Interesting observation that black snow is 'thanks to human activity',
There are several potential explanations for what’s going on here. The most likely is that some combination of increasingly infrequent summer snowstorms, wind-blown dust, microbial activity, and forest fire soot led to this year’s exceptionally dark ice. A more ominous possibility is that what we’re seeing is the start of a cascading feedback loop tied to global warming.
This year, Greenland’s ice sheet was the darkest Box (or anyone else) has ever measured. Box gives the stunning stats: 'In 2014 the ice sheet is precisely 5.6 percent darker, producing an additional absorption of energy equivalent with roughly twice the US annual electricity consumption.' Perhaps coincidentally, 2014 will also be the year with the highest number of forest fires ever measured in Arctic.
Box’s findings are in line with recent research that shows the Arctic is in the midst of dramatic change.
A recent study has found that, as the Arctic warms, forests there are turning to flame at rates unprecedented in the last 10,000 years. This year, those fires produced volumes of smoke and soot that Box says drifted over to Greenland.
In total, more than 3.3 million hectares burned in Canada’s Northwest Territories alone this year—nearly 9 times the long term average—resulting in a charred area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined. That figure includes the massive Birch Creek Complex, which could end up being the biggest wildfire in modern Canadian history. In July, it spread a smoke plume all the way to Portugal. — http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
plant growth would sequester CO2 (at least temporarily) - wouldn't it? A massive plant die-off would release CO2, but not what you would expect during deglaciation.
It has warmed 0.15C over the last 18 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Just where are you getting your 'facts'? You may want to reconsider your sources.
"A new study shows that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago "
Yeah, sure it did... evidence?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's just physics. If atmospheric greenhouse gas increased (and it looks like it did) then it necessarily contributed to the end of the last ice age.
How do we know the CO2 spikes caused the warming? Perhaps the CO2 resulted from increased biological activity occuring as a result of the warming.
I would think increased biological activity would have sequestered CO2 rather than released it, but you could be right that the CO2 was a result of the warming. At the same time, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so (all else being equal) increased CO2 would result in higher temperatures. That's just physics. So possibly there is a feedback loop here.
Good point. In the article Dunning suggests that you would need to be competent to even recognize incompetence: "Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize -- scratch that, cannot recognize -- just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: for poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers -- and we are all poor performers at some things -- fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack."
but also that "common sense" provides undue confidence for the uninformed:
"An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that's filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by product of one of our greatest strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern recognizers and profligate theorizers. Often our theories are good enough to get us through the day, or at least to the age when we can procreate."
What model predicted warming below 2000 meters? Ten years ago we assumed the mixing depth to be 700 meters. Scientists who looked at the difference between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation and compared that with the measured warming concluded (because they believed in conservation of energy) that there must be additional warming in locations that we have been unable to measure. One possible location is the deep ocean below 700 meters. Only in the last decade we have been able to measure that in fact the deep ocean between 700 meters and 2000 meters is warming and accounts for a great deal of the missing energy. This study only confirms that there is not likely further warming to be found below 2000 meters.
New paper in PNAS: We see no evidence in the geological record from about 6000 years ago to 100-150 years that resembles the rise that we see in the last 100 years. Compared against this 'background' signal the recent rise of about 20 centimetres in 100 years recorded by tide gauges is anomalous, - http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Please! We want to know the real truth behind these plots! Do you think Osama collude with the owner of the building? Do you think there was a plant in the white house who is manipulating documents? This is all very fascinating and I look forward to learning the real truth that Wikipedia won't tell us!
It is the leaders of the contrarian community who are repeatedly publishing contact info of targeted climate scientists and encouraging the crazies to get in touch directly.
The same technique is used by Marc Morano to silence climate scientists:
Whether one agrees with that message or not, there’s no denying that its tone is drastically different from much of the email Hayhoe has been receiving after Limbaugh’s denunciation, Gingrich’s decision to kill her book chapter, and the repeated publication of her email address by an influential conservative blogger who ceaselessly campaigns against climate science and climate action, Mark Morano. - http://texasclimatenews.org/wp...
Morano has sicked his minions on her for the crime of publicly discussing her scientific findings. Here is an example of the vitriol she is now receiving:
Nazi Bitch Whore Climatebecile [] You stupid bitch, You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Reality TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania. AGW has never been anything but a Rockefeller depopulationary eugenical scam. [] After the Grand Jury indicts you, I would like to see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if they are going to take a man’s job, they have to take the heat for mass murder, just like the men do when they get caught. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead, when they see your baby crying next to the basket next to the guillotine.
Wikipedia thinks: "When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building's structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m."
But I'd love to hear the real truth about the 9/11 attacks and Obama's birth certificate. Please elucidate.
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!
vs Jane2:
I did not state that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. I merely stated that evidence indicates...
Who to believe?
I did not claim Obama faked his birth certificate. I DID state that the document posted on the internet by the Whitehouse as Obama's birth certificate has been digitally manipulated
Seems like a distinction without a difference. Not sure we should use you as a barometer on which way the term "denier" points.
We have had really good measurements to about 700m deep for decades. About a decade ago a discrepancy was noticed between the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of warming measured. Some scientists (who believed in conservation of energy) suggested that there may be warming that we have been unable to measure. One possible location was the deep ocean (below 700m). The Argo network was deployed. It was able to measure to depths of 2000m. It showed that the deep ocean below 700m was indeed warming and accounted for a great deal of the discrepancy.
This study shows that ice melt and the warming measured by the Argo network account for almost all of sea level rise. So warming below 2000m cannot be significant. Does that somehow show that the ocean between 700m and 2000m didn't warm? Of course not. In fact it relies on the deep ocean warming measurements to close the sea level rise budget. So rather than contradict previous research, this study actually confirms it. Maybe you didn't read this far down:
Recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.
If the "missing" energy were in the upper ocean we would have known about it long ago, because we've been keeping upper ocean temperature records for decades. .
As this study shows, the missing heat recently found in the deep ocean between 700m and 2000m is required to account for observed sea level rise. So not only does the increased warming in the deep ocean close the radiative imbalance budget, it also closes the sea level rise budget. So yes, the law of conservation of energy is not challenged by this new finding.
Actually the picture is pretty cohesive, but was presented rather poorly by bigwheel. Yesterday the deep oceans (between 700m and 2000m) were warming more than expected. Today we find that if you add the warming we have measured down to 2000m with the melting we have measured at the poles, you can account for almost 100% of sea level rise. We can then probably conclude that there is little or no warming below 2000m. It looks like Bigwheel may have been confused by the word 'deep', even though the distinction is made clear by the article that he posted: "Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."
You won't have been told that by the scientists. Perhaps you are visiting contrarian web sites? All that scientists have said is that the sun cannot account for our recent warming because it has been cooling over the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
This study actually confirms previous measurements for warming between 700m and 2000m. It finds that if you add the warming in the top 700m with the recently measured warming in the 'deep' ocean between 700m and 2000m - if you add that to ice melt you account for all of the measured sea level rise. The budget is balanced. This new study provides an even more cohesive picture!
Ten years ago if we looked at the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation and compared that with measured warming we found that we did not have enough warming to account for the radiative imbalance. Some scientists (who believed in conservation of energy) concluded that there must be additional warming that we have not measured. Two places we had poor measurements were the ocean below 700 meters and at the poles. Over the last decade we have been able to measure warming between 700 and 2000 meters as well as the poles and the heat budget is balanced.
This new paper confirms the warming in the 'deep' ocean between 700m and 2000m - otherwise we would not be able to account for the sea level rise that we observe.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting observation that black snow is 'thanks to human activity',
There are several potential explanations for what’s going on here. The most likely is that some combination of increasingly infrequent summer snowstorms, wind-blown dust, microbial activity, and forest fire soot led to this year’s exceptionally dark ice. A more ominous possibility is that what we’re seeing is the start of a cascading feedback loop tied to global warming.
This year, Greenland’s ice sheet was the darkest Box (or anyone else) has ever measured. Box gives the stunning stats: 'In 2014 the ice sheet is precisely 5.6 percent darker, producing an additional absorption of energy equivalent with roughly twice the US annual electricity consumption.' Perhaps coincidentally, 2014 will also be the year with the highest number of forest fires ever measured in Arctic.
Box’s findings are in line with recent research that shows the Arctic is in the midst of dramatic change.
A recent study has found that, as the Arctic warms, forests there are turning to flame at rates unprecedented in the last 10,000 years. This year, those fires produced volumes of smoke and soot that Box says drifted over to Greenland.
In total, more than 3.3 million hectares burned in Canada’s Northwest Territories alone this year—nearly 9 times the long term average—resulting in a charred area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined. That figure includes the massive Birch Creek Complex, which could end up being the biggest wildfire in modern Canadian history. In July, it spread a smoke plume all the way to Portugal. — http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
plant growth would sequester CO2 (at least temporarily) - wouldn't it? A massive plant die-off would release CO2, but not what you would expect during deglaciation.
Yup. RSS is the minority report. BP is to disregard the minority report in favour of the corroborating reports, not pick the report that best supports your position. Even the RSS team has concerns about their data set. Here are GISTEMP,CRU,UAH, and RSS compared. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
It has warmed 0.15C over the last 18 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Just where are you getting your 'facts'? You may want to reconsider your sources.
"A new study shows that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago "
Yeah, sure it did... evidence?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's just physics. If atmospheric greenhouse gas increased (and it looks like it did) then it necessarily contributed to the end of the last ice age.
How do we know the CO2 spikes caused the warming? Perhaps the CO2 resulted from increased biological activity occuring as a result of the warming.
I would think increased biological activity would have sequestered CO2 rather than released it, but you could be right that the CO2 was a result of the warming. At the same time, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so (all else being equal) increased CO2 would result in higher temperatures. That's just physics. So possibly there is a feedback loop here.
Good point. In the article Dunning suggests that you would need to be competent to even recognize incompetence: "Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize -- scratch that, cannot recognize -- just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: for poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers -- and we are all poor performers at some things -- fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack."
but also that "common sense" provides undue confidence for the uninformed:
"An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that's filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by product of one of our greatest strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern recognizers and profligate theorizers. Often our theories are good enough to get us through the day, or at least to the age when we can procreate."
Here is environmentalist George Monboit embracing the deployment of nuclear power: http://www.monbiot.com/2013/12...
Here is climate scientist James Hanson calling for the development and deployment of nuclear energy: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....
What model predicted warming below 2000 meters? Ten years ago we assumed the mixing depth to be 700 meters. Scientists who looked at the difference between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation and compared that with the measured warming concluded (because they believed in conservation of energy) that there must be additional warming in locations that we have been unable to measure. One possible location is the deep ocean below 700 meters. Only in the last decade we have been able to measure that in fact the deep ocean between 700 meters and 2000 meters is warming and accounts for a great deal of the missing energy. This study only confirms that there is not likely further warming to be found below 2000 meters.
Also by MIT BTW!
Scheme? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
With Scratch, you can program your own interactive stories, games, and animations — and share your creations with others in the online community.
Scratch helps young people learn to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively — essential skills for life in the 21st century.
Scratch is a project of the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is provided free of charge.
If you have kids, you should introduce them to scratch!
New paper in PNAS: We see no evidence in the geological record from about 6000 years ago to 100-150 years that resembles the rise that we see in the last 100 years. Compared against this 'background' signal the recent rise of about 20 centimetres in 100 years recorded by tide gauges is anomalous, - http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Please! We want to know the real truth behind these plots! Do you think Osama collude with the owner of the building? Do you think there was a plant in the white house who is manipulating documents? This is all very fascinating and I look forward to learning the real truth that Wikipedia won't tell us!
It is the leaders of the contrarian community who are repeatedly publishing contact info of targeted climate scientists and encouraging the crazies to get in touch directly.
The same technique is used by Marc Morano to silence climate scientists:
Whether one agrees with that message or not, there’s no denying that its tone is drastically different from much of the email Hayhoe has been receiving after Limbaugh’s denunciation, Gingrich’s decision to kill her book chapter, and the repeated publication of her email address by an influential conservative blogger who ceaselessly campaigns against climate science and climate action, Mark Morano. - http://texasclimatenews.org/wp...
Morano has sicked his minions on her for the crime of publicly discussing her scientific findings. Here is an example of the vitriol she is now receiving: Nazi Bitch Whore Climatebecile [] You stupid bitch, You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Reality TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania. AGW has never been anything but a Rockefeller depopulationary eugenical scam. [] After the Grand Jury indicts you, I would like to see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if they are going to take a man’s job, they have to take the heat for mass murder, just like the men do when they get caught. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead, when they see your baby crying next to the basket next to the guillotine.
Wikipedia not the authoritative answer to everything in the Universe
Of course not. Only you know the real truth.
so who was behind the 911 attacks and who faked Obama's birth certificate? Obviously if you are right these are very important questions!
Wikipedia thinks: "When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building's structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m."
But I'd love to hear the real truth about the 9/11 attacks and Obama's birth certificate. Please elucidate.
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!
vs Jane2:
I did not state that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. I merely stated that evidence indicates ...
Who to believe?
I did not claim Obama faked his birth certificate. I DID state that the document posted on the internet by the Whitehouse as Obama's birth certificate has been digitally manipulated
Seems like a distinction without a difference. Not sure we should use you as a barometer on which way the term "denier" points.
We have had really good measurements to about 700m deep for decades. About a decade ago a discrepancy was noticed between the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of warming measured. Some scientists (who believed in conservation of energy) suggested that there may be warming that we have been unable to measure. One possible location was the deep ocean (below 700m). The Argo network was deployed. It was able to measure to depths of 2000m. It showed that the deep ocean below 700m was indeed warming and accounted for a great deal of the discrepancy.
This study shows that ice melt and the warming measured by the Argo network account for almost all of sea level rise. So warming below 2000m cannot be significant. Does that somehow show that the ocean between 700m and 2000m didn't warm? Of course not. In fact it relies on the deep ocean warming measurements to close the sea level rise budget. So rather than contradict previous research, this study actually confirms it. Maybe you didn't read this far down:
Recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.
If the "missing" energy were in the upper ocean we would have known about it long ago, because we've been keeping upper ocean temperature records for decades. .
As this study shows, the missing heat recently found in the deep ocean between 700m and 2000m is required to account for observed sea level rise. So not only does the increased warming in the deep ocean close the radiative imbalance budget, it also closes the sea level rise budget. So yes, the law of conservation of energy is not challenged by this new finding.
Actually the picture is pretty cohesive, but was presented rather poorly by bigwheel. Yesterday the deep oceans (between 700m and 2000m) were warming more than expected. Today we find that if you add the warming we have measured down to 2000m with the melting we have measured at the poles, you can account for almost 100% of sea level rise. We can then probably conclude that there is little or no warming below 2000m. It looks like Bigwheel may have been confused by the word 'deep', even though the distinction is made clear by the article that he posted: "Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."
You won't have been told that by the scientists. Perhaps you are visiting contrarian web sites? All that scientists have said is that the sun cannot account for our recent warming because it has been cooling over the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
This study actually confirms previous measurements for warming between 700m and 2000m. It finds that if you add the warming in the top 700m with the recently measured warming in the 'deep' ocean between 700m and 2000m - if you add that to ice melt you account for all of the measured sea level rise. The budget is balanced. This new study provides an even more cohesive picture!
Ten years ago if we looked at the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation and compared that with measured warming we found that we did not have enough warming to account for the radiative imbalance. Some scientists (who believed in conservation of energy) concluded that there must be additional warming that we have not measured. Two places we had poor measurements were the ocean below 700 meters and at the poles. Over the last decade we have been able to measure warming between 700 and 2000 meters as well as the poles and the heat budget is balanced.
This new paper confirms the warming in the 'deep' ocean between 700m and 2000m - otherwise we would not be able to account for the sea level rise that we observe.