Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[SailOar]

New Study Links Weather Extremes to Global Warming | New York Times

The moderate global warming that has already occurred as a result of human emissions has quadrupled the frequency of certain heat extremes since the Industrial Revolution, scientists reported Monday, and they warned that a failure to bring greenhouse gases under control could eventually lead to a 62-fold increase in such heat blasts.

The planetary warming has had a more moderate effect on intense rainstorms, the scientists said, driving up their frequency by 22 percent since the 19th century. Yet such heavy rains could more than double later this century if emissions continue at a high level, they said.
“People can argue that we had these kinds of extremes well before human influence on the climate — we had them centuries ago,” said Erich M. Fischer, lead author of a study published Monday by the journal Nature Climate Change. “And that’s correct. But the odds have changed, and we get more of them.”...

The question is important because while a gradual increase in average temperatures can have profound ecological consequences, it is weather extremes that have the greatest effect on human society. A 1995 heat wave in Chicago killed hundreds of people, and a 2003 heat wave in Europe killed an estimated 70,000.

Scientists believe both were made more likely by the human emissions that are warming the planet, and heat on that scale will become commonplace if emissions are allowed to continue unabated. For now, though, such heat extremes — Chicago temperatures were near or above 100 degrees for four days running that July — are still rare, which makes them difficult to study in a statistical sense....

If global warming can be brought under control as rapidly as many environmental activists would like, keeping global warming below three degrees Fahrenheit, the new study found that heat extremes might increase only 14-fold later this century, compared with their frequency in the preindustrial world.

But runaway emissions, causing the planet to warm by more than five degrees Fahrenheit, would lead to a 62-fold increase in heat extremes, the researchers found. Other studies have forecast levels of heat and humidity by late this century that could make it dangerous for people to work and play outside, possibly for weeks on end....

“The bottom line is that things are not that complicated,” Dr. Knutti said. “You make the world a degree or two warmer, and there will be more hot days. There will be more moisture in the atmosphere, so that must come down somewhere.”

Myles R. Allen, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford who was not involved in the new paper, said in an interview that “the method they use to add up risk on a global scale is spot on.” While previous research focused on particular disasters like the European heat wave, he added, the new approach does a better job of capturing the influence of greenhouse gases on more common types of weather extremes.

“We keep asking people to do something about climate change,” Dr. Allen said. “They deserve to know what climate change is doing to them.”

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by SailOar

New Study Links Weather Extremes to Global Warming | New York Times

Yea, let's talk about the increase in tornados and hurricanes. Both are at historical minimum frequencies of occurrence.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Yea, let's talk about the increase in tornados and hurricanes. Both are at historical minimum frequencies of occurrence.

And OBTW, we are at what...20, 30, 40 plus years of global warming.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by savoir

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! whattapilabaloney !

Science not a business? If so then why did the warmistas go berserk in Australia when Lomburg picked up a $4m grant and they didn't. Right now they are working feverishly to shaft that grant so that it may be bequeathed as it should - to one of the true believers.
Australian taxpayers funding climate contrarian's methods with $4m Bjørn Lomborg centre | Graham Readfearn | Environment | The Guardian

Someone who doesn't think the right thoughts can expect to be smashed by the warmistas.

[downunder]

In Australia today we have just had the left wing AMA link up with the Warmista's and issue another alarm.


"Climate change: Diseases, heatwaves, lost jobs to impact human health, experts warn"

Climate change: Diseases, heatwaves, lost jobs to impact human health, experts warn - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Reefmagnet]

Today'a alarmist vs realist arguments (and it even relates to Antarctica, too!).

Alarmist:
West Antarctica Glaciers Collapsing, Adding to Sea-Level Rise

A massive glacier system in West Antarctica has started collapsing because of global warming and will contribute to significant worldwide sea-level rise, two teams of scientists warn in a pair of major studies released Monday.

Scientists had previously thought the two-mile-thick (3.2 kilometers) glacier system would remain stable for thousands of years, but new research suggests a faster time frame for melting.

A rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in irreversible decline and will sink into the sea, scientists at the University of California, Irvine and NASA reported Monday.

"This retreat will have major implications for sea-level rise worldwide," said Eric Rignot, a UC-Irvine Earth science professor and lead author of a study to be published in a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Realist:
Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica Melting from Below : Science : Nature World News

Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.

The Thwaites Glacier has been the focus of considerable attention in recent weeks as other groups of researchers found the glacier is on the way to collapse, but more data and computer modeling are needed to determine when the collapse will begin in earnest and at what rate the sea level will increase as it proceeds. The new observations by UTIG will greatly inform these ice sheet modeling efforts.

Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth's crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

New Study Links Weather Extremes to Global Warming | New York Times

Pretty clever to cover all your bases. If it's drought it's climate change; if it's hot it's climate change; if it's cold, well that's climate change too and if it's wet that's definitely climate change. Too bad tornadoes and cyclones aren't playing the game.

You should have just linked to this site:
Infographic: Extreme Weather and Climate Change | Union of Concerned Scientists

It has a nice graphic that's easy to understand and you can donate to keep up the good fight and feel all warm (lol) and fuzzy at the same time.

As a bonus, you could link this gem as well:
Infographic: Sea Level Rise and Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Back to reality, now.
Make what you will out of the records

List of weather records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More on cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes
Hurricanes - average, low, world, high, days, Hurricane and tropical storm season, Portrait of a hurricane, Hurricane casualties, The nations worst weather disaster

[q240z]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

And OBTW, we are at what...20, 30, 40 plus years of global warming.

Sure...except for the 17 years over which temps have statistically been flat, including last year, which was heralded as THE WARMEST EVER even though the increase was well within the margin of error. Statistics 101, anyone?

Also, anybody got that picture of the global warmonger science expedition on the ice breaker that got stuck in ice that wasn't supposed to be there, according to their models?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Today'a alarmist vs realist arguments (and it even relates to Antarctica, too!).

Alarmist:
West Antarctica Glaciers Collapsing, Adding to Sea-Level Rise



Realist:
Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica Melting from Below : Science : Nature World News

Both reports conclude that the big-ass West Antarctic glacier is melting, and will contribute to sea level rise.

So, I'd say they're both 'alarmist' since the conclusion is the same - rising sea level.

Or is something 'alarmist' only if climate change or AGW was mentioned, and anything that doesn't mention them is 'realist'?

... yet the 'Realist' article kicks off with:

Thwaites Glacier is West Antarctica's largest unstable glacier. Recent research has shown that global warming has accelerated calving of the Thwaites glacier. The new study by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) suggests that the glacier isn't just being eroded by warm oceans, but also by volcanic activity.

So, they're mentioning global warming too... Does that completely cancel the 'realist' cred, or does this become 'alarmingly realist', or what?

I guess the geothermal findings have been reported by 'geologists', which makes their findings completely and unquestionably true, because they're not climate scientists, who are in a business and need to earn a living and are going along just for the grant money and are part of a big eco-soshulist alarmist conspiracy.

I'm so confused....

[LekiM]

Here's one final comment from me, then I'm out for a sail:

I and many of my colleagues receive a non-trivial amount of funding from large fossil fuel corporations. And I and and my colleagues have all done the Physics 101 level math that shows without ANY controversy that an increase in CO2 will change the thermal budget of the entire planet. And to say otherwise is the physics equivalent of trying to argue that gravity should point up every once in a while. It really is that basic.

[SailOar]

The invisible organisms that threaten to make climate change much worse | Washington Post

We know that permafrost is a formidable threat to our changing climate, covering nearly a quarter of all the land surface in the Northern Hemisphere and containing about 1,700 gigatons of stored carbon. We also know the basic processes that can cause it to leak that carbon into the atmosphere. As permafrost thaws, microbes in the ground, including bacteria and other microorganisms, start snacking on the dead plants and other tasty organic matter contained in the soil, releasing methane and carbon dioxide.

But what we haven’t clearly understood until now is how global warming can affect the microbes, themselves.

Now, a new study, published Tuesday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tackles the question of how rising temperatures can change the activity of microorganisms in the Arctic. The study focuses on methane production, rather than carbon dioxide — an important issue to understand because of methane’s potency.

Carbon dioxide may be the more famous (and abundant) greenhouse gas, but methane is the more dangerous: Some estimates rank it at about 25 times more efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and the study’s authors indicate that thawing permafrost may already account for up to 10 percent of global methane emissions. On top of this, Arctic temperature projections predict an increase of up to 6 degrees Celsius in the summer and up to 11 degrees Celsius in the winter by the end of the century. Knowing how these changes could affect methane-producing microbes is an important step in predicting how the Arctic landscape — and our atmosphere — might change in the coming decades.

In a worst case scenario, permafrost emissions could lead to a kind of positive feedback loop, in which warming temperatures cause more thawing, which releases more greenhouse gases, which in turn help the climate to continue warming, and then the rising temperatures cause even more thawing. So there’s a definite incentive to understanding how much of an effect temperature changes will have on the microbial community’s behavior....

In Schaefer’s opinion, the most important thing is for humans to slash our carbon output enough in the coming decades to prevent the thawing permafrost from becoming a major problem at all. Cutting human-produced greenhouse gases could keep global temperatures within reasonable boundaries, slow the thawing of the permafrost and prevent even more emissions from pouring into the air....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Both reports conclude that the big-ass West Antarctic glacier is melting, and will contribute to sea level rise.

So, I'd say they're both 'alarmist' since the conclusion is the same - rising sea level.

Or is something 'alarmist' only if climate change or AGW was mentioned, and anything that doesn't mention them is 'realist'?

... yet the 'Realist' article kicks off with:
So, they're mentioning global warming too... Does that completely cancel the 'realist' cred, or does this become 'alarmingly realist', or what?

I guess the geothermal findings have been reported by 'geologists', which makes their findings completely and unquestionably true, because they're not climate scientists, who are in a business and need to earn a living and are going along just for the grant money and are part of a big eco-soshulist alarmist conspiracy.

I'm so confused....

Aside from the classic "global warming did it", let's throw trillions at researching and combating the scourge of geothermal activity. Are you still confused?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The invisible organisms that threaten to make climate change much worse | Washington Post

Interesting. the planet came out of an ice age and, presumably, has had melting permafrost for a good part of that time. Add the facts that methane is both low in concentration in the atmosphere and permeates out of the atmosphere relatively quickly and you probably have a reason why you will have trouble finding too much scare mongering about atmospheric methane even though it has 25 times the greenhouse effect of CO2.


M'kay.

Oh wait, they're only threatening. Like always.

Using scare tactics: does it work? | Talking Climate

Climate change 'scare tactics' won't work, warns expert | UK | News | Daily Express

Scare tactics? Bully? No, climate change is serious: Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' tackles CNN : SCIENCE : Tech Times

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by LekiM

Here's one final comment from me, then I'm out for a sail:

I and many of my colleagues receive a non-trivial amount of funding from large fossil fuel corporations. And I and and my colleagues have all done the Physics 101 level math that shows without ANY controversy that an increase in CO2 will change the thermal budget of the entire planet. And to say otherwise is the physics equivalent of trying to argue that gravity should point up every once in a while. It really is that basic.

Yes, no question. BUT... introduce proportionally increased radiation into space, the increased effects of evaporation which both moves latent heat into the upper atmosphere and produces more reflective cloud cover along with literally zillions of other influential factors and it all starts to become somewhat less "basic".

I'd also note that the Earth has warmed somewhere between 0.7 and 1.0 degrees Celcius since 1880 and, aside from the regular gang of alarmists, no one actually seems to be suffering too much in the present climate.

That additional CO2 thermal budget also appears to be in the magnitude of 0.2 to 0.4 W/m2 which, to me, seems out of sorts when average global temperature increase is considered.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Aside from the classic "global warming did it", let's throw trillions at researching and combating the scourge of geothermal activity. Are you still confused?

If you're saying that you think the choice is between "throw[ing] trillions at researching and combating" AGW, and not spending trillions... then you're confused. You're leaving your kids a big bill one way or the other. One of the ways leaves your descendents with more resources and less mess to deal with.