Global Warming on Hiatus?

Well, we are learning that there is much, much more to learn than what we first thought.

But... But.... But... But the politicians and media all said for years that.....

This doesn't have anything to do with NK now does it?

(New shiney ball for them to chase now?)

There's things we know, and things we don't know. Then there's things we don't know we don't know. I think Don Rumsfeld said that first.

Anyway, it ain't over till it's over and the fat lady sings.

I read the link. Not impressed.

"...James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal."

Now, c'mon... You can't on one hand complain about coal because burning it releases CO₂ which contributes to global warming, and then turn around and say burning coal caused emissions which led to lower temperatures. This is Alice-In-Wonderland / Red Queen/ a-word-is-what-I-choose-it-to-mean gibberish.

Climate moves in mysterious ways.

For the weeks following 9-11-2001, the no flying resulted in an increase in measured temperatures because of the lack of condensate trails, and ash emissions from commercial aircraft flights.

And as coal power plants have removed ash from it's stack emissions, there is a cleaner air column, that lets more sun light in. And this has resulted in noticeable air temperature increases. So it may be a good thing for us to put more dirt up in the air.

Interesting idea. I think Dr Carl Sagan posited this as part of a nuclear winter scenario.

When Hussein lit the Kuwaiti oil wells in 92, Dr Sagan mused this may cause global cooling. IIRC correctly no changes were measured.

I recall reading the Krakatoa eruption did in fact cause global cooling.

Oh contraire,

"Particles of soot and other light-absorbing aerosols have a warming rather than cooling effect on temperatures, researchers have learned. It is a surprising revelation that promises to lower even further estimates of the effect of greenhouse gases on global temperatures.

Computers running global warming climate models have been told to assume aerosols in the atmosphere inhibit the warming properties of greenhouse gases. Based on this assumption, the models predict accelerated warming in the future when such aerosol pollutants are likely to be less prevalent in the atmosphere.

"Scientists are convinced these plumes contain so many cooling sulfate particles that they may be masking half of the effect of global warming," noted the July 20 Wall Street Journal.

Assumption Was Wrong

However, a team of researchers from NASA and the University of California at San Diego reported in the August 2 issue of the British science journal Nature that they sent instruments into "brown clouds" of aerosols over Asia to measure their effect on temperature. To their surprise, the researchers discovered the common assumption that aerosols lower temperatures was wrong.

Instead, aerosols were found to substantially amplify the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 percent," explained the researchers.

"[The pollution] contributes as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends," the researchers added."

More.....link

Oh Au

It was a square dancing ref....

http://www.bereacontradance.org/

On the other hand.....

"Meanwhile, at the globe's southernmost continent, scientist have been trying to explain why, in the face of global warming, the extent of Antarctica's winter sea ice has been expanding and sea-surface temperatures have been cooling. Some skeptics have seized on this as evidence that the planet as a whole really isn't warming. But if a new study is correct, the main reason for the expanding sea ice in winter is melting ice shelves in the summer.

Some scientists have attributed the trend in expanding winter sea ice to a long-term intensification of the westerly winds that travel unimpeded around the globe over the Southern Ocean. These have intensified over the past 20 years, in effect making it harder for circulation patterns at lower latitudes to transfer heat to the southern polar region. Other scientists have attributed the ice increase to falling sea-surface temperatures.

But a team led by Richard Bintanja, a researcher with the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, used modeling studies to suggest that the main culprit for sea-ice expansion appears to be melt-water from Antarctica's ice shelves -- floating outlets on the continent's coast for glaciers fed by the continent's two vast ice caps.

The shelves are melting from the undersides as relatively warm water at depths between about 300 and 1,000 feet come into contact with them. That water has come from lower latitudes where global warming has warmed ocean temperatures, the team notes. By some estimates, Antarctica is loosing ice mass at a pace of about 250 billion tons a year.

As the ice melts, the team found that the fresh, buoyant melt water forms a layer on the sea surface. The freshwater layer mixes with the salty sea water, notes Dr. Bintanja in an email. But it still retains a higher freezing point than the saltier water below.

As the austral autumn begins, cooling air temperatures have a new season's worth of relatively fresh surface water to freeze. Farther down, the mixture of melt water and seawater also serves as a thick lid, making it difficult for warmer, denser layers below rise and release heat to the atmosphere.

Although the sea ice virtually vanishes in the austral summer, the expanded winter sea ice still plays a key role in reflecting sunlight back into space in the spring and fall, Bintanja says.

Ironically, the expanded ice also may contribute to the loss of ice from the continent, the team suggests. Aside from cooling the springs and falls by reflecting sunlight back into space, the extended sea ice also prevents sea water from evaporating. And the ice keeps air temperatures colder than they might otherwise be, reducing the amount of moisture the overlying atmosphere can hold.

These may be combining to reduce the amount of moisture in the atmosphere available for snow over the continent - snow that would help replenishes the continent's ice caps."

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130402/ice-growth-antarctica-tied-extensive-melt-arctic

Is global warming man made or man accelerates it?. How did it happen in Mars,were there humans?. It looks to me as a natural phenomenon in our solar system.

Lat year in the Uk we had the wettest drought on record.

We've just had the 2n'd coldest March since records began.
I've just drunk the hottest mug of tea since the previous one.
Del
(There's fine snow at the mo' else why do you think I'm in here?)

It doesn't matter; something isn't right, and only a global cap and tax system will fix it.

hey, lets not get all crazy and start giving out Nobel Prizes for something no one knows anything about .........

I don't go to the IPCC site to read about economics so I won't go to publication that deals with the economy to read about global warming. Look at the financial state of the world, brought about by greedy bankers and look who suffers and how the 95% live. Look at the state of the environment, who has to put up with the mess caused by profiteering. In whose interest is it to carry on as if there is no problem? The readers of this magazine. If global warming deniers complain about the models used to predict global warming (which is a difficult thing to do) how can using credit rating models improve the matter? Unless to bolster an opinion. Sowing doubt is the best weapon available; this is another seed.

That's like saying the New York Times is just about New York....

http://www.economist.com/

Not again! What do you want us to do? What's really on your mind? A few days ago I watched a video on PBS about the weather patterns on earth. It was very interesting. They showed a circular wind around Antarctica that keeps it cooler. At the end they still said there was global warming that was man made. They made no mention of a break in the process.

I've cut the heads off many chicken, in my day.

That's a pretty good analogy.

Unfortunately, the politicians seem to operate forever, even with their heads gone.

"By some estimates, Antarctica is loosing ice mass at a pace of about 250 billion tons a year."

This is just one more example of the scare mongering math that I have came to so hate when dealing with this subject.

Here is why.

the Antarctic ice sheet contains some 6.4 million cubic miles of ice with each cubic mile weighing in at 4.2 billion tons meaning that 250 billion tons equates by volume to being roughly 59.5 cubic miles or 59.5/6,400,000 = .00093% of the total mass.

At that rate in theory it would take some 107,500 years to melt which unfortunately in geological time scales would take multiple ice ages which in themselves rather screws up the whole equation anyway.

Not a denier but still highly sceptical that politicians, laws and extra taxes will do anything in the grand scheme of things over all.

Perhaps the greatest impact of ice is on albedo, not atmospheric opacity to IR. And when we speak of ice, perhaps we should be including glacial ice as well as average days of snow cover of other land mass.

When we look at the energy balance of our planet, albedo and atmospheric opacity are two very different variables; both with significant effect on equilibrium temperature.

The mass calculations are really quite meaningless unless it is equated to area. I say this because I would expect the thickness of the ice at the peripheral of the ice packs to be considerably less than at the center.

When considering anthropomorphic impact on global climate there is not enough attention directed to deforestation and ocean degradation; both of which have significant impact on the CO2 cycle. The challenge can not be met by addressing only the emission side of the equation.

I also believe the rate of change will be found not to be linear, but exponential as the most significant greenhouse component, water vapor, contributes more and more to a reduced opacity in IR bandwidth and increasing thermal capacitance of our atmosphere.

We have been fouling our nest for a long time; we should not be surprised to see it become less and less habitable.