Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[sneuman]

So, there's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/08/the-arctic-has-melted-so-much-that-people-want-to-race-yachts-through-the-northwest-passage/?tid=sm_fb

[SailOar]

Climate change forces Christchurch mussel plant to close | 3 News

The impact of climate change on New Zealand mussels looks set to cost more than 200 Christchurch workers their jobs.

Sanford has told staff at its processing facility in Riccarton not enough mussels are growing to justify keeping the plant open – and it's blaming a change in the weather pattern.

Sanford bosses called all staff into a meeting at 1pm to deliver the news, telling them it's planning to move all mussel processing to the company's other factory in Marlborough.

Chief executive Volker Kunztsch says at the moment there's just not enough mussels to keep both plants running – a factor he's blaming on weather patterns and warmer water temperatures around the top of the South Island.

He's estimating production will be down about 25 percent on last year.

"With really poor spat supplies, spat being small mussels that usually wash up then we put them on lines over two to three years - and this has been very poor this year - we've realised that this outlook is rather dim," says Mr Kunztsch....

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Why on earth are you wasting space here with data on atmospheric temperatures when it's surface temperatures that are spiking?

Tenson, I note that you have been fairly aggressive with your comments and tone on this thread. It would be better if you took a couple classes and learned basic science before trying to teach on CF. You have demonstrated that you are missing basic background knowledge on the subject in this as well as several other uniformed posts.

Your above comment on the above post shows an embarrassing gap in your education.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

FFS. We've all known from Day 1 that solar, windmills and some other renewable sources would not be 100% drop-in replacements for fossil fuels, and would pose challenges to to the current grid structure. Does that mean we don't start developing? Or changing the grid?

The link was from Tesla, a company with a big stake in the game, AND a track-record for delivering, if their stock is any indication. Hardly empty speculation.

EVERYONE (with a clue) knows that energy storage is currently the weak link, and whoever solves it will make a killing, so there's lots of effort being applied there. Or have you given up on capitalism, too?

No, people worked up by a less than perfect nuclear safety record have put the brakes on further nuclear development (sometimes unreasonably so, I agree). A bigger factor is that nuclear power has never been a 100% private enterprise, governments have always had to be involved in financing and permits etc... and when a government has to commit near a trillion to clean up after some misbehaving bankers, or drop a trillion there on a wasted 10 years of mayhem... not alot left over for government support of new nuclear plants, is there?

And NIMBY. Try to find a state that would embrace a new reactor or two. As 3rd Day has repeatedly told us, voters may not be rational, but they can still steer the country.

Yes, "we" (you and I) know that wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels, but lots of other folks seem to think that's pretty much possible. As you say, the wink link (besides their obvious unreliability when the wind doesn't blow or there are clouds or it's night) is storage of the electrical energy they make during of times where it isn't needed, but a pre-release advertisement of a battery pack using existing technology isn't exactly the "game changer" the link suggested it was.

Yes, as long a "a perfect safety record" is the criteria for nuclear power, it'll never happen. But if you're going to point to nuclear powers "less than perfect" safety record, then how about pointing to all the other major methods of generating electricity MUCH. MUCH "less than perfect" safety records? If that happened, and voters were given the straight info, rather than the fear mongering the left has presented to them in the past, maybe the NIMBY thing would subside and we could actually have a rational energy policy that includes the cleanest, safest, source of base load power that's available and it would also become much less expensive.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere. The troposphere is supposed to be warming over equatorial regions and that would prove to be a "smoking gun" for greenhouse effect and so far it aint playing ball. So should the poles as greenhouse theory (aka models) predict increased relative warming over the polar regions. Whilst the Arctic is dutifully complying, the Antarctic is not. Seems the whole link with greenhouse gas emissions to global warming could still be considered somewhat "up in the air".

The whole debate over whether the troposphere is, or is not, warming revolves around some pretty arcane technical details of satellite measurments that probably few of us can understand. With apologies to those of you who have a grand mal seizure any time Skeptical Science is mentioned, here is their BASIC explanation of the situation. For the more scientifically astute among us Skeptical Science also provides an INTERMEDIATE and ADVANCED explanation. Please note that MOST researchers believe that tropospheric temperatures ARE rising in concert with surface temperatures.

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Climate Myth

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
"Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis - a test that the hypothesis fails." (Bob Carter)

What the science says...
John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.



The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.

There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.
The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.

Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.
Last updated on 12 September 2010 by dansat.

Further reading

• The UAH/RSS satellite temperature graph is an original work created for Global Warming Art.
• Scott Church has written an extraordinarily detailed and thorough (137 page) article Climate Change & Tropospheric Temperature Trends that goes into all the technical nitty gritty of satellite and radiosonde data. Not for the faint hearted.
• A more readable and succinct summary of the whole satellite data situation is found in Tamino's MSU.

Where Bob Carter got his data

When I emailed Bob Carter querying about his data in the article above, this was his reply (28 Jun 2007):

"By mistake the graph that was reproduced in the Telegraph article was for the middle troposphere. Though it does not materially affect the argument or conclusions, I am embarrassed by it because it can be made to look as if I was pulling a swiftie - which I wasn't (intending to)."

I'll take Carter at his word that it was an honest mistake, although I've noticed he continues to state satellites show little to no tropospheric warming.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere. The troposphere is supposed to be warming over equatorial regions and that would prove to be a "smoking gun" for greenhouse effect and so far it aint playing ball. So should the poles as greenhouse theory (aka models) predict increased relative warming over the polar regions. Whilst the Arctic is dutifully complying, the Antarctic is not. Seems the whole link with greenhouse gas emissions to global warming could still be considered somewhat "up in the air".

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice? (BASIC version)

INTERMEDIATE explanation here

Climate Myth
Antarctica is gaining ice
"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." (Greg Roberts, The Australian)

What the science says...

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

Figure 1: Coverage of sea ice in both the Arctic (Top) and Antarctica (Bottom) for both summer minimums and winter maximums
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

and

ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain and snowfall as well as an increase in meltwater coming from the edges of Antarctica's land ice (Zhang 2007, Bintanga et al. 2013). Together, these change the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice.

All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice and sea levels, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the largest and most important ice mass is the land ice of the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets.

Therefore, how is Antarctic land ice doing?

Figure 2: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of different measurement techniques (Shepherd, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2, bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland. Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.

There is variation between regions within Antarctica (Figure 2, top panel), with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing rate. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over this period but not enough to offset the other losses. There are of course uncertainties in the estimation methods but independent data from multiple measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.
Last updated on 4 November 2014 by mattking.

Further reading


Tamino compares and analyses the long term trends in sea ice data from the Northern and Southern Hemisphere in Sea Ice, North and South, Then and Now.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Tenson, I note that you have been fairly aggressive with your comments and tone on this thread. It would be better if you took a couple classes and learned basic science before trying to teach on CF. You have demonstrated that you are missing basic background knowledge on the subject in this as well as several other uniformed posts.

Your above comment on the above post shows an embarrassing gap in your education.

Feel free to explain why you think so about my comment, if you can.

For my basic science education see post #1000 in this thread:

Originally Posted by Tensen

I have two engineering degrees, and a wife with a PhD in physics. I'm very comfortable with physics concepts and discussions, thanks.

It seems you are the one with misconceptions. You ought to take your own advice.

Cheers!

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Feel free to explain why you think so about my comment, if you can.

SailOar already did a nice job in post 1175. I'm surprised you didn't recognize the explanation. Perhaps you may want to run your responses by your wife before posting.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

See round and round and round we go. Exactly what havoc are we wreaking?That's the bit I'm not getting.

I guess foresight is not your strong suit.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I usually try and explain my stance and understanding of the point I am making, rather than simply slap up link after link, peer reviewed or not.

Only peer reviewed evidence is of any reliable value.

But if you insist: New peer-reviewed paper finds the ‘hot spot’ predicted by climate models doesn’t exist — Published in Geophysical Research Letters | Climate Depot

What point are you actually providing evidence for? If it's that the "hot spot" in the troposphere doesn't exist, I'm not sure who you're providing it for, as no-one here's argued the point. I certainly haven't discussed it at all, and I appear to be the intended recipient of the link.

Because you appear to be the last one to figure it out, the whole bird / windmill thing was an off the cuff remark that has somehow become a major issue with some people aka you. I guess that means that all the other stuff I have referred or argued against represents a strong argument. So thanks for confirming that.

I truly don't care about the bird issue. I do care about the burden of proof. In the future please remember that it lies with the person making the assertion, and don't ask someone (not me) who denies your assertion to provide the evidence.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But if you insist: New peer-reviewed paper finds the ‘hot spot’ predicted by climate models doesn’t exist — Published in Geophysical Research Letters | Climate Depot

Why would you post a link to to Marc Morano, a political hack, who quotes another blog instead of the actual paper? Hearsay and gossip are not evidence.

BTW - the abstract for the actual paper

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modeled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

"We suggest that the vertical amplification of warming derived from modeled simulations is weighted with a persistent signal, which should be removed in order to achieve better agreement with observations."

Go to the source.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

SailOar already did a nice job in post 1175. I'm surprised you didn't recognize the explanation. Perhaps you may want to run your responses by your wife before posting.

He didn't address my comment: "Why on earth are you wasting space here with data on atmospheric temperatures when it's surface temperatures that are spiking?"

Feel free to point out which part of my comment lead you to believe that there's an "embarrassing gap" in my education, and that I need to "learn basic science".

Do you believe part of my statement is incorrect? That the data referred to is not atmospheric? Or that surface temperatures are not spiking? That atmospheric temperature data might somehow make the surface temperature spike disappear?
I feel a total absence of embarrassment.

You seem to enjoy making ad hominem arguments, but aren't able to back them up with anything substantial.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Something I read somewhere quotes in the 2013 report as 95%

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Your really need to provide evidence for your assertion.

"Something" is rather vague.

"somewhere" is rather vague.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But if you're going to point to nuclear powers "less than perfect" safety record, then how about pointing to all the other major methods of generating electricity MUCH. MUCH "less than perfect" safety records? If that happened, and voters were given the straight info, rather than the fear mongering the left has presented to them in the past, maybe the NIMBY thing would subside and we could actually have a rational energy policy that includes the cleanest, safest, source of base load power that's available and it would also become much less expensive.

Here you go

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED

Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Next Big Future: Deaths per TWH by energy source

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Yes, "we" (you and I) know that wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels, but lots of other folks seem to think that's pretty much possible. As you say, the wink link (besides their obvious unreliability when the wind doesn't blow or there are clouds or it's night) is storage of the electrical energy they make during of times where it isn't needed, but a pre-release advertisement of a battery pack using existing technology isn't exactly the "game changer" the link suggested it was.

Yes, as long a "a perfect safety record" is the criteria for nuclear power, it'll never happen. But if you're going to point to nuclear powers "less than perfect" safety record, then how about pointing to all the other major methods of generating electricity MUCH. MUCH "less than perfect" safety records? If that happened, and voters were given the straight info, rather than the fear mongering the left has presented to them in the past, maybe the NIMBY thing would subside and we could actually have a rational energy policy that includes the cleanest, safest, source of base load power that's available and it would also become much less expensive.

From the above, we really seem to be on the same side of these points, with the following exceptions:

- despite the above, you seem to sneer at renewables, or any efforts to develop them

- you've erected this fictional monolithic entity 'the left' which is responsible for all the bad things in the world. This is both inaccurate, and unhelpful, other than to hint at which lever you pull at election time.

a pre-release advertisement of a battery pack using existing technology isn't exactly the "game changer" the link suggested it was.

- I said it was a game-changer. As you know the grid as it exists cannot store energy, and a storage solution that is 'grid' size seems far-off. The link proposes distributed storage that is house- or small-business-sized, which is closer to doable now, useful, now, reasonably affordable, and could be really affordable in mass production, and will scale well. And could reduce the need to expand or rebuild the current grid.

This proposal changes the approach to the game of storage. I think that's the definition of game-changer....?