Comments on: What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter? http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:53:37 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: D http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-73481 D Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:11:54 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-73481 "It is a critical part of our Earth's system," said Dr Ferraccioli. "If the whole ice sheet collapsed, sea levels would rise by 60m." "There's been a lot of climate change over the last 14 million years," Dr Siegert said. "And what we can say about this place in the middle of the Antarctic is that ....................nothing has changed...................." “It is a critical part of our Earth’s system,” said Dr Ferraccioli. “If the whole ice sheet collapsed, sea levels would rise by 60m.”

“There’s been a lot of climate change over the last 14 million years,” Dr Siegert said. “And what we can say about this place in the middle of the Antarctic is that ………………..nothing has changed………………..”

]]> By: D http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-73468 D Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:57:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-73468 The ice cap absorbs all anomalies, because is the most cold depressed region, you can see the oceans are yet cold or warmer, but the matter is that the ice cap has all responsabilities over this circuit. The ice cap absorbs all anomalies, because is the most cold depressed region, you can see the oceans are yet cold or warmer, but the matter is that the ice cap has all responsabilities over this circuit.

]]> By: D http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-73465 D Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:53:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-73465 Heat transfer doesn't measures the amount of heat produced by global warming, it does only show the heat circulation impacts. The ice cap is the place where all the heat ends, and troubles too. Other regions are shielded by this cap. Do you think cryosphere in 1930-1940 was as it is actually? Do you believe the ice layers showed you that they have ever melt down before? I suggest you to take a look onto "Arctic Sea Ice Conditions, Part II: June 4, 2009" by Tenney Naumer, June 4, 2009 Heat transfer doesn’t measures the amount of heat produced by global warming, it does only show the heat circulation impacts. The ice cap is the place where all the heat ends, and troubles too. Other regions are shielded by this cap. Do you think cryosphere in 1930-1940 was as it is actually? Do you believe the ice layers showed you that they have ever melt down before? I suggest you to take a look onto “Arctic Sea Ice Conditions, Part II: June 4, 2009″

by Tenney Naumer, June 4, 2009

]]> By: Martyn http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32570 Martyn Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:58:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32570 A similar warming occurred in the 1930-1940 period. This cannot be blamed on the reasons mentioned in the above article. The principal heating mode of the polar parts of the planet is by heat transfer from the tropics by weather systems and oceanic circulations. The solar contribution is secondary. The heat transfer rate is not constant. One key phenomena responsible for modulating heat transfer to the arctic is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. By coincidence this was in the peak of its warm phase (maximum heat transfer rate) in the 1930-1940 and 1995 onwards to the present day (strong peak in 2005-2006). Putting out alarmist articles which ignore key climatic variables is irresponsible and misleading. Other factors ommited include: Pacific decadal oscillation Soot on ice albedo effects solar wind variations, which are concentrated at the magnetic poles of the earth, by the earth's magnetic field lines, and expand / contract the atmosphere A similar warming occurred in the 1930-1940 period. This cannot be blamed on the reasons mentioned in the above article. The principal heating mode of the polar parts of the planet is by heat transfer from the tropics by weather systems and oceanic circulations. The solar contribution is secondary. The heat transfer rate is not constant. One key phenomena responsible for modulating heat transfer to the arctic is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. By coincidence this was in the peak of its warm phase (maximum heat transfer rate) in the 1930-1940 and 1995 onwards to the present day (strong peak in 2005-2006).
Putting out alarmist articles which ignore key climatic variables is irresponsible and misleading.

Other factors ommited include:
Pacific decadal oscillation
Soot on ice albedo effects
solar wind variations, which are concentrated at the magnetic poles of the earth, by the earth’s magnetic field lines, and expand / contract the atmosphere

]]> By: papertiger http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32554 papertiger Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:52:16 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32554 So if some recalcitrant countries, like say China and India, tell our eventual climate overlord to take his climate saving edicts and go stuff himself (or herself), would that be grounds for invasion? Imbargo? Blockade? So if some recalcitrant countries, like say China and India, tell our eventual climate overlord to take his climate saving edicts and go stuff himself (or herself), would that be grounds for invasion? Imbargo? Blockade?

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32479 David B. Benson Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:09:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32479 Jan --- GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C base period: 1951-1980 First note the units are hundredths of a degree Celcius. What is presented are the anomalies from the base period average; a typical convention in meteorology. Jan — GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C base period: 1951-1980

First note the units are hundredths of a degree Celcius. What is presented are the anomalies from the base period average; a typical convention in meteorology.

]]> By: Jan http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32464 Jan Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:21:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32464 Oops -- looked a little closer and found the base period of 1951-1980. So, I'll revise my stupid question and ask why that particular base period? Thanks. Oops — looked a little closer and found the base period of 1951-1980. So, I’ll revise my stupid question and ask why that particular base period?

Thanks.

]]> By: Jan http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32463 Jan Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:17:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32463 I just looked at the NASA temperature index [ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt ] and could use some help interpreting. It shows a -25 global mean in 1880, and in 2005 it's at 62. Does that mean the global average temperature increased .87 degrees C for that period? And if that's not a stupid question, then how about this one -- what is the zero baseline of this chart? I mean, it shows -25 from what? Or plus 62 from what? Thanks. I just looked at the NASA temperature index [ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ gistemp/ tabledata/ GLB.Ts+dSST.txt ] and could use some help interpreting.

It shows a -25 global mean in 1880, and in 2005 it’s at 62. Does that mean the global average temperature increased .87 degrees C for that period?

And if that’s not a stupid question, then how about this one — what is the zero baseline of this chart? I mean, it shows -25 from what? Or plus 62 from what?

Thanks.

]]> By: Sam Carmalt http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32390 Sam Carmalt Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:41:24 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32390 There is no question that an ice-free Arctic Ocean will have profound climatic effects. But the political problems with making drastic changes in CO2 output reflect an underlying reality - that the world economy has a great deal of inertia. Completely replacing the energy from all mined hydrocarbons with other energy sources will take considerable time. Even if a world dictator were to embark on such a project today, by the time we built all the electric cars, established all the renewable energy plants (solar farms, turbine farms, whatever) it would still require decades to complete. While rapid deployment of non-carbon energy should be done, we also need to realistically plan for the changes that are now inevitable. Like any planning, we don't know exactly what the future will be (one speculation is that the increased evaporation from an ice-free Arctic actually causes another ice age within the next few centuries). But the likelihood is that we will need not only to relocate millions of subsistance farmers in Bangledesh, but also develop new cities in the developed world as places like London become unsustainable with higher sea levels. The investment in electric cars may only be profitable if politicians tax carbon in one way or another. An investment in something that will help our society to cope with the change is more sensible. The obvious example is that rather than rebuild New Orleans, we should spend that money relocating New Orleans' port capacity to a site that can survive the coming changes. My point is that we shouldn't be approaching these problems defensively. Yes, we've been foolish. Yes we should stop being foolish as quickly as possible. But we need to look at how we can positively move forward. As the old Chinese wisdom has it - we live in interesting times. There is no question that an ice-free Arctic Ocean will have profound climatic effects. But the political problems with making drastic changes in CO2 output reflect an underlying reality – that the world economy has a great deal of inertia.

Completely replacing the energy from all mined hydrocarbons with other energy sources will take considerable time. Even if a world dictator were to embark on such a project today, by the time we built all the electric cars, established all the renewable energy plants (solar farms, turbine farms, whatever) it would still require decades to complete.

While rapid deployment of non-carbon energy should be done, we also need to realistically plan for the changes that are now inevitable. Like any planning, we don’t know exactly what the future will be (one speculation is that the increased evaporation from an ice-free Arctic actually causes another ice age within the next few centuries). But the likelihood is that we will need not only to relocate millions of subsistance farmers in Bangledesh, but also develop new cities in the developed world as places like London become unsustainable with higher sea levels.

The investment in electric cars may only be profitable if politicians tax carbon in one way or another. An investment in something that will help our society to cope with the change is more sensible. The obvious example is that rather than rebuild New Orleans, we should spend that money relocating New Orleans’ port capacity to a site that can survive the coming changes.

My point is that we shouldn’t be approaching these problems defensively. Yes, we’ve been foolish. Yes we should stop being foolish as quickly as possible. But we need to look at how we can positively move forward. As the old Chinese wisdom has it – we live in interesting times.

]]> By: Gail http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32354 Gail Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:40:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-and-why-does-it-matter/#comment-32354 Joe, this is the message, it's brilliant: a CASCADE of effects. Forget feedback loops and tipping points. The CASCADE of effects sums it up for even the most STUPID. Joe, this is the message, it’s brilliant:

a CASCADE of effects.

Forget feedback loops and tipping points.

The CASCADE of effects sums it up for even the most STUPID.

]]>