Climate Change

http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=58783
Extreme Weather Events in Europe: preparing for climate change adaptation

Extreme Weather Events In Europe: Preparing For Climate Change Adaptation By Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Executive Summary

The current position:recent changes in extreme weather patterns

1. The Earth’s climate has changed in the past due to geophysical factors, including the oscillation of its axis as it travels round the sun. Over recent years, however, human activity has been the cause of more profound and rapid change. Since the industrial and agricultural revolutions, the use of fossil fuels as energy sources, together with intensive agriculture and deforestation, have led to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) levels which are now higher than at any time in the last 800 000 years. This will have a profound effect on the Earth’s climate, which will warm as a result.

2. Meteorological and climatological measurements of climatic change in Europe show that intense precipitation has become more severe and more frequent, with complex variability in the sense of a non-uniform spatial pattern. However, the lack of a clear large-scale pattern can be expected when dealing with extremes, as the number of events is small and they take place at irregular intervals and with irregular intensity.

3. Winter rainfall has decreased over Southern Europe and the Middle East, and has increased further north. The latter increase is caused by a pole-ward shift of the North Atlantic storm track and a weakening of the Mediterranean storm track. Short and isolated rain events have been regrouped into prolonged wet spells.

4. Some recent changes in the pattern of weather extremes have been considerable: in some parts of Europe, observed trends to more and longer heat waves and fewer extremely cold days and nights have been observed. Since the 1960s, the mean heat wave intensity, length and number across the Eastern Mediterranean region have increased by a factor of five or more. These findings suggest that the heat wave characteristics in this region have increased at higher rates than previously reported (Kuglitsch et al., 2010).

5. Increasing summer dryness has been observed in Central and Southern Europe since the 1950s, but no consistent trend is found over the rest of Europe. In a study of river flows in Europe by Stahl et al. (2010), a regionally coherent picture of annual stream-flow trends emerged, with negative trends in southern and eastern regions, and generally positive trends elsewhere – especially in northern latitudes – suggesting that the observed dryness is reflected in the state of rivers.

6. The risk of and vulnerability to floods have increased over many areas in Europe, due to a range of climatic and non-climatic impacts, whose relative importance is sitespecific. Flood damage has increased substantially, however observations alone do not provide conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood frequency. An ubiquitous increase in flood maxima is not evident.

7. The insurance industry reports a pronounced increase in the number of weather-related events, which have caused significant losses, for example, wind-storms and floods globally and, to a somewhat lesser degree, in Europe. There is still insufficient knowledge about the extent to which these changes can be found in wind and precipitation observations and whether they are driven by global warming. Some of the hazard-driven increases of loss events may have been masked by human prevention measures, in particular in the case of flood loss data, as these can be influenced much more by preventive measures than wind-storm losses.

8. In some regions, low-lying coastal zones are considered to be particularly vulnerable to climate change, especially through sea-level rise, changes in wave climate and in storminess. In Portugal, one of the European countries most affected by coastal erosion, the shoreline is retreating at an annual average of as much as 9 m in places, mainly as a result of weakening of river sediment supplies due to dams and embankments. However, the question of past trends in storm number and intensities is still open. More North European wind storms are seen when the state of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is in a positive phase, but the causes determining the phase of the NAO are still unclear.

The outlook

1. The main tool for providing insights into possible climate futures is computer modelling. Using modelling studies with other inputs, some of the likely trends for the future can be seen. In particular, a consensus is emerging about the likely future pattern of extreme weather events in Europe. Heat waves are very likely to become more frequent, with increased duration and intensity, while the number of cold spells and frost days are likely to decrease. Fewer cold extremes are expected, but occasional intense cold spells will still occur, even in the second half of the 21st century. Southern Europe and the Mediterranean Region may expect a combination of a reduction in annual precipitation and an increase in average temperatures. Summer dryness is expected to further increase in Central and Southern Europe during the 21st century, leading to an enhanced risk of drought, longer dry spells, and larger soil moisture deficits.

2. Climate model simulations also suggest more frequent droughts throughout Europe, although flash and urban floods triggered by local intense precipitation events are also likely to be more frequent. Other likely consequences of climate change include decreased annual river flow in Southern Europe and increased water stress in regions that are already vulnerable to reductions in water resources.

3. Studies suggest higher precipitation intensity for Northern Europe and increased dry-spell lengths for Southern Europe. High intensity and extreme precipitation are expected to become more frequent within the next 70 years. The increased frequency is estimated to be larger for more extreme events, but will vary considerably from region to region. The seasonality and structure of precipitation is expected to change.

4. It is currently not possible to devise a scientifically sound procedure for redefining design floods used, for example, in planning for food defence (for example, 100- year floods) due to the large range of possible outcomes. For now, adjusting design floods using a climate-change factor is recommended, but flood-risk reduction strategies should be reviewed on regular basis, taking new information into account.

5. Climate model simulations indicate an increase in windstorm risk over Northwestern Europe, leading to higher storm damage when there is no adaptation. Over Southern Europe, severe wind storms are projected to decline. Economic impacts of extreme weather events

1. Much of the information about the economic impacts of extreme weather events comes from data on insured losses compiled by the insurance industry such as that held by the Munich Re company in its NatCatSERVICE, comprising about 30 000 data sets of individual loss events caused by natural hazards. This analysis shows that, in general, the frequency of weather-related loss events has increased significantly at a global level, in contrast with losses from geophysical hazards such as earthquakes or tsunamis, which have shown only a slight increase.

2. In Europe the increase in losses from extreme weather events has been about 60 % since the 1980s. This is low compared with the number of loss events suffered in other continents, which, in the case of North America, are now 3.5 times the number of the early 1980s. Of the loss events registered in the NatCatSERVICE database, the great majority, 91 %, are from extreme weather and, of these, 75 % are from storms and floods.

3. The pattern of loss events varies across Europe, with larger numbers in the United Kingdom and West-Central Europe and lower numbers in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. In Southern Europe, heat waves, droughts and wildfires are the most numerous events, whereas in Western and Central Europe floods and storms predominate.

4. The economic loss burden has been considerable, with an estimated loss of € 415 billion (€ 415x109) since 1980 (2010 values). The most costly hazards have been storms and floods, amounting to a combined total of almost € 300 billion.

5. Weather events have also been responsible for considerable loss of life in Europe, estimated at around 140 000 lives lost since 1980. The largest impacts on life have come from heat waves such as those in Central Europe in 2003.

Adaptation strategies: responses to changes in extreme weather

1. At the European level, climate-change adaptation is part of the strategies for improving the resilience of specific sectors, such as health and transport, reflecting the expected impacts of climate change on them. It is expected that the severity of climate change will be greatest in the Southern and Mediterranean parts of Europe and that there will be particular problems in some specific geographical areas including mountain areas, coastal zones and islands. Agriculture, fisheries, human health, water resources, biodiversity and ecosystems and physical infrastructure, including transport and energy are expected to be particularly affected.

2. Much of the adaptation action required in the EU will be carried out by individual Member States. The European Environment Agency (EEA) is collaborating with the European Commission (EC) to establish a European climate adaptation platform (Climate-Adapt), which aims to support Member States in the development of National Climate Change Adaptation Plans.

3. Some adaptation measures will require action at a European level, including where there are shared resources such as sea-basins and rivers or geographic features such as mountain ranges that cross national borders. There will also be a particular requirement for EU action where sectors or resources have strong EU integration, for example, agriculture and fisheries; water, biodiversity and transport; and energy networks.

4. For many of the adaptation measures that will require EU-level action, some are sector-specific requiring the general improvement of storm resilience in electricity networks. Some have regional and cross-sectoral implications such as flood-risk management along the courses of the great rivers of Europe with implications for
agriculture and for physical infrastructure.

5. The current EU strategy rests on information sharing and integrating adaptation into EU policies.

Conclusions

1. A regional European pattern in recent trends in extreme weather and their impacts has been discerned. Some of the extreme weather phenomena associated with climate change are increasing in frequency and intensity within Europe. In some cases the impacts of these changes have had a significant effect on societies and economies throughout Europe, although at very different scales in different regions.

2. There is an observed trend to more and longer heat waves and fewer extremely cold days and nights in some parts of Europe. In the past, estimates of changes have suggested that they are modest, but a recent re-analysis of data showed that, since the 1960s, the mean heatwave intensity, length and number across the Eastern Mediterranean region had increased by a factor of five or more (Box 3.1). It is expected that the trends towards longer and more intense heat waves will continue with further climate change.

3. Increasing summer dryness, which is associated with drought, has been observed in Central and Southern Europe since the 1950s, but no consistent trend has been found over the rest of Europe. For some areas, notably Central and Southern Europe and parts of Northwestern Europe, it is expected that this trend will continue with global warming.

4. Extreme precipitation, often associated with floods and damage to infrastructure and crops, appears to be increasing in severity and frequency.

5. Climatic and non-climatic factors such as human settlement have increased flood-risk vulnerability over many areas. Flood damage and the number of large floods have increased substantially in Europe, however a ubiquitous increase in observed records of annual flood maxima is not evident.

6. Projections for the future indicate increases in flood risk over much of Europe. However, the projections are uncertain, partly because information about the future evolution of precipitation is uncertain but also because of confounding non-climatic factors.

7. The question of past trends in storm numbers and intensities is still open. More North European wind storms are seen when the state of the NAO is in a positive phase, but the causes that determine the phase of the NAO are still unclear.

8. In some regions, low-lying coastal zones are considered to be particularly vulnerable to climate change, especially through sea level rise, changes in wave climate and in storminess.

9. Insurance industry data clearly show that the number of loss-relevant weather extremes has increased significantly globally and to a smaller, but still relevant, degree in Europe. There is increasing evidence that at least part of these increases is driven by global warming. Some of the hazard-driven increases in loss events may even have been moderated by human activities through loss prevention measures.

10. Human factors play a part in moderating the impactsof heat waves. Extreme heat has had a considerable impact on human health in Europe with significant mortality, notably during the heat waves of 2003 and 2010. However, in many parts of Southern Europe, heat waves of a similar scale occur frequently for years without the same level of impact.

11. For many crops in Europe, weather extremes are the major factor in climate-change impacts on production. An increased frequency of extreme weather events is likely to be unfavourable for crop production, horticulture and forestry.

Recommendations

It is recommended that science-driven climate services need to be developed on national and regional levels in Europe. As the societal risk related to climate change is significant, research into the processes and drivers of the climate system need to intensify, with a particular emphasis on manifestations that carry the largest risk to humans and society. These manifestations are related to the extremes of the weather-parameter probability distributions, rather than on their mean. Climate services should evolve in an interactive way with the public and private user communities in order to devise effective adaptation measures and to:

• provide easy access to relevant meteorological and hydrological observations, climate projections and climate products, with climate adaptation as the main focus;

• facilitate the production of clear information about national/regional climate;

• provide updated information on historical, current and future climate trends;

• facilitate and disseminate relevant quality-controlled analyses of the present climate and projections of climate change to governments, counties, municipalities, business interests and research. When there are events that focus attention on impacts of extreme weather events, individual efforts to assimilate the lessons learned into planning should be encouraged. The use of real-world indicators, such as recurring problematic conditions and external expertise where municipalities or organisations are involved in relevant research projects, should also be encouraged as ways of raising the local profile of climate-change adaptation

Eastern Arctic temperatures likely at 120,000-year high - Technology & Science - CBC News
Melting ice caps on Baffin Island have exposed evidence suggesting that average summertime temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic are higher than they’ve been since the beginning of the last ice age 120,000 years ago.

The study shows current temperatures are “well outside the range of natural variability now,” said Gifford Miller, from the University of Colorado, Boulder, who led the study, in an interview with CBC News Friday.

“And so… there’s really nothing left but greenhouse gases to explain why the warming is occurring.”

Previously, some scientists thought it was possible that current Arctic warming might be within the range of natural variability, and that the Arctic may in fact have been warmer than it is now during the Early Holocene, shortly after the end of the last ice age 11,700 ago. At that time variations in the Earth’s orbit meant the amount of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere was about nine per cent higher than it is now, leading to a 5,000-year warm period that peaked around 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, Miller said.

However, the analysis by Miller and his colleagues suggests that average temperatures never got as high as they are now in the area of Baffin Island that they studied. The study was published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Ice core evidence

In fact, evidence from ice cores collected in nearby Greenland suggest that summer temperatures in the region haven’t been as warm as they are now for 120,000 years.

Another interesting finding of the new study was that from 5,000 to 500 years ago, average summer temperatures in the region cooled about 2.7 C — about double what most climate models show.

Miller said that suggests the models may underestimate the huge temperature swings in the Arctic relative to other parts of the world when the average global temperature changes. The Arctic is thought to respond more strongly because effects of warming are amplified by the large-scale melting of Arctic ice in forms such as sea ice and ice caps.

“Maybe the future warming estimates for the Arctic are still underestimated,” Miller added.

Arctic temperatures are at a 44,000-year high - and greenhouse gases are to blame, claim scientists | Mail Online
According to their paper, published in journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists compared 145 radiocarbon-dated plants with gas bubbles trapped in ice cores from the region, which show layers of snow over time and enable researchers to reconstruct past temperatures.

The plants were collected in the highlands of Baffin Island, which is located east of Greenland is the fifth largest island in the world and lies mostly inside the Arctic Circle.

The results showed the plants had been trapped in the ice for at least 44,000 years but could have been entombed for up to 120,000 years - suggesting that the temperatures in the area have not been so high for as long as 120,000 years.

'The key piece [of information] here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is,' said Professor Miller, who is also a fellow at the university's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131025/arctic-temperatures-hotter-now-44000-years

Unprecedented Arctic warming: Average summer temperatures in last 100 years may be warmest in 120,000 years
Miller and his colleagues used dead moss clumps emerging from receding ice caps on Baffin Island as tiny clocks. At four different ice caps, radiocarbon dates show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago.

Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years and because Earth's geological record shows it was in a glaciation stage prior to that time, the indications are that Canadian Arctic temperatures today have not been matched or exceeded for roughly 120,000 years, Miller said

To reconstruct the past climate of Baffin Island beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating, Miller and his team used data from ice cores previously retrieved by international teams from the nearby Greenland Ice Sheet.

The ice cores showed that the youngest time interval from which summer temperatures in the Arctic were plausibly as warm as today is about 120,000 years ago, near the end of the last interglacial period. "We suggest this is the most likely age of these samples," said Miller.

The new study also showed summer temperatures cooled in the Canadian Arctic by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit from roughly 5,000 years ago to about 100 years ago -- a period that included the Little Ice Age from 1275 to about 1900.

"Although the Arctic has been warming since about 1900, the most significant warming in the Baffin Island region didn't really start until the 1970s," said Miller. "And it is really in the past 20 years that the warming signal from that region has been just stunning. All of Baffin Island is melting, and we expect all of the ice caps to eventually disappear, even if there is no additional warming."

Temperatures across the Arctic have been rising substantially in recent decades as a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. Studies by CU-Boulder researchers in Greenland indicate temperatures on the ice sheet have climbed 7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1991.

A 2012 study by Miller and colleagues using radiocarbon-dated mosses that emerged from under the Baffin Island ice caps and sediment cores from Iceland suggested that the trigger for the Little Ice Age was likely a combination of exploding tropical volcanoes -- which ejected tiny aerosols that reflected sunlight back into space -- and a decrease in solar radiation.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years: Scientific American

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/10/23/cu-boulder-led-study-shows-unprecedented-warmth-arctic
Contact:
Gifford Miller, 303-492-6962
Code:
gmiller@colorado.edu
Jim Scott, CU-Boulder media relations, 720-381-9479
Code:
jim.scott@colorado.edu
 
Last edited:
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years

Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean.

How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals?

Rosenthal et al. present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans.

The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

Rosenthal Y, Linsley BK, Oppo DW. Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years. Science 2013;342(6158):617-21. Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
 
GOP Deeply Divided Over Climate Change
GOP Deeply Divided Over Climate Change | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Two-thirds of Americans (67%) say there is solid evidence that the earth has been getting warmer over the last few decades, a figure that has changed little in the past few years. While partisan differences over climate change remain substantial, Republicans face greater internal divisions over this issue than do Democrats.

Just 25% of Tea Party Republicans say there is solid evidence of global warming, compared with 61%of non-Tea Party Republicans.
 
Another dooms day warning like Y-2K, IMO.

But wait, with such prophecy shouldn't we want or NEED to fund more of "his" research?

Hmm or perhaps he's just part owner in a bicycle factory?

Damn "corporate welfare" has run amuck!

:)
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/s...-food-supply-from-climate-change.html?hp&_r=0

Climate change will pose sharp risks to the world’s food supply in coming decades, potentially undermining crop production and driving up prices at a time when the demand for food is expected to soar, scientists have found.

In a departure from an earlier assessment, the scientists concluded that rising temperatures will have some beneficial effects on crops in some places, but that globally they will make it harder for crops to thrive — perhaps reducing production over all by as much as 2 percent each decade for the rest of this century, compared with what it would be without climate change.

And, the scientists say, they are already seeing the harmful effects in some regions.

The warnings come in a leaked draft of a report under development by a United Nations panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The document is not final and could change before it is released in March.

The report also finds other sweeping impacts from climate change already occurring across the planet, and warns that these are likely to intensify as human emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise. The scientists describe a natural world in turmoil as plants and animals colonize new areas to escape rising temperatures, and warn that many could become extinct.

The warning on the food supply is the sharpest in tone the panel has issued. Its previous report, in 2007, was more hopeful. While it did warn of risks and potential losses in output, particularly in the tropics, that report found that gains in production at higher latitudes would most likely offset the losses and ensure an adequate global supply.

The new tone reflects a large body of research in recent years that has shown how sensitive crops appear to be to heat waves. The recent work also challenges previous assumptions about how much food production could increase in coming decades because of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The gas, though it is the main reason for global warming, also acts as a kind of fertilizer for plants.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the principal scientific body charged with reviewing and assessing climate science, then issuing reports about the risks to the world’s governments. Its main reports come out every five to six years. The group won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, in 2007 for its efforts.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent every year to reduce emissions in response to past findings from the group, though many analysts have said these efforts are so far inadequate to head off drastic climatic changes later in the century.

On the food supply, the new report finds that benefits from global warming may be seen in some areas, like northern lands that are now marginal for food production. But it adds that over all, global warming could reduce agricultural production by as much as 2 percent each decade for the rest of this century.

During that period, demand is expected to rise as much as 14 percent each decade, the report found, as the world population is projected to grow to 9.6 billion in 2050, from 7.2 billion today, according to the United Nations, and as many of those people in developing countries acquire the money to eat richer diets.

Any shortfall would lead to rising food prices that would hit the world’s poor hardest, as has already occurred from price increases of recent years. Research has found that climate change, particularly severe heat waves, was a factor in those price spikes.

The agricultural risks “are greatest for tropical countries, given projected impacts that exceed adaptive capacity and higher poverty rates compared with temperate regions,” the draft report finds.

If the report proves to be correct about the effect on crops from climate change, global food demand might have to be met — if it can be met — by putting new land into production. That could entail chopping down large areas of forest, an action that would only accelerate climate change by sending substantial amounts of carbon dioxide into the air from the destruction of trees.

The report finds that efforts to adapt to climate change have already begun in many countries. President Obama signed an executive order on Friday to step up such efforts in the United States. But these efforts remain inadequate compared with the risks, the report says, and far more intensive — and expensive — adaptation plans are likely to be required in the future.

The document also finds that it is not too late for cuts in emissions to have a strong impact on the future risks of climate change, though the costs would be incurred in the next few decades and the main benefits would probably be seen in the late 21st century and beyond.

The leak of the new draft occurred on a blog hostile to the intergovernmental panel. In a brief interview, a spokesman for the panel, Jonathan Lynn, did not dispute the authenticity of the document.

“It’s a work in progress,” Mr. Lynn said. “It’s likely to change.”

Several scientists involved in drafting the document declined on Friday to speak publicly about it. In the Internet era, the group’s efforts to keep its drafts secret are proving to be a failure, and some of the scientists involved have called for a drafting process open to the public.

A report about the physical science of climate change leaked in August, then underwent only modest changes before its final release in Stockholm in late September. The new report covers the impact of climate change, efforts to adapt to it, and the vulnerability of human and natural systems.

A third report, analyzing potential ways to limit the rise of greenhouse gases, is due for release in Berlin in April.
 
Study Shows That Human Beings Are Too Selfish to Fix Climate Change | TIME.com

American and German researchers led by Jennifer Jacquet of New York University put together a collective-risk group experiment that is centered around climate change. Here’s how it worked. Each subject in groups with six participants was given a $55 operating fund. The experiment went 10 rounds, and during each round, they were allowed to choose one of three options: invest $0, $2.75 or $5.50 into a climate account. The participants were told that the total amount contributed would go to fund an advertisement on climate change in a German newspaper. If at the end of the 10 rounds, the group reached a target of $165 — or about $27 per person — they were considered to have successfully averted climate change, and each participant was given an additional $60 dollars. (If the numbers seem rough, it’s because I’m converting from euros — the currency used in the experiment — and rounding off.) If the group failed to reach the $165 target, there was a 90% probability that they wouldn’t get the additional payout. As a group, members would be better off if they collectively invested enough to reach that $165 target — otherwise they wouldn’t get the payout — but individually, members could benefit by keeping their money to themselves while hoping the rest of the group would pay enough to reach the target. (That’s the so-called free-rider phenomenon, and it’s a major challenge for climate policy.)

Here’s the twist, though: that $60 dollar endowment was paid out on three different time horizons. In one treatment, the cash was given to the groups the next day. In the second treatment, it was given seven weeks later. And in the third treatment, the cash was instead invested in planting oak trees that would sequester carbon — but since those trees wouldn’t be fully grown for years, all the benefit would accrue to future generations, not the current players in the experiment. The difference between that third treatment and the first and second is what’s known as “intergenerational discounting,” which happens when the benefits of an action in the present are highly diluted and mostly spread among many people in the future. Which, as it happens, is pretty much how climate policy would work.

Unsurprisingly, the more delayed the payout was, the less likely the experimental groups would put enough money away to meet the goal to stop climate change. Even among those who knew they’d get the payout the next day, only seven of 10 groups invested sufficient funds, while none of the 11 groups who knew their endowment would be invested in planting trees gave enough money to “stop” climate change. While this is just one experiment, the results do not bode well for humanity’s ability to come together to stop climate change.
 
Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries
Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries - environment - 01 November 2013 - New Scientist

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the worst European winters of the little ice age, a period lasting centuries when several regions around the globe experienced unusual cooling. Tree ring studies suggest it cooled the northern hemisphere by up to 0.4 °C.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. Temperatures have risen by 0.85 °C since 1880, with more expected, according to the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

There may still be noticeable consequences. For instance, long term cold winters in the UK are common when solar activity is low. And less solar activity can slow the jet stream, triggering a suite of interlinked extreme weather events like the Russian heatwave of 2010, and the devastating floods in Pakistan that same year.
 
RISING SEAS
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

The maps here show the world as it is now, with only one difference: All the ice on land has melted and drained into the sea, raising it 216 feet and creating new shorelines for our continents and inland seas.

There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all. If we continue adding carbon to the atmosphere, we’ll very likely create an ice-free planet, with an average temperature of perhaps 80 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 58.
 
Global Warming and the Ideology of Anthropogenic (Human Caused) Climate Change
By James Divine
Global Research, November 08, 2013
Url of this article:
Global Warming and the Ideology of Anthropogenic (Human Caused) Climate Change | Global Research

Go Jimmy Go!

James Divine is a well-traveled transdisciplinary who believes freethinking is essential to the well-being of human innovation. His maverick personality confidently resonates with holistic medicine, investigative literature and spiritual empowerment.
 
Super Typhoon Haiyan: A Hint of What’s to Come?
Super Typhoon Haiyan: A Hint of What's to Come? | Climate Central

Hurricane researchers contacted by Climate Central said Haiyan is an example of the type of extreme storm that may become more frequent as the climate continues to warm. But there is more consensus about the stormier future than there is about the present. The researchers also urged caution in attributing Haiyan’s strength to global warming, given the lack of evidence that manmade global warming has had any detectable influence on Western Pacific typhoons, let alone tropical cyclones in general (an umbrella term that includes typhoons and hurricanes).

Gabe Vecchi, a research oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said that if global warming altered Haiyan, it did not do so to a significant extent. “I expect that the contribution of global warming to Haiyan's extreme intensity is likely to have been small, relative to other factors like weather fluctuations and climate variability."
 
Drinking Al Gore's Kool-Aid Will Kill Millions

Almost 30 years ago, cult leader Jim Jones convinced more than 900 of his People's Temple followers that death by drinking Flavor Aid was better than life. Today, Al Gore continues in Reverend Jones' footsteps and and is picking up the pace substantially.

First it was his willingness to trade for a few miles per gallon increased fuel efficiency at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives each year in unnecessary deaths caused by collisions in lighter cars. The science, the numbers, the facts are unassailable, but without effect. To Reverend Al, agnostics are heretics and no questions are acceptable.

Today, the environmental messiah is willing to trade more than one million lives a year for his chance at tightening the screws on the world economy.

Bjorn Lomborg, writing in today's Washington Post, makes a convincing argument that the most compelling issue to consider when weighing Senator Gore's draconian demands is the number of deaths his remedy would cause.

According to Lomborg,

But though this fact gets much less billing, rising temperatures will also reduce the number of cold spells. This is important because research shows that the cold is a much bigger killer than the heat. According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change's health effects, global warming will actually save lives. It's estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.

In short, the Reverend Al is willing to spend trillions and potentially kill millions, but is unwilling to consider that other alternatives may be better solutions for the problems he sees or that he may be wrong entirely.

The biggest differences between Jim Jones and Al Gore are the amount of Flavor Aid (it wasn't Kool-Aid at Jonestown) the media is willing to carry for the guy and the number of casualties we can expect amongst the true believers… and innocent bystanders.
Bank robbers fits just fine.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6xC8KM-jk]Kool-Aid - "Bank Robbers" (Commercial, 1978) - YouTube[/ame]
 
Climate 'sceptic' Bjørn Lomborg now believes global warming is one of world's greatest threats - Telegraph

Bjørn Lomborg, a self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" who has long opposed international curbs on carbon emissions, is now urging world leaders to invest heavily in clean energy.

In a new book argues that global warming is “a challenge humanity must confront" and “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today".

Prof Lomborg, an author and academic at Copenhagen Business School, is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fund international efforts to boost wind, wave, solar and nuclear power.

Money is also needed to cover the research and development costs of innovative projects to counter rising temperatures, he argues.

He writes: "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century."



Prof Lomborg denied that he had reversed his opinion the threat posed by global warming. Unlike many climate change sceptics he has never denied that mankind’s actions are making the earth hotter, merely that it makes more economic sense to adapt to higher temperatures than resist them.

He told The Guardian: "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world. That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

However, Prof Lomborg’s unequivocal warning about the potentially disastrous consequences of the world’s reliance on fossil fuels will provide a welcome boost for environmentalists at a time when the science behind global warming is coming under increasing scrutiny.



Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

He lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus as an assistant professor (1994–1996) and associate professor (1997–2005). He left the university in February 2005 and in May of that year became an Adjunct Professor at Copenhagen Business School.

Early in his career his professional areas of interest lay in the simulation of strategies in collective action dilemmas, simulation of party behavior in proportional voting systems, and the use of surveys in public administration. In 1996, Lomborg's paper, "Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma", was published in the academic journal, American Sociological Review.

Later Lomborg's interests shifted to the use of statistics in the environmental arena. His most famous book in this area is The Skeptical Environmentalist, whose English translation was published as a work in environmental economics by Cambridge University Press in 2001. He later edited Global Crises, Global Solutions, which presented the first conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus, published in 2004 by the Cambridge University Press. In 2007, he authored a book entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.

SO - he's a political scientist not a real scientist - very interesting

Lomborg Errors
Bjørn Lomborg is a well-known personality in the environmental debate. He is the author of several books which, due to their copious lists of notes and references, appear very technical and scientific and therefore trustworthy. Unfortunately, those reading his books or listening to his lectures or seeing his film are rarely aware that the facts and statements presented by Lomborg are often not reliable.
When experts in the fields covered by Lomborg check his texts, they most often find that the evidence has been distorted. Danish biologist Kåre Fog has systematically over many years checked Lomborg´s texts against his sources and references and against other scientific literature. His conclusion is that Lomborg´s texts are systematically manipulated to fit a certain agenda.
The web site Lomborg-errors has been established to document this claim. It gathers and publishes errors found in Bjørn Lomborg´s books, especially "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2001) and Cool it! (2007).
In addition, it gives information on cases and activities related to Bjørn Lomborg, attempts to describe his methods, and points out cases where the claims about Lomborg´s dishonesty seem to hold true.
From January 2008, the page also comments on errors made by Al Gore, to allow a comparison where the two persons are judged by the same standards.
The web site is set up by, written by and hosted by Kåre Fog.

The purpose of this web site is not to present a comprehensive overview of the issues treated by Bjørn Lomborg, but only to point out errors - as the name of the web site indicates.
Why is it essential to point out the errors?
First, because in the handling of errors, Lomborg does not act like most persons would do. A normal person would apologize or be ashamed if concrete, factual errors or misunderstandings were pointed out - and would correct the errors at the first opportunity given. Lomborg does not do that. For example, when The Skeptical Environmentalist was heavily criticized in a review in Nature, Lomborg´s reaction was: "If I really am so wrong, why don´t you just document that?" - and then, when this was documented, he ignored the facts. Read more about Lomborg´s reaction to criticism here.
Second, because you cannot evaluate Lomborg´s books just by reading them and thinking of what you read. For every piece of information in the books, you have to check if it is true and if the presentation is balanced. If the concrete information given by Lomborg is correct and balanced, then it follows that his main conclusions are also correct. But if the information is flawed, then the main conclusions are biased or wrong. Therefore, in principle, you can only evaluate the books after having checked all footnotes, read all references, and checked alternative sources. This will be a huge task for any reader, but when the errors are described and presented in one place - this web site - then the task becomes manageable.
Third, because the errors seem not to be inadvertent, but to follow a general pattern, they give a bias in a certain direction, probably an intended bias. If the errors remain uncommented, the readers of Lomborg´s books will be misled in this distinct direction . There are many examples where the misleading seems to be deliberate, which indicates that Lomborg is dishonest and covers up a hidden agenda. If this is so, then this has consequences for the understanding of Lomborg´s intentions. The question whether the misleading is deliberate is discussed in more detail here.
 
Why Was Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda So Powerful, and is this a trend? – Greg Laden's Blog

But here I want to look at one single factor that almost certainly contributed to the growth of Haiyan/Yolanda into a very powerful storm, a factor that probably doesn’t usually play into a storm’s strength. I refer to an anomaly in sea surface temperatures that was almost certainly caused by global warming, as part of a general warming of the ocean. But first a bit of background on the link between sea surface temperature and hurricanes. This is one of several factors that may be involved in climate change related effects on tropical storm intensity, a situation with which we should be concerned.

Tropical cyclones run on heat, and much of that heat comes from the sea surface. If the surface of the ocean is below a certain temperature, about 82 degrees F, about 28 degrees C, a hurricane or typhoon is very unlikely to form. Above that temperature, if other conditions are right, it may form. Warmer seas can make bigger or stronger storms, and as the storm passes over the ocean, the temperature of the sea surface has a strong influence on whether the storm increases or decreases in strength . As the storm moves over the sea, the interface between the windy storm and the roiling ocean becomes something of a mess, as though the surface of the ocean was in a blender, and there is a lot of exchange of heat across that interface. Also, deeper, cooler water is mixed with warmer surface water. A powerful storm moving across the ocean will leave in its wake a strip of cooler water. This sometimes causes subsequent storms moving along the same path to be weaker or to downgrade in strength more quickly.

This should indicate, one would think, that as sea surface temperatures (SST) have gone up with global warming, there should be more “hurricane” out there on the oceans. It has been hard to make the link between global warming and frequency of hurricanes, however. This may be because of the nature of hurricane formation. Once a hurricane forms in a given spot and gets big, it may reduce the chance of the next hurricane forming. Also, hurricanes are usually born as waves in a very large scale pattern of air masses. The total number of waves that form may not change with global warming, and the hurricane season is only a part of the year, and other factors have to come into play that are also ponderous in their timing to turn a wave into a major storm. An analogy might be this: Imagine that everyone in the working population of a downtown neighborhood becomes hungrier, perhaps because all the companies they work for insist on a two hour high intensity exercise program for everyone to lower their health insurance costs. Will this increase in hunger mean more lunches, snacks, and dinners consumed in the local restaurants? Or will the lunches, snacks, and dinners become larger, with people ordering more food with each sitting? Since there are only so many opportunities to go grab a bite to eat, there will probably be very few additional visits to the local eateries, but more food may well be consumed per event. Increased SST may be like increased hunger. There may not be very many more hurricanes, but among those that occur, some may be much stronger.

One final map. This is the actual temperature (not anomaly) at the 100 meter level. Notice the purple area.

At 100 meters depth, the sea was warm enough to form a typhoon. That, dear reader, is extreme.

The same thing happened with Katrina. According to a report from NOAA:

A number of factors contributed to making Katrina a strong Category 5 hurricane…Sea surface temperatures (SST) in the Gulf of Mexico were one to two degrees Celsius above normal …, and the warm temperatures extended to a considerable depth through the upper ocean layer. Also, Katrina
crossed the “loop current” (belt of even warmer water), during which time explosive
intensification occurred. The temperature of the ocean surface is a critical element in the
formation and strength of hurricanes.

We know that the ocean is absorbing a lot of the extra heat caused by global warming. Well, this is some of that heat, causing megastorms.

I’ve noticed that climate science denialists are very adamant about two things: Denying the importance of major storms like Haiyan, and denying the fact that heat is going into the oceans. Perhaps they see the link, and are frightened that people will believe that anthropogenic changes to our climate can kill thousands of people at a time, in a few hours, through the mechanism of anomalously high temperature at modest depth below the surface of the already tepid tropical sea.
 

Attachments

  • Pacific_sst_100m_TEMP-640x542.jpg
    Pacific_sst_100m_TEMP-640x542.jpg
    20.5 KB · Views: 5
[NASA] Climate change: How do we know?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise

Global temperature rise

Warming oceans

Shrinking ice sheets

Declining Arctic sea ice

Glacial retreat

Extreme events

Ocean acidification
 
Back
Top