Something has gone wrong with the global weather pattern...

[Mark Farnik]

I first knew something had gone awry when we reached a high of 59 degrees on Christmas Day in northern Colorado. :? With each passing day of this continued abnormal warmth, I am more and more convinced that something has gone wrong with the global weather pattern. While the majority of the United States is experiencing a prolonged wave of record warmth that makes it feel more like late March than late January, Russia, Siberia and Scandinavia are experiencing an unrelenting deep freeze that has claimed the lives of over a hundred people. An unprecedented record snowstorm blasted Athens over the weekend, bringing several inches of snow and howling winds to a city that has seen snow of any significance maybe a dozen times in the last couple of centuries. :shock: Australia is being burned by record smashing heat and raging brushfires. Much of eastern Asia's higher elevations have been buried by record setting snowfall. A tropical depression lingers off the coast of Vietnam; it is not supposed to be there. It is the wrong time of year. Spring flowers are blooming in Montana and Wyoming, and birds are migrating northwards. And don't forget Tropical Storm Zeta, which dissipated only a few weeks back after becoming the longest lived out-of- season Atlantic tropical cyclone. Something is very, very wrong with the weather pattern. What is happening now reminds me of the description of the weather pattern in the first chapter of the book "The Coming Global Superstorm", which was later made into "The Day After Tomorrow. It's very creepy. :shock: I don't necessarily believe there is a global superstorm imminent, but I have a feeling if the weather continues to slide further out of whack as time goes on, we could all be in serious trouble. Maybe someone should check to see if the North Atlantic current has finally made its long predicted shift to the south...
Comments and discussion welcome.

[B Ozanne]

Ah....and all of this is called the weather. Unless you live in places like Seattle or Honolulu this is exactly what to expect. What I am trying to say is that experiencing the average conditions is actually quite abnormal. This is what happens in the mid-latitudes. Sometimes its above normal, sometimes its below. This January in the northeast is shaping up to be very warm, the last two were very cold. Its been cold in Moscow and eastern Europe, but that happens. As far as Siberia, I haven't seen anything that impressive. I haven't seen any -80F type stuff, which is common every few years.

Record snowfall you saw on tv in Japan? Those places are known as the snowiest cities/sea level locations in the world. No surprise there. They get so much snow their streets are heated. City streets, not just driveways.

Heat in Australia? Not shocked there, its generally pretty warm there and its summer after all. Records have to get broken somehow.

Snow in Athens? Sounds bad, but that does happen. I did see some photos of snowplows on the streets. They had those snowplows for a reason. Actually, Greece gets some serious winter storms.

I've noticed that the media is calling this "some wild weather." They say that at least 12 times a year. If something happens that frequently I wouldn't call it wild. I should keep track of how often the guy on my local Fox channel calls it wild weather.

Now, the North Atlantic Current shutting down. That is interesting. Some recent research states that it has significantly slowed over the past few decades.

[Dan Robinson]

I used to feel like this until I realized I was posting things to weather lists every few months with some 'unprecedented' event that I saw. After a few years I started to realize, hey, this weird stuff is happening all the time and has been happening throughout history. This winter we've had numerous thunderstorms from November through January. Normally that's something that I'd be floored about. But I've seen it before. Nothing surprises me anymore. In fact I would be more surprised if things were normal for an extended period of time.

One thing that chasing has taught me is that there really isn't an off-season that you can relax and forget about missing anything. Just about anything can happen year-round.

[Scott A. Kampas]

Normal? What is normal but a mean of extremes?

[B Ozanne]

Originally posted by Scott A. Kampas
Normal? What is normal but a mean of extremes?

Exactly, the media has no concept of standard deviations either.

[John Massura]

Originally posted by Mark Farnik
A tropical depression lingers off the coast of Vietnam; it is not supposed to be there. It is the wrong time of year.
There was a weak tropical disturbance (strong emphasis on weak) that sort of developed in the South China Sea, but it never had winds over 20 knots, and was ripped apart by the northeast monsoon (which is normal and has been in place as normal this year).

Tropical cyclones can happen any month of the year in the west Pacific, but I agree, this time of year is their minimum. Of course, Singapore got hit with a typhoon this time of year back in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Vamei).

[Mark Farnik]

B Ozanne said:
Ah....and all of this is called the weather. Unless you live in places like Seattle or Honolulu this is exactly what to expect. What I am trying to say is that experiencing the average conditions is actually quite abnormal. This is what happens in the mid-latitudes. Sometimes its above normal, sometimes its below. This January in the northeast is shaping up to be very warm, the last two were very cold. Its been cold in Moscow and eastern Europe, but that happens. As far as Siberia, I haven't seen anything that impressive. I haven't seen any -80F type stuff, which is common every few years.

Record snowfall you saw on tv in Japan? Those places are known as the snowiest cities/sea level locations in the world. No surprise there. They get so much snow their streets are heated. City streets, not just driveways.

Heat in Australia? Not shocked there, its generally pretty warm there and its summer after all. Records have to get broken somehow.

Snow in Athens? Sounds bad, but that does happen. I did see some photos of snowplows on the streets. They had those snowplows for a reason. Actually, Greece gets some serious winter storms.

I've noticed that the media is calling this "some wild weather." They say that at least 12 times a year. If something happens that frequently I wouldn't call it wild. I should keep track of how often the guy on my local Fox channel calls it wild weather.
Yes, there are always deviations in the weather pattern. It happens. But it's when the deviations are extreme that it is unsettling. I'm willing to bet that the entirety of the Great Plains haven't seen such a prolonged winter "heat wave" in at least a hundred years, and probably a lot longer than that. When spring flowers begin blooming three months early, and migratory birds, who aren't easily fooled, are flying north, you know something is amiss. The fact that Fargo, North Dakota has not dropped below zero in almost two months is very bizarre. Also consider that much of southern Canada has been running above average temps, since the polar jetstream is locked in over the far northern stretches of that country. This type of unrelenting Pacific zonal flow is just downright wrong for the dead of winter. If not the world, the U.S. will likely be experiencing even more extremely deviant weather as we progress through 2006. And yes, Scott, the normal is nothing but a mean of extremes. Well said, my friend.

[Mike Peregrine]

The big climate debate continues and will probably go on and on ...

The weather has changed. The fact that folks would rather pretend it's part of the status quo has not.

Whether owed to normal, cyclical solar or earthly fluctuations or to the escalation in greenhouse gasses by man, there is no more denying that climate is going through a noticeable overhaul right now. My biggest question is the same asked by the author of this thread ... whether the large-scale global changes are now having a more noticeable effect on some of the things noted in this thread and localized, 'extreme' weather events. It's true ... abnormalities and things we consider to be 'extreme' have always been around (and the point that "normal" is defined by a mean of extremes is well-taken) ... but at least on the surface they do seem to be increasing in quantity and severity as time goes on, and they are affecting larger numbers of people. I'm sure we'll continue to hear more about it ...

From http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html :

... the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. ...

... Is the climate warming? Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6?C (plus or minus 0.2?C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4?F (0.2 to 0.3?C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). ...

... Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. ...

...Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade...

...Northern Hemisphere annual snow cover extent has consistently remained below average since 1987, and has decreased by about 10% since 1966. This is mostly due to a decrease in spring and summer snowfall over both the Eurasian and North American continents since the mid-1980s. ...

...on regional scales, there is clear evidence of changes in variability or extremes. ...

On the question of what the future holds:

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8?C from 1990-2100. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season).

Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics.

Snow extent and sea-ice are also projected to decrease further in the northern hemisphere, and glaciers and ice-caps are expected to continue to retreat.

[Shane Adams]

When things return more to "normal" over the next year's cycle, this year won't matter. I remember a little thing in the 30s called the Dust Bowl. That was a years-long era of unusually dry and arid conditions. But somehow the climate survived and things returned to "normal". What I mean to say is, if anyone thinks this year is an indication of what will be "normal" from now on, they are quite mistaken IMO. Folks can label me 'in denial' or whatever, but I just don't buy the "Day After Tomorrow" global warming thing.

I can remember 70-degree days in December twenty years ago. I remember the drought/heat wave of 1980. I saw the longest OK tornado drought in history in 2002-2003, after experiencing the state's most active tornado season on record just four years prior. Fluctuations happen, otherwise "normal" wouldn't exist.

[Bill Tabor]

Originally posted by Mike Peregrine

Whether owed to normal, cyclical solar or earthly fluctuations or to the escalation in greenhouse gasses by man, there is no more denying that climate is going through a noticeable overhaul right now.

Last time I made a similar statement I was quickly reminded of variability and a document by Doswell. Check out Dr Chuck's words here:
http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/Normals/normal.html

He notes that variability is the norm, and in particular that our records don't go back very far so we aren't really in position to know what is normal.

Additionally I would like to point out that it only takes once good volcano eruption to dwarf anything man has done ever to the atmosphere. Eruptions of the past have had significant effect on green house gases and caused global stagation / destruction of growing seasons including extinctions. On another note we are "due" for super volcano Yellowstone to erupt. Now that would be a real problem.

[John MacKay]

The period of warmth has been longer than usual, but looking at Wichita's F6s for January and Februrary, there have been some January's and Februrary's that have looked like this in the past (most notably, look at Februrary 1999 in the midst of a La Nina). Although, seeing the lowest high temperature in Wichita this month being 40 and only below 20 once, there is a uniqueness to this pattern.

I also found out severe weather can occur in January in northern KS. Until this past weekend, the earliest I remember severe weather occurring in the year was Feb. 17th in 2000, when some hail, possibly up to golfball size at times as I recall, fell when the temperature was hovering around 40 degrees at 9 PM.

[B Ozanne]

Originally posted by John MacKay
The period of warmth has been longer than usual, but looking at Wichita's F6s for January and Februrary, there have been some January's and Februrary's that have looked like this in the past (most notably, look at Februrary 1999 in the midst of a La Nina). Although, seeing the lowest high temperature in Wichita this month being 40 and only below 20 once, there is a uniqueness to this pattern.

I also found out severe weather can occur in January in northern KS. Until this past weekend, the earliest I remember severe weather occurring in the year was Feb. 17th in 2000, when some hail, possibly up to golfball size at times as I recall, fell when the temperature was hovering around 40 degrees at 9 PM.

If all you had to do was look back to 1999 this thread is pretty much wrapped up then.

BTW, some very cold air is now moving into interior Alaska. Fort Yukon is now at -52F, off their low of -56F a few hours ago. Tonight promises to be a little colder. Armed with a trusty alcohol thermometer and knowledge of the local cold spots you could make a run at the North American record low tonight. Well, maybe not, but worth watching.

[Jeff Snyder]

Originally posted by B Ozanne+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(B Ozanne)</div><!--QuoteBegin-John MacKay
The period of warmth has been longer than usual, but looking at Wichita's F6s for January and Februrary, there have been some January's and Februrary's that have looked like this in the past (most notably, look at Februrary 1999 in the midst of a La Nina). Although, seeing the lowest high temperature in Wichita this month being 40 and only below 20 once, there is a uniqueness to this pattern.

I also found out severe weather can occur in January in northern KS. Until this past weekend, the earliest I remember severe weather occurring in the year was Feb. 17th in 2000, when some hail, possibly up to golfball size at times as I recall, fell when the temperature was hovering around 40 degrees at 9 PM.

If all you had to do was look back to 1999 this thread is pretty much wrapped up then.

BTW, some very cold air is now moving into interior Alaska. Fort Yukon is now at -52F, off their low of -56F a few hours ago. Tonight promises to be a little colder. Armed with a trusty alcohol thermometer and knowledge of the local cold spots you could make a run at the North American record low tonight. Well, maybe not, but worth watching.[/b]

From what I've seen, the North America record is -81.4F at Snag in Canada's Yukon Territory (Feb. 3, 1947). They have another VERY tough 30 degrees to drop before breaking that record. They may have a tough time with the lower-48 record of -70F. LOL Point taken however -- it's cold up there right now!

[B Ozanne]

Originally posted by Jeff Snyder

From what I've seen, the North America record is -81.4F at Snag in Canada's Yukon Territory (Feb. 3, 1947). They have another VERY tough 30 degrees to drop before breaking that record. They may have a tough time with the lower-48 record of -70F. LOL Point taken however -- it's cold up there right now!

You're right, 30 degrees is a lot. I was thinking about large diurnal swings, which they really don't have up there right now. I do think -60 is in range though, especially if you went out looking for that mark. Again, very cold up there, even for Alaska.

[George Tincher]

Originally posted by Shane Adams
When things return more to "normal" over the next year's cycle, this year won't matter. I remember a little thing in the 30s called the Dust Bowl. That was a years-long era of unusually dry and arid conditions. But somehow the climate survived and things returned to "normal". What I mean to say is, if anyone thinks this year is an indication of what will be "normal" from now on, they are quite mistaken IMO. Folks can label me 'in denial' or whatever, but I just don't buy the "Day After Tomorrow" global warming thing.

I can remember 70-degree days in December twenty years ago. I remember the drought/heat wave of 1980. I saw the longest OK tornado drought in history in 2002-2003, after experiencing the state's most active tornado season on record just four years prior. Fluctuations happen, otherwise "normal" wouldn't exist.

I couldn't agree more.

I was amazed how the news media tried to use the Global Warming angle to explain why last year's hurricane season was so active, despite experts from the NHC telling them that we were simply in an active cycle and citing other periods with a similar level of activity.

And remember 1998, when El Nino was blamed for all of the tornado outbreaks? Come to think of it, El Nino was blamed for just about everything under the sun.

Some things may going on as far as climate change. But I think many people are really jumping the gun and reaching to suggest many of the extreme weather events are somehow related to Global Warming.

[Mike Peregrine]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html

Kerry Emanuel is a well-respected professor of meteorology at MIT. The findings of his work concerning global warming have been and continue to be hotly debated. Of course, we aren't scientifically establishing anything by our conversations in Stormtrack, but it is still certainly within the limits of our shared interest to at least talk about why global warming may or may not lay a reasonable groundwork for the explanation of various events. Global warming is a fact. What causes it and the extent of its affects are both what result in the focus for the current debate.

[Mike Gauldin]

Not trying to start anything, as most of you probably have more knowledge than I about this (so I really shouldn't say anything, but meh)

I think people in general like to blame things on media hype. El Nino, Global Warming. There isn't enough research to say for sure what causes these drastic changes, as we don't have records back far enough to compare. While these could be at fault, they might also have little or nothing to do with how the weather is acting. I just don't think we have enough evidence to support either argument, while the 'facts' can be strewed to prove either point.

Weather is like politics. Multiple groups, all with their own 'facts' and arguments to prove their points, when really it's just a lot of wasted time. I just can't blame changes on what the media throws out there, or what either side has to prove. Simple fact is, 2005 broke hurricane RECORDS (that is only about 55 years of data). I'm sure down the road we will have a year that breaks 2005. What will it be then?

[APritchard]

Originally posted by Scott A. Kampas
Normal? What is normal but a mean of extremes?

Exactly. An "average high" is now what the temperature is 'supposed to be' .. but just an average of all the past high temperatures.. There is no "normal"

[Jay McCoy]

The only thing I can say about global warming is this. Ofcourse the earth is getting warmer. it has been getting warmer since the end of the ice age. That is why the ice age ended.

People scream about polar caps and glaciers melting. They have been melting for centuries. Much of North America was covered in ice during the ice age but it has now melted just like it is still melting. I dont buy that we have caused this global warming. It is a natural process. Should we have started freaking out when the glaciers in Yellowstone melted?

As for weather patterns being extreme. This is just another dip in a pattern we dont understand becuase our records dont go back that far. We have had hot winters and droughts before. 99, 80, etc.. So if next year is extremely cold and wet then is that a major shift in global patterns and warming or is it just another fluctuation in the pattern that gives us our "norms"?

[j_scheerer]

You're exactly right Jay, this winter reminds me of winter 1995.

[David Wolfson]

Everyone's saying about the same thing. The e-a system is bounded chaotic, but science has pretty well established that the system is being forced by greenhouse gas warming. Will this mean more variability? They dunno. But can the warm extreme phenomena expect to be favored by a thumb on the scale -- very likely.

The telling thing for me is that the measured effects seem to be tracking the high end of the modeled effects very well. Ft. Yukon may be cold at the moment but the odds are that when all is said and done the disproportionate warming of the arctic regions will persist and increase.

And because it's a bounded chaotic system it's hard to predict how the global forcing will manifest itself in local extremes, or even (God forbid!) under what circumstances some aspects could settle into very different stability ranges. Many scientists are saying that the earth is entering a warm era that hasn't manifested for hundreds of thousands of years. That's getting into a geologic time frame and gets my attention!

I'd hate for our descendents to experience a global hiccup such as large-scale arctic tundra and undersea methane release. The effects would likely be a blip on the geologic time scale and soon mitigated by countervailing effects. But human civilization as we've come to know it might not survive.

[Jay McCoy]

But thats the whole point David. these are geological cycles. Maybe things will change where we as humans have a difficult time surviving. Maybe we arent suppose to just like the dinasaurs didnt. I dont think it is manmade though. Greenhouse gasses are releases not only by man but naturally. The arctic has been warming and melting for centuries. There is far less ice now than there was 500 years ago and there is no way to dipsute that. there was less ice 500 years ago than 5000 years ago. Does that mean man caused that too? if so how? it was before machinery and gas emitions.

All of this is part of earths natural cycle. some parts of the wrold are warming while other parts are cooling. The world constantly changes which is what gives us weather in the 1st place. No way for us to control it.

[Aaron Kennedy]

So where is the CO2 coming from that's natural? All evidence points to CO2/ Methane etc coming from human intervention. There haven't been that many Volcanic eruptions!

Aaron

[Bill Hamilton]

Originally posted by Aaron Kennedy
So where is the CO2 coming from that's natural? All evidence points to CO2/ Methane etc coming from human intervention. There haven't been that many Volcanic eruptions!

Aaron

Here is one possible explaination.
The methane in gas hydrates is dominantly generated by bacterial degradation of organic matter in low oxygen environments. Organic matter in the uppermost few cm of sediments is first attacked by aerobic bacteria, generating CO2, which escapes from the sediments into the water column.......
http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/clathrate.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/1...1_9_96/bob1.htm (http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/11_9_96/bob1.htm)

[Jay McCoy]

I am not saying man hasnt contributed situation with C02 and with deforesting the CO2 will only get worse but I think the warming is also a natural process that has been going on for thousands of years since the end of the ice age.

And I dont think we can be certain exactly how much we have warmed in the past century. i dont think they could accurately measure tempurature to the .10 degree back in 1900

[Robert Dewey]

Where's Captain Planet? He's my hero... He's gonna take this polution down to zero! :lol:

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/107028.jpg

The power, is yours!

[David Wolfson]

I'm sure no expert in paleonology, but they can indeed draw inferences before there were satellites or thermometers. Among other things they look at various markers like the geographical distribution of pollen in sediments. For example, if a particular species is associated now with a temperature range, then it's reasonable to assume it was in the past. I'm quite sure there are several other independent yardsticks for estimating historical temperatures including gas content.

[Bill Tabor]

Originally posted by Chris Rozoff
I look forward to learning more about what led to this year's dangerously dry and warm conditions over the states.

Chris

Very interesting graph Chris. Thanks for sharing that. Some things I notice are that we are almost at the peak of the historic CO2 max cycle meaning we should start dropping "soon". However I note that this CO2 peak seems to hesitate more than past peaks a bit. Also note that our current temps are not as high as the ones in past CO2 peaks at the same level. In fact it appears the temperature is sitting in a standard range for maybe 10,000 years or so.

Also interesting article and facts posted by Mike in this thread on the subject:
http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9980

[David Wolfson]

Uh, Bill, the current atmospheric CO2 concentration is over 380 ppmv.... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2-Mauna-Loa.png and look at Chris' graph again....

[Jeff Snyder]

Yes, there is a NATURAL fluctuation in various gas levels, but the "big deal" is the rate at which these have increased in the past 100. As Chris said, few argue that natural process aren't playing in any role. However, the recent rise in both global temperature and various gas concentrations has been much, much higher in the past 100 years (much less the past 25) than before that time.

For those who are getting a 'broken image' for the second link in Chris's post, the image can be accessed at http://serc.carleton.edu/images/introgeo/t...th_Pole_CO2.gif (http://serc.carleton.edu/images/introgeo/teachingwdata/examples/South_Pole_CO2.gif)

[Bill Tabor]

Originally posted by David Wolfson
Uh, Bill, the current atmospheric CO2 concentration is over 380 ppmv.... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2-Mauna-Loa.png and look at Chris' graph again....

I see the CO2 graph far left top, 0 age as just over 280ppm. Am I reading the chart wrong?

Edit: Oh, maybe I wasn't seeing the second broken link. Is that what you mean?

Whew! Guess the end is coming soon.
:lol:

[John Farley]

Originally posted by Chris Rozoff


Anyway, back to the thread to be on topic, to blame global warming for this year's very unprecendented (in terms of written records in the US regular met data) weather is not scientific either. It could be related to climate change, but it also could be a very unique and stable configuration of the global wave pattern forced by natural variability. I look forward to learning more about what led to this year's dangerously dry and warm conditions over the states.

Chris

If it were just this year, Chris's argument would be very valid. But it is not just this year. Worldwide, most of the warmest years in our short worldwide record-keeping period have been in the past decade or so. Thus, it is not just this year. What is worrisome is that most of the warmest years have occurred recently. Now, if you add that to the data on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - rapidly increasing - along with what is known about the likely effects of CO2 - it is hard to argue that either 1) this just happens to be a warm year, within normal variation, or 2) there is a warming trend, but it is nothing but a normal fluctuation. By far the most likely explanation is a combination of 1) a pattern that favors a warm year in the U.S., 2) a natural cycle of warming, and 3) additional human-induced warming due to carbon dioxide. We humans play no role in 1 or 2, but we do play a role in 3. And the longer we debate - in the face of more and more convincing evidence that we do play a role - the worse things will get, because the debate is being used as an excuse for doing nothing.

I like to think about it this way: The costs of being wrong about saying there is not human-induced global warming are a lot greater than the costs of being wrong about saying there is. Add that to the preponderance of evidence in support of human-induced global warming, it seems to me that making an effort to address the human factors contributing to global warming is a real no-brainer. It is pretty obvious we are better off if we make efforts to address it than if we don't.

[Robert Edmonds]

I would just like to add a bit to the conversation. First off I do believe global warming mainly by human causes is occurring. By no means do I call my self an expert, but I have at least been in a few lectures about global warming. The process to determine their conclusion is quite convincing. They match computer simulations to what has been directly observed or deduced from other 'natural' records (tree rings, coral, I think someone tried cactus). The simulations generally agree with what is 'observed' in the past. From this, simulations have been run from what would have been the 'natural' CO2 levels and the human produced CO2 levels. It shows convincingly that the temps are higher than what should be occurring because the error in the model with the 'natural' CO2 levels compared to the real world observations are greater than to a degree ever than with any other century. The simulations with the CO2 levels as actually observed match the mean temperatures that exist today. The only question that you really have to ask to verify this process, are CO2 levels higher than what they should be? Eventually I believe quite easily you'll say yes.

Now we have all heard that we should recognize that global warming is occurring and take steps to curb are CO2 emission. I'll ask the harder question now, what are these steps that we can feasibly take and convince the world they should take them too? I think this is the harder question to ask because allot of solutions that have been provided are too costly and most have byproducts that are of a concern themselves.

[Bill Tabor]

I admit that graph of Chris's is pretty convincing. We've been between 180 and 280ppm CO2 for 400,000 years (assuming this is accurate data). Now we are at 370ppm! That seems pretty extreme. On the other hand I'm not qualified to determine if this is a reasonable conclusion without knowing if there might be other explanations. For instance - what happened the previous 400,000 years, or the past 2 million? Anyway it sounds like there may be something to this man made argument though.

So what was the average global temp during the CO2 ranges of 180ppm to 280ppm - is that the temp scale on the chart? How does that compare to todays temps. Just guessing from the extreme increase in CO2 seems like our temps should be MUCH higher. They are a bit higher but not extreme.

What global temp is required for the release of the oceans methane deposits? I'd say that's a line we don't want to cross.

[Robert Dewey]

Yeah, where's the higher resolution graph dating back millions of years? Perhaps there were also data spikes then as well?

Ah, either way... Earth will go on with or without us - we won't destroy her, she will destroy us first.

[j_scheerer]

Originally posted by rdewey
Ah, either way... Earth will go on with or without us - we won't destroy her, she will destroy us first.


Finally someone gets it. lol

[Mike Peregrine]

Just thought these were some cool facts concerning January 2006 (from MSNBC.com):

*Warmest on record in Oklahoma, South Dakota, Green Bay, Wis., Kansas City, Mo., Riverton, Wyo., and Eppley Airfield in Omaha, Neb. It barely missed tying the record for Iowa.

*Second-warmest in Maine and in Milwaukee, Wis.

*Third-warmest in Memphis, Tenn., and Detroit.

*Fourth-warmest in New York’s Central Park (tied with January 1913), in Greensboro, N.C., and Louisville, Ky.

*Eighth-warmest in Denver, and the warmest since 1986.

*10th warmest in Baltimore.

*Warmest since 1950 in Buffalo, N.Y., and Nashville, Tenn.

*12th-warmest in New Mexico.

*Minneapolis and St. Paul had the warmest January in 160 years. Ice sculptures at the St. Paul Winter Carnival melted and broke up nearly as quickly as they were carved, and several big ice-fishing contests in Minnesota were canceled or moved because of thin ice.

-----------------------------------

Sounds like the early spring party will be ending soon - so get out and enjoy it while you can - - It's a gorgeous, sunny 63 degrees for February 2nd in Kansas City. Lots of golfers out during the last month -

[Scott A. Kampas]

Stark warning over climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm)
Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said.
Scientific assessment: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/internat/dangerous-cc.htm)

Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html)

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.
[...]
The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1138510800&en=0a858f5230677507&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin)

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html)

[Mike Peregrine]

Front page of MSNBC today is running an article concerning the protection of polar bears by the Bush administration by moving them to the endangered species list ... this follows a report by the Center for Biological Diversity that the bears could become extinct by the end of the century due to polar ice melt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11233316/

the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, NASA and the University of Washington said last fall that there was a “stunning reduction in Arctic sea ice at the end of the northern summer.”

[fplowman]

And what graphs do we have from a million years ago to compare it to? Would we not need data spanning over at least say 100k years to say rather it is an upward trend due to the mehcanization and industrialization of society causing this.

Otherwise using reasonable deduction from my limited knowledge as that is what all of us have at some degree or another. We could say it is just the ebb and flow of the natural process flow.

[David Wolfson]

There is quite a bit of data and inference from a million years ago. But you're right -- it could be the result of a natural process having nothing to do with human intervention. That's the null hypothesis that is tested in every scientific study investigating the issue.

It would be great were it to be so. One less Big Thing for the world to worry about and spend money on. Unfortunately, the weight of scientific evidence accumulating from many independent studies indicates that the human factor is very probably real.

[Scott A. Kampas]

There is quite a bit of data and inference from a million years ago. But you're right -- it could be the result of a natural process having nothing to do with human intervention. That's the null hypothesis that is tested in every scientific study investigating the issue.

It would be great were it to be so. One less Big Thing for the world to worry about and spend money on. Unfortunately, the weight of scientific evidence accumulating from many independent studies indicates that the human factor is very probably real.
It varies on exactly what is the claim, or how large the effect, but the confidence level is 99% that there is anthropogenic influence on global warming. The numbers and studies are there, including various to a million years ago (a new ice core now under study was recently found to be 0.97 million years of age), read 'em.

Of course, active interference in science helps no one:

A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html)
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness (Feb. 4, 2006) Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his resume on file at the agency asserted.
[...]
Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/ .

[Robert Dewey]

Of course, active interference in science helps no one:

A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html)
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness (Feb. 4, 2006) Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his resume on file at the agency asserted.
[...]
Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/ .

I thought Big Bang IS a theory?

[David Wolfson]

Here are Deutsch's own comments: "... The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

The issue of labeling every reference to the Big Bang as a "theory" was secondary to his whacked-out (IMHO) confusion of theology with science, which he also engaged in with respect to "global warming".

Well, yuh. Nothing is certain in science. But theories are proposed answers to unexplained phenomena. At some point theories become principles and remain that way until and unless paradoxes and inconsistencies crop up. That's what happened with Newtonian physics. I guess the NASA webmaster should make sure all mentions of gravity refer to it as the "theory of gravitation". :roll:

[Justin Turcotte]

Unfortunately, the weight of scientific evidence accumulating from many independent studies indicates that the human factor is very probably real.

Humans are putting CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. To deny that there is a human impact is to deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The BIG question is how much of an effect does the human contribution make? Perhaps it is significant or perhaps it is a minute. Of course believers in choas theory know that a very small change in initial conditions can create large changes with time (one reason forecast models are not that great beyond a few days). Less known are the feedback machanisms that follow a change in atmopspheric composition. Unfortunately the whole question of global warming has taken on too much political baggage. It no doubt is a political issue but it seems the science behind the debate is tucked under the rug in order to garner more political favor. If only "Average Joe Voter" would educate himself beyond the editorial section of the New York Times or Washington Post.

[Scott A. Kampas]

I thought Big Bang IS a theory?
You're missing the point. They were trying to forcefully make scientists and publications say theory at every single mention of Big Bang, which gets cumbersome. It’s unnecessary and for political rather than scientific reasons. Then there was muzzling the climatologists as well as other things. This is just at NASA but the same has occurred across the board to scientists throughout the government.

And for what is theory, almost everything we talk and conceive as truth or fact is theory (sometimes even hypothetical), the next step is a physical law or proof and even those aren't completely infallible. Yet we know or understand quite a lot that isn't proven, it's just probabilities of potentialities as workable knowledge.

* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemo...gy-naturalized/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/)
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
** http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledg...supplement.html (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/supplement.html)
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rational...ism-empiricism/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/)

* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasonin...ing-defeasible/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/)
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein...in-philscience/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/)
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability

* http://www.missouri.edu/%7ekvanvigj/certain_doubts/

[Scott A. Kampas]

Methane burps disproved? Gassy emissions no longer in suspect dock for melting the last ice age. (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060206/full/060206-9.html)
Methane escaping from the sea floor to the atmosphere has been a popular suspect for causing rapid climate changes during and at the end of the last ice age. But new data derived from a Greenland ice core have delivered a killer blow to the idea.

Heat Wave of the Millennium (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/210/3)

As the planet gets warmer, various places are setting temperature records. A new analysis of climate history suggests that's not all. Higher temperatures are more widespread now than they have been in 1200 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
(not from above study)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

[Marc Austin]

It's great to see so many ideas out there about Global Warming and extreme weather trends. My personal opinion is that the Global Warming cycle is pretty much a regular fluctuation of the Earth's atmosphere. Scientific studies have shown this, though they are not fullproof, they show some evidence of a fairly regular pattern of Global Warming/Cooling. The true query to me with this controversial issue is, how much are we affecting this regular cycle? Are our emissions, pollutants, etc. having a drastic effect on this? If so, I do believe that we should try to seek more efficient ways to go about producing and fueling. I know I don't have any major sources of information to provide you that may back up my opinion, but to me it's reasonable.

[Robert Dewey]

Well, I guess we can always count on higher CAPE values to help bring us more wild weather and storms to chase :D :lol:

[Robert Edmonds]

Well, I guess we can always count on higher CAPE values to help bring us more wild weather and storms to chase Very Happy Laughing

Not necessarily true. As earth warms there can be cooling in certain regions and warming in others. When I went to this talk this model showed that while the mean temperature of the earth rose some local areas mean temperature went up like 5 degrees while another dropped 3 or four. So with CAPE perhaps we might see less or more depending on how the region is affected.

[Scott A. Kampas]

Glacial pace picks up (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060213/full/060213-11.html)
Greenland's glaciers, which have since the last ice age slipped into the ocean at a sedate, glacial speed, are beginning to pick up the pace.

Research shows that the ice is melting at an accelerating rate, lubricating the whole works and causing some glaciers to shoot out to sea at up to 14 kilometres a year.

The ice sheet is now losing 220 cubic kilometres per year from this calving and melting, say Eric Rignot, of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas in Lawrence, who report their findings in this week's Science1. That's twice as much as just a decade ago.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summ...ry/311/5763/963 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5763/963)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...ct/311/5763/986 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5763/986)


http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...full/2006/215/4 (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/215/4)
A rising level of carbon dioxide has made people sweat more by warming the globe, but it's also draining the world's supply of fresh water by making plants sweat less. That's the conclusion of a new study that uses computer simulations to figure out why so much fresh water is running into the salty sea.

Over the past century, more and more fresh river water has been spilling off the continents into the oceans. But mysteriously, no change in overall precipitation can account for this increased flow. The net loss of water is worrying because it increases the risk of drought. Scientists have suspected that human-induced climate change is to blame, but it has proved difficult to finger just where the water budget has sprung a leak.
[...]
Rising carbon dioxide levels alone appear to have caused the leak. A statistical analysis of the simulations revealed that increasing levels of the greenhouse gas are the main driver of river run-off, but not through global warming. Instead, CO2 is acting as a plant antiperspirant. Plants respond to increased levels of the gas by letting less water evaporate through their pores--known as stomata--and consequently taking up less water from the soil. This leaves extra water in the ground, which is eventually lost to river runoff rather than keeping the air moist--which would keep it circulating as fresh water.

[beaudodson]

Wow great read!

[j_scheerer]

It's great to see so many ideas out there about Global Warming and extreme weather trends. My personal opinion is that the Global Warming cycle is pretty much a regular fluctuation of the Earth's atmosphere. Scientific studies have shown this, though they are not fullproof, they show some evidence of a fairly regular pattern of Global Warming/Cooling. The true query to me with this controversial issue is, how much are we affecting this regular cycle? Are our emissions, pollutants, etc. having a drastic effect on this? If so, I do believe that we should try to seek more efficient ways to go about producing and fueling. I know I don't have any major sources of information to provide you that may back up my opinion, but to me it's reasonable.

I don't think what we're affecting things as much as we were say 20-30 years ago.

[Mike Peregrine]

Ran across an interesting stat concerning the recent alarm around ice melt in Greenland ... in 1996, 8.3 cubic miles of ice melt was estimated in Greenland. One cubic mile of ice contains enough fresh water to quench the total needs of Los Angeles for a full year. In 2005, it is estimated that triple the amount of water was dumped into the oceans by Greenland's ice melt than in 1996. That's an amazing amount of water ... enough to take care of all of L.A.'s water needs for the next 40 years!

[Scott A. Kampas]

Hot Times for the Cretaceous Oceans (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5764/1095a)
Science 24 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5764, p. 1095 DOI: 10.1126/science.311.5764.1095a
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI--Ancient evidence from the sea floor suggests that the ocean surface some 90 million years ago was hotter than the water in a hot tub--and that climate modelers are underestimating the link between carbon dioxide and warming--researchers reported at the AAAS annual meeting, held here from 16 to 20 February.

Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5764/1138?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Anthropogenic+and+Natural+Influences+in+t he+Evolution+of+Lower+Stratospheric+Cooling&searchid=1141012440003_15887&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=sci)
Science 24 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5764, pp. 1138 - 1141 DOI: 10.1126/science.1122587
V. Ramaswamy M. D., Schwarzkopf, W. J. Randel, B. D. Santer, B. J. Soden, G. L. Stenchikov
ABSTRACT

Observations reveal that the substantial cooling of the global lower stratosphere over 1979–2003 occurred in two pronounced steplike transitions. These arose in the aftermath of two major volcanic eruptions, with each cooling transition being followed by a period of relatively steady temperatures. Climate model simulations indicate that the space-time structure of the observed cooling is largely attributable to the combined effect of changes in both anthropogenic factors (ozone depletion and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases) and natural factors (solar irradiance variation and volcanic aerosols). The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling.

Introduction to climate change: Lecture notes for meteorologists (http://www.wmo.ch/web/etr/pdf_web/926E.pdf) (WMO No. 926)

Methane emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/full/nature04420.html)
Frank Keppler1, John T. G. Hamilton, Marc Bra, and Thomas Röckmann
Nature 439, 187-191 (12 January 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04420
ABSTRACT

Methane is an important greenhouse gas and its atmospheric concentration has almost tripled since pre-industrial times1, 2. It plays a central role in atmospheric oxidation chemistry and affects stratospheric ozone and water vapour levels. Most of the methane from natural sources in Earth's atmosphere is thought to originate from biological processes in anoxic environments2. Here we demonstrate using stable carbon isotopes that methane is readily formed in situ in terrestrial plants under oxic conditions by a hitherto unrecognized process. Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed during incubation experiments in the laboratory and in the field. If our measurements are typical for short-lived biomass and scaled on a global basis, we estimate a methane source strength of 62–236 Tg yr-1 for living plants and 1–7 Tg yr-1 for plant litter (1 Tg = 1012 g). We suggest that this newly identified source may have important implications for the global methane budget and may call for a reconsideration of the role of natural methane sources in past climate change.

[Mike Peregrine]

Quite an article on the front page of BBC news today! - definitely a must-read

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4761804.stm

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formerly said greenhouse gases were "probably" to blame.

Its next draft report will be sent to world governments next month.

The BBC has learnt the report will state that greenhouse gas emissions are the only explanation for changing patterns of weather across the globe.

It will say rising concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be the cause of simultaneous freak patterns in sea ice, glaciers, droughts, floods, ecosystems, ocean acidification and wildlife migrations.

[Scott A. Kampas]

Antarctica is shrinking
Gravity survey shows overall loss in ice. (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060227/full/060227-10.html)
First Greenland, and now Antarctica. Research shows that both of these massive ice sheets are getting smaller.

"In my mind, there is no doubt that Antarctica is losing mass," said Isabella Velicogna of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and lead author of a paper published in Science 1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1123785), the latest study in an avalanche of research on the topic.

Just two weeks ago, Science also published an article stating that Greenland is melting more quickly than it is growing (see 'Glacial pace picks up').

Previous work on both of these areas has shown that the edges of the ice sheets are melting while their centres are growing thanks to increased snowfall. It has been unclear until recently whether the sum of these two effects is a growing or shrinking mass of ice.

[Scott A. Kampas]

Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7081/abs/nature04514.html)
Eric A. Davidson and Ivan A. Janssens
ABSTRACT

Significantly more carbon is stored in the world's soils—including peatlands, wetlands and permafrost—than is present in the atmosphere. Disagreement exists, however, regarding the effects of climate change on global soil carbon stocks. If carbon stored belowground is transferred to the atmosphere by a warming-induced acceleration of its decomposition, a positive feedback to climate change would occur. Conversely, if increases of plant-derived carbon inputs to soils exceed increases in decomposition, the feedback would be negative. Despite much research, a consensus has not yet emerged on the temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition. Unravelling the feedback effect is particularly difficult, because the diverse soil organic compounds exhibit a wide range of kinetic properties, which determine the intrinsic temperature sensitivity of their decomposition. Moreover, several environmental constraints obscure the intrinsic temperature sensitivity of substrate decomposition, causing lower observed 'apparent' temperature sensitivity, and these constraints may, themselves, be sensitive to climate.
Nature 440, 165-173 (9 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04514

[Scott A. Kampas]

Warming seas cause stronger hurricanes (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060313/full/060313-12.html)
Warmer ocean waters are indeed a key factor in creating more devastating hurricanes, atmospheric scientists have found. The finding confirms what many have suspected: that rising temperatures are directly linked to the upswing in hurricane intensity seen in the past few decades.

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta examined data for a range of climate variables thought to contribute to the formation of hurricanes in categories 4 and 5, the upper end of the strength scale. Only sea surface temperature showed a strong correlation with the observed increase in the occurrence of these storms since 1970.

And with sea temperatures set to rise still further, that means the next few decades could bring even more hurricanes like Katrina, which hammered New Orleans in August 2005. "The inference is that if you keep warming things up, you're going to get more intense storms," says Judith Curry, a member of the research team.[/b]
Paper:
Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1123560v1)
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1123560

[Scott A. Kampas]

Inuit See Signs In Arctic Thaw (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101722.html)
PANGNIRTUNG, Canada -- Thirty miles from the Arctic Circle, hunter Noah Metuq feels the Arctic changing. Its frozen grip is loosening; the people and animals who depend on its icy reign are experiencing a historic reshaping of their world.

Fish and wildlife are following the retreating ice caps northward. Polar bears are losing the floes they need for hunting. Seals, unable to find stable ice, are hauling up on islands to give birth. Robins and barn owls and hornets, previously unknown so far north, are arriving in Arctic villages.

The global warming felt by wildlife and increasingly documented by scientists is hitting first and hardest here, in the Arctic where the Inuit people make their home. The hardy Inuit -- described by one of their leaders as "sentries for the rest of the world" -- say this winter was the worst in a series of warm winters, replete with alarms of the quickening transformation that many scientists expect will spread from the north to the rest of the globe.[/b]

[Scott A. Kampas]

Special Online Collection: Climate Change -- Breaking the Ice (http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/ice/)
In the 24 March 2006 Science: A special report on what's happening to the world's ice sheets. Recent research papers in Science and elsewhere are pointing to a major acceleration in the loss of mass from the world's great ice sheets. That means that the sensitivity of these giant storehouses of water to climate warming may be far greater than expected -- with potentially dire sea level implications during the next several centuries. Science examines the state of this research, and its sobering implications, in an Editorial, a special News Focus, Perspective articles, and cutting-edge research papers in this week's issue (http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/ice/#section_this-week) -- as well as several segments in our 24 March podcast (http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/ice/#section_podcast). We've also included links to selected review and research articles on the topic from previous issues (http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/ice/#section_in-previous-issues) of Science over the past several years.[/b]

Warnings rise over rising seas (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060320/full/060320-8.html)
23 March 2006; doi:10.1038/news060320-8
Fresh predictions about climate change prompt news@nature.com to ask what we know about the future of our oceans.[/b]

Comment on "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment" (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1713b)
Science 24 March 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5768, p. 1713; DOI: 10.1126/science.1121522
Analyses of tropical cyclone records from the western North Pacific reveal that the recent increase in occurrence of intense typhoons reported by Webster et al. (Reports, 16 Sep. 2005, p. 1844) is not a trend. Rather, it is likely a part of the large interdecadal variations in the number of intense typhoons related to similar temporal fluctuations in the atmospheric environment.[/b]
Response to Comment on "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment" (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;311/5768/1713c)
Science 24 March 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5768, p. 1713; DOI: 10.1126/science.1121564
Although Chan makes several valid points, his analysis confuses relationships associated with the long-term variations with those associated with shorter term variability (interannual and decadal). We present an analysis that clarifies the observations from the western North Pacific.[/b]

Observed and Modeled Greenland Ice Sheet Snow Accumulation, 1958–2003, and Links with Regional Climate Forcing (http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3615.1)
Journal of Climate: Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 344–358. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3615.1
ABSTRACT

Annual and monthly snow accumulation for the Greenland Ice Sheet was derived from ECMWF forecasts [mainly 40-yr ECMWR Re-Analysis (ERA-40)] and further meteorological modeling. Modeled accumulation was validated using 58 ice core accumulation datasets across the ice sheet and was found to be 95% of the observed accumulation on average, with a mean correlation of 0.53 between modeled and observed. Many of the ice core datasets are new and are presented here for the first time. Central and northern interior parts of the ice sheet were found to be 10%–30% too dry in ERA-40, in line with earlier ECMWF analysis, although too much (>50% locally) snow accumulation was modeled for interior southern parts of Greenland. Nevertheless, 47 of 58 sites show significant correlation in temporal variability of modeled with observed accumulation. The model also captures the absolute amount of snow accumulation at several sites, most notably Das1 and Das2 in southeast Greenland. Mean modeled accumulation over the ice sheet was 0.279 (standard deviation 0.034) m yr−1 for 1958–2003 with no significant trend for either the ice sheet or any of the core sites. Unusually high accumulation in southeast Greenland in 2002/03 leads the authors to study meteorological synoptic forcing patterns and comment on the prospect of enhanced climate variability leading to more such events as a result of global warming. There is good agreement between precipitation measured at coastal meteorological stations in southern Greenland and accumulation modeled for adjacent regions of the ice sheet. There is no significant persistent relation between the North Atlantic Oscillation index and whole or southern Greenland accumulation.[/b]

[Scott A. Kampas]

Significant Warming of the Antarctic Winter Troposphere (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5769/1914)
Science 31 March 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5769, pp. 1914 - 1917; DOI: 10.1126/science.1121652
We report an undocumented major warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere that is larger than any previously identified regional tropospheric warming on Earth. This result has come to light through an analysis of recently digitized and rigorously quality controlled Antarctic radiosonde observations. The data show that regional midtropospheric temperatures have increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.5° to 0.7°Celsius per decade over the past 30 years. Analysis of the time series of radiosonde temperatures indicates that the data are temporally homogeneous. The available data do not allow us to unambiguously assign a cause to the tropospheric warming at this stage.[/b]

Changes in Surface Water Supply Across Africa with Predicted Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5769/1917)
Science 31 March 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5769, pp. 1917 - 1921; DOI: 10.1126/science.1119929
Across Africa, perennial drainage density as a function of mean annual rainfall defines three regimes separated by threshold values of precipitation. This nonlinear response of drainage to rainfall will most seriously affect regions in the intermediate, unstable regime. A 10% decrease in precipitation in regions on the upper regime boundary (1000 millimeters per year) would reduce drainage by 17%, whereas in regions receiving 500 millimeters per year, such a drop would cut 50% of surface drainage. By using predicted precipitation changes, we calculate that a decrease in perennial drainage will significantly affect present surface water access across 25% of Africa by the end of this century.[/b]

RealClimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/) also has several new articles.

[Scott A. Kampas]

Balloon Data Confirms Antarctic Warming Trend (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0009B968-6067-142C-A06783414B7F0000)
Launching weather balloons has been a nearly daily habit at some Antarctic research facilities since 1957. Carrying radiosondes--instruments that measure atmospheric conditions such as temperature and wind speed--the balloons travel as high as 12 miles or more. A new analysis of the past 30 years of records from nine research stations, including Amundsen-Scott at the South Pole, reveals that the air above the entirety of Antarctica has warmed by as much as 0.70 degree Celsius per decade during the winter months.

John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey and his colleagues report in today's issue of Science that this warming trend is consistent across data from multiple stations run by multiple countries using multiple types of instruments. Previous studies had shown that Antarctica's surface temperatures had warmed by roughly 2.5 degrees C over the last half century, but this study provides the most complete look at atmospheric trends to date.[/b]

Sunshine on a Cloudy Day (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50778)
Clouds sometime increase, rather than reduce, levels of ultraviolet radiation[/b]

Climate Change on the Flip Side (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/403/1)
Global warming makes the headlines, but at least part of the world has been getting cooler over the last half-century, and migratory birds are noticing. Way down south, in eastern Antarctica, seabirds have begun arriving at their colonies and laying their eggs later on average than in the 1950s, potentially preventing new parents from finding enough food to keep their chicks alive and healthy.[/b]

Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5770/94)
Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 94 - 97; DOI: 10.1126/science.1123560
ABSTRACT
To better understand the change in global hurricane intensity since 1970, we examined the joint distribution of hurricane intensity with variables identified in the literature as contributing to the intensification of hurricanes. We used a methodology based on information theory, isolating the trend from the shorter-term natural modes of variability. The results show that the trend of increasing numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970–2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature; other aspects of the tropical environment, although they influence shorter-term variations in hurricane intensity, do not contribute substantially to the observed global trend.[/b]

Arctic water flow speeding up (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060403/full/060403-9.html)
Nature News; 6 April 2006; | doi:10.1038/news060403-9
One of Siberia's largest rivers is dumping about 10% more fresh water into the Arctic today than it was some 60 years ago, thanks to the complex effects of increased snowfall, melting permafrost and changing weather.

The result is in line with predictions of how climate change is expected to alter the Arctic water cycle, and is a worrying sign in terms of maintaining important ocean currents. The more fresh water that enters the northern seas, the less dense this water becomes and the less likely it is to sink. This sinking currently helps to drive a powerful Atlantic current that keeps the climate temperate and steady.

Freshening of the Arctic Ocean may already have begun to affect this so-called thermohaline circulation, but oceanographers and climate modellers are still puzzling about the magnitude and likely effects of the changes (see 'Climate change: A sea change (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060116/full/439256a.html)').[/b]