Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41
Like Tree16Likes
  • 3 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By billvon
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By astromark
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By adelady

Thread: Are we leading to an ice age due Global warming?

  1. #1 Are we leading to an ice age due Global warming? 
    Genius Idiot Rajnish Kaushik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    168
    This year in India and many other countries (including USA) too cool temp was recorded which braked last 25 years of record so this is a need to worry


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    no - have a look at this :

    Can global warming be real if it’s cold in the U.S.? Um… yes!

    what global warming causes is a wavy rather than a smooth polar front, with the jetstream sticking in one position for weeks and sometimes months on end - hence the pattern that we've seen over the last few years, whether it's heat waves, mini-ice ages, droughts, deluges, storms : all of them are more extreme than we've been used to + the same weather pattern persists for longer, which makes it a lot harder to bear than the occasional cold snap


    KALSTER, Bad Robot and babe like this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    This year in India and many other countries (including USA) too cool temp was recorded which braked last 25 years of record so this is a need to worry
    The really interesting thing about the Arctic polar vortex over the USA is that it hasn't resulted in record cold temperatures.

    Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : U.S. Cold Blast WInds Down, Fails to Set Any All-Time Cold Records | Weather Underground

    As wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt summed it up for me,

    "The only significant thing about the cold wave is how long it has been since a cold wave of this force has hit for some portions of the country--18 years, to be specific. Prior to 1996, cold waves of this intensity occurred pretty much every 5-10 years. In the 19th century, they occurred every year or two (since 1835).

    Something that, unlike the cold wave, is truly unprecedented is the dry spell in California and Oregon, which is causing unprecedented winter wildfires in Northern California."

    The difference between the cold of the past and now is that we now need the polar cold weather to move down to the continental USA to get anywhere near the cold temperatures that were a routine part of the previous climate. And we should also note the regional variations

    It was colder in the southern state of Georgia than Alaska as Atlanta plunged to 6F (-14C) – the lowest temperature since 1966 – while Anchorage, Alaska, recorded 27F (-3C) . http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/07/polar-vortex-temperature-freezing-all-50-states

    Can't help you with the India data. I know I saw something on it a couple of days ago, but nothing as detailed or informative as the stuff on US and Canada.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    ...The really interesting thing about the Arctic polar vortex over the USA is that it hasn't resulted in record cold temperatures....
    That's innacurate:
    Polar vortex chills Americans with another day of record cold temperatures
    from npr
    and:
    from:
    List of record low temperatures set Tuesday

    A list of low-temperature records broken Tuesday morning:

    Alabama

    4 in Huntsville: Previous record low 5

    7 in Birmingham: Previous record low 11

    14 in Mobile: Previous record low 18

    Delaware

    6 in Dover: Previous record low 10

    Georgia

    19 in Savannah: Previous record low 21

    11 in Macon: Previous record low 14

    6 in Atlanta: Previous record low 10

    12 in Augusta: Previous record low 15

    7 in Athens: Previous record low 12

    Maryland

    3 in Baltimore: Previous record low 8

    Michigan

    -14 in Detroit: Previous record low -5

    -14 in Flint: Previous record low -10

    Mississippi

    13 in Vicksburg: Previous record low 17

    11 in Meridian: Previous record low 15

    14 in Jackson: Previous record low 16

    New York

    4 in New York City: Previous record low 6

    North Carolina

    -1 in Asheville: Previous record low 3

    9 in Raleigh: Previous record low 15

    5 in Greensboro: Previous record low 14

    6 in Charlotte: Previous record low 12

    Ohio

    -11 in Akron-Canton: Previous record low -5

    -12 in Mansfield: Previous record low -7

    -11 in Cleveland: Previous record low -7

    -14 in Toledo: Previous record low -6

    -12 in Youngstown: Previous record low -6

    -7 in Columbus: Previous record low -5

    -9 in New Philadelphia: Previous record low -3

    -8 in Zanesville: Previous record low -3

    Pennsylvania

    4 in Philadelphia: Previous record low 7

    -9 in Pittsburgh: Previous record low -5

    0 in Harrisburg: Previous record low 5

    -5 in Williamsport: Previous record low -2

    -13 in Dubois: Previous record low -5

    South Carolina

    20 in Charleston: Previous record low 21

    6 in Greenville-Spartanburg: Previous record low 9

    13 in Columbia: Previous record low 16

    14 in Florence: Previous record low 18

    Tennessee

    2 in Knoxville: Previous record low 6

    5 in Chattanooga: Previous record low 9

    -1 in Kingsport: Previous record low 5

    Virginia

    -5 in Blacksburg: Previous record low 1

    8 in Danville: Previous record low 10

    2 in Lynchburg: Previous record low 10

    1 in Roanoke: Previous record low 8

    10 in Richmond: Previous record low 12

    3 at Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia: Previous record low 8

    West Virginia

    -8 in Bluefield: Previous record low 0

    -8 in Lewisburg: Previous record low 7

    -7 in Morgantown: Previous record low -4

    Sources: The Weather Channel; AccuWeather
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Idiot Rajnish Kaushik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    ...The really interesting thing about the Arctic polar vortex over the USA is that it hasn't resulted in record cold temperatures....
    That's innacurate:
    Polar vortex chills Americans with another day of record cold temperatures
    from npr
    and:
    from:
    List of record low temperatures set Tuesday

    A list of low-temperature records broken Tuesday morning:

    Alabama

    4 in Huntsville: Previous record low 5

    7 in Birmingham: Previous record low 11

    14 in Mobile: Previous record low 18

    Delaware

    6 in Dover: Previous record low 10

    Georgia

    19 in Savannah: Previous record low 21

    11 in Macon: Previous record low 14

    6 in Atlanta: Previous record low 10

    12 in Augusta: Previous record low 15

    7 in Athens: Previous record low 12

    Maryland

    3 in Baltimore: Previous record low 8

    Michigan

    -14 in Detroit: Previous record low -5

    -14 in Flint: Previous record low -10

    Mississippi

    13 in Vicksburg: Previous record low 17

    11 in Meridian: Previous record low 15

    14 in Jackson: Previous record low 16

    New York

    4 in New York City: Previous record low 6

    North Carolina

    -1 in Asheville: Previous record low 3

    9 in Raleigh: Previous record low 15

    5 in Greensboro: Previous record low 14

    6 in Charlotte: Previous record low 12

    Ohio

    -11 in Akron-Canton: Previous record low -5

    -12 in Mansfield: Previous record low -7

    -11 in Cleveland: Previous record low -7

    -14 in Toledo: Previous record low -6

    -12 in Youngstown: Previous record low -6

    -7 in Columbus: Previous record low -5

    -9 in New Philadelphia: Previous record low -3

    -8 in Zanesville: Previous record low -3

    Pennsylvania

    4 in Philadelphia: Previous record low 7

    -9 in Pittsburgh: Previous record low -5

    0 in Harrisburg: Previous record low 5

    -5 in Williamsport: Previous record low -2

    -13 in Dubois: Previous record low -5

    South Carolina

    20 in Charleston: Previous record low 21

    6 in Greenville-Spartanburg: Previous record low 9

    13 in Columbia: Previous record low 16

    14 in Florence: Previous record low 18

    Tennessee

    2 in Knoxville: Previous record low 6

    5 in Chattanooga: Previous record low 9

    -1 in Kingsport: Previous record low 5

    Virginia

    -5 in Blacksburg: Previous record low 1

    8 in Danville: Previous record low 10

    2 in Lynchburg: Previous record low 10

    1 in Roanoke: Previous record low 8

    10 in Richmond: Previous record low 12

    3 at Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia: Previous record low 8

    West Virginia

    -8 in Bluefield: Previous record low 0

    -8 in Lewisburg: Previous record low 7

    -7 in Morgantown: Previous record low -4

    Sources: The Weather Channel; AccuWeather
    isnt that a thing to worry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    isnt that a thing to worry
    The thing to worry about with record temperatures is the ratio of record highs to record lows. afaik the US is still running at more than twice as many record highs as record lows.

    Figure 3: The ratio of record daily temperature highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Source: Meehl et al. 2009


    I haven't seen an updated version of this to include a "this decade so far" figure, but you can see the trend quite clearly.

    Flick Montana and sir ir r aj like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Rajnish Kaushik, the direct answer to your question, "Are we leading to an ice age due Global warming?" is that global warming means higher temperature globally, and weird weather locally. Some of that weird weather will be cold, some otherwise. On balance we find it warming slowly year after year but what impacts people is the crazy weather events.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    If you only look at temperature trends of the past 50-60-70-etc... years all the way back to "the little ice age" then indeed we see a warming trend.

    If you look only at the last 10 years, the trend is cooler. If you look only at the temperatures from 800 ad to 1800 ad, then the trend is markedly cooling.

    By carefully picking your trend parameters, you can make the data support any silly claims.

    Always note the parameters in conjunction with any climate claims. Any truncated charts should always make you curious about the motives involved, and the data that lies beyond the parameters shown.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Always note the parameters in conjunction with any climate claims. Any truncated charts should always make you curious about the motives involved, and the data that lies beyond the parameters shown.
    BS if you are referring to a peer-review journal; it is better advise if it comes from a crank, non-review web site.

    Truncated charts in peer review journals usually have their grounding in fields outside of climatology, such as the statistical analysis used (e.g, can't take a 10 year moving average past 2008), or availability or direct observation or an effective proxy. To really find out one has to actually read the methods sections of the paper....a reasonable expectation.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Even peer reviewed journals have trends and prejudices. They are all the products of imperfect humans. People do not suddenly become perfect when their words are accepted by a peer reviewed journal.

    The above advice doesn't loose it's value ever.
    And, not just for climate "science" but for all sciences. How many have ignored or refused the holocine climate optimum, or the mideival warm period, or the sudden cold snap circa 5-6kybp, and then claimed "it was only local" when confronted with the evidence? In anthropology/archaeology how many have denied the evidence which contradicts "clovis first"? How many years did it take to finally refute the V.Gordon Childe mistakes?

    The only good approach to science requires keeping a critical mind, and never assuming that our current trends, or commonly accepted prejudices are the ultimate "truth".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If you look only at the last 10 years, the trend is cooler.
    Just not true. The hottest year ever recorded (going back 150 years) is 2010. Also the hottest year in the period 2002-2012. The second hottest year ever was 2005. Also the second hottest year in the period 2002-2012. The trend is still hotter.

    (You may have heard about the "end of global warming" from a media outlet, but in fact it's just a slowdown in the rate of temperature increase.)
    Flick Montana and astromark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    anyway - the lesson to take from this is that we're talking about measuring a global property
    global temperatures have kept going up for the world as a whole, even if there have been local reversals in both space and time
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If you look only at the last 10 years, the trend is cooler.
    Just not true. The hottest year ever recorded (going back 150 years) is 2010. Also the hottest year in the period 2002-2012. The second hottest year ever was 2005. Also the second hottest year in the period 2002-2012. The trend is still hotter.

    (You may have heard about the "end of global warming" from a media outlet, but in fact it's just a slowdown in the rate of temperature increase.)
    Jeezzzzzzzz
    here's a link to a favorite "media outlet".......

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...201-201212.png

    Look carefully at the chart and you will see that the temperature trend over the past decade is indeed down. Not by much, but, down none the less.(there is a more thorough discussion on the ncdc/noaa website)
    So:
    Before you go behaving like a jackass and claiming "Just not true."
    Take a moment and double check.
    You will note(to your delight?) that the ncdc/noaa data also supports your claim to a hot decade.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Look carefully at the chart and you will see that the temperature trend over the past decade is indeed down. Not by much, but, down none the less.(there is a more thorough discussion on the ncdc/noaa website)

    I hope we really aren't at this basic level of discussion. Are we?

    Where science minded people are actually going to ignore the error bars (something we should teach about 10th grade math) despite everyone involved knowing what they mean.

    Obviously there's been no significant change in the past ten years, one needs to cover a longer period anyhow for most climate discussions because of interannual variability. That being said we don't have to go very far to see billvon's point that the globe is significantly warmer than most of the direct observation records, including since the solar output started to decline in the late 70s.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; January 11th, 2014 at 06:43 PM.
    adelady and astromark like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    hmmmmm
    curiouser and curiouser

    I posted a link to an attempt by noaa and ncdc at climate science, which you Lynx seem to be denying.
    ........OMG

    careful dadio, you're on the ragged edge of climate science denial.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    hmmmmm
    curiouser and curiouser

    I posted a link to an attempt by noaa and ncdc at climate science, which you Lynx seem to be denying.
    And I commented specifically on it.
    --

    I'm pretty sure you've had basic statistics at some point in your life and are well aware of how ignorant your comment about cooling was. So stop trolling.
    PhDemon and billvon like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    meanwhile, in a different part of the world, global warming definitely is of the hot variety

    Heat Wave Stifles Australia

    it goes to show that when considering global warming, think globally, not parochially
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    and so it is in Alaska as well

    Winter Heat Swamps Alaska
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    6
    The climate is changing. The earth is warming up, and there is now overwhelming scientific consensus that it is happening, and human-induced. With global warming on the increase and species and their habitats on the decrease, chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Meanwhile in the real world, and in my own actual experience. Actual numbers and real testable science.. That the ocean temperatures south of Tasmania ( Australia ) has risen in just twelve years could be just part of a cycle if it were not for the fact that these readings of ocean water temp are real., and still rising. While I was on board the RV Tangaroa between 1998 and 2010 and I went back for another mapping mission in 2012 for a six month stint. I was involved in sea floor mapping and rock strata analysts tests, and not just around Tasmania. We went out to the Chatham rise and South to the Ross Sea. Let me be absolutely clear. Ocean-ography and temp were not in my field of work. ( I can't even spell the words...) I was a techo., working with mapping. The NEWA ship the RV Tangaroa is still working these parts of the great Southern Oceans.. That the people we ate with, drank with, and lived with for months and months and months.. from all over the world, talked of these climate changes noted while we played cards. " How much has it come up and what would you think that would do ? was a question often asked. "Oh that we might go OFF record to say, 1.4 deg in 12 years. The fish life is going through the roof buddy.." was said.. Whales for Christmas., and lots of them. and that is that... Climate change and Global warming are real and concerning. How concerning ? The US Govt pay the ( some of ) the bills for this research vessels work. 'Mark the ships slave reporting real hands on science from real hands on scientists..' I could not argue with what they concluded and told me. ( They were bigger than me.)

    Now. That above will not appease the demanding science fact hounds.. but for me.. "They's knows of what they's do's..."
    So.. are we on the brink of a ice age.. ? No. It does not look like that is true.

    I return to just clarify that I am/was the ships electrician.
    Last edited by astromark; February 7th, 2014 at 01:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    in the meantime in the UK, it's clear that you don't have to wait for the sea levels to rise substantially for Somerset to get flooded, and the coastal areas in the south and west of the country to get a battering
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    in the meantime in the UK, it's clear that you don't have to wait for the sea levels to rise substantially for Somerset to get flooded, and the coastal areas in the south and west of the country to get a battering
    ~ and a quick and very little research would reveal that many coastal areas globally were subjected to king tides as this last new moon co in sided with Lunar para gee.. gee wiz.. Calm down and carry on..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    are you suggesting that werewolves cause floods by howling at the moon ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    are you suggesting that werewolves cause floods by howling at the moon ?
    " Where are the werewolves is as where are the K9's subset wolves that seem to howl at a deaf moon.. or is this a territorial and matting habit of the wolf. A barking madness is apparent while we howl at the Moon.. Low barometric pressure coinciding with king tides... Awooo... woof, woof Yea-Right." and that it's happened before and will again.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Global warming is more about the weather patterns becoming less stable, containing more energy and about being less predictable.
    If you use Chaos Theory or Complex Systems Theory to model the changes you get a period of strange behaviour as the systems degrade into wild turbulence. Out of the turbulence a new period of stability emerges. Unfortunately it is impossible to predict what the new stable state of the system will be although it is possible to calculate a set of possibilities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Global warming is more about the weather patterns becoming less stable, containing more energy and about being less predictable.
    Not really true and it's very much a mixed bag. Broadly we can consider the tropics and extra-tropics.
    The tropics will probably become less stable and more energetic because much of their energy is convectively driven.

    Extra tropical systems are likely to become LESS energetic because most of the energy source is from latitudinal gradient which will decrease as the high latitudes warm up faster than the tropics. Overall rain patterns, monsoonal strengths etc are already shifting as sub-tropical jet is reaching higher latitudes.

    As for predictability, most of it will be less, BUT only because long term weather records temperatures, precipitations and secondary effects such as soil moisture, flooding potential, a heat wave etc are being rewritten. There will also be some dramatic changes in a few places--Mediterranean and Brazilian Hurricanes (predicted) for example.


    If you use Chaos Theory or Complex Systems Theory to model the changes you get a period of strange behaviour as the systems degrade into wild turbulence. Out of the turbulence a new period of stability emerges.
    We can't say this with any certainty either--the models don't really suggest entirely new climate stable regimes.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Global warming is more about the weather patterns becoming less stable, containing more energy and about being less predictable.
    Not really true and it's very much a mixed bag. Broadly we can consider the tropics and extra-tropics.
    The tropics will probably become less stable and more energetic because much of their energy is convectively driven.

    Extra tropical systems are likely to become LESS energetic because most of the energy source is from latitudinal gradient which will decrease as the high latitudes warm up faster than the tropics. Overall rain patterns, monsoonal strengths etc are already shifting as sub-tropical jet is reaching higher latitudes.

    As for predictability, most of it will be less, BUT only because long term weather records temperatures, precipitations and secondary effects such as soil moisture, flooding potential, a heat wave etc are being rewritten. There will also be some dramatic changes in a few places--Mediterranean and Brazilian Hurricanes (predicted) for example.


    If you use Chaos Theory or Complex Systems Theory to model the changes you get a period of strange behaviour as the systems degrade into wild turbulence. Out of the turbulence a new period of stability emerges.
    We can't say this with any certainty either--the models don't really suggest entirely new climate stable regimes.
    Please explain
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/265.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The TAR was 12 years ago!

    There's been a lot of work done since then. Just looking at hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons we seem to be converging - for the time being at least - on a projection that there may be the same number or fewer of these storms over the next few decades but that the proportion of large, severe and/or extremely damaging storms will increase, probably markedly. One thing for everyone to ponder about. Hurricane Sandy was not a severe storm by the standard measures, but it was much, much larger and more damaging than previous storms.

    As for longer term predictions, all we have to go by is physics. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets, more ice will melt, ocean waters will expand, sea level will rise in most places, wet regions will get wetter, dry regions will get drier, the more acidic the ocean gets, the more reefs and fish will decline.

    Whether this means that the number and severity of storms will increase or decrease during which stages of increasing temperature and declining differences between equator and poles - we don't yet know. And most people think we'd be better off not knowing. Because the likely impacts on agriculture are not user friendly.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    "all we have to go by is physics."

    Picking on this phrase: in a warmer world, extratropical cyclogenesis will be reduced with lowered latitudinal temperature gradients (and weaker polar jet streams). Outside of the tropics, with the unique exception of perhaps directly along warm water current coast lines (e.g. off Eastern coast of US), where there will be a bit more latent heat available to compensate, extratropical storms will be less frequent and of lower intensity-it is very well established science.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 9th, 2014 at 07:00 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Edit - Double post.
    Last edited by kojax; February 9th, 2014 at 12:40 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    There's too much attention to temperatures on land, which are not really as relevant as temperatures in water.

    One of water's greatest traits is THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY. If the world were indeed warming, the water in the oceans would complicate the process. (And remember there is more of the Earth's surface covered by water than covered by land.) Some heat would be lost by way of water becoming moisture in the air. Some would be lost by melting of ice. The heat gets trapped, or moved, or absorbed in different ways.

    The water acts toward heat a lot like how a battery acts toward electricity. Just because the electric charge isn't going up doesn't mean there isn't more electricity.It could be that the battery is simply consuming it as it charges.

    Conversely, if the temperature of the Earth were dropping, and new ice were forming in the oceans, the freezing water would absorb heat (to make the crystal bonds), making it seem like summer all around.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Well, there's no doubt about the oceans warming. The "complication" is simply that people don't perceive it.

    Total heat content


    Climate Graphics by Skeptical Science: Total Heat Content (2011 update)
    dan hunter likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As for predictability, most of it will be less, BUT only because long term weather records temperatures, precipitations and secondary effects such as soil moisture, flooding potential, a heat wave etc are being rewritten.
    anyone with a smattering of understanding as to how statistics work will tell you that prediction using a certain data set will become fraught with uncertainty the further you step away from that data set, and that's exactly what's happening now : how can you deduce that something is a once-a-century event based on records that go no more than a few centuries back ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    anyone with a smattering of understanding as to how statistics work will tell you that prediction using a certain data set will become fraught with uncertainty the further you step away from that data set
    But that's only true for data sets that are data only - like financial statistics. When you're dealing with climate data, you're doing it within tightly defined physical limits. Radiative physics, fluid dynamics and all the rest make climate much more predictable than say the stock market or even weather which relies far too much on the completeness of an original state. Whereas with climate, you can write all the physics equations into a model, set it going with no initial conditions stipulated apart from global geography and without any further prompting it comes up with an unpredictable ENSO regime and monsoons and trade winds and heat transport to the poles and all the features we recognise in our climate.

    If you're really interested in the relationship between statistics and climate, you'd do well to follow Grant Foster's blog. (You could also read his textbooks but I have enough trouble keeping up with him on climate - though he does sometimes illustrate with astronomy examples.) This is his latest entry. Cherry p | Open Mind
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Regardless of any reader's interest or skill in statistics, this comic linked by one of the comments at Tamino's is pretty good.

    https://xkcd.com/882/
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But that's only true for data sets that are data only - like financial statistics. When you're dealing with climate data, you're doing it within tightly defined physical limits.
    it still begs the question how you assess whether a change in frequency of rare events is a real change or just a reflection of the fact that rare events don't have to be spread evenly in time ?

    e.g. i think insurance companies wouldn't be too worried if the flood that ruined your house really was a once-in-a-century event (they might increase your premium, but they might not withhold insurance)
    however, if events that historically happened once in a century now become far more frequent, i'm sure an insurance company might want to know about it - but at the same time, it's very hard to predict from past experience whether the fact that a once-in-a-lifetime event now happened twice in your lifetime is just bad luck or whether it's an indication that it's no longer a once-in-a-lifetime event
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    e.g. i think insurance companies wouldn't be too worried if the flood that ruined your house really was a once-in-a-century event (they might increase your premium, but they might not withhold insurance)
    Rather ironically 1:100 year events IS exactly the definition used to define high risk flooding events. To use an actual example which my wife and I looked at last week, this small house: 650 W Dinning Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 | MLS# 573939 | Redfin
    Got a quote for flood insurance of $5600/year. (based on the most "current" 1980s FEMA map that hasn't been updated, don't include the knoll or the 20' elevation of the house). They not only care, BUT ARE REQUIRED to provide federally insured flood insurance at a set price--in the example above for nearly the same as the monthly payment (the insurer cannot lower the premium regardless of their particular analysis or failure of FEMA to update their badly outdated maps--owner can pay $1000+ to engineers to do an independent analysis of the particular house elevation and fight the FEMA paperwork machine).



    however, if events that historically happened once in a century now become far more frequent, i'm sure an insurance company might want to know about it - but at the same time, it's very hard to predict from past experience whether the fact that a once-in-a-lifetime event now happened twice in your lifetime is just bad luck or whether it's an indication that it's no longer a once-in-a-lifetime event
    Yes and no. It's not very hard to estimate current risk from even as short as a seven to ten year data record using standard statistical techniques to figure out the sort of distribution and variance (including for each tail). Of course 30+ years is best, as is comparing and integrating analysis for nearby stations with longer records. Models of course significantly improve those estimates as well.

    Of course with things changing dramatically with regard to temperature, moisture content of storms, and in the flooding example, land use (e.g. forestry practices, urban development and renewal of pastures to woodlands), standard methods break down. And of course, to no ones surprises, we increasingly have to turn to climate, weather and hydrology models to bound the solutions and better assess risk.

    Where I currently live is going through borderline public disobedience right now as FEMA has been starting to update their maps and based on actual science, better land topology, and model projections is now telling homeowners and insurance companies that beautiful 1930's victorian homes that have never been flooded are now in high risk flood areas and going to require flood insurance costing up to $10K a year and effectively devalue them by tens of thousands as a result. (the public meetings are down right hostile--with extra cops at the door etc).

    I think such impacts are going to become all too common over the next few decades of man-made climate change.

    --
    it still begs the question how you assess whether a change in frequency of rare events is a real change or just a reflection of the fact that rare events don't have to be spread evenly in time ?
    Probably most of the effort in this direction is various attribution studies looking at specific events. Things like running a set of models for a particular storm, (e.g. Sandy), under observed conditions and running another set under prior conditions when there would have been less latent heat available for the storm. Compare the two to get an idea of how Sandy's might have been different now than in the past, or as you suggest and perhaps more importantly try to figure out whether Sandy like storms are going to become more frequent (a once a decade event rather than a 1 in hundred years one).

    From what I've seen though--attribution studies seem to confuse the public rather than helping educate them. Long delays for the research, failure to put such studies in simple language for the public, reluctance of scientist to engage and the public's deep reluctance to hear bad news make it a hard story to tell/sell.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 10th, 2014 at 03:33 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    i think insurance companies wouldn't be too worried if the flood that ruined your house really was a once-in-a-century event (they might increase your premium, but they might not withhold insurance)
    however, if events that historically happened once in a century now become far more frequent, i'm sure an insurance company might want to know about it
    Hah! Munich Re - the ginormous reinsurance company - are extremely proud of the fact that they were the first organisation in the world to identify the effects of global warming. They picked up a trend of increasing flood events ..... in 1973!

    What is remarkable is that Munich Re first warned about global warming way back in 1973, when it noticed that flood damage was increasing. It was the first big company to do so—two decades before the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit triggered a planetary anxiety attack by publicizing the concepts of “global warming” and “climate change.”


    No Deniers in the Foxholes: Insurance Industry Copes with Climate Reality | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
    dan hunter likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Idiot Rajnish Kaushik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    168
    thnx for all these informations a like to everyone
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Hah! Munich Re - the ginormous reinsurance company - are extremely proud of the fact that they were the first organisation in the world to identify the effects of global warming.
    makes you wonder how it long will take for a house in, say, Miami to become uninsurable
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    makes you wonder how it long will take for a house in, say, Miami to become uninsurable
    Wonder no more. Practically all houses in Miami are uninsurable on normal actuarial basis and have been for years. That's why you USAnians have your deeply strange government guarantees/ subsidies/ props for policy holders and insurance companies in relation to floods.

    Real-estate and business leaders have claimed there could be a potentially cataclysmic hit to the state’s real-estate market as rates go up because of changes approved in the federal 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act.

    Florida accounts for about 2 million policies in the federal program, with state staff estimating that about 268,500 policies receive subsidized rates.

    Some properties, primarily in the Tampa-St. Petersburg and Southeast Florida markets, have been projected to face the biggest hikes as the rates in the federal program are made actuarially sound.

    Private flood insurance plan being reviewed in Tallahassee - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Goodbye to the Fun stuff--due to global warming
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: March 30th, 2012, 05:58 AM
  2. How much has the Ocean risen due to global Warming?
    By Joe L. Ogan in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 7th, 2009, 09:53 AM
  3. Global warming, coming ice age, or neither?
    By WVBIG in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 8th, 2009, 08:03 PM
  4. Starvation due to global warming
    By Dlarah in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2009, 10:32 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •