Frightening Arctic Study Shows Leading Edge of Global Warming
There’s big trouble at the top of the world according to a report released this month by US government scientists. The Arctic Report Card is produced annually by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and this year the state of the climate in the arctic got an alarming F.
“Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions,” said James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and a lead author of the report. “It’s a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways.”
The arctic is at the leading edge of global climate change and researchers are already seeing dramatic changes in this sensitive ecosystem. According to NOAA:
“Autumn air temperatures, which are at a record 5 degrees C (9 degrees F) above normal, because of the major loss of sea ice in recent years. The loss of sea ice allows more solar heating of the ocean. That warming of the air and ocean affects land and marine life, and reduces the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer. The year 2007 was the warmest on record for the Arctic, continuing a general Arctic-wide warming trend that began in the mid-1960s.”
The arctic report card focuses on six areas including Arctic atmosphere, sea ice, biology, ocean, land and Greenland. This year, three of the six including atmosphere, sea ice, and Greenland were coded red meaning that observed changes are almost certainly due to climate change.
The remaining three (biology, ocean, land) were coded yellow, meaning that signals were mixed. The 2007 report card had two red and four yellow.
The relentless march upwards of arctic air temperatures is obvious in this graph of surface air temperature anomalies since 1900.
Arctic sea ice reached its second lowest minimum in recorded history this year, second only to last year. You don't have to be a researcher to see the freefall of ice extent since 1957.
Greenland lost an incredible 100 cubic kilometers of ice last year. To get an idea of what that looks like, have a look at the retreat of the Ilulissat glacier since 1850.
Scientists are often not the greatest communicators in the world but this report speaks loud and clear about the frightening changes that are happening at the top of the world.
I think we've crossed it. Some have suggested a summer ice free artic by 2013. But even if it take a bit longer, I don't think we can prevent it now.
Scientists' predictions that rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will boost crop yields have been too optimistic.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 260 parts per million (ppm) 150 years ago to 380 ppm today, and are expected to rise to 550 ppm by 2050 because of human activities.
payday loans ca - www.unclepayday.ca
. . . and given that it can't be stopped at this point, maybe it isn't such a bad thing for it to happen sooner rather than later if it finally convinces The Powers That Be that action is required to slow down the process so that other consequences can be minimized.
Fern Mackenzie
Essay Writing Service,Australian farmers inspect an empty dam, leaving them with fields of stunted wheat stalks, normally thigh high, and which have only managed only a few inches growth in the parched earth of the Australian wheat belt area.Science research paper
The inevitable creeping hot wave of global warming has already reached Australia and it very well may be the first climate change-and driven natural disaster to strike a developed nation.Term Papers
wholesale jewelry,fashion jewelry, handmade jewelry, jewelry wholesale fashion jewelry
And the big deal about polar ice, esp at the north end of earth, is that it reflects so much sunlight... and without ice during the HOT part of the year, warming will accelerate.
These kinds of things are known as "cascade effects" because they are the result of warming and they also add to the warming.
Other cascade effects are things like the permafrost melting, which will give off HUGE amounts of CO2 and methane [which will add to the warming, yadayada] ; Ocean plankton die-offs from temperature shifts in the top layers of the oceans, which will be an even bigger effect than the permafrost for CO2 from dying/decaying plants.
yaDAyaDA!! DA!!
[can't I get any of these posted?
By the way the ice is recovering this fall the report card might be a B- next year. And maybe an A+ the following year.
Question is, what was the state of the sea ice over the past 1000 years? We know the northwaset passage was navigatble in the 1900s, but without a long term measurment of sea ice the past 50 years is nothing. Without a long term trend one cannot make any leap that we are causing the so called melting.
Also, Antarctic ice is growing.
More good points. Clearly you have some insights that have been overlooked by those know-nothing scientists. I would go get yourself a PhD, get into to academia and go kick some ass.
so non scientists should quit asking questions or voicing skepticism or reasoning?
Does it follow that non scientists who either fear or discount warming scenarios should quit speaking about global warming altogether for fear of expressing something that may not be entirely correct?
Should we have some sort of federal commission to shut down deniers and perhaps imprison them?
Aren't non-scientists who persist in involving themselves in scientific discussions beholden, to themselves and their audience, to try and understand and educate themselves in the issues under discussion?
People of all educational levels are found on both sides of this debate or non debate or whatever it is.
It doesn't seem to be all about education. It's more about money and climate scientists as well as some skeptics collect a paycheque - unless they go against the flow.
That's a fact that doesn't make the science bad but it does make it political and can narrow the study of climate to something that must assume everything starts with carbon - because thats the company line.
There are indeed people of all educational levels involving themselves in the public debate about climate change. In an ideal world that wouldn't make any difference. All I was suggesting was that if you (generic) are going to involve yourself in the debate, then at least have the decency to know what you are talking about. However, it is not a perfect world. In the Western democracies you are allowed to vote if you are old enough, no matter how stupid you are.
But, the science, the reality doesn't change just because you don't like the message. The world is warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, mankind is changing the composition of the atmosphere. That is not politics, merely observable facts.
The fact that scientists are paid is a non-issue. All professionals are paid. Do you ignore your doctor, dentist, car mechanic just because you have to pay them? Science is apolitical, suppression is not.
Carbon is the company line for a reason. Anthropogenic carbon is changing the climate status quo.
Let me ask you then. Should the ice start to thinken back up over the next say, 5 years, would you abandon AGW? Since the temps are now expected to drop over the next 30-40 years that's what will happen right?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG
No.
Wikipedia and other sources suggest about 2.85million cubic kilometres.
How long will it take to melt at current rates
So, divide, 2 850 000 000 by 220 and you get 13000 years.
To put it another way, if the rate of ice melt in Greenland accelerates by a factor of 300 and remains at that level for the next 43 years the icecap will finish melting in 2050.
is currently 1.74mm per year, with decadal variations as high as 2.4mm per year, over the past 110 years of in situ measurments. NO acceleration has been measured to date. (And yes I have a list of very recent peer reviewed papers to back this up with, some from authors who support AGW).
In 100 years that's a rise of 170mm. But the alarmists are claiming that the rise could be 2 meters or more in 100 years. That's 2000mm rise. So this begs the question how do we get from this current rate to one that produces a rise of 2000mm? A straight line would require a rate of 20mm per year, which is not measured. So how else is it going to get there?
Couple this with the wild ascertion that all of Greenland and the Arctic will melt (no time from for the former, 5 years for the latter) and one sees not science, but dogma.
Wakefield: "And sea level rise is currently 1.74mm per year, with decadal variations as high as 2.4mm per year, over the past 110 years of in situ measurments. NO acceleration has been measured to date'.
Not even close to reality. Here is what scientists working in the field have to say: "High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992) and Jason-1 (launched December, 2001). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century."
See: http://preview.tinyurl.com/558t6n
Wakefield, I am beginning to suspect that you know exactly what you are posting. It says nothing good about your character.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK
Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Syndey Australia:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140
The mean sea level trend is 0.59 millimeters/year (0.19 feet/century)
with a standard error of 0.06 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1886 to 2003.
[Data for 1886-1914 are monthly mean tide level plus a 1.7 mm correction]
Can you detect any BS in the peer reviewed papers I told you I had? Note that they are showing a sea level rise since 1904 as 1.74mm/yr and there comment about the currently higher rate in your TOPEX graph with:
Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual.
So show us all where I am lying, otherwise you owe me an apology.
Given your perpetual campaign of disinformation and outright lies, I cannot for the life of me, understand why you have not been moderated out of existence.
and climate scientists' super computers are so good at forecasting the future 100 years from now, how come the climate science community is asking for $9 BILLION to build a better super computer?
Wakefield, you consistently post rubbish on this site. Are you mathematically challenged or are you deliberately distributing lies?
For you information the latest supercomputer, the CRAY XT5 costs about 10 million US dollars.
Where do you get the misinformation you post here? Everyone should take what this denier posts with a grain (perhaps a bucket) of salt since he posts absolute drivel.
You should know by now that when I post I have backing for.
Lecture coming to London Ontario, Oct. 29. From Christopher Essex (B.Sc. [Hon.], UWO, 1976; M.S. Rice University, 1978; Ph.D., York University 1982) is Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Applied Mathematics at The University of Western Ontario. He is former director of its Theoretical Physics Program.
"Climate forecasting! Recently some of the biggest climate research agencies in the world have asked for some real money — $9 Billion — to attempt to tackle that very problem."
I can hardly type for laughing. You get your "information" from a well known liar like Chris Essex?
Go and do some real studying, Wakefield, you are a disgrace to the educated classes, if, in fact, you are educated.
By the way, you said that the climate scientists wanted $10 billion to build a super computer, which is obviously ridiculous (since the best one only costs $10 million to buy), almost as ridiculous are your comment a while ago that the US would need 400,000,000 wind turbines. I'm still laughing about that one too.
You are obviously mathematically challenged or are distributing known falsehoods.
So instead the you get your information from the well known liars James Hansen, Al Gore, RealClimate, et al, eh? Right.
I'll be at the lecture to see what this $9B is about and I'll report back.
As for wind turbines. US total electrical consumption is 986 gigawatts (GW) http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/epa/epa.html. For every 10% of that generation to come from wind turbines (1.5Mw each) is 98,600 megawatts of generation required from wind (at 10% of total). That's 66,000 turbines at name plate capacity. But turbines spend more than 80% of their time below 15% of name plate. Thus you need 6.7 TIMES that number to get the generation required. Thus 442,000 wind turbines for each 10% of generation.
Now I do not recall saying 400,000,000, but I have said when people claim we can get 20% or more from wind turbines that we would need millions of turbines to get to that goal.
Now since coal is some 50% of US generation and you want to replace all of that with wind that would mean 5 times 442,000 or some 2.2 MILLION wind turbines.
Now show me where I'm "obviously mathematically challenged".
"The study estimated that the U.S. will require about 120 gigawatts (GW) of new generation just to maintain a 15 percent reserve margin. That will require at least $300 billion in generation and transmission facility investments by 2016.
BTW, 120 GW would be the same as 400,000,000 wind turbines".
(DeSmogblog October 2, 2008.)
Note to other mathematically challenged deniers, this is more than one wind turbine per person in the US. What a joke this individual is, I just can't stop laughing at his every post.
Your mathematical ability appears to be at the same level as your climate science ability, essentially ZERO. Of course you may know a lot more about these disciplines than you are letting on, in which case you are deliberately lying.
Ok, so my calc was wrong back then, sorry. That 120 Gigawatts would require 5.28 million wind turbines. Is that OK with you now? I likley just misplaced a decmal point.
Let's have a look at the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/26/do2611.xml
The Sunday Telegraph, 26 October 2008
Even in these dark times, it is still possible to be shocked when our Prime Minister personally endorses a flagrant perversion of the truth. Last year, for example, many of us felt outraged when Gordon Brown pretended that the Lisbon Treaty was somehow totally different from the EU Constitution, in order to wriggle out of his party's manifesto promise of a referendum. Last week Mr Brown in effect did it again when he endorsed the deception at the heart of his Government's wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of using wind to make electricity.
In a video for the British Wind Energy Association, the industry's chief lobby group, Mr Brown claimed: "We are now getting 3 gigawatts of our electricity capacity from wind power, enough to power more than 1.5 million homes."
This deliberately perpetuates the central confidence trick practised by the wind industry, by confusing "capacity" with the actual amount of electricity wind produces. In fact, as the Government's own figures show, wind turbines generate on average only 27 to 28 per cent, barely a quarter, of their "capacity".
In other words, far from producing those "3 gigawatts", the 2,000 turbines already built actually contributed - again on official figures - an average of only 694 megawatts (MW) last year, less than the output of a single medium-size conventional power station. Far from producing "enough to power more than 1.5 million homes", it is enough to power barely a sixth of that number, representing only 1.3 per cent of all the electricity we use. Yet for this we have already blighted thousands of square miles of countryside, at a cost of billions of pounds.
OK Wakefield you admit to being mathematically challenged. Can't wait for you to admit that you tell lies too.
Your calculations are not just one decimal point out but are at least two out. That means that your calculation was approximately 100 times too many. Did you never stop to wonder why you arrived at such a ridiculous number? Or do you really think that the average family of four needs 4 2MW wind turbines in their back yard to supply them with their daily amounts of electricity?
You make your self look more and more stupid with every post. Keep it up, I need a good laugh every day.
And stop telling lies about the efficiency of wind turbines.
He is correct about wind turbine capacity. Few, if any wind farms can produce at 100% capactiy 7/24/365. If you know of any that do, please let us know. Therefore, massive (and expensive) overcapacity must be built when switching to wind power.
What I was pointing out was Wakefields's dishonesty in stating how many wind turbines would be needed. He used a very low value for efficiency. As I kept arguing with him he increased his value to about 22% or thereby. This is a lot higher than he first stated but is still below what is found in the field.
Also new technologies are increasing the efficiency on an ongoing basis. Check out the gearless synchronous generator developed by Germany's Siemens which uses permanent magnets to convert wind energy from the rotor to electricity rather than the mechanical gearbox of conventional turbines. This reduces energy loss due to friction.
If you are really worried about low efficiency technology why not complain about the internal combustion engine or conventional coal fire power plants? Both of these have very low efficiencies.
And you are so perfect you have never made a mistake.
Must be hard lugging that huge brain around all day.
I asked if the new numbers are correct. Are they?
Your requirement to call me a liar is more telling of you than of me.
Here is a report to the Ontario government about wind turbine abilities
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketreports/OPA-Report-200610-1.pdf
The average capacity value of the wind resource in Ontario during the
summer (peak load) months is approximately 17%. The capacity value ranges
from 38% to 42% during the winter months (November to February) and from
16% to 19% during the summer months (June to August). Since 87% of the
hits (periods within 10% of the load peak) occur during the summer months,
the overall yearly capacity value is expected to be heavily weighted toward
the summer. The overall yearly capacity value is approximately 20% for all
wind penetration scenarios. In other words, 10,000 MW of installed nameplate
wind capacity is equivalent to approximately 2,000 MW of firm generation
capacity.
Awaiting your apology for calling me a liar.
Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found psycholog internetowy to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with and fotografia slubna the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Look at this pie chart of world electrical production
http://edro.wordpress.com/energy/286w/
Notice that solar and wind is a very very small percent. Less than 1%. Thus to replace all those FF productions with so-called renewables would need MILLIONS of wind turbines.
Wakefield, here are a few mathematical pointers which may help you be more honest and accurate in future posts.
MILLION = 1 followed by 6 zeros
KW = 1000 watts
MW = 1000 KW
GW = 1000 MW
I wont bother you with tera and peta watts since they involve more zeros than you have fingers.
A public service brought to you by Honesty in Science.
Thus with your numbers this is true:
As for wind turbines. US total electrical consumption is 986 gigawatts (GW) http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/epa/epa.html. For every 10% of that generation to come from wind turbines (1.5Mw each) is 98,600 megawatts of generation required from wind (at 10% of total). That's 66,000 turbines at name plate capacity. But turbines spend more than 80% of their time below 15% of name plate. Thus you need 6.7 TIMES that number to get the generation required. Thus 442,000 wind turbines for each 10% of generation.
I noticed you have yet to answer this from above.
Given that the original story was about the state of the Arctic, I would be much more interested in which reputable scientists are predicting “30-40 years of cooling”, and how JR justifies that ridiculous graph he linked.