Climate Change

Rubidge EM, Patton JL, Lim M, Burton AC, Brashares JS, Moritz C. Climate-induced range contraction drives genetic erosion in an alpine mammal. Nature Clim Change;advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1415.html

Increasing documentation of changes in the distribution of species provides evidence of climate change impacts1, yet surprisingly little empirical work has endeavoured to quantify how such recent and rapid changes impact genetic diversity2. Here we compare modern and historical specimens spanning a century to quantify the population genetic effects of a climate-driven elevational range contraction in the alpine chipmunk, Tamias alpinus, in Yosemite National Park, USA. Previous work showed that T. alpinus responded to warming in the park by retracting its lower elevational limit upslope by more than 500?m, whereas the closely related chipmunk T. speciosus remained stable3, 4. Consistent with a reduced and more fragmented range, we found a decline in overall genetic diversity and increased genetic subdivision in T. alpinus. In contrast, there were no significant genetic changes in T. speciosus over the same time period. This study demonstrates genetic erosion accompanying a climate-induced range reduction and points to decreasing size and increasing fragmentation of montane populations as a result of global warming.
 
Wow, climategate has actual emails and exposes the lies of the "tax out of thin air" dolts that are trying to control out lives. The latest scandal to expose climate skeptics with their own version of climategate has been shown to be much ado about nothing and also to include a forgery and a fake. Can you say desperation? If after reading this and educating yourself on climategate you still believe in AWG and its science, then you can look in the mirror and state with absolute authority "I am stupid". Read the link as it includes numerous other links that are about to drop the ceiling on AGW alarmists and put them out for good. This is science at its worse. Takeaway quote: "Between Climategate and Fakegate, the warmist establishment now has zero credibility, and we must call all of their claims into question."

RealClearPolitics - Fakegate: Global Warmists Try to Hide Their Decline

The promoters of the global warming hysteria never really recovered from Climategate, the release of e-mails and data which demonstrated that climate insiders were using questionable data, promoting misleading arguments, and conspiring to block dissenting views from the scientific literature. It was a fatal blow to the credibility of the warmists, and it has been followed by a steady stream of distinguished scientists standing up publicly to withdraw their backing from the global warming "consensus." The latest example is an op-ed by sixteen such scientists in the Wall Street Journal, followed up by a devastating response to their critics.

The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal—James Delingpole calls it Fakegate—shows just how desperate they have become.

This was supposed to be a scandal that would undermine the global warming skeptics. In fact, it was supposed to be an exact parallel of Climategate, but this time discrediting the Heartland Institute, a pro-free-market think tank in Chicago that has been a leader in debunking the global warming hysteria.

Someone calling himself "Heartland Insider" released a series of internal documents from Heartland. On the whole, the documents were unremarkable. They revealed that a think tank which advocates the free market and is skeptical of global warming was raising money to, um, advocate the free market and promote skepticism of global warming. As Delingpole put it, "Run it next to the story about the Pope being caught worshipping regularly in Rome and the photograph of a bear pooping behind a tree."

But there was one document, a "confidential strategy memo" that provided more inflammatory material, including an admission that one of Heartland's programs is aimed at "dissuading teachers from teaching science." See, those evil global warming deniers really are anti-science!

But if you are an actual global warming skeptic, this is a big red flag, because we skeptics view ourselves as the defenders of science who are trying to protect it from corruption by an anti-capitalist political agenda. We never, in our own private discussions, refer to ourselves as discouraging the teaching of science. Quite the contrary.

This is the dead giveaway that the "confidential strategy memo" is a fake, and that is what the real scandal has become. The Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle helped break this open with an initial post raising questions, as well as a detailed follow-up. McArdle gets a little too far into the weeds of information technology, not to mention grammar and English usage, but the basic issue is that the "meta-data" in the Heartland files—data marking when the documents were created, on what machines, in what format, and in what time zone—don't match. Most of the documents were created directly as PDFs from a word-processing program, while the supposed "confidential strategy memo" was printed and then scanned. The genuine Heartland files were created weeks earlier in the central time zone, while the incriminating memo was created very shortly before the release of the documents and in the Pacific time zone. This corroborates Heartland's claim that the document is a fake.

McArdle also points out that the "confidential strategy memo" consists almost completely of facts and wording lifted from the other files, with the inflammatory quotes pasted in between in an inconsistent style. Moreover, some of the facts from the other files are used inaccurately. For example, the memo claims that money from the Koch brothers—central figures in any good leftist conspiracy theory—was being used to support Heartland's global warming programs, when it was actually earmarked for their health-care policy work. That's something a real Heartland insider would know; only a warmist creating a fake document would get it wrong.

So it was pretty obvious that the "confidential strategy memo" was not a Heartland document at all but a fraud pasted together after the fact by someone who wanted to discredit Heartland, but who didn't know enough about IT to cover his tracks.

Note one other thing: how this fraud self-consciously tries to recreate every aspect of the Climategate scandal, projecting those elements onto the climate skeptics. Climategate had: a) an insider who leaked information, b) private admissions of unscientific practices, like misrepresenting the data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and c) discussions of attempts to suppress opposing views. Further scandals that followed on from Climategate included one more element: d) using material from non-scientists in activist groups to pad out scientific reports for the UN.

The fake Heartland memo tried to re-create all of this. It was posted to the Web by someone who called himself "Heartland Insider." It contains admissions of things like opposing the teaching of science. It includes discussion of attempts to exclude global warming alarmists from the media, particularly an attempt to oust a fellow named Peter Gleick, described in the memo as a "high profile climate scientist," from his Forbes blog, because "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out." And it describes a program to hire a "paid team of writers" to "undermine the official United Nation's [sic] IPCC reports." So this has all of the elements of Climategate, but in mirror image.

But it is all a lie. It took bloggers mere days to spot the document as a fake and less than a week to find the person who posted it and the other Heartland documents. He turns out to be...Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who is president of the left-leaning Pacific Institute. It's actually kind of pathetic, when you think about it. What gave Gleick away was the little touch of self-aggrandizement, the fact that he couldn't resist over-inflating the significance of his Forbes blog. In his own mind, clearly, he is the one man whose bold opposition keeps the Heartland leadership awake at nights.

So the "leaker" wasn't an insider, Heartland has not been exposed as anti-science, and it is not conspiring to silence opposing voices. In fact, days before the documents were posted, Heartland had asked Gleick to participate in a debate, and he refused the invitation. Oh, and those "paid writers" who were supposed to "undermine" the UN climate reports? They were actually a team of distinguished scientists who were compiling their own independent climate research.

After he was caught, Gleick confessed, but he's still trying the "modified limited hangout": confess to a small crime in the hope that this will mollify investigators and they won't dig up evidence of your big crime. So Gleick has confessed to obtaining the genuine Heartland documents through deceptive means. (He called Heartland posing as a member of the institute's board and talked a gullible junior staffer into sending him the handouts for an upcoming board meeting.) But he still maintains that the fake "confidential strategy memo" was sent to him by an anonymous source, and that he only obtained the Heartland documents in an attempt to verify the memo.

This won't hold up, because Gleick still doesn't understand the meta-data that tripped him up. The fake strategy memo was created about a day before the documents were released, which appears to be well after Gleick pilfered the genuine documents. That fits with McArdle's impression that the fake memo was created by cutting and pasting facts from the other documents. Which implies that Gleick was the forger.

All of this will come out, and in a much fuller way than in the Climategate scandal. With Climategate, the victim of the fraud was the public, which pays the salaries of the scientists who have been fudging the facts. But this means that the government and its scientific institutions were put in charge of the investigation, and they had a vested interest in whitewashing the story. In this case, the victims are Heartland and other independent scientists whose reputations were impugned by the forged document. They have a good criminal and civil case against Gleick for identity theft, fraud, and defamation, and they will be able to use the courts' subpoena power to dig into Gleick's computer records and get to the whole truth. So he's now going to suffer the same fate as John Edwards: admit part of his wrongdoing but cover up the rest, then be forced to admit more, then a little bit more. It's the most ignominious way to go down.

Which means, for us skeptics, that it's time to pass around the popcorn and enjoy the show.

Oh, and it gets better. Some global warming alarmists are lining up to defend Gleick. Judith Curry points to the blog where Gleick posted the fake memo, which is now declaring, "For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, [Gleick] deserves our gratitude and applause." Another warmist adds that Gleick "is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him."

I certainly hope so. A lot of people deserve to go down along with Gleick.

Even many of those who deplore Gleick's fraud are still willfully blind to its implications. In Time, Bryan Walsh laments that "Worst of all—at least for those who care about global warming—Gleick’s act will almost certainly produce a backlash against climate advocates at a politically sensitive moment. And if the money isn’t already rolling into the Heartland Institute, it will soon." So yet another warmist has been exposed as a fraud—and the worst thing that can happen is that this will reduce the credibility of the warmists? But they deserve to lose their credibility.

Fakegate shows us, with the precision of a scientific experiment, several key truths about the global warming movement. It shows that most warmists, both the scientists and the journalists, will embrace any claim that seems to bolster their cause, without bothering to check the facts or subject them to rigorous investigation. (Anthony Watts notes how few journalists bothered to contact him before reporting the claims about him that are made in the fake memo.) And it shows us that warmists like Gleick have no compunction about falsifying information to promote their agenda, and that many other warmists are willing to serve as accomplices after the fact, excusing Gleick's fraud on the grounds that he was acting in a "noble cause." It shows us that "hide the decline" dishonesty is a deeply ingrained part of the corporate culture of the global warming movement.

Gleick wasn't just an obscure, rogue operator in the climate debate. Before his exposure, his stock in trade was lecturing on "scientific integrity," and until a few days ago he was the chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. So this scandal goes to the very top of the global warming establishment, and it compels honest observers to ask: if the warmists were willing to deceive us on this, what else have they been deceiving us about?

Between Climategate and Fakegate, the warmist establishment now has zero credibility, and we must call all of their claims into question.
 
Wow, climategate has actual emails and exposes the lies of the "tax out of thin air" dolts that are trying to control out lives. The latest scandal to expose climate skeptics with their own version of climategate has been shown to be much ado about nothing and also to include a forgery and a fake. Can you say desperation? If after reading this and educating yourself on climategate you still believe in AWG and its science, then you can look in the mirror and state with absolute authority "I am stupid". Read the link as it includes numerous other links that are about to drop the ceiling on AGW alarmists and put them out for good. This is science at its worse. Takeaway quote: "Between Climategate and Fakegate, the warmist establishment now has zero credibility, and we must call all of their claims into question."

RealClearPolitics - Fakegate: Global Warmists Try to Hide Their Decline

Why do you forget to source?

By Robert Tracinski - writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com - http://www.intellectualactivist.com/ (The Intellectual Activist | A monthly magazine analyzing current political, cultural, and philosophic issues from a pro-reason, pro-indiviualist perspective.). TIA was founded as a fortnightly political newsletter by Peter Schwartz in 1979, earning Ayn Rand's recommendation as "an antidote to the cultural irrationality of our age." In the 1980s, it began to expand beyond politics, becoming a forum for applying Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy to art, literature, and culture.

LMAO!!!
 
Last edited:
9884
 

Attachments

  • x97ke.jpg
    x97ke.jpg
    331.9 KB · Views: 17
Why do you forget to source?

By Robert Tracinski - writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com - http://www.intellectualactivist.com/ (The Intellectual Activist | A monthly magazine analyzing current political, cultural, and philosophic issues from a pro-reason, pro-indiviualist perspective.). TIA was founded as a fortnightly political newsletter by Peter Schwartz in 1979, earning Ayn Rand's recommendation as "an antidote to the cultural irrationality of our age." In the 1980s, it began to expand beyond politics, becoming a forum for applying Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy to art, literature, and culture.

LMAO!!!

Um, okay. Use Google then doc. If you need any help just let me know. I can show you how. It's actually quite easy. This story is multiple sourced out the whazoo. The dolt who did the data dump has retired and now MANY other sources are saying the document in question is a forgery and comparing this to Rathergate. You remember that don't you - the scandal that ruined Dan Rather's career. If this is what you hang your hat on and call science, then you sir are no scientist. Period.
 
Fakegate: Another Global Warming Scandal

Let the fear begin. It won't be long before we have our forger. Again, use Google, even liberal media are looking to break the "who done it" because this is what journalists live for. It brought down Rather and almost destroyed CBS. It will - and actually is just icing on the cake - for the dying of the AGW movement. But this will be the final nail in the coffin.
 
Global Warming Alarmists Resort to Hoax | Power Line

A blog run by lawyers. This has all the gory details and the type of throw the gauntlet down challenge that makes you hope Gleick takes the bait:

One could go on, but that is more than enough. Let me be perfectly clear: I think it is obvious that Peter Gleick fabricated this document–the only one he posted that makes the Heartland Institute look bad–because the real ones he stole from Heartland didn’t serve his partisan purpose. Or, if he didn’t make it up himself, he got it from an ally who fabricated it. No knowledgeable person could mistake Gleick’s hoax for a legitimate top-secret Heartland memo.

So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me. If I am right, apologize for fabricating a document and attempting to perpetrate a hoax, and retire from public life.

And let me just add this warning: litigation is a two-way street. If you sue me, I get to take your deposition under oath. If you lie again, you can go to jail. I get to subpoena your telephone records and find out exactly whom you have been talking with, when and for how long. I get to examine the hard drives of your computers and reconstruct every email you have ever sent or received, especially those that you have deleted. I get to depose third party witnesses under oath. If someone other than you faked the Heartland memo, I can get his testimony, under penalty of perjury. I can trace the development of every Word document you have ever had a hand in creating, and I can identify the precise moment when you converted it to PDF and posted it on the internet in hopes of embarrassing Heartland. So, Peter Gleick: if you are afraid to sue me, then admit that you are a liar and a hoaxer and slink away in shame.

This is the type of idiot that AGW fellow idiots support. Well, let's see if Mr. Gleick has the guts or the balls. My bet is he does not and that his fellow alarmists are begging him not to do it lest they be pulled down with the entire AGW debacle. So Mr. Scally, when you look at Climategate and Fakegate, I'll let you decide which one makes more sense - that AGW is politically motivated, or that AGW is real science. Your decision will say a great deal about your real objectivity. In a way, this is like asking journalists during Rathergate whether they stood with Dan Rather and believed him when the evidence clearly pointed to the opposing conclusion. Let us hear you go on the record. I have read the Climategate emails, seen the code where the comments were inserted about the trick to fit the data (famously known as hide the decline), read about the coordinated efforts to ruin the career of anyone who disagreed with them, and the coordinated efforts to ensure opposing points of view were not allowed in peer reviewed journals. Add a sprinkling of Fakegate and only the most ideological of so-called objective thinkers can still deny that AGW has a real big problem doing real science. Not to mention the disingenuous rolling average of the BEST data recently exposed. What is it going to take before someone who considers themselves data-driven actually looks at the data? Hmmm....

So now I will take a moment to LMAO.

Oh, and check your statistics again. You don't want to be outed as a liberal hack - or do you?

http://amerpundit.com/2011/05/17/jon-huntsman-of-course-i-believe-in-global-warming/

Pay attention to the phrase: First, he provides absolutely no evidence to back up his 90% claim, and I can quickly and easily provide evidence to the contrary. The key words to follow in the link are "quickly" and "easily". The number is much, much, much lower. You have been had by media spin that was exposed a long time ago. Get with the times.

Cartoons are for children. Real numbers are for adults.
 
Last edited:
Ocean Acidification Rate May Be Unprecedented, Study Says
Ocean acidification rate may be unprecedented, study says


Honisch Br, Ridgwell A, Schmidt DN, et al. The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification. Science 2012;335(6072):1058-63. The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification

Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth's history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry - a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.
 
Hmmmmmmmmmm! I would not expect the WSJ to note the time of the year these events are appearing.

Tornado Outbreak Kills at Least 28
Storms Rack Several States - WSJ.com

The death toll from the tornadoes that slammed through southern Indiana, Ohio and northern Kentucky on Friday rose to 29, and authorities feared the number would rise as daylight broke on Saturday's search for survivors. Homes and businesses were leveled in those states and in Tennessee and northern Alabama.

Tornado damage was reported in most counties along the Indiana-Kentucky border, with severe damage in the Clark County towns of Marysville and Henryville, Ind., said Dan McCarthy, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Indianapolis.

Twin supercell storms passed through the area early in the afternoon and a second round packing high winds and large hail came through in the early evening, Mr. McCarthy said.

Spokesman Jet Quillen of the Indiana Joint Information Center said the dead included four in Jefferson County and three in Scott County, the Associated Press reported. Authorities also reported two deaths in Ripley County and one in Henryville.

Maj. Chuck Adams of the Clark County Sheriff's Department in Indiana told WDRB in Louisville, Ky., that authorities received reports of "extensive damage" in Henryville, including to the local high school, though he said students had been evacuated with only minor injuries.

Crews in Henryville worked through the night to clear roads and prepare for daylight rescue efforts. A path of carnage extended from Interstate 65 through Henryville Junior/Senior High School, where the tornado wrapped six cars into gnarled steel beams draped with insulation. In the parking lot, two school buses are totaled amid scattered bricks, notebooks and chairs.

Maj. Adams said a girl about 2 years old had been found alone in a field and taken to a hospital, and that authorities were looking for her family.

WDRB showed footage of a stretch of ruined buildings and overturned cars in nearby New Pekin, Ind., about 20 miles northwest of Louisville, where it said there were reports of people trapped in wreckage.

A Kentucky state government spokesman says the state's death toll from severe storms has risen to 12, the AP reported.

One new death was reported in Morgan County, where 50 Kentucky National Guard troops were deployed along with a rescue team. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet spokesman Chuck Wolfe said Kentucky State Police also reported 40 troopers were being sent to the county.

Mr. Wolfe said four others were killed in Menifee County, four in Laurel County and three in Kenton County as tornadoes hit multiple counties, causing widespread injuries and destruction.

At least three tornadoes touched down in the state, causing 23,000 power outages.

Buddy Rogers, a spokesman for the state's emergency management division, said significant damage was reported to a rural fire station near Bedford.

Violent storms were expected to continue into the night, with the state at the highest risk until about 8 p.m. "We're always more concerned about nighttime storms, because people can't see them coming,'' said Mr. Rogers.

But he added that many residents were on alert for the latest round of storms after a dozen tornadoes hit parts of Kentucky on Wednesday. Eight people were hospitalized from those storms, but there were no fatalities, according to state authorities.

In Tennessee, at least 29 people were injured and dozens of homes damaged after more than 10 counties reported tornadoes Friday. But there were no reports of fatalities as of 8 p.m., according to Dean Flener, a spokesman at the state's emergency management agency.

Counties near Chattanooga and Nashville appeared among the hardest hit.

Alabama authorities reported that at least 40 homes were destroyed and another 100 suffered heavy damage Friday in Limestone and Madison counties, in the northern part of the state bordering Tennessee. There were no immediate reports of deaths in either county, after at least two tornadoes touched down.

Seven people were hospitalized in Huntsville's Madison County, where a maximum-security prison was also damaged. Additional personnel were sent to the prison, but inmates were secure and there were no reports of serious injuries at the prison, said Yasamie August, a spokeswoman at Alabama Emergency Management Agency.

The National Weather Service in Huntsville warned that another round of severe weather could hit Alabama later Friday.

Alabama suffered massive damage last April, when more than 60 twisters ripped through the state, killing 254 people, according to state authorities.

William Weatherford, 61 years old, of Borden, Ind., was on the phone with his son in New Pekin, about five miles away, as the tornado approached.

"The sky was dark, but it was massive white," Mr. Weatherford said of the tornado.

Suddenly, his son said he had to get off the phone.

"He told me 'Dad it's coming right our way, I've got to go.' "

Mr. Weatherford's son, a police officer, ran downstairs with his wife to a walk-in safe where he keeps his guns. His children were at school. The tornado struck the home next to his and destroyed it. He sent his father a text saying he was OK.

"I'm heading over there right now with my chain saw," said Mr. Weatherford who spoke as he was driving toward his son's home. "There are trees down, houses, businesses. It's a mess."

On Tuesday a cold front sliding down from the Rockies collided with a mass of warm moist air rising up from the Gulf of Mexico spawning a band of violent weather—including several tornadoes—stretching across the nation's center.

Hardest hit was Harrisburg, Ill., a small city of 9,000 at the southern edge of the state. That tornado, with winds over 170 mph, swept through the downtown before dawn leveling entire neighborhoods and leaving six dead.

Branson, Mo., was also hit. The tourist destination famed for its entertainment saw about a dozen hotels and five theaters damaged.
 
James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
 
A Republican meteorologist looks at climate change
A Republican meteorologist looks at climate change | Commentary | Minnesota Public Radio News

I'm going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I'm a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I'm a Penn State meteorologist, and the weather maps I'm staring at are making me very uncomfortable. No, you're not imagining it: we've clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern.
 
Coumou D, Rahmstorf S. A decade of weather extremes. Nature Clim Change;advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html

The ostensibly large number of recent extreme weather events has triggered intensive discussions, both in- and outside the scientific community, on whether they are related to global warming. Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.


Robinson A, Calov R, Ganopolski A. Multistability and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet. Nature Clim Change;advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1449.html

Recent studies have focused on the short-term contribution of the Greenland ice sheet to sea-level rise, yet little is known about its long-term stability. The present best estimate of the threshold in global temperature rise leading to complete melting of the ice sheet is 3.1?°C (1.9–5.1?°C, 95% confidence interval) above the preindustrial climate1, determined as the temperature for which the modelled surface mass balance of the present-day ice sheet turns negative. Here, using a fully coupled model, we show that this criterion systematically overestimates the temperature threshold and that the Greenland ice sheet is more sensitive to long-term climate change than previously thought. We estimate that the warming threshold leading to a monostable, essentially ice-free state is in the range of 0.8–3.2?°C, with a best estimate of 1.6?°C. By testing the ice sheet’s ability to regrow after partial mass loss, we find that at least one intermediate equilibrium state is possible, though for sufficiently high initial temperature anomalies, total loss of the ice sheet becomes irreversible. Crossing the threshold alone does not imply rapid melting (for temperatures near the threshold, complete melting takes tens of millennia). However, the timescale of melt depends strongly on the magnitude and duration of the temperature overshoot above this critical threshold.


Purkey SG, Johnson GC. Global contraction of Antarctic Bottom Water between the 1980s and 2000s*. Journal of Climate. AMS Journals Online - Global contraction of Antarctic Bottom Water between the 1980s and 2000s*

A statistically significant reduction in Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) volume is quantified between the 1980s and 2000s within the Southern Ocean and along the bottom-most, southern branches of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC). AABW has warmed globally during that time, contributing roughly 10% of the recent total ocean heat uptake. This warming implies a global-scale contraction of AABW. Rates of change in AABW-related circulation are estimated in most of the world’s deep ocean basins by finding average rates of volume loss or gain below cold, deep potential temperature (?) surfaces using all available repeated hydrographic sections. The Southern Ocean is losing water below ? = 0°C at a rate of ?8.2 (±2.6) × 106 m3 s?1. This bottom water contraction causes a descent of potential isotherms throughout much of the water column until a near-surface recovery, apparently through a southward surge of Circumpolar Deep Water from the north. To the north, smaller losses of bottom waters are seen along three of the four main northward outflow routes of AABW. Volume and heat budgets below deep, cold ? surfaces within the Brazil and Pacific basins are not in steady state. The observed changes in volume and heat of the coldest waters within these basins could be accounted for by small decreases to the volume transport or small increases to ? of their inflows, or fractional increases in deep mixing. The budget calculations and global contraction pattern are consistent with a global scale slowdown of the bottom, southern limb of the MOC.


Satellite observes rapid ice shelf disintegration in Antarctic
ESA Portal - Satellite observes rapid ice shelf disintegration in Antarctic

The Larsen Ice Shelf is a series of three shelves – A (the smallest), B and C (the largest) – that extend from north to south along the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Larsen A disintegrated in January 1995. Larsen C so far has been stable in area, but satellite observations have shown thinning and an increasing duration of melt events in summer.

“Ice shelves are sensitive to atmospheric warming and to changes in ocean currents and temperatures,” said Prof. Helmut Rott from the University of Innsbruck.

“The northern Antarctic Peninsula has been subject to atmospheric warming of about 2.5°C over the last 50 years – a much stronger warming trend than on global average, causing retreat and disintegration of ice shelves.”

Larsen B decreased in area from 11512 sq km in early January 1995 to 6664 sq km in February 2002 due to several calving events. The disintegration in March 2002 left behind only 3463 sq km. Today, Envisat shows that only 1670 sq km remain.


Rowlands DJ, Frame DJ, Ackerley D, et al. Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large climate model ensemble. Nature Geosci 2012;5(4):256-60. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1430.html

Incomplete understanding of three aspects of the climate system—equilibrium climate sensitivity, rate of ocean heat uptake and historical aerosol forcing—and the physical processes underlying them lead to uncertainties in our assessment of the global-mean temperature evolution in the twenty-first century1, 2. Explorations of these uncertainties have so far relied on scaling approaches3, 4, large ensembles of simplified climate models1, 2, or small ensembles of complex coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models5, 6 which under-represent uncertainties in key climate system properties derived from independent sources7, 8, 9. Here we present results from a multi-thousand-member perturbed-physics ensemble of transient coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simulations. We find that model versions that reproduce observed surface temperature changes over the past 50 years show global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3?K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario. This range of warming is broadly consistent with the expert assessment provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report10, but extends towards larger warming than observed in ensembles-of-opportunity5 typically used for climate impact assessments. From our simulations, we conclude that warming by the middle of the twenty-first century that is stronger than earlier estimates is consistent with recent observed temperature changes and a mid-range ‘no mitigation’ scenario for greenhouse-gas emissions.
 
U.S. records warmest March; more than 15,000 warm temperature records broken
First quarter of 2012 also warmest on record; early March tornado outbreak is year's first "billion dollar disaster"
State of the Climate

Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. More than 15,000 warm temperature records were broken during the month.

The average temperature of 51.1°F was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average for March and 0.5°F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months (117+ years) that have passed since the U.S. climate record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAjjjtDY8UU]Over 15,000 Records Broken as March 2012 Becomes Warmest on Record - YouTube[/ame]
 
Warming Marches in
March 2012 was the balmiest on record for the continental United States, setting a mountain of new records
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/339849/title/Warming_Marches_in
 
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change - Business Insider

Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency's activist stance toward climate change.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent the following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven.

The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.


Select excerpts from the letter:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
 
NASA Climate Change Letter Belongs To Long Tradition Of Fake Expertise
NASA Climate Change Letter Belongs To Long Tradition Of Fake Expertise

WASHINGTON -- When former NASA administrators, astronauts and engineers released a letter earlier this week attacking the science of climate change, its veneer of legitimacy kicked off a media blitz. Yet none of the letter's 49 signatories are climate scientists, and with more than 18,000 people currently working for NASA, to say nothing of the tens of thousands more who are retired, the letter seems more than anything like a empty publicity stunt -- for which there's considerable precedent.

"This is an old stunt," explained Michael Mann, a well-known climate scientist and Penn State professor. "When you have an area of the science where there is a consensus like in climate change, where the problem is real and the scientific implications are on a collision course with vested interests like the fossil fuel industry, you often see this."

NASA has been clear that it firmly accepts the reality of the science behind climate change, including the work of world-renowned climate scientist James Hansen, so complaints from a few dozen retired NASA administrators and a handful of astronauts and engineers calling on NASA to stop saying that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes climate change can hardly be taken seriously.
 
Back
Top