse gases, some of which are not yet fully understood. The non-CO2 gases studied have natural sources as well as human emissions, and climate change could amplify or dampen some of those natural processes, Dlugokencky said. Increasingly warm and dry conditions in the Arctic, for example, could thaw permafrost and increase the frequency of wildfires, both of which would send more methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
“The long-term necessity of cutting carbon dioxide emissions shouldn’t diminish the effectiveness of short-term action. This paper shows there are other opportunities to influence the trajectory of climate change,” Butler said. “Managing emissions of non-carbon dioxide gases is clearly an opportunity to make additional contributions.”
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook, Twitter and our other social media channels.
Link
Well put. And as you rightly point out, even appropriate viable economic planning in the absence of capital, which only gravitates towards political stability, is a paper exercise. And at present, sadly, we have little control over political stability in that part of the world.
More tech? The poor bushmen's society couldn't handle
a Coke bottle.
P.S. I loved this series of movies and feel they shed a positive light on rigors of life in southern Africa, I state this in advance of Neap slandering me
as a racist like last time.
Image: Eumetsat + U.S. National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Click on images for larger view.
SAWDIS - Several weather warnings have been issued by the SA Weather Service for the next few days. These include heavy rain, very cold conditions, snowfall, very rough seas and gale force winds. Truely a recipe for severe weather and disaster. The SAWDIS has monitored the approach of the cold front in the past few days and it would appear that the latest rainfall forecast reflect slightly less rain in the SW-Cape. However snowfalls can be expected on the Western Cape's southern mountains by the evening. The front extend eastwards on Friday, bringing snow to the central and northern parts of the Eastern Cape. Snowfall might not only affect the high ground but the lower ground as well. On Saturday, snow would be limited to the northern parts of the Eastern Cape and the western part of the Drakensberg and Lesotho.
The SAWDIS would like to warn all communities to remain on full alert. Motorists, travelers and members of the public must take note of the high probability of snow, heavy rain and gale force winds. If at all possible postpone your journey or make alternative arrangements. The SAWDIS will once again bring you the latest updates as the cold front progresses.
Meanwhile snow in South Africa “the worst snow storm he had seen in the town since 1992.”:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2011/07/26/easte rn-cape-motorists-warned-of-road-closures
Well have at it Sir if you'd like,I don't suspect you
get very far, sort of like Zimbabwe
Actually with the appointment of our new CIA Director, maybe we can see a breath of fresh air breathed into certain stagnant jungles.
A few well placed and dedicated volunteer souls worked wonders along the north bank of the Congo not that long ago.
Climate Change is the least of Somalia's worries.
Thanx, but let's revisit a past conclusion drawn by Jeff Masters in one of his past topics.
The Ground Hog is more accurate than 6 month look-aheads...with a toss of the coin probably being the most reliable.
So, heads it's gonna be dry at my house and tails it's gonna be wet...
Tails it is.
Happy dance :))
:)
:))
A Jack Russels doing a jig with a Spider Monkey would be closer to the truth.
Also, this is good for the back pocket. I signed up for the alerts. Ensure you customize them or you will be busy :)
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/warnings_timeline .html
The root site if you didn't have it/
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
This setup does not happen often. Hummm ,just had some connection trouble :]
"Will the "average" person be affected? No."
Hmmm?
So does that mean that the "above average"
won't be around after midnight tonight???
Does that include the "self appointed above average"?
It will be interesting to see who shows up tomorrow.
I'll be around... somewhere.
:))
THAT!
A key U.S. Department of the Interior agency has approved Shell Oil Co. plans to begin drilling for oil as early as next year in Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea off the north coast of Alaska.
Shell has announced plans to drill up to four wells over two years in the Beaufort, covered much of the year with pack ice and home to large populations of polar bears and bowhead whales.
The approval by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation (BOEMRE) comes just before a trip to Alaska by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Salazar will appear at a business management roundtable in Anchorage on Monday with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.
BOEMRE is successor to the federal Minerals Management Service, the agency discredited after last year’s Gulf oil spill due to its lax oversight and close ties to BP and other major oil companies.
“We will closely review and monitor Shell’s proposed activities to ensure that any activities that take place under this plan will be conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner,” said Michael Bromwich, BOEMRE’s director.
But in recent Senate Commerce Committee testimony, discussing past and potential marine disasters, Adm. Robert Papp,the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, said the federal government has no oil spill response in Arctic Alaska.
“If this were to happen off the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing,” Papp told lawmakers. “We’re starting from ground zero today.”
Environmental groups claim assurances by BOEMRE and Shell are nonsense.
“There are just too many unanswered questions: It is clear this approval was given by people who have never lived in the Arctic and never been here in the winter,” said Robert Thompson, an Inupat native from Kaktovik and leader of the group Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands.Eric Grafe, attorney with Earthjustice, argued that the noise and commotion of Shell’s drilling poses “a significant danger” to bowhead whales, an important food source for indigenous natives of Alaska and northern Canada.
Shell must still win approval for its plans from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is illegal to harass such creatures as bowhead whales.
Polar bears have been identified for listing under the Endangered Species Act, but a total of 260 threatened or endangered species await listing under the federal law. The federal government has promised no protection of the bears’ marine habitat.
Shell’s Curtis Smith told Associated Press the oil giant is committed to building a system to cap oil spills and that Shell would capture hydrocarbons at the source “in the extremely unlikely event of a shallow water blowout.”
He promised that Shell will “employ world-class technology and experience to ensure a safe, environmentally responsible Arctic exploration program, one that has the smallest possible footprint on the environment and no negative impact on the North Slope or Northwest Arctic traditional subsistence hunting activities.”
To which Thompson retorted: “They’re not saying whether they can clean up a spill.”
Link
It also prevnts this!
Arctic Ice Melt Near Record Clears Ship Route to Asia, Russian Agency Says
Arctic sea ice is melting at a near- record pace, opening shipping lanes for cargo traffic between Europe and Asia, Russia’s environmental agency said.
Ice cover is close to a record low, opening “almost the entire northern sea route to icebreaker-free shipping” as of early August, the Federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service said on its website today.
The so-called ice extent is as much as 56 percent less than average in some areas, allowing “very easy” sailing that will persist through September, the Moscow-based service said.
Melting ice is making it easier for Russian and other European shippers to service Asia via the northern sea route, which is about one-third shorter than the Rotterdam-Yokohama voyage through the Suez Canal, saving time and fuel. Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson said last year that the pace of global warming in the Arctic was three-times faster than elsewhere, cutting journeys between Asia, Europe and America by as much as half.
Melting occurred “at a rapid pace through the first half of July and is now tracking below the year 2007, which saw the record minimum,” the U.S. National Snow and Data Center said on its website July 18.
Soviet-Era Passage
Three of sixteen groups of oceanic scientists expect the extent to break the record low of 4.14 million square kilometers (1.63 million miles) reached on Sept. 16, 2007, the Fairbanks, Alaska-based Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., or Arcus, said on its website. That compares with about 6.86 million square kilometers now, according to Russia’s environmental agency.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has vowed to transform the Soviet-era Arctic route, first plied in 1932 between Arkhangelsk and the Bering Strait, into a year-round passage and commodity producers including OAO GMK Norilsk Nickel, OAO Novatek and EuroChem have already starting sending test shipments. The route is currently used, with the help of icebreakers, from July to November.
The North Pole may be completely ice-free in summer within a few decades, rather than by 2080, a prediction made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Russia’s chief forecaster, Alexander Frolov, said last year.
Link
"We are fixxin to find out :)"
Edit, I did not realize,,,,,,,Oh no, there are tubes in the linked vid~~~~~~~~
Link
No, it is not about being against AGW.
She understands the science as well as any.
What you see is the evolution of a scientific process, in process.
The numbers used for policy, don't stay the same as the research evolves.
Just sayin, we learn every day!
ROADS CLOSED, MOTORISTS TRAPPED
Eastern Cape motorists were warned of many road closures and dangerous driving conditions caused by snowfall on Tuesday.
Several motorists were already trapped in snow or stuck on closed roads, Eastern Cape local government MEC Mlibo Qoboshiyana said in a statement.
“It is snowing heavily and very dangerous between Ugie and Elliot, some motorists are already stuck [in the snow].
“People are stuck in their vehicles on the road from Elliot to Indwe, Ngcobo to Cala, [and in] Satansnek...
“I appeal that all those using roads should be extra vigilant as roads are wet with the snow closing some of the lines, some trees are falling on the roads, availing only one lane for travelling.
“Travellers should put their plans on hold until roads are cleared,” said Qoboshiyana.
The following roads were closed in the Eastern Cape:
— R56 between Matatiele and Mount Fletcher — R56 in Kokstad, Maluti — N2 between Kokstad and Mount Ayliff — Wapadsberg and Lootsberg passes — N10 from Middelburg to Bloemfontein all closed — All roads leading to Dordrecht, except Queenstown via Lady Frere — Boesmanshoek between Queenstown and Molteno — Roads between Elliot and Indwe and Ngcobo and Cala — N10 between Middelburg and Murraysburg — Road between Middelburg and Colesberg — N9 between Middelburg and De Aar — Road between Cradock to Graaff Reinet — R56 between Cala and Elliot closed — R58 between Ngcobo and Elliot — R67 in Fort Beaufort, Seymour, Cathcart — R351 between Cathcart and Whittlesea — Barkly pass on R58 between Elliot and Barkly East — R56 between Mount Fletcher, Maclear and Matatiele — N2 between Kokstad and Mount Aylif closed Elsewhere in the country, the N3 highway between Johannesburg and KwaZulu-Natal has been closed from the Wilge toll plaza near Villiers to the Tugela toll plaza at Ladsymith.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/incoming/2011/07/26/ volkrust1.jpg/RESIZED/Big/Volkrust1.jpg
theshepherd – I am not nearly as knowledgeable as Dr. Rood and I do not pretend to be able to answer your questions better than he will be able to do. I am able to tell you what I do know regarding this.
As you suggest, there are many factors that come into play regarding to the health of coral reefs. As with anything else, in nature, coral reefs are a balancing act. Too much or too little of this or that will have a negative impact on the health of the coral reefs. Silting, pesticides, other forms of pollution, damage from ships and boaters, careless reef divers and storms all damage coral reefs. As cyclonebuster has already stated, so does too much heat. You have also brought to light that infections, disease and the loss of crucial reef members can also have a negative impact on the overall health of the coral reefs.
When it comes to the PH level, in the oceans, it is no different than the salinity values of the ocean in the sense that neither is a constant and neither is evenly distributed across the oceans or through the depths. What I am trying to say is that you will not get the exact same PH and/or salinity readings across the oceans and throughout its depths. You will even get different readings on different days in the exact same spot and at the same depths. Such is the nature, of the beast.
Why then, as you suggest, do we concentrate so much on the PH level of the oceans? All that I can say is that we know a more acidic ocean will be detrimental not only to the coral reefs but, also, to any sea creatures that use calcium in the formation of its shell. We also know that as the oceans absorb more carbon from the atmosphere that the oceans will become more acidic. No matter how much we are successful in abating the other problems that are detrimental to the coral reefs, if we do not also abate the amount of carbon that the oceans absorb then all of our other efforts will be fruitless, towards saving the coral reefs. When we are better able to control the amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere we will have helped to abate two problems that threaten our coral reefs. We help to abate the acidity and heat that go into the oceans. Two, for one. I think that is not a bad return on investment.
I cannot answer as to how much of the climate change funding goes into the research of our coral reefs. I do know that climatologist also look at the coral reefs to see how they are being impacted by a warming climate.
This is my take on your questions. I hope it helps to answer some of your questions. As with you, I hope that Dr. Rood will answer this for you. I am sure that he can do a much better job of doing so than I have been able to do.
Thank you, for your post.
nope...
I'm way ahead of ya on this one.
But, thanx
As with any component of the planet's atmosphere, there are sources and sinks, whether biological, geological, geochemical, or man made. The deforestation of the Amazon has no doubt impacted the equilibrium to some extent. Increased atmospheric concentration of any gas may lead to increased levels in the dissolved concentration in the ocean by simple chemical equilibria. Data would seem to support higher atmospheric CO2 in recent decades.
Does this increase, taken in isolation, have a material increase in oceanic acidity? A simple lab experiment with two containers, each containing a split portion of healthy reef water, one with an overlay of 200ppm CO2, one at 400ppm. Tumble both. Then measure pH. Is the resultant difference in pH sufficient to impact the sensitivity of the reef in question?
On a larger note, if CO2 sinks are being depleted, why not engineer an algae for oceanic distribution that would only thrive at CO2 levels above 250ppm and within a defined temperature band. In this manner it would self destruct upon completing its mission and while in progress, would be confined to certain latitudes due to its own thermal sensitivity.
This of course assumes that CO2 is the only issue of concern. The atmosphere and the planet is extremely complex. We are infants in our understanding of this.
While we can measure one of its constituents, CO2, with relative ease and compare the data to other observed phenomena, we should not ignore fluctuations in other constituents, presuming that they have no part to play.
Just a thought.
Interesting.
Thanks to ICEage coming for the info on the South African winter!
Link
Would like to see that paper. Does he postulate any cause for temperature rise? Also, what key adjustments in CO2 equilibria (flora, water, exposed rock, etc) does he see affected to increase atmospheric CO2 relative to CO2 sinks in the same media?
If you visit the link I posted earlier, it has another link to his podcast where his present his theory. I haven't had time to listen to the podcast, although I have read summaries of his theory.
Link
Already posted it, look at the graph.
The model was ran starting in 1990, so part of what I posted is hindcast and part is forecast. Midline in graph divides the two. Sorry if that was not clear, although it was explained in the paper I linked to. You can add another 5 years of tracking of model to observations. The match between observation and models is about the same as with the 16 years. So there's your 21 years.
The models are not perfect, no climate scientist has ever claimed they are, but they track well within the error bars of the models and tend to underestimate warming over the long-term. There are other papers out there testing earlier generations of models, and those models also perform well enough for the level of concern expressed by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
We are now at a stage where we are perfecting models to work at smaller spatial and temporal scales. But in terms of medium scale they perform quite well.
UN IPCC Report 4 Chapter 5 subsidence is mentioned several times.
It is taken into account for local estimates of sea level change in areas where it occurs.
You never defined what the 18% was? Can't really reply to such a vague comment. perhaps your unclear about what your referring to?
And if your memory is so good, give me a link to the post were Jeff said whatever it is you claim he said.
His "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics" textbook was use for our senior atmo physics course at A&M. If he wrote that book, I can say he's no dummy...and certainly knows far more about the subject matter than any of us, here, ever will.
What is circulating is a podcast of a talk he did. Not a peer-reviewed paper. But, I'm sure that won't prevent some from once again declaring the end of AGW.
There are already some preliminary responses to the talk
here and here and here.
Main points are where did all the anthropogenic CO2 go? And why are natural sinks (oceans for example) increasing their C content, not decreasing as they would have to if he was correct. This is in addition to the technical errors of his analysis.
Big picture point is that there are several independent lines of evidence to support idea that CO2 increase is man-caused. One talk does not suddenly undermine all that. You'd need a lot more to suddenly dismiss all the other evidence.
Well if you are going to rely on argument from authority and not logic, then
The subject matter is the carbon cycle, not atmospheric physics. It remains to be seen whether he has mastered that topic. His CV is void of any papers on the topic. As with any smart researcher, he's not infallible.
Many others, who are experts on the carbon cycle, have developed complex models that take into account many factors for the movement of C in and out of various sinks and sources. And as I stated before, there are several independent lines of empirical evidence that CO2 increases are anthropogenic.
Salby has presented a simple regression model at a talk at one conference. He presented no empirical evidence to support his claim or what people are claiming he's claiming.
If he got his math right, then the next line of research will be to empirically support test his hypothesis, by looking at sources and sinks, and explaining why the isotope and o2/n2 data got it wrong. That is if we don't want to jump to conclusions before his idea is thoroughly investigated. Until then we go with the tested lines of evidence we already have. I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on a simple untested model and unpublished model.
I wouldn't get all dressed up for the ball quite yet.
I haven't had the chance to see said podcast, or even read all there is about what he said...
All I said, generally, is that he is very qualified. And yes, his 1996 textbook is rife with Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
Here is a transcribe from the index of his text (which sits before me):
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
absorption by, 200, 201, 203, 216-217, 232, 244
greenhouse effect 249-250, 252
line broadening, 224
LW radiation, 46, 242
as trace constituent, 22-25
(and the above is only for the parts that contain CO2; the greenhouse gases section is much larger)
But, where do you get off putting all of the above into what I said? Did you learn this from JFLORALA?
Here is my post, for reference:
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index