Spring Forward
EmailIt seems counterintuitive to publish studies about climate change on the day after an inauguration that took place in 28-degree weather, but there are two being released today in Nature. First, there’s news from Antarctica that you may either find warming or a little chilling. Contrary to popular belief, say scientists, the Antarctic has gradually been getting warmer. Eric Steig of the University of Washington and his colleagues combined satellite and ground-based temperature readings, and say previous summaries were thrown off by the limited location of weather stations. "Simple explanations don’t capture the complexity of climate," Steig said in a statement. "The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling and that’s not the case. If anything it’s the reverse, but it’s more complex than that. Antarctica isn’t warming at the same rate everywhere, and while some areas have been cooling for a long time the evidence shows the continent as a whole is getting warmer." There’s more HERE from the University of Washington, and you can click on the NASA computer image above to enlarge it. Redder means warmer. In the second paper, Alexander Stine of the University of California, Berkeley, et al report that since 1954, the seasons have actually moved up a little. They now begin 1.7 days earlier, on average, at least on land outside the tropics in the northern hemisphere, where the researchers say weather records have been the most reliable. More from Berkeley is HERE. The differences between summer and winter have become slightly less pronounced, they write, though there are substantial variations from place to place. There’s something for everyone in this paper. "Few of the climate models presented by the International Panel on Climate Change reproduce the observed decrease in amplitude," they write, "and none reproduce the shift towards earlier seasons." But David Thomson of Queen’s University in Ontario, in an accompanying commentary, says, "independent of any shortcomings in the models, we must remember that the observational evidence of human influence on the climate system is overwhelming. Stine and colleagues’ paper adds to that evidence."
One last thing: There’s been comment lately over whether scientists have shifted to the term "climate change" from "global warming" because it seemed more politically correct. In my experience, at least, "climate change" has been more common over the last 20 years because it’s regarded as more accurate. (Other phrases, such as "anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse warming" or "global change" never caught on because they were too clunky or too bland.) John Holdren, President Obama’s choice for science adviser, (his Harvard bio is HERE) has said several times in my presence that he prefers "climate disruption." NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab has a decent blog post on the semantics of the whole thing HERE.
Steve Jobs' FBI File: Bomb Threat? 
Steve Jobs' FBI File Released 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
‘”climate change” has been more common because it’s regarded as more accurate.’
“More accurate”, huh? I would have thought it was preferred to “global warming” because certain quarters kept getting embarrassed by having their “Stop Global Warming NOW!!!” protests/marches/symposia/whatever canceled because of cold weather and snow.
Posted by: I'm With Stupid | January 21, 2009, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
oh hell, just let me know when I need to drag out the ark.
Posted by: tendergroins | January 21, 2009, 7:53 pm 7:53 pm
Ned:
Has no one given any thought to what may happen when the northern hemisphere warms enough to have a profound impact on the glaciers of Greenland? If the dearth of research papers is any indication, the answer is a resounding, “No!” However, this particular aspect of warming is one that we should be more than somewhat concerned about.
When all of that cold, fresh water begins to migrate south it will run into the Gulf Stream (more properly the Labrador Current) with literally chilling effect. This current takes warm water from the area around the tropics and the Gulf of Mexico and sends it north; this tends to moderate the climate in most of Europe and to a lesser extent, that of our eastern seaboard. When the current gets far enough north it gives up its warmth and this now-colder water sinks toward the ocean bottom where it encounters the counter-current. This cold water then moves south until it reaches the tropic areas; there it is warmed and this warm water rises, once again moving north. This entire cycle has been termed “The Atlantic Conveyor” and it has a major impact on climate.
Now, what happens when all of that cold, fresh water from glacial melting moves south into the Atlantic? The fresh water, being less dense that sea water, will flow over the top of the Labrador, forcing that water to release its heat more quickly, and further to the south. This will lessen the warming effect and lead to harsher winters for most of northern Europe and our own East Coast. Moreover, this incursion of glacial-melt fresh water contains the seeds of destruction for the entire Labrador Current, as each cycle will tend to move the heat-release point further south until the mechanism responsible for the current can no longer sustain itself.
So, “global warming/climate change” has the distinct possibility of plunging some parts of the globe into a mini ice-age! Although the mechanics were different this has happened before with the explosion of Krakatoa, and the reduction of sun-spots during the Maunder Minimum. Perhaps we need to invest less in sunscreen, and more in wooly undies!
I believe you’ll find the science behind this “wild idea” is pretty solid, although controversial.
Posted by: Walker Evans | January 22, 2009, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
Walker
I think there have been quite a bit of research ion the Atlantic Conveyer. There certainly has been a lot of discussion. I don’t think many would dispute the basic dynamics leading to a cold Europe, the question is how likely it is to happen. Many scientists seem to think that Greenland won’t melt fast enough, but nobody really knows how fast Greenland will melt, or what rate is required to trigger the changes.
That is one of the “catastrophic” or “threshold” scenarios that are really hard to predict. Of course, that’s what worries some people. Something to be very wary of, although we will still have enough problems even if that doesn’t happen.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 22, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
—
‘”climate change” has been more common because it’s regarded as more accurate.’
“More accurate”, huh? I would have thought it was preferred to “global warming” because certain quarters kept getting embarrassed by having their “Stop Global Warming NOW!!!” protests/marches/symposia/whatever canceled because of cold weather and snow.—Unfortunately that’s pretty much it. Some people are too dense to understand the negative impact pollution has on our environment when the thermometer drops below 60. It’s like denying a house fire because there it’s still cold in the refrigerator.
Posted by: cicclinton | January 22, 2009, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
Re: “negative impact pollution has on our environment”
Stop right there. You have just crossed the line from science to AGW fantasy. CO2 is NOT a pollutant but a requirement of life on this planet.
Posted by: Quietman | January 23, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
I guess it all depends on whose ox is getting gored (no pun intended). There was a time on this planet when oxygen was a pollutant. Sure, CO2 is necessary for life, but too much of a good thing is just as dangerous as not enough. We’ve upset the balance of the atmospheric gases that make life viable for the current crop of species. As the mix changes, successful life-forms will adapt or new ones will evolve. Our problem is that we’re trying to make a prediction based on precious few data points. Since there’s so much disagreement, it must be mostly guess-work, assumptions and suppositions that are at work.
Posted by: andyr | January 23, 2009, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
andyr
Not really. It’s true that we don’t know all the details, and will never be able to predict the exact extent of the consequences (as with anything else), but the fundamental prediction of “warmer” is not that complicated.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 23, 2009, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, who is not in any way a climate change skeptic, said of the study, “I remain somewhat skeptical… It is hard to make data where none exist.” Echoing Trenberth’s analysis were several other scientists.
Posted by: Quietman | January 23, 2009, 7:11 pm 7:11 pm
Jock
The fundamental theory of plate tectonics is easy to grasp as well, some people simply refuse to accept it.
Posted by: Quietman | February 4, 2009, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
I cant understand how much attention is given to CO2 emmisions as a root cuase of GW, and no attention to methane.
We produce 35 gigatons of CO2 on our planet and 3500 gigatons of methane, methane is 21 time a more potent green house gas than CO2, and no one ever talks about how our garbage and cola mines produces the majority of it….
ITS STUPID TO IGNORE THIS
Posted by: Richard | February 11, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm