SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ron who wrote (8993)1/15/2007 11:49:19 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 36917
 
El Nino, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record Hurricanes El Nino— mike @ 6:51 pm - ()
It has now become all too common. Peculiar weather precipitates immediate blame on global warming by some, and equally immediate pronouncements by others (curiously, quite often the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years) that global warming can't possibly be to blame. The reality, as we've often remarked here before, is that absolute statements of neither sort are scientifically defensible. Meteorological anomalies cannot be purely attributed to deterministic factors, let alone any one specific such factor (e.g. either global warming or a hypothetical long-term climate oscillation).

Lets consider the latest such example. In an odd repeat of last year (the 'groundhog day' analogy growing ever more appropriate), we find ourselves well into the meteorological Northern Hemisphere winter (Dec-Feb) with little evidence over large parts of the country (most noteably the eastern and central U.S.) that it ever really began. Unsurprisingly, numerous news stories have popped up asking whether global warming might be to blame. Almost as if on cue, representatives from NOAA's National Weather Service have been dispatched to tell us that the event e.g. "has absolutely nothing to do with global warming", but instead is entirely due to the impact of the current El Nino event.

[Update 1/9/07: NOAA coincidentally has announced today that 2006 was officially the warmest year on record for the U.S.]

So what's really going on? The pattern so far this winter (admittedly after only 1 month) looks (figure on the immediate right) like a stronger version of what was observed last winter (figure to the far right--note that these anomalies reflect differences relative to a relatively warm 1971-2000 base period, this tends to decrease the amplitude of positive anomalies relative to the more commonly used, cooler 1961-1990 base period). This poses the first obvious conundrum for the pure "El Nino" attribution of the current warmth: since we were actually in a (weak) La Nina (i.e., the opposite of 'El Nino') last winter, how is it that we can explain away the anomalous winter U.S. warmth so far this winter by 'El Nino' when anomalous winter warmth last year occured in its absence?

The second conundrum with this explanation is that, while El Nino typically does perturb the winter Northern Hemisphere jet stream in a way that favors anomalous warmth over much of the northern half of the U.S., the typical amplitude of the warming (see Figure below right) is about 1C (i.e., about 2F). The current anomaly is roughly five times as large as this. One therefore cannot sensibly argue that the current U.S. winter temperature anomalies are attributed entirely to the current moderate El Nino event.

Indeed, though the current pattern of winter U.S. warmth looks much more like the pattern predicted by climate models as a response to anthropogenic forcing (see Figure below left) than the typical 'El Nino' pattern, neither can one attribute this warmth to anthropogenic forcing. As we are fond of reminding our readers, one cannot attribute a specific meteorological event, an anomalous season, or even (as seems may be the case here, depending on the next 2 months) two anomalous seasons in a row, to climate change. Moreover, not even the most extreme scenario for the next century predicts temperature changes over North America as large as the anomalies witnessed this past month. But one can argue that the pattern of anomalous winter warmth seen last year, and so far this year, is in the direction of what the models predict.

In reality, the individual roles of deterministic factors such as El Nino, anthropogenic climate change, and of purely random factors (i.e. "weather") in the pattern observed thusfar this winter cannot even in principle be ascertained. What we do know, however, is that both anthropogenic climate change and El Nino favor, in a statistical sense, warmer winters over large parts of the U.S. When these factors act constructively, as is the case this winter, warmer temperatures are certainly more likely. Both factors also favor warmer global mean surface temperatures (the warming is one or two tenths of a degree C for a moderate to strong El Nino). It is precisely for this reason that some scientists are already concluding, with some justification, that 2007 stands a good chance of being the warmest year on record for the globe.

A few other issues are worthy of comment in the context of this discussion. A canard that has already been trotted out by climate change contrarians (and unfortunately parroted uncritically in some media reports) holds that weather in certain parts of the U.S. (e.g. blizzards and avalanches in Colorado) negates the observation of anomalous winter warmth. This argument is disingenuous at best. As clearly evident from the figure shown above, temperatures for the first month of this winter have been above normal across the United States (with the only exceptions being a couple small cold patches along the U.S./Mexico border). The large snowfall events in Boulder were not associated with cold temperatures, but instead with especially moisture-laden air masses passing through the region. If temperatures are at or below freezing (which is true even during this warmer-than-average winter in Colorado), that moisture will precipitate as snow, not rain. Indeed, snowfall is often predicted to increase in many regions in response to anthropogenic climate change, since warmer air, all other things being equal, holds more moisture, and therefore, the potential for greater amounts of precipitation whatever form that precipitation takes.

Another issue here involves the precise role of El Nino in climate change. El Nino has a profound influence on disparate regional weather phenomena. Witness for example the dramatic decrease in Atlantic tropical cyclones this most recent season relative to the previous one. This decrease can be attributed to the El Nino that developed over the crucial autumn season, which favored a strengthening of the upper level westerlies over the tropical North Atlantic, increased tropical Atlantic wind shear, and a consequently less favorable environment for tropical cyclogenesis.

If a particular seasonal anomaly appears to be related to El Nino, can we conclude that climate change played no role at all? Obviously not. It is possible, in fact probable, that climate change is actually influencing El Nino (e.g. favoring more frequent and larger El Nino events), although just how much is still very much an issue of active scientific debate. One of the key remaining puzzles in the science of climate change therefore involves figuring out just how El Nino itself might change in the future, a topic we're certain to discuss here again in the future.
realclimate.org.



To: Ron who wrote (8993)1/16/2007 3:25:22 AM
From: average joe  Respond to of 36917
 
It really is quite exciting that a new continent is waking up from a deep thaw. Who knows what possibility there will be for mineral exploration and human habitation. Bravo for posting that article.



To: Ron who wrote (8993)1/16/2007 9:07:55 AM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
cool maybe he could find some viking stuff from 1100 ad or even Roman stuff from 200 BC. Cycles are tubular



To: Ron who wrote (8993)1/16/2007 11:00:22 AM
From: Triffin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Good article Ron ..

Check this section on sea level rise ..


The sudden appearance of the islands is a symptom of an ice sheet going into retreat, scientists say. Greenland is covered by 630,000 cubic miles of ice, enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet.

Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.


If the above figures are even close to being accurate
then this aspect of the GW issue is a non-event; just do the math ..

At a 'melt rate' of 80 cubic miles per year it
will take 7875 years to melt all the ice

If sea-level is to rise 23 feet from current levels as
a result of the stated 'melt rate' then we're looking at a total of
276 inches over 7875 years or
0.0350476 inches per year..

Also, as the ice melts ( and I'm assuming that all the
Greenland ice is melting land ice and therefore a contributor
to sea-level rise ) the 'relieved' land masses will experience
'isostatic rebound', so the net rise will be even less ..

So, if increasing sea-levels as a result of GW is a real
threat ie we'll have to relocate populations in coastal
cities or protect them at great cost .. Then either the rate
of melt ( 80 cu miles per year ) is grossly underestimated
or the growth rate of the rate of melt is significantly higher;
otherwise this is a complete non issue re GW .......JMHO

Time to buy that waterfront lot !!!!

Triff .. grub !!



To: Ron who wrote (8993)1/21/2007 6:54:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 36917
 
Salvage experts battle to avert an environmental catastrophe

timesonline.co.uk