2006 hottest year on record for US

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WEATHER/01/10/warm.year.ap/

 

Gee, I think I'm noticing a trend...

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

This is not an argument against global warming, but you should add into your 'trend' the fact that this last year, in the southern hemisphere, was the coldest for decades. Here in NZ, we had record snows in June, iceburgs drifting up the coast, the coldest December in 60 years; while in Australia and South Africa, snow fell in places and in seasons where it should not.

 

I suspect the reason your report says 2006 was the sixth hottest globally is simply because the vast majority of temperature records that went into the average came from the northern hemisphere.

[bascule]

I suspect the reason your report says 2006 was the sixth hottest globally is simply because the vast majority of temperature records that went into the average came from the northern hemisphere.

 

That's accounted for in the calculation, and the southern hemisphere certainly isn't underrepresented by the GHCN:

 

[SkepticLance]

Bascule.

Check it out on your map.

At least 75% of the Southern Hemisphere is more than 100 km from a station.

[TriggerGrinn]

This global warming may infact induce an ice age by putting a stop to the ocean currents.

 

This article does a brief description on the speculation.

 

http://www.fieldwerks.com/dryice.htm

[ecoli]

Bascule.

Check it out on your map.

At least 75% of the Southern Hemisphere is more than 100 km from a station.

 

not to mention that there is a disproportionate amount of stations in the warmer areas of the southern hemi... could that make a difference as well, or are those things accounted for?

[SkepticLance]

Trigger

New Scientist journal has been reporting on that for a while, and saying that measurements indicate it has already started. Then, suddenly we find out they were wrong.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5802/1064a?etoc

 

If what Science reports is correct, there is no current indication, beyond theory, of that phenomenon.

[Edtharan]

I have never liked the term "Global Warming". It was a catchphrase that we stated before we knew what the Greenhouse effect could actually do.

 

What Global Warming really is, is more energy being retained by the atmospheric and oceanic systems.

 

This energy could go into increasing temperatures (and is most likely as the majority of the extra energy being retained will be in the form of infra-red radiation), but that is only 1 of many forms this energy could show up as.

 

Global warming could be renamed to Climatic Disturbance, but the term "Global Warming" has a better "ring" to it...

 

This is not an argument against global warming, but you should add into your 'trend' the fact that this last year, in the southern hemisphere, was the coldest for decades. Here in NZ, we had record snows in June, iceburgs drifting up the coast, the coldest December in 60 years; while in Australia and South Africa, snow fell in places and in seasons where it should not.

Yes, here is Canberra Christmas day was cold. There was even snow that fell in the nearby Snowy Mountains. However, we have also just had the hottest January day for many decades.

 

What seems to be happening is there are more, and larger swings in the climate. And this is what is the expected results of global warming.

 

If what Science reports is correct, there is no current indication, beyond theory, of that phenomenon.

Maybe not for direct "Thermal" increase, but it is certain that more energy is being retained in the Atmospheric and Oceanic systems.

 

This calculation is very simple to do. There is a constant amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. There should be a fairly constant emission of this energy back out into space.

 

If the amount of energy coming into the Earth system matches the amount being emitted, then the system is in equilibrium. If more energy is being emitted, then the Earth will "cool". If less energy is emitted than arrives, the the Earth will "heat" up.

 

Earth was in equilibrium before humans started producing a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Now we are producing these greenhouse gasses that cause a retention of this energy. This means that less energy is being emitted.

 

If the amount of energy that is coming into the system remains constant, and the amount of energy being lost is reduced, then the only thing that can be happening is that the Earth is "heating" up. Global warming is happening, and we are the cause.

 

What the actual effects of this are is under debate, but a rise in temperature is very likely.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan said :

 

Earth was in equilibrium before humans started producing a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

 

Actually, the Earth has never been in thermal equilibrium. If you look at a graph of temperature change over the past million years (or any time scale, really) you will see temperature going up and down like a yo yo.

 

What seems to be happening is there are more, and larger swings in the climate. And this is what is the expected results of global warming.

 

These statements annoy me. It seems that any variation on what people consider to be 'normal' weather is ascribed to global warming and is the fault of humans. I think that is bulldust. Iceburgs drifting off the New Zealand coastline, for the first time since 1931, has NOTHING to do with global warming. It is a result of a very cold winter, meaning the sea was cold and did not melt the iceburgs, as it usually does. Strong variations in temperature from one year to the next have always occurred, as far back as human records go.

[bascule]

Bascule.

Check it out on your map.

At least 75% of the Southern Hemisphere is more than 100 km from a station.

 

Okay?

 

not to mention that there is a disproportionate amount of stations in the warmer areas of the southern hemi... could that make a difference as well, or are those things accounted for?

 

Yes, they're accounted for. Here's NCDC's explanation:

 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

 

NCDC's long-term mean temperatures for the Earth were calculated by processing data from thousands of world-wide observation sites on land and sea for the entire period of record of the data. Many parts of the globe are inaccessible and therefore have no data. The temperature anomaly time series presented here were calculated in a way that did not require knowing the actual mean temperature of the Earth in these inaccessible areas such as mountain tops and remote parts of the Sahara Desert where there are no regularly reporting weather stations. Using the collected data available, the whole Earth long-term mean temperatures were calculated by interpolating over uninhabited deserts, inaccessible Antarctic mountains, etc. in a manner that takes into account factors such as the decrease in temperature with elevation. By adding the long-term monthly mean temperature for the Earth to each anomaly value, one can create a time series that approximates the temperature of the Earth and how it has been changing through time.

[Edtharan]

Actually, the Earth has never been in thermal equilibrium. If you look at a graph of temperature change over the past million years (or any time scale, really) you will see temperature going up and down like a yo yo.

Equilibrium does not mean a flat line in a graph.

 

Actually, because the Earth's climate system has both positive and negative feedback mechanisms in it, one would expect it to go up and down like a yo-yo, but what you would not expect is a lot of extreme variations (you will get some, but there would not be too many - it would depend on the speed that the feedback loops respond to changes).

 

Expecting a flat line graph as an indicator of stability shown a lack of understanding on how complex system (like the climate) really is.

 

These statements annoy me. It seems that any variation on what people consider to be 'normal' weather is ascribed to global warming and is the fault of humans. I think that is bulldust. Iceburgs drifting off the New Zealand coastline, for the first time since 1931, has NOTHING to do with global warming. It is a result of a very cold winter, meaning the sea was cold and did not melt the iceburgs, as it usually does. Strong variations in temperature from one year to the next have always occurred, as far back as human records go.

you know, one does not normally expect the number of icebergs off the cost of New Zealand that we have been getting, so what could be the reason for this increase in iceberg numbers?

 

Well, if the climate was warming up, then this would increase the rate of movement in the glaciers in Antarctica, and this would then increase the number of icebergs forming... (and also an increase in size of these icebergs too - so they would last longer and make it further north).

 

Again, you statements show a lack of understanding of how complex the climate really is. A simple view of the climate will not give the correct results as to what GW really means.

 

Have a look at Chaos theory and Complex systems theory (as well as feedback loops). Try to understand these, then apply them to such a system as the environment.

 

The icebergs off the coast of New Zealand could have many different causes. It could be caused by the Earth cooling down, or it could be caused by the Earth heating up.

 

What we need to do is look and see what is actually happening. This has been done. The Earth is warming up.

 

The next question is: Why is the Earth warming up?

 

Well, increased CO2 levels will cause the Earth to heat up. We know this to be true.

 

So, is the amount of CO2 that Humans are producing having any effect. From the amount and from records (ice cores, etc), the answer is Yes.

 

So our increased CO2 production is having an effect and this effect is to warm the Earth. The Earth might be warming naturally, but we are increasing this effect and will cause to to warm quicker and get hotter than it would normally.

 

Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will decrease the amount of heat lost from the Earth. Whether this CO2 is natural or not.

We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

We are producing lots of CO2 (and other gasses that have the same effect).

 

Therefore we are contributing to an increased greenhouse effect.

 

The only way we can not be contributing to an increased greenhouse effect is either that:

1) There is a CO2 sink that balances out the human produced greenhouse gasses or

2) CO2 and the other gasses don't cause energy to be retained by the Earth's climate and oceanic systems.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan said :

 

The icebergs off the coast of New Zealand could have many different causes. It could be caused by the Earth cooling down, or it could be caused by the Earth heating up.

 

And the true cause is a colder than normal winter. Edtharan, your insistance that anything not quite average must be a consequence of global warming is just another example of someone following a pseudoreligion and believing it must be so out of religious faith. "It's all global warming...duh!"

 

In the 1960's my father was a farmer. He believed absolutely implicitly that American atmospheric nuclear testing (AANT) was the cause of any abnormal weather we had at the time. Yet there was no scientific evidence for that, and the end of AANT did not stop abnormal weather. Get this clear in your head. Abnormal weather from time to time is normal.

 

Your rather long winded argument about carbon dioxide and warming is a bit pointless, if it was directed at me. I have already agreed that the world is warming, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a major cause.

[silverslith]

Think about how cold polar air ends up around NZ and Australia. Weather systems are dragging it north at the same time they pull tropical air south. Hot air that melts ice which soaks up energy. Theres been a massive production of iceburgs up to 80km long and 2.5 km thick as the glacial ice shelves floating around antarctica collapse over the last decade blocks of ice over a km thick take a very long time to melt at any lattitude. years!

Those shelves of ice several km thick are vanishing fast despite the flow of ice feeding them from the ice sheets sitting on land behind them accelerating rapidly.

The main fear is that the west antarctic ice sheet will collapse when its no longer dammed by the shelves. Its as big as Mexico and cause its sitting on rock below sea level its unstable. Prime contender for the couple centuries of up to 1 foot a year sea level rise that happened 12000 years ago (with much less atmo co2) would be collapses like this, though the WAIS is supposedly worth only 6 meters or so. The east antarctic ice sheet is larger and worth 100m of sea but on land over sea level so not thought to be as vunerable.

Ice shelves displace water so their loss doesn't raise sea level immediately but the ice rivers behind them have been measured changing speed with the tides alone 90km inland from the sea level coast. So they will deliver a lot more land ice to the sea. Thermal expansion of the oceans has contributed over 80% of sea rise in the last century but.

Oceanic algae could save us yet. them blooming (in the northern oceans mainly), release a gas which seeds cloud formation in the southern hemisphere mainly. the cloud cover reflects light back into space. I don't think its a match for the CO2 twice what it should be and the methane release from peat dissolving in carbonic acid rainwater and the huge ex permafrost swamps.

Even though the gulf stream has slowed the heating of northern parts is increasing and no-one knows what will happen to it when the nth polar cap goes. Fractured as it is after the quarter of it broke loose last year I find it hard to believe it'll stay in one piece any summer soon. The gulf stream is largely driven by prevailing surface winds so it could be happy adding a circum-nth-pole spiral driven by the polar lows to its rounds.

[silverslith]

long term theres no problem. extinction of most of the life on earth will reduce carbon deposition on the ocean floor. the subducted sediments will produce less co2 from vulcanism in 20 million years or so and the atmosphere should recover.

[Edtharan]

And the true cause is a colder than normal winter. Edtharan, your insistance that anything not quite average must be a consequence of global warming is just another example of someone following a pseudoreligion and believing it must be so out of religious faith. "It's all global warming...duh!"

I am not just "following a pseudoreligion and believing it must be so out of religious faith." That sounds a bit like an attempted Ad Hominin at me.

 

I did not just claim that "anything not quite average must be a consequence of global warming", but said that non average weather is an expected result from global warming. Not that any variation must be a result.

 

From your posts, you seem to think that because one region of the Earth was colder, then the Earth can not be warming up.

 

Here in Canberra, Australia, we have had one of the warmest Winters for many years. You are relying on a small sample space and then extrapolating that to the whole southern hemisphere.

 

From what I understand of how they calculate the average temperature, they average out the measurements from all the weather stations in a given area and then use that area in the final calculation. So it wouldn't matter how many weather stations recorded temperatures, as all these recording would first be averaged out into 1 measurement for that area.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan said :

 

I am not just "following a pseudoreligion and believing it must be so out of religious faith." That sounds a bit like an attempted Ad Hominin at me.

 

Sorry. That was not meant as a personal attack. I am just trying to say that a particular type of 'logic' is not good science.

 

From your posts, you seem to think that because one region of the Earth was colder, then the Earth can not be warming up.

 

I have never said that. We all know that the world is warming up. What I am trying to do, is attack the unjustified exaggerations surrounding this topic.

[Edtharan]

I have never said that. We all know that the world is warming up. What I am trying to do, is attack the unjustified exaggerations surrounding this topic.

Yes, I agree there is some exaggerations about GW, but not all of it is. Also,not all of the exaggerations are Pro-Global Warming, there are some that state the opposite (like that the southern hemisphere is not warming up because we have just had one colder than normal winter).

 

If you are going to attack exaggerations about GW, remember both sides have their proponents that are exaggerating.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan

You are correct about people on both sides of the GW story exaggerating. I try hard to be realistic.

 

And I have not said that a colder than normal southern winter is evidence against GW.

 

If we stick to the facts, they are that the average world temperature increases by 0.16 Celsius per decade as long term trend since 1976, and that sea level rises by 2 mm per year, also long term trend.

 

Anything that suggests major increases over and above these facts is exaggeration. Also anything that denies it is happening. I do neither. I stick to the facts.

[TriggerGrinn]

I think our survival is at stake.. couldnt we agree on this?

 

Taking action sooner than later is better... the frog and boiling water story says it all too well..

[Edtharan]

If we stick to the facts, they are that the average world temperature increases by 0.16 Celsius per decade as long term trend since 1976, and that sea level rises by 2 mm per year, also long term trend.

But the question is whether this trend is increasing or remaining constant. Also, if we are responsible, in any small part, to this increase in temperature and sea level increase, then who pays the bills when changing temperatures cause pests to enter new areas (now that they are warmer) and eat all the crops, or the ranges of diseases like Malaria also change as the vectors that carry them now enter these new areas. Or who is responsible when the rising sea levels swamp low lying areas (or even countries).

 

If thousands of people are displaced from their homes due to higher sea levels, who will take in those refugees?

 

Anything that suggests major increases over and above these facts is exaggeration. Also anything that denies it is happening. I do neither. I stick to the facts.

it doesn't take a lot to cause massive amounts of damage.

 

There is also the concern of positive feed back loops in the environmental systems. These create "Tipping Points" where once a critical point is reached, there is no way (or extremely difficult and expensive ways) to reverse certain changes. Eg: As the ice at the poles melt, this will reflect less sunlight back into space, which increases the amount of energy in the system, heating the Earth up more which increases the rate of ice melting.

 

Also tin that example, as the ice melts it speeds up the melting too, so you end up with a runaway effect. It is these "runaway effects" that are the problem. Sure it might be only 2mm/year increase in sea level, but if the ice starts melting faster and the oceans heat up (remember if you heat something it expands - and there is a lot of water there), then it won't be a constant rate of increase.

 

The weather and oceanic system of Earth are a non-linear system, and so we expect non-linear outcomes from changes. This an mean that you might increase something, but non or little effect could come out from that, or that a small change will produce a massive change across many parts of the systems.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan said :

 

changing temperatures cause pests to enter new areas (now that they are warmer) and eat all the crops, or the ranges of diseases like Malaria also change as the vectors that carry them now enter these new areas.

 

Note that both malaria and yellow fever were widespread across North America and Europe during the Little Ice Age. They were controlled by killing mosquitos, which can be done by prosperous nations. These diseases are diseases of poverty, not global warming. Pests entering new areas have been happening for hundreds of years. They are the result of a breakdown in biosecurity, not global warming. To control them, we need to improve biosecurity, not fight global warming.

 

There is also the concern of positive feed back loops in the environmental systems. These create "Tipping Points" where once a critical point is reached, there is no way (or extremely difficult and expensive ways) to reverse certain changes. Eg: As the ice at the poles melt, this will reflect less sunlight back into space, which increases the amount of energy in the system, heating the Earth up more which increases the rate of ice melting.

 

There are also negative feedback loops in the system. For example, warmer seas stimulate plankton, which release dimethyl sulphide into the air, which acts as nucleation points causing low altitude cloud, reflecting heat back into space. This has been shown to occur by observations over warm patches of oceans using satellites. Long term, will positive or negative feedback prevail? No-one knows.

 

I do not argue against realistic measures to combat greenhouse gases. There is a lot of research under way into biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, new means of generating electricity without releasing carbon. etc. And these are good. In time, we will have to move to a fossil fuel free energy economy. However, panicky measures will cause enormous humanitarian damage. We must introduce change in a properly managed way.

 

These are reasons why I argue against exaggerations in global climate change theory, and against foolish panic measures.

[Edtharan]

Note that both malaria and yellow fever were widespread across North America and Europe during the Little Ice Age. They were controlled by killing mosquitos, which can be done by prosperous nations. These diseases are diseases of poverty, not global warming. Pests entering new areas have been happening for hundreds of years. They are the result of a breakdown in biosecurity, not global warming. To control them, we need to improve biosecurity, not fight global warming.

Well, these were just examples. Bio security won't stop the spread of plants, and other animals (it might initially slow down the introduction, but it can't stop it totally).

 

Saying that Malaria (and simialr deseases) is a poverty problem is a mistake. There are quite wealthy nations that suffer from Malaria too (India, of of the Southern European countries suffer from out breaks, etc). What it is is that poor countries have less control and treatment available for these diseases. Richer countries don't stop the spread, but they do control the diseases and symptoms better (and I am not just talking about malaria).

 

The "biological controls" use to eradicate the vectors had other severe ecological problems (remember DDT?).

 

Pest species cross boarders very easily (just think about the fire ants in southern states of the USA). And these species are endemic to the areas and are moving to areas slightly out of their normal habitat zone. What will happen if the endemic area of a species move Northwards and passes the border. These species would then become much harder to control, what is the cost of controlling invading species every year. This cost will just increase with GW.

 

There are also negative feedback loops in the system.

And this is what I meant by equilibrium. The Positive and Negative feedback loops are in equilibrium. What happens if we change this balance?

 

Long term, will positive or negative feedback prevail? No-one knows.

Exactly. Then why should we actively change the balance in favour of one or the other?

 

However, panicky measures will cause enormous humanitarian damage. We must introduce change in a properly managed way.

I agree with this. We should attempt to understand the situation before making too radical of changes. The knee jerk reactions of politicians in democratic countries (as they only have a limited time before the next election so they have to be seen to be acting) can be worse than the original problem (DDT again as an example).

 

But, neither of these arguments addresses the scope of the changes that might occur.

 

Because of the non linear nature of the environment, we can not be absolutely sure how severe or fast these changes will take place. However, if we prepare for the worst, then we might be pleasantly surprised and not have such a serious problem, but if we underestimate the scope of the change and it exceeds our preparations, what is the cost of such a scenario?

 

This was recently addressed and the results are that the cost of under preparedness far exceeds any cost of over preparedness. On that alone, planing for the worst is more financially better than underestimating what might occur.

 

All that aside, doing a little now (even if it is not the "best: solution) will be more cost effective than doing something later.

[silverslith]

other +ve feedbacks we've triggered:

-release of methane from 50000 years of organic matter buildup in permafrost in siberia and nth canada primarily.

? how much effect is this going to have.

-co2 now makes rainwater acidic enough to dissolve peat and soil organic matter and streams in pristine enviroments have measured 10x as much (methane producing) organic matter.? how much effect is this having.

-methane hydrates, mostly around antarcticas continental shelf have 10x as much carbon as fossil reserves did and are very unstable, released as methane gas with temperature change or disturbance.(major objective and dissapointment due to this for big oil). Warmer more turbulent antarctic seas and earthquakes from reduced or changing ice load distribution?

The most stable state of the earth is glacial periods with 90ppm co2. Great time to live with africa, india,sth america super indonesia-austalia, caribean and pacific island landmasses all with great climates. much more inhabitable land. Just not in europe or nth america.

we're unlikely to head that way with 380ppm co2. most of the rise in the last 30 years from 2 centuries and climbing. Higher than for millions of years. We need to be concerned about how much carbon may enter the atmosphere by these systems and how fast.

Life has buried 999/1000 of the earths carbon to achieve the climate we have with the warming sun.

Humans need to get with the programme.