Dana Nuccitelli: The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle

Evidence continues to mount that the slowed warming of global surface temperatures is mainly due to changes in the oceans

by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus - The 97%, The Guardian, September 3, 2013

A new study published in the journal Nature incorporates temperature changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean into an advanced climate model, and finds that the model can reproduce observed global surface temperature changes remarkably well.

 

This graph shows the good match between temperatures in the Nature paper model (in red) and measured temperatures (in black). Just accounting for human and solar climate influences doesn't reproduce the recent surface warming slowdown (in purple). 

  Importantly, as authors Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography explain, accounting for the changes in the Pacific Ocean allows the model to reproduce the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years. It also accurately reproduces the regional and seasonal changes in surface temperatures, which adds confidence that their results are meaningful.

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to La-Niña-like decadal cooling … For the recent decade, the decrease in tropical Pacific sea surface temperature has lowered the global temperature by about 0.15 degrees Celsius compared to the 1990s.

Despite only covering 8.2% of the Earth's surface, these results suggest that the tropical Pacific Ocean plays a major role in short-term changes in the average global surface temperature. And over the past 15 years, it's offset most of the global surface warming from the increased greenhouse effect.

These results are broadly consistent with several other important recent papers investigating the role of the oceans in global warming. For example, the model used in this study finds that the overall heating of the planet has not slowed when the warming of the oceans are taken into account, as studies led by John Abraham, myself, and several others have also concluded.
Research led by Gerald Meehl has similarly focused on the importance of the Pacific Ocean in short-term global surface temperature changes. His climate model predicts that there will be decades when surface temperature changes are relatively flat because more heat is transferred to the deep oceans, precisely as we have observed over the past decade. Meehl discussed the Kosaka & Xie study with Carbon Brief,

This paper basically confirms, with a novel methodology, what we originally documented in our Nature Climate Change paper in 2011 and followed up with in our Journal of Climate paper ... We went beyond [the new paper] to show that when the tropical Pacific was cool for a decade ... more heat is mixed into the deeper ocean, something the new paper doesn't address.

Kevin Trenberth, who co-authored several of these important ocean studies, has likewise pointed to the important role of the Pacific Ocean in transferring more heat to the deep oceans.

The cause of the shift is a particular change in winds, especially in the Pacific Ocean where the subtropical trade winds have become noticeably stronger, changing ocean currents and providing a mechanism for heat to be carried down into the ocean. This is associated with weather patterns in the Pacific, which are in turn related to the La Niña phase of the El Niño phenomenon.

Research by Masahiro Watanabe of the Japanese Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute has also suggested that the transfer of heat to the deep oceans and corresponding slowed global surface warming is related to changes in the Pacific.
Thus the scientific picture is becoming increasingly clear that the Pacific Ocean has played a large role in the slowed surface warming in recent years, but the warming of the oceans and planet as a whole have continued unabated. Thus the slowed surface warming is very likely to be a temporary effect, similar to the flat global surface temperatures between 1940 and 1970 when the Pacific Ocean was in another cool cycle.

Although it may be a natural reaction to hope that the recent slowed surface warming suggests that climate change isn't an imminent threat, the scientific evidence simply does not support such optimism. Climate scientist Judith Curry, who I recently criticized for failing to grasp the concept of climate risk management, recently articulated this rosy view on her blog. By focusing at the model simulation data specifically from 1975 to 1998, Curry incorrectly argued that the study supports the position that global warming is mostly natural.

There are a few major problems with this argument. Between 1975 and 1998 when the Pacific Ocean was in a warm phase of its cycle, it accounted for some of the observed global surface warming (though less than Curry asserts; about 30%). But the thing about cycles – they're cyclical. Focusing on the warm cycles while ignoring the cool cycles is an example of classic cherry picking.

If we look at the full record, for both 1950–2012 and 1970–2012 (the Pacific Ocean temperature data are most reliable since 1970), according to the model used in this study, the Pacific Ocean has actually had a slight overall cooling effect on global surface temperatures. It's also important to note that this cycle is just moving heat around between oceans and air – the overall warming of the planet has remained steady and rapid.

Thus the body of scientific research consistently shows that global warming continues unabated, and is predominantly human-caused. The Pacific Ocean has likely played a significant role in the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years by transferring more heat to the deep oceans, but that change appears to be a temporary one. When the Pacific Ocean enters its next warm cycle, we're likely to see a rapid warming of global surface temperatures. If we continue to use the temporary slowed surface warming as an excuse to delay climate action, we'll regret that decision when the surface warming kicks in with a vengeance.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/03/global-warming-pacific-ocean-puzzle-piece

Read More

John Abraham challenges Monckton to put his money where his mouth is

Dear Mr. Monckton,

I understand that you’ve claimed Earth’s temperatures will likely decrease by 0.5 ^oC in two years, but most certainly by 2020.  Specifically, you stated this on a website:

“Meanwhile, enjoy what warmth you can get. A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”

Here is the link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/

I am calling your claim.  I challenge you to a $1000 bet on both.  Specifically,

1.      I challenge you to a $1000 bet that the Earth temperature will not drop 0.5 C in two years

2.      I challenge you to a second $1000 bet that the Earth temperature will not drop 0.5 C by 2020

Let’s keep stipulations as few as possible.  My only requirement is that any major volcanic eruptions would make the bet void.  I will let you choose the temperature dataset (NASA GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT4).  Any reputable data set of land-ocean surface temperatures.  I will let you choose the starting year of 2012 or 2013.  Obligations to pay can be based off our word and the publicity of this challenge.  If you require payment to be sent to a third party ahead of time, I will gladly oblige.

Please respond at your earliest convenience, I am anxious to finalize this agreement.  Please be assured that if you decline this wager, I will make your declination public.

Can we agree to donate the money to a charity that deals with climate issues. Selected by the winner of the wager.

Cheers, As Always

Dr. John Abraham

Professor

University of St. Thomas

Read More

"A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change," by John Abraham et al., Rev. Geophys., 2013; doi: 10.1002/rog.20022

Review of Geophysics, 2013; DOI: 10.1002/rog.20022

A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change

1. J. P. Abraham^1,*, 
2. M. Baringer², 
3. N. L. Bindoff^3,6,8, 
4. T. Boyer⁴, 
5. L. J. Cheng⁵, 
6. J. A. Church⁶, 
7. J. L. Conroy⁷, 
8. C. M. Domingues⁸,
9. J. T. Fasullo⁹, 
10. J. Gilson¹⁰, 
11. G. Goni², 
12. S. A. Good¹¹, 
13. J. M. Gorman¹, 
14. V. Gouretski¹²,
15. M. Ishii¹³, 
16. G. C. Johnson¹⁴, 
17. S. Kizu¹⁵, 
18. J. M. Lyman^14,16, 
19. A. M. Macdonald¹⁷, 
20. W. J. Minkowycz¹⁸, 
21. S. E. Moffitt^19,20, 
22. M. D. Palmer¹¹, 
23. A. R. Piola²¹, 
24. F. Reseghetti²²,
25. K. Schuckmann²³, 
 K. 
26. E. Trenberth⁹, 
27. I. Velicogna^24,25, and 
28. J. K. Willis²⁵

Abstract

The evolution of ocean temperature measurement systems is presented with a focus on the development and accuracy of two critical devices in use today (expendable bathythermographs and CTDs – conductivity-temperature-depth instruments used on Argo floats). A detailed discussion of the accuracy of these devices and a projection of the future of ocean temperature measurements are provided. The accuracy of ocean temperature measurements is discussed in detail in the context of ocean heat content, Earth's energy imbalance, and thermosteric sea level rise. Up-to-date estimates are provided for these three important quantities. The total energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere is best assessed by taking an inventory of changes in energy storage. The main storage is in the ocean; the latest values of which are presented. Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multi-decadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflect the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea-level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry show that presently, sea-level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr^-1 with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt. The latest data for thermal expansion sea-level rise are included here and analyzed.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract

Read More

With the forthcoming IPCC report, the contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate

The next UN IPCC report is due out in September. Photograph: Joshua Lott/REUTERS

by John Abraham, Climate Consensus - The 97%, The Guardian, August 18, 2013

We are weeks away from the much-anticipated release of the 5th climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization has worked very hard to summarize the latest science on climate change, with thousands of donated hours from scientists around the globe. Although there are many other climate reports that synthesize the science, the IPCC is the largest and most comprehensive.

I know many of the scientists who have taken on leadership author roles, without pay, to produce this document. We owe them our gratitude and congratulations.

So, what will the report say? I will admit that I have not read the report (it hasn't been released). Early drafts have been leaked, primarily by people trying to disrupt the process. These early drafts allow us to predict what will be contained within the report. An alternative approach is to review the immense body of literature from which the report is drawn. Based on the literature I've reviewed, I will predict the central themes of the IPCC report.

First, readers will likely find that this report is very similar to the last report (which was released in 2007). There will be slight changes to our confidence in certain observations. Climate models will have improved slightly, particularly in how they handle atmospheric particulates and cloud formation. A major effort since the last report has been the use of climate models to predict changes at the regional level. The report will likely say that this endeavor has had mixed success.

The new report will describe how climate changes are continuing without abatement. In particular, temperatures are rising, oceans are heating, waters are rising, ice is melting, the oceans are acidifying, heat is even moving to the deepest parts of the oceans. Just as importantly, the report will show that these changes are largely human-caused.

Some items are worse than we thought. In the last report, ice loss, particularly from Greenland, was a minor issue. Now, it is clear that not only Greenland, but also Antarctica, is melting and this melt is raising sea levels. Furthermore, Arctic sea ice is being lost faster than previously reported.

The new report will likely have continued questions. For instance, how will hurricanes change in a warming world (the most powerful hurricanes are becoming even more powerful, but the change in frequency is not known) is still an open question.

Extreme weather will be a mixed bag. Some extreme weather has certainly increased (heat waves for instance, drought in certain areas, and heavy precipitation events). Changes to tornadoes and thunderstorms? That is one area that is highly uncertain.

So, in short, since 2007 we have developed better tools, and we are more certain about how we are changing the climate. Other areas still vex us. But, it is clear we certainly know enough to take action to stop the coming changes to our climate.

How does this square with my title? One continuing question is, how much and how fast will the climate change. Are we going to be in a "slow simmer" or a "fast boil"? The answer to this question rests on how sensitive the climate is. If the climate is not very sensitive, it means the Earth's temperature will change more slowly. A more sensitive Earth will have a more rapid temperature change.

There is some belief that the IPCC will lower the range of climate sensitivity by a tiny amount. If my crystal ball is correct, the denialosphere will latch onto this, and will, unwittingly, be agreeing that the IPCC is correct; we are changing the climate. You cannot both accept the IPCC conclusions that humans are changing the climate and simultaneously claim that climate change is either not occurring or is natural. In the end, the contrarians will be in the "slow simmer" camp. So listen carefully to the Christopher Moncktons, James Inhofes, and Rush Limbaughs of this world. Wait for them to bring up the IPCC sensitivity and realize just how much they have conceded.

But back to the IPCC; in a certain sense, the IPCC has done its job. For this fifth report, they have synthesized the science and provided enough evidence that action is warranted. How many more reports of this type do we need? Will a sixth report that confirms what we already know make much of a difference? Will a seventh? Do these reports need to be written every 5-6 years? Perhaps one a decade would be sufficient? These reports require enormous amounts of time and energy. Scientists who take authorship roles put their own research on hold, sometimes for years.

Whatever the future holds for the IPCC, the history books will tell us we were warned. Time and time again, the world's best scientists have sent us clear messages. Whatever happens, whatever pathway we choose, whatever are the future climate disruptions, we owe these scientists, and the IPCC our deepest gratitude. Thanks.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/19/global-waring-ipcc-ar5-report

Read More

John Abraham: Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists [i.e., Neven!]

Armchair scientist Neven provides valuable insights into the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice

Arctic sea ice image from NASA. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

by John Abraham, "Climate Consensus - the 97%," The Guardian, August 12, 2013

As humans put more and more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth's climate changes; we all know that. Some of the trickier questions are, how fast is it changing, what can we expect in the future, what are the costs of slowing emissions (compared to the costs of doing nothing), and what changes are we already observing that give us such confidence in our predictions?

Perhaps the poster child of climate change is in the Arctic, where sea ice has been declining at an astonishing rate. Over the past few decades, satellite information has been gathered which shows huge declines in ice extent (the area covered by ice). The declines are enough that it is possible that in a few years, there will be little or no ice left in the Arctic at the end of the melt season.

If the loss of ice area wasn't bad enough, the volume of ice has decreased faster than the area. By some measures, the volume of ice has decreased approximately 75% over the past 3 decades, since adequate records began to be kept.

For climate nerds like me, internet bookmarks are essential for organizations like the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) or IARC-JAXA which provide updated and high-quality information about Arctic conditions.

Summer Arctic ice extent, National Snow and Ice Data Center. 

While these institutions gather and make available important Arctic information, a wider community has taken a very active role in interpreting the data. These "armchair" scientists play a particularly important role in telling the rest of us what the data actually means for our future.

Perhaps the best example is the Arctic Sea Ice blog which was started in 2010 by Neven, a 38-year-old freelance writer who set up the blog to draw more attention to the Arctic and create a central place for the exchange of information and ideas concerning Arctic sea ice. He also set up the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs website that is a collection of graphs, maps and other pieces of information regarding Arctic sea ice, and he formed a forum to allow community discussion.

Neven, like many other armchair scientists has little formal training. But, he makes up for that with a doggedness that would impress anyone. While he describes his blog as basically weather reports, many publishing researchers turn to him for a comprehensive view of current conditions. Do you want to know what the short term ice conditions will likely be? Ask Neven. Interested in learning about impacts of current conditions on the atmosphere? Ask Neven.

Not only is he a great resource, but the commenters provide insightful thoughts as well. And very often, they are not in agreement with each other. It is refreshing to see people engage in polite yet candid discussions of various views of our Arctic.

Ice sheet melt pond – John Maurer NSIDC 

  So, what is the view of the current Arctic conditions? Well, let's hear from Neven himself.

"So far the 2013 melting season hasn't been as spectacular as 2012 because of a slow start to the melting season, where a persistent cyclone kept the Arctic cold and cloudy for several weeks in a row. Right now, it doesn't look like the 2012 records will be broken, but there are a few known unknowns out there that might change all that. For instance, a large patch of low concentration ice near the North Pole.

Either way, we're going to learn something from this melting season, like how important a fast/slow start to the melting season can be in this new regime where most of the ice pack consists of thin first-year ice. The weather used to be the dominant factor in determining how low the minimum would turn out. It still is dominant, but the thinning of the ice pack has reduced its importance. In other words, ice thickness decides how dominant the weather can be.

If it turns out that a slow start to the melting season results in a recovery of sorts, and we have a couple of those in a row (which I think is highly unlikely), we could return to the pre-2007 situation. But just one bad year would probably throw the ice pack back to where we are now: a state where a fast start to the melting season, and prevailing conditions that are conducive to melt lead to a virtually ice-free Arctic in September.

I personally believe this could happen before the decade is out, but it still depends on the circumstances. We haven't reached the stage yet where an ice-free September is a done deal. Things rarely are certain in the Arctic. There even could be some unforeseen negative feedback kicking in and (finally) slowing things down, but that's not something I would bet the farm on.

What's important to remember, is that even if not ice-free, the situation is already very, very bad, and it's not unreasonable to think that we have started to experience the consequences of the loss of Arctic sea ice so far. Organizations like Greenpeace tell us that we need to save the Arctic. And even though the Arctic is the most important place in the world right now (IMO), it's not about saving the Arctic, it's about saving ourselves."

People like Neven, who can provide clear descriptions to the larger public are doing a great service. This is particularly so because scientists who are employed at major research institutions are often not trained in communication and such activities are not rewarded. I view these complementary activities and viewpoints an exciting development in the larger conversation about climate change.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/12/global-warming-arctic-armchair-scientists

Read More

Fox News found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial

American consumers of conservative media like Fox News distrust climate scientists and don't believe the planet is warming 

Fox News is helping prop up conservative American global warming denial.

by John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli, "Climate Consensus - the 97%," The Guardian, August 8, 2013

A new study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PDF available here) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans in 2008 and 2011 about their media consumption and beliefs about climate change.

The results suggest that conservative media consumption (specifically Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) decreases viewer trust in scientists, which in turn decreases belief that global warming is happening. In contrast, consumption of non-conservative media (specifically ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) increases consumer trust in scientists, and in turn belief that global warming is happening.

The study also examined previous research on this issue and concluded that the conservative media creates distrust in scientists through five main methods:

1) Presenting contrarian scientists as "objective" experts while presenting mainstream scientists as self-interested or biased.

2) Denigrating scientific institutions and peer-reviewed journals.

3) Equating peer-reviewed research with a politically liberal opinion.

4) Accusing climate scientists of manipulating data to fund research projects.

5) Characterizing climate science as a religion.

Media Matters provides examples of Fox News engaging in all five of these tactics. One prime example involves contrarian meteorologist Joe Bastardi, a frequent climate misinformation guest on Fox News who Rolling Stone awarded the #1 dumbest thing ever said about global warming for claiming that CO2 "literally" cannot cause warming because it doesn't "mix well in the atmosphere."

In reality we've known for nearly 190 years that rising CO2 causes global warming, and we know for certain it's well-mixed throughout the atmosphere, as illustrated by measurements from around the world.

The results of this study can be compared to the PhD research done by my Skeptical Science colleague John Cook, at the University of Queensland. Cook surveyed representative samples of Australians and Americans regarding their political ideologies and the effect of consensus on their acceptance of human-caused global warming. After being shown evidence of the consensus on human-caused global warming, Australian acceptance of this scientific reality grew across the political spectrum, but especially among conservatives.

In the American sample, acceptance grew for most political groups, but especially among political liberals. In the American sample, there was also a small and extremely politically conservative group who actually became more likely to reject human-caused global warming in response to evidence of the expert consensus. Cook presented his data at the American Geophysical Union Chapman Conference on Climate Science Communication, shown in the video below at the 10-minute mark.

Cook's result appears consistent with the new study published in Public Understanding of Science, which found that exposure to conservative media decreases trust in climate scientists. In short, Fox News and other conservative media outlets plant the notion that climate scientists are somehow faking evidence for human-caused global warming. This makes viewers less trusting of climate scientists and less likely to accept that global warming is happening.

With conservatives tending to get their information from conservative media sources, this is increasing the political polarization on the subject of climate change. However, with the real-world effects of climate change constantly becoming more difficult to deny, this is not a sustainable situation. Eventually reality must break in, and there are signs that this is beginning to happen.

A growing number of American conservatives are demanding that the Republican Party stop denying the problem and begin participating in crafting the solution. For example, the list of conservatives supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax continues to grow:

51 percent of Republican voters
Art Laffer, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan
Greg Mankiw, economic advisor to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney
George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State
Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate in economics
Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina
A staffer for a House Republican
William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan
Lee Thomas, EPA Administrator under Reagan
William Reilly, EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush
Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator under George W. Bush

The list goes on. Moreover, 73% of young voters under the age of 35 associate denial of global warming with words like "ignorant," "out-of-touch" or "crazy," including 53% of young Republicans. Climate solutions are also growing in popularity due to their real-world success, with British Columbia's revenue-neutral carbon tax enjoying 64% support, and California's carbon cap and trade system experiencing 67% support.

The question now is how long the Republican Party's global warming denial and obstruction of climate solutions can last in the face of these growing numbers of Americans (including Republicans) demanding climate solutions. Climate misinformation from Fox News and other conservative media outlets may be stemming the tide against climate denial, but the tide is rising, both literally and figuratively.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/08/global-warming-denial-fox-news

Read More

Kerry Emanuel research indicates increase in frequency, intensity of hurricanes

Global warming and the future of storms: New research by Kerry Emanuel suggests that hurricanes will become more frequent and more intense


Hurricane Sandy battered towns along the United States east coast. Photograph: Scott Eisen/REUTERS

by John Abraham, Climate Consensus – The 97%, The Guardian, July 26, 2013

We know that changes we are making to the Earth's climate will (and currently are) affecting weather. Some of the impacts are clear to see and easy to quantify. For instance, in some regions, droughts are becoming more severe and longer lasting, while in other locations, the opposite is occurring – more precipitation is falling in heavier downbursts. Two competing issues have to be considered. First, increased temperatures are increasing evaporation rates i.e., drying is occurring. Second, increased temperatures lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which results in heavier rain/snow events. In regions that are currently dry, the first issue dominates, whereas in wet regions, the second is more important.

Despite these competing effects, scientists can detect changes in the drying/wetting patterns around the globe, and these are linked to human emissions.

For other weather patterns, the evidence is not as clear. For instance for tornadoes, our observations just aren't good enough to make categorical conclusions. Reliable records in the U.S. started in the early 1950s, but since then, there have been improvements in our sensing instruments, which makes it difficult to assess long-term trends.

A similar situation exists for hurricanes and cyclones. We are more able to observe and quantify these storms now, so we have to ask whether increases in these storms is caused by global warming, by improved measurements, or by both. Similarly, we have had very destructive storms in the U.S. recently, but is the damage due to more powerful storms or increased infrastructure in storm areas?

Image of infrared emission from Typhoon Sanba, 2012.

One useful tool that can help answer these questions are climate models. Climate models are like virtual reality computer programs. You can input today's conditions (wind speed, temperatures, pressures, etc.) and predict what will happen in the future. Today's weather forecasts use similar prediction tools. In some respects, "climate" computer programs and "weather" computer programs are different, but there are some clear similarities. "Weather" prediction programs try to give short-term prognostications of local weather a few days into the future. "Climate" predictions attempt to describe long-term trends in large-scale climate patterns years and decades into the future.

So, how can computer programs help us answer the hurricane/cyclone question? With the help of the program, a scientist can play "what if" scenarios and see how future storms will change. What if greenhouse gases increase? What if ocean temperatures increase? What if wind speeds change? How will these things affect the number and strength of hurricanes?

Very recently, a publication appeared by perhaps the world's best-known hurricane scientist, Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT. Dr. Emanuel combined global computer simulations with more regional simulations to look into the future at the evolution of storms. What he found was surprising. Because the storms will become stronger and more numerous, within the next century, the power dissipated by future storms will increase by about 50%. What was particularly interesting was that his findings show increases in both strong and weaker cyclones.

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, MIT

I asked Dr. Emanuel to summarize the present understanding of hurricanes, and he responded with the following insights:

• The incidence of high-intensity tropical cyclones (Safir-Simpson categories 3–5) should increase, and the amount of rainfall in these storms should increase, upping the potential for freshwater flooding. These changes will not necessarily occur where tropical cyclones develop and thrive today. "Indeed," wrote Emanuel, "it is likely that there will be decreasing activity in some places, and increasing activity in others; models do not agree on such regional changes."

• Though experts disagree on this point, Emanuel's work suggests that weak events (tropical storms and Cat 1–2 storms) will become more frequent.

• "Very little work has been done on the problem of storm size," wrote Emanuel, "what little research has been done suggests that storm diameters may increase with global temperature. This can have a profound influence on storm surges, which are the biggest killers in tropical cyclone disasters."

Is Dr. Emanuel right? We will have to wait and see. What we do know is he has been right many times in the past, and I am not willing to bet against him. All of this may be academic but it has real human impact. Just ask the people affect by recent storms Katrina, Sandy, Irene, Isaac, Ike, Rita, Wilma, Charley, Ivan, Andrew...you get the point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/26/global-warming-future-of-

Read More

Global warming games - playing the man not the ball

by John Abraham, Skeptical Science, July 15, 2013

I hate to talk about myself, so this first part will be short. A little biography is necessary to set the stage for this post. A few years ago, I heard well-known climate contrarian Christopher Monckton speak on human-caused climate change. Monckton has been a favorite hero of the anti-science movement and, for the rest of us, a source of amusement as he travels the world reciting basic scientific errors and misrepresenting his own credentials.

After hearing Monckton's lecture, I posted a detailed rebuttal online showcasing his mischaracterization of the science and his obvious and elementary errors. In response, my university and I received a 99-page complaint letter, which ended with a request to pay $110,000 to the United States Association of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. This was followed by attacks against me by Marc Morano, who was kind enough to publicly post my contact information on his website. Monckton went on to encourage listeners of the radical Alex Jones show to write to my university administration to "investigate" me.

What ever happened to that whole episode? Not much. A few hate messages that appear in my mailbox from time to time. They are easy to spot because they never have a return address and their speeling and punctuation,,, is just terrble! And has Monckton ever followed through with his promised? Nope… I am still waiting. This whole event, as a colleague told me, was the bite of a toothless Chihuahua. It helped that my University stood beside me and was not bullied by this sideshow.

My colleagues, however, have endured far worse attacks by the anti-science crowd. Take, for instance, Dr. Ben Santer and the attacks leveled against him in The Wall Street Journal. Or how about the numerous attacks against Dr. Michael Mann? He has been viciously attacked on blogs and in far right-wing media as his work on paleoclimate has been held up as the face of climate change.

But Dr. Mann has not only been attacked on blogs, television, and in print; he has been attacked in court. For instance, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli tried to force Dr. Mann to release private emails and other documents from his research work at the University of Virginia. He demanded correspondence between Dr. Mann and a number of other scientists in a style that echoed back to McCarthyism. Mr. Cuccinelli failed in his misguided attack. The total cost to the University of Virginia for this fishing expedition? Just $350,000. Now Mr. Cuccinelli is running to be the next governor of Virginia.

For Dr. Mann, the outcome is that he has wasted time and money fighting against these attacks. On the other hand, his science, which is perhaps the most scrutinized in the world's history, has emerged victorious. The "hockey-stick graph" is now one of the most trusted and widely recognized graphs in all of science. To his colleagues, Dr. Mann is a hero.

Dr. Mann aptly uses the phrase "Serengeti strategy" to describe this attack strategy. Isolate and run down individual scientists. By attacking and trying to discredit one scientist at a time, they are able to discredit all scientists by profession. And, if they cannot discredit the scientist – then just make up facts about them and put those facts online and in print.

What is concerning is how young, upcoming scientists will view this environment. People go into science because of a curiosity about the world, not because they want to fight endless FOIA requests or have lies told about them in the media.

Will the hostility that this environment presents dissuade our best and brightest from even entering science? I hope not, for their sake and the sake of all of us.

Another concern is the cost (financial and time) that defending against the attacks requires. To this end, my friend and colleague, Professor Scott Mandia, along with Joshua Wolfe, have founded the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF). CSLDF was established to let scientists conduct research without the threat of politically motivated attacks. Not only does this group raise money to help cover legal fees, they provide training materials to both young and seasoned scientists. CSLDF is a project of the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) so donations are tax-deductible. Perhaps the best description is from Professor Mandia himself, "The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established to make sure that legal actions are not viewed as an attack against one scientist or institution but as attacks against the scientific endeavor as a whole. Our goal is simple: let scientists conduct research without the threat of politically motivated attacks."

We really don't think this is the best environment for science, but when the issue is as polarizing as climate change, perhaps the present situation is inevitable. On the other hand, over the past few years scientists have learned that the Serengeti Strategy only works when the predators are able to isolate their prey from the larger herd. Scientists have learned that protection of one is protection of all. We have also learned that good science will always win in the end. When the history books are written, I'll sit down with my daughters and tell them the story. It has clowns, hockey sticks, and witches – a real thriller. Let's hope it ends with truth and an emerging plan to believe the real scientists and disregard their attackers. The history books are being written right now.

Dr. John Abraham
University of St. Thomas
Climate Science Rapid Response Team
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-games-climate-science-legal-defense-fund.html

Read More

John Abraham: Why Greenland's darkening ice has become a hot topic in climate science

Darkening causes the snow to absorb more sunlight which in turn increases melting 

 

Climate scientist Jason Box during an expedition in Greenland in July 2008. Photograph: Byrd Polar Research Center 

 

by John Abraham, Climate Consensus: the 97%, The Guardian, June 12, 2013

Last July, a record melting occurred on the Greenland ice sheet. Even in some of the highest and coldest areas, field parties observed rainfall with air temperatures several degrees above the freezing point. A month before, it was as though Greenland expert Jason Box had a crystal ball; he predicted this complete surface melting in a scientific publication. Box's research then got broader public visibility after climate activist and writer Bill McKibben covered it in Rolling Stone magazine.

The basic premise of Box's study was that observations reveal a progressive darkening of Greenland ice. Darkening causes the white snow surface to absorb more sunlight which in turn increases melting. Given that this process is likely to continue, the impact on Greenland melt, and subsequent sea level rise, will be profound.

There are several mechanisms that are known to darken arctic ice, including desert dust, pollen, soot from natural forest fires, and human biomass burning for land clearing and domestic use. Industrial, shipping, and aircraft pollution also play a role. Some of these effects are increasing. As climate change accelerates, more areas are being burned by wildfire each year. Box wondered how much increasing wildfires with resulting soot landing on the northern ice might amplify what scientists call a "positive feedback" (a self-reinforcing cycle) increasing Greenland melting. The cycle starts with initial warming, leading to more fires, more soot, and in turn more warming and more melt. The feedback is important, particularly in polar regions where observed warming is twice the rate of more southerly locations around the globe. Box calculates this effect has doubled Greenland surface melting since year 2000.

The topic has become hot among ice experts as new observations of ice melt continue to outstrip projections from just a few years ago. Arctic sea ice, another key measure of global heating, is now 60 years ahead of worst-case projections from the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. Arctic snow cover on land has also been declining more rapidly than projected, even faster than sea ice. While mass loss of the enormous Greenland sheet is difficult to measure, satellite data indicate it has doubled in the last decade. If this acceleration continues, sea level rise could be even higher this century than the 1 or 2 meters that mainstream scientists now project – possibly much higher. Despite a recent study that projected Greenland outflow glaciers to slow, surface melting has increased faster than ice flow. The albedo feedback is a critical piece of physics that enables surface melting to continue dominating the loss.

To test his hypothesis, Box has assembled a team of scientists and communicators to collect and analyze samples from key locations on the ice sheet, and report those results directly to the public. The plan is to arrive in Greenland in late June, just as the peak melting season and fire season coincide. Box will be joined by Bill McKibben, who will be covering the research for Rolling Stone, and videographer Peter Sinclair, whose series of climate change videos on YouTube has gained high praise from climate scientists.

The scientific team includes Sara McKenzie Skiles, a researcher at UCLA and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Marek Stibal, a biogeochemist at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. Dr Stibal will be looking at yet another potential source of darkening, the activity of microorganisms that produce their own darkening pigments, which may be increasing due to atmospheric warming and fertilization by pollutants.

While government funding contracted, Box decided to push forward with a new approach, financing the research as a "citizen science" initiative, funded by internet crowd sourcing. His project is aptly named DARK SNOW and financial support is being collected online.

It is exciting to watch emerging science collide with novel scientific fundraising initiatives. It is possible that this emergence will grow in the coming years as scientific projects grow in cost and complexity, while more traditional funding sources diminish. The costs of funding projects like DARK SNOW are miniscule compared to the costs we endure from climate-change-related weather disasters. The penny-wise pound-foolish attitude we've taken toward science funding is a complicated issue that I'll deal with in a future post.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/12/greenland-darkening-ice-climate-science

Read More