fredag 15. desember 2017

Old newspaper stories, vineyards and ships trapped in ice


Når amatør-fornekterne tror at gamle avisartikler og historier om forskningsskip som "sitter fast i isen" "motbeviser" Global Oppvarming eller prøver å fortelle oss at dagens oppvarming ikke er noe spesiell.


Denne artikkelen, som er ekte nok,  har gått sin runddans i amatør-fornekternes ekkokammer-blogger i åresvis:


Her er den enkle forklaringen.

"The warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

Those who seek to deny global warming constantly use transparently obvious tricks, selecting data from a single time, a single place, or both, to deny the larger long-term global patterns. This is easily done as climate is constantly fluctuating, so picking out the mean patterns and trends requires that one integrates the data over the largest time and space scales possible. So if one dishonestly wants to misrepresent the larger patterns, one can always find a particular place at a particular time that does not agree with the all the rest averaged together. This is sometimes referred to as the “It’s a cold day in Wagga Wagga” approach, and is repeatedly used by the climate change deniers to fool people who haven’t looked at the data themselves. The changes in Arctic Ice are no exception! [...]

Note that there are year to year fluctuations of about 1 million square kilometers, due to annual weather variations. These spatial variations have been used by deniers who simply look at changes since 2007, an exceptionally warm year in the Arctic, to suggest that the Arctic is cooling down! In other words they are simply picking ONE point that falls a bit off the trend of ALL the data to deny the long-term trend.

This set of observations from a limited area (Spitzbergen) in one year has been used by deniers to suggest that there are huge natural fluctuations, and to imply that there is no global warming. Now since the satellite data only goes back to 1979, it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that the trends since 1979 may not match the trends when looked at over a longer time period. One has to look at long-term data from ice extent measured in the sea and from shore, and air and water temperature data, over the longest time periods available. So let’s look at what this data actually shows!

Here are the measured long-term Arctic (red) and Antarctic (green) temperatures trends: 



Artic warming trend from NOAA:

Arctic (land stations north of 60° N) and global mean annual land surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies (in °C) for the period 1900-2016 relative to the 1981-2010 mean value:

Fig. 1.1. Arctic (land stations north of 60° N) and global mean annual land surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies (in °C) for the period 1900-2016 relative to the 1981-2010 mean value. Note that there were few stations in the Arctic, particularly in northern Canada, before 1940. The data are from the CRUTEM4 dataset, which is available at www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016/ArtMID/5022/ArticleID/271/Surface-Air-Temperature






There is no large-scale warmth during 1922 visible.

Next let’s look at the long term measured sea surface temperature anomaly (the difference with the long term average) of Arctic temperature.


It is clear that what happened in Spitzbergen in 1922 does NOT represent the Arctic as a whole!

Finally, let’s look at the measured ice extent in the places where there is good long-term data, in Iceland, the Nordic Sea, and the Norwegian Sea (in other words in the region of the Arctic most affected by fluctuations in the Gulf Stream) and including Sptizbergen where the 1922 observation came from. First let’s look at the Nordic Sea, where the ice is retreating in both east and west, and 1922 is not a blip:



Then finally let’s look at Iceland, which is near the very southern limit affected by icebergs and is strongly affected by the Gulf Stream. As can be seen there were years in the 1920s with fairly low drift ice, but the long-term trend is clearly downward:



Den globale gjennomsnittlige overflatetemperaturen er kanskje det mest representative målet på en planetens klima, da den reflekterer hvor mye varme det er på overflaten. Lokale temperaturendringer kan variere markant fra det globale gjennomsnittet. En årsak til dette er at varmen beveger seg rundt med vind og havstrømmer, den varmer opp en region mens den kjøler en annen, men disse regionale effektene kan ikke forårsake en signifikant endring i den globale gjennomsnittstemperaturen. En annen grunn er at lokal albedo, for eksempel endringer i snø eller vegetasjon, som påvirker hvordan en region reflekterer eller absorberer sollys, kan forårsake store lokale temperaturendringer som ikke speiles i det globale gjennomsnittet. Vi kan derfor ikke stole på ett spesifikt sted til å være representativ for global temperaturendring.

Global average surface temperature is perhaps the single most representative measure of a planet’s climate since it reflects how much heat is at the planet’s surface. Local temperature changes can differ markedly from the global average. One reason for this is that heat moves around with the winds and ocean currents, warming one region while cooling another, but these regional effects might not cause a significant change in the global average temperature. A second reason is that local feedbacks, such as changes in snow or vegetation cover that affect how a region reflects or absorbs sunlight, can cause large local temperature changes that are not mirrored in the global average. We therefore cannot rely on any single location as being representative of global temperature change.



Although most locations on the planet have recorded increased temperatures since 1900, changes in global ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns have created small-scale temperature decreases in a few local regions.

Artic temperatures:


http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-temperatures/

To end, let’s point out that the Arctic region will be the site of some of the major global positive climate feedbacks, that is to say those processes that will act strongly to AMPLIFY global warming, and whose effects are only STARTING to be felt and will get much stronger in coming years:

1) Ice albedo feedback. An aerial image of the Arctic Ice cap shows that the ocean looks deep blue, nearly black in comparison with ice. The white ice reflects sunlight back to space, reducing warming, while the dark ocean absorbs the light, increasing warming. As ice is replaced by ocean, global warming will accelerate. 

2) Land albedo feedback. As the land warms up, trees and forests migrate north. White snow that reflects sunlight back to space is covered with dark green leaves or dark brown tree trunks and branches, which absorb sunlight and convert it to heat, with the same effect of amplifying global warming. 

3) Tundra permafrost melting Greenhouse gas release feedback. As the tundra permafrost is steadily melting, vast amounts of methane gas trapped beneath in soils, peat, sediments, and ice-like methane hydrates are bubbling up into the atmosphere. This is a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2, and its release is rapidly escalating in Siberia, Canada, Alaska, and the Arctic Ocean.

4) Peat oxidation feedback. As frozen tundra peat melts, the frozen organic matter, the world’s largest store of soil carbon, several times larger than that in the atmosphere, is being broken down by microorganisms and released as CO2 to the atmosphere.


BONUS:

Ice Loss and the Polar Vortex: How a Warming Arctic Fuels Cold Snaps


Forklaringer på noen flere værfenomener:

Frost fairs på Themsen, sunspots and the Little Ice Age

Where spin doctors, politicians and newspaper editors understand well that a name alters how something is perceived, scientists know that a name does not change the reality one iota. By virtue of the name awarded to it, the “Little Ice Age” has been associated with full ice ages. The name Little Ice Age has also become almost synonymous with the Maunder minimum in solar activity in the minds of many people. Hence it has even become possible to build semantic arguments that imply there is some sort of link between solar activity and ice ages – and evidence for major control of climate by solar activity is often offered in the form of the occurrence of frost fairs on the Thames in London. This paper discusses the true relationships, or lack of them, between these different events.

https://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR717721.aspx


Bonus:

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.


https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
Abstract
Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.

While England had 42 vineyards at the time of the Domesday Book, as is well known, there are now over 300 commercial English vineyards today. So the climate today in England is much more conducive to wine-making than during the Roman occupation of England.

www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html

By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. The website of the English wine producers suggests that at present extent of vineyards in Britain probably surpasses that of the Medieval Warm Period between circa 900 AD to 1300 AD.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/

www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html# dot.VRfu7OE0_b4

www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg


www.eh-resources.org/climate1.html


 

Klimafornekterne har produsert hundrevis av artikler om forskningsskip som sitter fast i is og følger opp med å kirsebærplukke bilder fra NASA som viser at isen i arktis har vokst. De har heller ingen problemer med å hente sine klimaløgner selv fra alt-right white supremacy-rasist koko-høyre blogger som breitbart. (Hvorfor går de ikke videre til den NASA-siden som har bevisene for AGW?) 

INGENTING av dette motbeviser global oppvarming. Det nevnte skipet måtte avbryte på grunn av mye is i bevegelse, et resultat av global oppvarming "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

Antarctic Ship Rescue: 5 Lessons From the Trapped-Vessel Drama

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added by email that "any comments about overall ice shrinking or increasing are absurd in this situation.

"In the Antarctic, the ice is not limited by land and it is well established that winds blow the ice around. Winds from the south, especially off the continent, carry ice away from the continent and create more ice behind, filling in any gaps."

As Arctic sea ice breaks up, it’s starting to move southward faster, creating new and unexpected hazards. More icebergs calving off Greenland add to the threat.


First ship crosses Arctic in winter without an icebreaker as global warming causes ice sheets to melt

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/arctic-sea-route-first-ship-no-icebreaker-winter-icebergs-ice-shelf-teekay-russia-a8208596.html 

Shipping first as commercial tanker crosses Arctic sea route in winter:


Its the third time in a very short time Ive heard this Dr Viner quote about "no more snow" or "our children wont see anymore snow" bla bla bla, and then they combine the quote with a link to some cold weather event in England.

So I did a debunking of it:

Dr David Viner at CRU, England, never said that "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.". That was the headline the newspaper choose for their article, making it more sensational but losing the plot.

Dr Viner was also quoted as saying: "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time."

The headline in this case is not what the story itself said, as Dr Viner made clear. The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how "snow is starting to disappear from our lives", which it stated clearly.

So a headline saying that "snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" is not a scientific prediction or statement. It is a newspaper headline, and should be treated as an invitation to read the entire story, which in this case clearly pointed out that snowfalls are becoming less frequent in Britain.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/steve-connor-dont-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

Anyway. Climate science dont make predictions based on a newspaper interview with one (1) scientist. Its the combined knowledge from thousands of scientists world wide. Look for the predictions in the peer reviewed science and the peer reviewed reports.

Like this one out from the USA in the autumn of 2017 which was peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, the worlds most respected scientific academy, founded by Abraham Lincoln and with 200 Nobel Prize winners as members.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/


For regions that are less than 1000m above sea level and that currently experience winter temperatures just below freezing, he found that the chance of an extreme snowfall event will drop by an average of just 8%. But the total amount of snow that falls in these areas each winter may drop by as much as 65%, on average.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160127-will-snow-become-a-thing-of-the-past-as-the-climate-warms

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Magnetic poles / Earth's magnetic field

While the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to th...