Climate change's impact on Arctic regions by 2099: study

Mar 14, 2011 By Steve Smith
These three figures show the arrangement of arctic climate types using (a) observational data from 1950-99 and a combination of 16 climate-change models factoring in moderate greenhouse gas increases over the next 89 years (b) and (c). The climate types and vegetations in the arctic are abbreviated as Fi (ice cap/permanent ice cover); Ft (tundra); Ec (boreal continental/shrubs); Eo (boreal oceanic/needle leaf forests); Dc (temperate continental/needle leaf and deciduous tall broadleaf forests); and Do (temp

(PhysOrg.com) -- Imagine the vast, empty tundra in Alaska and Canada giving way to trees, shrubs and plants typical of more southerly climates. Imagine similar changes in large parts of Eastern Europe, northern Asia and Scandinavia, as needle-leaf and broadleaf forests push northward into areas once unable to support them. Imagine part of Greenland's ice cover, once thought permanent, receding and leaving new tundra in its wake.

Those changes are part of a reorganization of climates anticipated to occur by the end of the 21st century, as projected by a team of University of Nebraska-Lincoln and South Korean climatologists.

In an article to be published in a forthcoming issue of the scientific journal , the research team analyzed 16 global climate models from 1950 to 2099 and combined it with more than 100 years of observational data to evaluate what might mean to the Arctic's sensitive ecosystems by the dawn of the 22nd century.

The study is one of the first to apply a specific climate classification system to a comprehensive examination of climate changes throughout the Arctic by using both observations and a collection of projected future climate changes, said Song Feng, research assistant professor in UNL's School of Natural Resources and the study's lead author.

Based on the climate projections, the new study shows that the areas of the Arctic now dominated by polar and sub-polar climate types will decline and will be replaced by more temperate climates -- changes that could affect a quarter to nearly half of the Arctic, depending on future greenhouse gas emission scenarios, by 2099.

Changes to Arctic vegetation will naturally follow shifts in the region's climates: Tundra coverage would shrink by 33 to 44 percent by the end of the century, while temperate climate types that support coniferous forests and needle-leaf trees would push northward into the breach, the study shows.

"The expansion of forest may amplify global warming, because the newly forested areas can reduce the surface reflectivity, thereby further warming the Arctic," Feng said. "The shrinkage of tundra and expansion of forest may also impact the habitat for wildlife and local residents."

Also according to the study:

* By the end of the century, the annual average surface temperature in Arctic regions is projected to increase by 5.6 to 9.5 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on the scenarios.

* The warming, however, will not be evenly distributed across the Arctic. The strongest warming in the winter (by 13 degrees Fahrenheit) will occur along the Arctic coast regions, with moderate warming (by 4 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit) along the North Atlantic rim.

* The projected redistributions of climate types differ regionally; in northern Europe and Alaska, the warming may cause more rapid expansion of temperate climate types than in other places.

* Tundra in Alaska and northern Canada would be reduced and replaced by boreal forests and shrubs by 2059. Within another 40 years, the tundra would be restricted to the northern coast and islands of the Arctic Ocean.

* The melting of snow and ice in Greenland following the warming will reduce the permanent ice cover, giving its territory up to tundra.

"The response of vegetation usually lags changes in . The plants don't have legs, so it takes time for plant seed dispersal, germination and establishment of seedlings," Feng said. Still, the shrub density in tundra regions has seen a rapid increase on decadal and shorter time scales, while the boreal forest expansion has seen a much slower response on century time scales.

Also, increasing drought conditions may help offset any potential benefits of warmer temperatures and reduce the overall vegetation growth in the Arctic regions, Feng said.

Non-climate factors -- human activity, land use changes, permafrost thawing, pest outbreaks and wildfires, for example -- may also locally affect the response of vegetation to temperature warming in the Arctic.

Explore further: Thousands of intense earthquakes rock Iceland

Related Stories

Warming climate may cause arctic tundra to burn

Mar 05, 2008

Research from ancient sediment cores indicates that a warming climate could make the world’s arctic tundra far more susceptible to fires than previously thought. The findings, published this week in the online journal, ...

Tundra disappearing at rapid rate

Mar 05, 2007

Forests of spruce trees and shrubs in parts of northern Canada are taking over what were once tundra landscapes--forcing out the species that lived there. This shift can happen at a much faster speed than scientists originally ...

Recommended for you

NASA sees Depression 12-E become Tropical Storm Lowell

18 hours ago

In less than 24 hours after Tropical Depression 12-E was born in the eastern Pacific Ocean it strengthened into Tropical Storm Lowell. NOAA's GOES-West and NASA's Aqua satellite captured infrared images of ...

Why global warming is taking a break

20 hours ago

The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. ETH researchers have now found out why. And they believe that global warming is likely to continue again soon.

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 14, 2011
The Arctic warmed in the 1920s. And then it stopped.

Those people who write climate models as if climate continues on in a straight line are not too bright.

James Hansen predicted massive temperature changes by 2010. Didn't happen

James Hansen predicted NY City highway would be underwater by now. Didn't happen.

Catastrophic Sea Level Rise was predicted. Its going down for 2010 (satellite) and is down for 5 years (ARGO).
JacalynH
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2011
In response to NotParker, your statements are factually incorrect. The arctic and the equatorial regions are seen the brunt of temperature increases. And, sea level is indeed rising due to thermal expansion and melt water from ice sheets and glaciers.

I suggest you further your research by visiting the web pages of the Nation Academy of Science, the National Science foundation, the American Geophysical Union, etc., before blogging.

And, if you need further confirmation abroad, you may check the National Academies of the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, etc. All of these institutions agree that green house gas accumlation from fossil fuels has caused global warming which in turn has triggered climate change. In addition, ocean acidification is occuring due to in increase in carbonic acid from CO2.

There are many cranks speading disinformation. The facts can not be more clear. Anyone who does not agree with the science must be in denial. And, yes, I'm an environmenal scientist
sulwath
Mar 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2011
"February was an interesting month for global temperatures. While the global average did not change much, there was some significant activity in the regional temperatures. Every region of the Earth has a temperature anomaly of less than 0.5 °C. The main event that allowed this to happen was an enormous drop in the northern most regions that are reported by the UAH and RSS data sets. Both of these sources indicated a drop in excess of 1.7 °C in the Arctic region of the Earth."
Canman
3.9 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2011
Who rates these responses? How in the world did NotParker draw in a ranking of "5" and Jacalyn H got a ranking of "3.7"? Just in the last week the GRACE satellite data was confirmed by independent data from other studies that BOTH major ice sheets are accelerating their melting. Hello? Palin for president!! Even oil loving Russia has aknowledged that man made global warming is real! Dufus. No-make that Dufi (more than one of you). I tell you what, next time I need surgery, I'm gonna skip the hospital and come right to your house, cause I'm sure you know how to do it!
Canman
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2011
PS, NotParker, when you look at a single month, it's not climate anymore, it's called weather.
Chey
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2011
Someone with a Ouija board would be just as accurate as these "Climatologists" at predicting climate in 2019, 2029, 2039, 2049,... or 2099. They are the same credentialed fear mongers from previous decades who predicted with gravitas, arrogance and certainty an uncounted number of environmental disaster scenarios. Their record is pathetic.
Canman
not rated yet Mar 14, 2011
Yeah, and i respect your opinion, too. Blah Blah Blah!!
Hey, come over to my house for dinner. I'll get some ice out of the freezer and we'll watch it melt. Maybe you'll learn somethin'
Chey
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2011
Someone with a Ouija board would be just as accurate as these "Climatologists" at predicting climate in 2019, 2029, 2039, 2049,... or 2099. They are the same credentialed fear mongers from previous decades who predicted with gravitas, arrogance and certainty an uncounted number of environmental disaster scenarios. Their record is pathetic.
Canman
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
Hey Chey, is "Chey" short for "Cheny's lap dog"?
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2011
"sea level is indeed rising due to thermal expansion and melt water from ice sheets and glaciers."

The computer models says so, but for some strange reason, most of them are wrong. Like weather forecasts.

sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. look it up.

The question is, is it rising an unusual amount.

Not anymore.

Satellites saya drop for 2010.

ARGO says it is dropping for 5 years.
Gabe
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
What we should accept is that we are currently experiencing the completion of the exit from the last Ice Age and we are now returning towards the next Thermal Maximum! The return of the forests that once existed in the northernmost regions of Earth should now be accepted! The issue, therefore, is how will humanity adapt to this new climate development?
Chey
1 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
Canman, Yea, I'm at Halliburton HQ as I type this. Boo!
JacalynH
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2011
'And, yes, I'm an environmenal scientist'

Ah, not a real scientist then.


I think all my professors at Cornell would disagree.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
PS, NotParker, when you look at a single month, it's not climate anymore, it's called weather.


When its the same temperature as it was 30 years ago ... it isn't warming is it?
MikeyK
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2011
So we have just had the warmest La Nina.....on record..following on from the equal warmest year...on record. Surely NotParker would have expected the global temperature to be much cooler instead of warmer than most El Nino's?
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2011
So we have just had the warmest La Nina.....on record..following on from the equal warmest year...on record. Surely NotParker would have expected the global temperature to be much cooler instead of warmer than most El Nino's?


The satellite record now says ZERO anomaly.

That means it isn't any warmer than it was 30 years ago, which is really strange since supposedly the earth warmed without CO2 from 1910 to 1940 by .6C at least.

And by "equal warmest year", you meant to say the 1998 El Nino was .1C warmer than the 2010 El Nino.

ht_delete_tp://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
ted208
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2011
More Warmist BS. The NEXT 30 YEARS ARE MOVING INTO A COOLING PHASE, get use to the next big scare carpet being yanked from under your alarmist feet, your victory's are all now in the garbage Heep. History will not look at your tactics kindly Thanks to the crooked science, eco climate hit men, environmental/religious foot solders and power hungry politicians, we cant hear you anymore!
unknownorgin
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
Some unpleasant climate facts; The output of the sun is subject to change at any time so long range climate forcasting is not accurate. Since all coal and oil came from plants all the carbon released was at one time in the atmosphere and life survived. There have been 20 known ice ages. Burning oil or coal releases oxygen because all hydrocarbons contain oxygen. Plants need the so called greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) to live and schemes to cut large amounts of carbon could cause a massive plant die off.
Global warming is used by governments as a revenue collection device.

PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
@NotParker,
Satellites saya drop for 2010.

ARGO says it is dropping for 5 years.
Sources?

The satellite record now says ZERO anomaly.
Source?

These charts here say you're a stinking lying propagandist:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Mean_Sea_Level.svg
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2011
Not Parker- typical denier behaviour- you don't read before commenting. The 'zero anomoly' is happening at the peak of a La NIna. I'm sure you can't deny (unlike some here) that La Nina's result in cooler global temperatures. Got that...good.
The current La Nina (though we are starting to enter a neutral ENSO phase now) was a particularly sharp event.....so why, if your propaganda...sorry sources.. say the Earth is cooling, why wasn't the current La Nina the coldest year on record. It is in fact the warmest La Nina event recorded.
FYI the 1998 El Nino was an exceptionally prolonged event, at the time being called the El Nino of the century.....the last El Nino was a comparatively mild event....and quite short lived....conditions we expect in a -ve PDO phase (you know the one the Wattites say will result in 30 years of cooling!)...oh look Ted208 is a Wattite!!
The Wattites are a peculiar religious cult, seem to thing there is a great global conspiracy against them, typical cult!
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2011
The previous La Nina in 2007 was a -.3C anomaly. This La Nina isn't necessarily over yet. But thats two La Nina's in a row where the temperature was less than the zero base line for satellite measurement of temperature.

You can check if you are interested.

ht_delete_tp://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

21s century "warming" (and by warming they mean cooling):

ht_delete_tp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/unprecedented-warming-during-the-21st-century/
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2011
Why are AGW supporters so unhappy when I point out the warming has stopped?

Shouldn't they be ecstatic?

Shouldn't they be yelling "We're saved!!!"
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
Why should anyone be ecstatic to see you lying your head off on public fora? Warming has not stopped, the trends are still on course. You mistake noise for trends, which only serves to indicate that either you have zero skill in statistical analysis, or your are deliberately lying.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2011
or your are deliberately lying.


I put references in my posts.

And the real reason you are so angry is the green movement just came up with the green racket to make a lot of money off of suckers ...
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
I've looked at your references. They are worthless, and do not support your claims. The racket is what's happening inside your skull.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2011
When you pretend to look at references, you should try taking your hands from in front of your eyes.

You might learn something.
MikeyK
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2011
NotParker_ What's your point about the current, though ending, La Nina resulting in an 'average' global mean temperature. My point, which you have failed to answer, is why, if the globe is cooling as you keep repeating, aren't we having record low temperatures....or even temperatures significantly below 'average. Why is the temperature as high as the El Nino 30 years ago, you know, the time frame you keep referring to.
We are unhappy when ignorami say the Earth is not warming as this is patently untrue and yet another attempt by the cult of the Wattites to disregard the science and observations to continue their fruitbat agenda.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2011
why, if the globe is cooling as you keep repeating, aren't we having record low temperatures....


Give it time. There is some lag associated with the coolest sun in 100 years.

Also, the PDO and NAO have both recently gone negative and those cycles will take some time to play out.

You can see from the PDO chart referenced, how the end of the PDO matches up with the late 1970s ice age scare.

PDO:
ht_delete_tp://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

NAO:
ht_delete_tp://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao_ts.shtml

PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2011
The 1970s ice age scare had nothing to do with the PDO, and everything to do with escalating sulphur and particulate emissions world-wide: i.e. smog, and global dimming. And it was a perfectly valid concern. Aside from potentially causing a global cooling (when unabated), such pollution is also extremely harmful to any organism with a set of lungs. Luckily, the developed world has managed to considerably clean up its noxious emissions since then (largely thanks to smoke stack regulations and catalytic converters on cars, but also thanks to restrictions on various volatile compounds and agricultural practices.)

As for the atmospheric and hydrospheric circulation cycles, they are irrelevant to the topic of anthropogenically enhanced atmospheric greenhouse effect. These oscillations superimpose on top of the large-scale trend, and have no power to affect it. They are noise, and utterly irrelevant in the long term.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2011
The 1970s ice age scare had nothing to do with the PDO


It came at the end of 30 years of negative PDO. PDO cycles match up well with the natural cooling and warming cycles ... and you would have noticed that if you had actually checked out the data.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2011
Why do the 2 articles published in Time magazine from the 70's always come out in these conversations?

Do a very simple survey of the research for the time period.

287 scholarly articles predicting temperature increases continuing forward with a reduction in particulates.

5 articles claiming potential descent into an ice age, all of which have been rescinded by their authors or the publishing journal within a 2 year time period after publication.

Anyone who pulls this 'comming ice age' gem out of their pocket listens to the media, not the research.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2011
"The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts, read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" or by 2021 fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
Articles:

ht_delete_tp://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

Newsweeks article:

ht_delete_tp://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

The press loves chicken little disaster stories.

PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2011
Thanks for reinforcing my point, NotParker. It wasn't about PDO, it was about particulate emissions.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2011
Hmm. Lets assume it was about particulate emissions (aerosols)

So the presence of particulate emissions causes cooling ... a logical mind would understand that with the passage of the clean air act those particles would go down and then more sunshine would reach the earths surface causing some warming.

But instead, the chicken little disaster brigade blamed the very slight warming caused by cleaner air on CO2.

Global brightening in the 1920-1940 period.
Global dimming in the 1960-1980 period.
Global brightening in the 1990-2000 period.

(look it up - Martin Wild has written a couple of papers on it)

Not a thing to do with CO2.

Gotcha.

If the presence of aersols cause ice age panics, then the absence of aersols caused the warming panic ... except the lefty/green/conman contigent realized they could make a buck if they blamed it on CO2.

They actually took a good news story (cleaner air) and turned into the greatest con in the history of mankind.

Amazing ...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2011
Global brightening in the 1920-1940 period.
Global dimming in the 1960-1980 period.
Global brightening in the 1990-2000 period.

(look it up - Martin Wild has written a couple of papers on it)

Not a thing to do with CO2.
It's the same ignorant argument with you each and every time.

All of the aspects of climate that you insist must be responsible rather than CO2 emission have been quantified and seperated from the warming and cooling signals. When this is done we still see a net positive when we should see no warming or cooling. We're seeing warming, and it is corresponding with CO2 increases.

You can't wave your hands, post some articles from bad journalists looking for a story, and make it go away. You need to produce evidence that disputes the theory.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2011
All of the aspects of climate that you insist must be responsible rather than CO2 emission have been quantified and seperated from the warming and cooling signals.


Not Sunshine Hours.

The UK has easily retrievable Sunshine Hours at the MET site. Since 1929 Sunshine Hours are up 4% (more in some places).

Considering that on a hot summer day, an hour of sunshine can drop 600W/sq.m and if its cloudy it will be only 250W/sqm, 4% more sunshine can explain all changes in temperature.

The Sunshine Hours even follows the temperature chart quite nicely.

CO2 is irrelevant. Global brightening, dimming and then brightening again explains all changes without some mumbo jumbo about a trace gas like CO2.

ht_delete_tp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011470.shtml

"Current climate models, in general, tend to simulate these decadal variations to a much lesser degree."

Translation: Climate Models do not really model the change in sunshine hours at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2011
Translation: Climate Models do not really model the change in sunshine hours at all.
This is yet another study on global dimming and brightening. We've already addressed this point above.
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2011
But instead, the chicken little disaster brigade blamed the very slight warming caused by cleaner air on CO2.
Fallacy of affirming a disjunct. It's not a matter of either-or. Real climate scientists know about all the climate forcings, and take ALL of them into account.
CO2 is irrelevant.
Argument from ignorance. Physics says otherwise.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2011
If the climate models ignore sunshine hours and sunshine hours are higher then any warming is caused by sunshine hours.

Physics is quite clear. Incoming energy (like sunshine warming the ground or the ocean or tarmac near an airport temperature sensor) doesn't disappear.

"The sun is the predominant source for energy input to the Earth. Both long- and short-term variations in solar intensity are known to affect global climate."
PinkElephant
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2011
All of which is at best tangential to your false assertion that "CO2 is irrelevant".

As for your other and newfangled falsehoods, firstly that "models ignore sunshine hours", you ought to know that models take into account the orbital parameters and the solar flux depending on latitude at any given time of year and day.

Regarding variations in solar intensity, you should be aware that solar flux has been tracked quite accurately and continuously over the last several decades. There have been changes in solar output, but they have been too slight to account for observed changes in climate. It is yet another common and spurious argument from ignorance.
Canman
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2011
http://climate.na....cfm#co2

The link here is for anyone interested in what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has to say about the issue. Ask yourself, what are the qualifications of those who work at NASA. They have access to all of the latest real-time data about the Earth. They have easy access to all of the world best climatologists. They got to their positions by academically outscoring just about everybody. Have you ever known someone, or know about someone who is a NASA scientist? They are the big leagues. They are brilliant. When you meet and talk to some of these people, you realize that you don't even know what you don't know. Who do you think "NotParker" is? A high school student? A grad student? Guaranteed amateur, no matter what. Lives are at stake. Encourage local government to invest in climate and energy research. Think about preparing your families, two or three generations out.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2011
If the climate models ignore sunshine hours and sunshine hours are higher then any warming is caused by sunshine hours.

Physics is quite clear. Incoming energy (like sunshine warming the ground or the ocean or tarmac near an airport temperature sensor) doesn't disappear.
But we spent 30 years and 30 billion dollars in solar observation satellites to quantify solar insolence. Are you just not paying attention or are you willfully ignoring this fact?
Jimee
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2011
Oil companies are desperate to keep their billions in welfare payments while they continue to poison the planet for us all.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2011
But we spent 30 years and 30 billion dollars in solar observation satellites to quantify solar insolence.


But those are pointed at the sun, not at the earth. Its not the amount of solar energy from the sun I am talking about. it is the amount of solar energy that reaches the earths surface and warms up the land and oceans.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2011
As NASA says: "Almost all the energy to power our planet comes from the Sun."

ht_delete_tp://climate.nasa.gov/kids/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=10

Weird thing is, nowhere on the climate change page do they graph the amount of solar energy reaching the earth.

Why ignore the most important companent?

Its like they are hiding something.
PinkElephant
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2011
Weird thing is, nowhere on the climate change page do they graph the amount of solar energy reaching the earth.
Are you daft? Global temperature measurements (including ocean heat content) are exactly that which you ask for. How else do you propose to quantify "the amount of solar energy reaching the earth"?

When insolation (not "insolence", note Skeptic_Heretic) is roughly constant, any change in quantity of solar energy trapped by the atmosphere is a direct consequence of the atmosphere's changing properties. Nothing else could be responsible. That's the whole point.
Jotaf
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2011
Scary article. Concerning this denialist's argument, as other people said, climate is not weather, and models take into account all the factors that have been pointed out. These scientists are the best, they devoted their entire lives to this subject and know a lot that regular folks can't possibly know.

Would you ignore your doctor's advice because of hearsay or your own interpretation (most likely misinterpretation!) of medical studies? Now imagine you knew yours is one of the top doctors in the world (just like these are top scientists), does it even make sense to doubt him?

A sign of intelligence is to be able to gauge and accept one's limits, chances are you can't outsmart every expert in the world in a field you haven't studied for 50 years.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2011
Are you daft? Global temperature measurements (including ocean heat content) are exactly that which you ask for. How else do you propose to quantify "the amount of solar energy reaching the earth"?


You measure it. With a pyranometer or Campbell-Stokes Sunshine Recorder as weather offices have been doing for over 100 years.

Denmark has been doing it since 1876.

"Campbell-Stokes type sunshine recorders have been used in a few places in Denmark since
the end of the last century. Before that, visual observations were used in Copenhagen, starting in 1876 (see chapter 8 for details). After 1920, hours of bright sunshine were measured in so many places that it was possible to calculate an average value for the country as a whole."

ht_delete_tp://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr98-4.pdf

The UK does it as well, as do dozens of other countries.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2011
Would you ignore your doctor's advice because of hearsay or your own interpretation (most likely misinterpretation!) of medical studies?


Many peopled were conned into not getting their children vaccinated because of the great autism fraud published in The Lancet.

"The recent retractions are putting a crack in the armor of medical infallibility. It appears much of what doctors consider to be "usual and customary" may turn out to be misleading, exaggerated and chillingly, flat-out wrong. Physicians would be well served to take medical publications under advisement rather than believing that just because it has been published, it is accurate and infallible, as gospel engraved in stone."

ht_delete_tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sherri-tenpenny/fraud-an-examination-of-m_b_835771.html

Man made global warming is a big fraud. Asking tough questions (skepticism) is healthy. The AGW fanatics who post here are sheep who question nothing.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2011
And what information would either of these provide, that a temperature reading does not? What information would either of these provide regarding solar energy flux on cloudy days? What about rate of surface and atmospheric cooling at night? And finally -- and most to the point -- what bearing would such measurements have on the "solar variability" red herring -- when we already know the Sun hasn't recently been nearly variable enough to account for the observed global warming trends?

Sure, it would be useful to monitor Earth's albedo, if for no other reason than to more accurately nail down the magnitude of various climate feedbacks and forcings. Unfortunately, NASA keeps screwing up launch of satellites intended to do this (with the most recent fiasco being Glory.)
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2011
Weird thing is, nowhere on the climate change page do they graph the amount of solar energy reaching the earth.

Why ignore the most important companent?

Its like they are hiding something.
You might want to try reading the adult, published, peer-reviewed literature if you would care to get a better picture of what is exactly computed in the calculations. Sesame street didn't teach me the subtle nuances of War and Peace. The material was a little advanced for children.
Many peopled were conned into not getting their children vaccinated because of the great autism fraud published in The Lancet.

1 article. Which was published without peer review.

vs Global warming which has tens of thousands of peer reviewed publications.

I think you're taking a single glass of water from the ocean and declaring that there are no fish within.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2011
And what information would either of these provide, that a temperature reading does not?


They would provide evidence that the change in temperature is linked exclusively to the variations in sunshine over the decades.

Bright sunshine imparts more energy than sunshine blocked or filtered through clouds.

ht_delete_tp://www.ess.uci.edu/~cpasquer/classes/ess200b/pdfs/dimmingEOS.pdf

By the way, there are hundreds of papers that reference global dimming and brightening.

There are thousands of papers that mention global warming.

Not one paper PROVES it is man made. The theory of CO2 is just a theory. As recent events have shown, it is a false theory.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2011
My previous reference notes that the IPCC is censoring evidence that sunshine reaching the earth has changed:

"Whatever explanation of the seeming paradox
proves correct, it is difficult to accept
the Schmidt et al. view that the detailed discussion
of aerosol and cloud effects contained
in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change reports justifies the absence
of any direct mention of the measured
changes in global radiation. Their own
response highlights the need for discussion
of this finding because of its relevance to
the causes of climate changes."

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 21, 2011
My previous reference notes that the IPCC is censoring evidence that sunshine reaching the earth has changed:

Censoring or rejecting due to lack of evidence? Be clear now.
Bright sunshine imparts more energy than sunshine blocked or filtered through clouds.
And over the night, cloud cover insulates the earth and retains heat. Your argument is specious and has already been deeply explored by the field. The only person who harps on it being an unexplored area of research is Lindzen, who again, is lacking current research.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2011
They would provide evidence that the change in temperature is linked exclusively to the variations in sunshine over the decades.
Aside from what Skeptic_Heretic already said above, let's explore this a bit more.

Firstly, whence comes your "exclusive" certainty in that hypothesis?

Secondly, what in your opinion could possibly cause "variations in sunshine"?

Thirdly, how would you account for the fact that sunshine is not absorbed in its entirety by the ground, but that some fraction is reflected directly into space: a fraction that varies depending on climate conditions (e.g. snow/ice/vegetation cover?)

Fourthly, why would you reject temperature measurements as a direct gauge of energy actually trapped at the planet's surface?

And lastly:
The theory of CO2 is just a theory.
Spectral absorption and emission characteristics of atmospheric gases are not "just a theory". They are empirical fact. As is the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2011
And over the night, cloud cover insulates the earth and retains heat.


Sort of. But the way I remember those long sunny summer days, it got hot, stayed hot even if it was clear at night.

But enough anecdotes. I prefer real science. Not the stuff you peddle.
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2011
Secondly, what in your opinion could possibly cause "variations in sunshine"?


Good question. But it does happen. Global dimming and brightening did occur. There are hundreds of papers available online to read.

Its quite fascinating.

ht_Delete_tp://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Global_dimming
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2011
Fourthly, why would you reject temperature measurements as a direct gauge of energy actually trapped at the planet's surface?


The temperature does go up and down. The cause is the important question. We know the sun causes the seasons -- essentially a change in sunshine hours (but more complicated).

If you have two major variables - sunshine and GHG, and the #1 GHG by far is H2O (humidity), and you want to blame any changes in temperature to the minor GHG CO2, you have to prove the other variables did not change.

However, sunshine did change, as did humidity. How can you blame Co2 unless you account for the changes in the #1 input and the #1 GHG?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2011
Humidity is a function of air temperature. You can't stuff more water into the atmosphere than can be supported at a given temperature: the extra water will simply precipitate back out. That's not the case with CO2: you can stuff as much CO2 as you want into the atmosphere, and it will remain there (or rather, within the carbon cycle.) That's why water vapor is a feedback, while fossil carbon is a driver. As a feedback, water vapor does reinforce the action of CO2: the atmosphere warms up slightly in response to increased CO2, which leads to higher absolute humidity, which causes the atmosphere to warm up yet more.

The sun (or more correctly, Earth's inclination and orbit) drives seasons, but it isn't causing GLOBAL temperature changes -- as averaged across both hemispheres. There hasn't been enough solar variation to account for the recent GLOBAL temperature rise, nor for multi-year and multi-decadal climate shifts.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2011
And over the night, cloud cover insulates the earth and retains heat.


Sort of. But the way I remember those long sunny summer days, it got hot, stayed hot even if it was clear at night.

But enough anecdotes. I prefer real science. Not the stuff you peddle.

So you like the chase and refuse the knowledge gained from it? Very odd.
MikeyK
3 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2011

But enough anecdotes. I prefer real science. Not the stuff you peddle.

ha ha ha has ha hahahah hhahhahahaha
Stop...stop it...you're killing me!! Glad my corset is on otherwise my side would have split open..laughing so much
Fascinating looking at the conversations between those with at least a basic understanding of science....and deniers attempting to justify their little Wattite agenda with their cults' mantra's and religious doctrine.
Hilarious
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2011
Humidity is a function of air temperature.


False. If can be 100F and 100% humidity in one location -- like NY, or it can be 100F and 10% humdity somewhere else -- like Arizona.

You aren't very bright.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2011
False. If can be 100F and 100% humidity in one location -- like NY, or it can be 100F and 10% humdity somewhere else -- like Arizona.
You do understand that in the middle of a desert, air temperature has little effect on humidity because there's no water, right? If the local geography didn't reduce the water vapor content of the atmosphere, Arizona would be incredibly humid.
You aren't very bright.
He's not the one insisting that air temperature isn't the main driver of humidity assuming that water is present.

At a temperature of 100 degrees, the total potential water vapor content is fixed. You'd do well to understand that.
PinkElephant
1 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2011
You aren't very bright.
Why, aren't you the self-appointed authority on who's bright.

The distinction between you and me (one of many, I'm sure), is that I simply understand the difference between absolute humidity vs. relative humidity. If you paid more careful attention to what I wrote, and if you knew the difference between the above two quantities, you would have understood that I talked about absolute humidity (i.e. the mass fraction of water vapor in the atmosphere.)
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2011
You pair of very not bright people might want to read the World Meteorlogical Organization guidelines on measuring humdity ... before you make yourselves look even dumber than usual.

"Humidity measurements at the Earths surface are
required for meteorological analysis and forecasting,
for climate studies, and for many special
applications in hydrology, agriculture, aeronautical
services and environmental studies, in general.
They are particularly important because of their
relevance to the changes of state of water in the
atmosphere."

ht_delete_tp://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/CIMO-Guide/CIMO%20Guide%207th%20Edition,%202008/Part%20I/Chapter%204.pdf
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2011
He's not the one insisting that air temperature isn't the main driver of humidity assuming that water is present.


Why assume water is present? Why not measure it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2011
He's not the one insisting that air temperature isn't the main driver of humidity assuming that water is present.


Why assume water is present? Why not measure it?

Because potential doesn't require presence.

Measurements of presence are determined primarily by potential. A 100 degree day has the same potential regardless of presence. YOu jsut attempted to dispute that and call someone ignorant for it.

Who's being ignorant.... yes, you.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 24, 2011
NotParker,

I'll make it easy for you. Here are the definitions:

Absolute humidity:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#Absolute_humidity_.28Volume_basis.29

Relative humidity:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity

Here's a simple paraphrase for self-assuredly clueless NotParker types:

http://www.buzzle...ity.html
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 24, 2011
Hey, a link actually worked! Wonder of wonders...

Now, provided NotParker understands the above, he would then realize that with relative humidity held constant, any increase in ambient temperature mathematically equates to an increase in absolute humidity.
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2011
A 100 degree day has the same potential regardless of presence.


Since water vapor is a GHG, measuring the actual amount in the air is essential.

If water vapor is up in most of the world, the quack CO2 theory will be discreditted. Same for bright sunshine hours.

If you have an equation thats says A + B + C = T and you don't measure A and B and then claim it was C that caused T to go up, your theory is quackery.

Same for Temperature. If you don't measure bright sunshine hours and humdity and the other GHG's and clouds etc, then claiming Temperature only changed because of CO2 is sick joke.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 25, 2011
If water vapor is up in most of the world...
It is. And that's due to warmer air (warmer temperatures are the cause; increased water vapor content is the result.) Otherwise, you must be claiming that *relative* humidity across the world has risen, which is false AFAIK.
Same for bright sunshine hours
Another way of saying changes in cloud cover. Funny, most deniers (e.g. Lindzen) hypothesize that warmer air would cause more tropospheric clouds, which would block sunshine. You seem to be asserting the opposite (and actually, you're in agreement with most recent studies and most global circulation models.) Again, cloud response is a result; rising temperatures are the underlying cause.
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2011
It is.


Show us the data.
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2011
An increase of bright sunshine hours causes warming.

Only deniers like you ignore data to stick with out of date theories about trace gases like CO2.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 25, 2011
Show us the data.
For instance:

http://www.ipcc.c...2-1.html
An increase of bright sunshine hours causes warming.
During the day. It would cause more drastic cooling during the night. It would generally manifest as an increase of diurnal temperature range across the world. In fact, the trends show an exact opposite: diurnal temperature range has been decreasing on average.
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2011
Excellent. It appears much of the data predates warming and may indeed have caused the warming. Good job.

NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2011
PinkElephant, I love this quote ...

For central Europe, Auer et al. (2007) demonstrated increasing moisture trends. Their vapour pressure series from the Greater Alpine Region closely follow the decadal- to centennial-scale warming at both urban lowland and rural summit sites.


I read that paper!

ht_delete_tp://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Auer.histalp.2007.pdf

Do you know what the IPCC left out?

Sunshine Hours were up 50-60% in some places over the 1901-2000 average.

ht_delete_tp://i54.tinypic.com/30auot1.jpg

"The recent trends in winter precipitation have been accompanied by respective trends in sunshine (significant increase in all subregions of 17 to 29%)"

I rest my case. They reference a paper proving sunshine is way up, but ignore the sunshine data and focus on small increases in moisture.

I win.