PDA

View Full Version : Michel Jarraud: Global warming proof undeniable


Kassy
05-10-2009, 12:52 PM
The observed increase in global surface temperatures is unequivocal and a clear manifestation of global warming.

That conclusion comes in particular from 150 years of data collected by the 188 members of the World Meteorological Organisation through observing networks of tens of thousands of stations on land, at sea, in the air and from constellations of weather and climate satellites.

Several types of evidence support this conclusion, and the warming has further accelerated since the middle of the 1970s, particularly in the past 20 years. In fact, since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 0.74C. The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.

Evidence of global warming has also been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers.

Scientists with the International Polar Year report that during the summers of 2007 and 2008, the minimum extent of year-round Arctic sea ice decreased to its lowest level since satellite records began 30 years ago. The increased melted land ice and snow, coupled with sea waters expanding due to warmer temperatures, have caused sea levels to rise about 200mm higher than in 1870.

The global combined sea-surface and land-surface air temperature for 2008 was 0.31C above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.0C. The global average temperature in 2008 was slightly lower than that for the previous years of the 21st century, partially due to a La Nina event (manifesting itself through a cooling of the waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific) that developed in the second half of 2007.

The slight dip from 2007 to 2008 is not a departure from the long-term global warming trend. It is, rather, an illustration of shorter-term variability in the climate.

Variations have occurred throughout the temperature record - spikes and dips that overlay the longer upward warming trend.

Shorter-term variations in temperatures do not dampen the overwhelming long-term increase in global surface temperatures observed since 1850, when reliable meteorological records began. The trend remains one of warming.

The Earth's surface temperature has increased by three-quarters of a degree since the middle of the 19th century. This increase, however, is not distributed evenly.

On a yearly basis, we may observe in some parts of the world colder or warmer episodes than in other parts, leading to record cold and hot temperatures. This regional climate variability again does not disprove the long-term climate change.

Weather conditions are the result of extremely complex interactions between land, ocean and atmosphere, and much time is needed before any short-term or small-scale climate variation can be put into the context of longer-term climate change.

Just as one cold snap does not change the global warming trend, one heatwave does not reinforce it.

Still, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-sponsored by the meteorological organisation, has confirmed that based on observations and increasingly sophisticated and realistic numerical models, regional variability has increased and will continue to increase as global surface temperatures rise.

This will likely result in more weather and climate extremes, such as droughts, floods, storms and heatwaves. Responding to this rising challenge requires the collaborative efforts of all countries and of scientists in multiple disciplines to develop adaptation strategies to reduce risk of disaster. This response will be discussed at World Climate Conference-3 in Geneva, Switzerland, from August 31 to September 4.

Using short-term climate variability to argue about global warming and its effects is scientifically inaccurate and a misinterpretation of the data and scientific knowledge.

* Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva, responds to a recent article by Chris de Freitas questioning global warming.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10571517

Some perspective for the 'it's cooling crowd' in general. :beer:

Ross
05-10-2009, 04:34 PM
Chris de Freitas: We need to be listening to science
4:00AM Friday May 01, 2009
Chris de Freitas

Climate Change


We are often told we must cut carbon dioxide emissions drastically and without delay. The first urgent call
came over 15 years ago at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

But despite innumerable international meetings since then, each one producing promises and agreements,
emissions from almost every country in the world have continued to rise.

Given the potentially serious risks posed by human-caused global warming, it is a curious fact that almost
everyone promises to make drastic cuts in emissions that no one will live up to. There are signs that this is set to continue.

A growing number of people believe that stopping global warming has become their lowest priority, according
to a Pew Research Centre survey in the United States earlier this year. The same conclusion can be drawn
from a recent opinion poll by the AA in New Zealand of 1300 of its members.

One reason for this trend could be the difficulty many have in reconciling apparently conflicting evidence put
before them. For instance, according to the United Nation's World Meteorological Organisation, the official
climate record shows there has been no global warming for the past decade, despite steadily rising carbon
dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.


Some climate scientists claim this is a sign of a changed temperature trend, others argue it is snapshot in a
highly variable climate system. Those in the former group point to new evidence that an extended period of
cooling has begun.

The Sun was more active during much of the 20th century than it was for the previous 1000 years. Now, however,
the trend appears to have reversed.

Solar activity is exceptionally low and there is no sign that this may change in the near future.

According to Dean Pesnell of Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center: "Researchers are now seeing the dimmest
Sun in their records.

"The change is small, just a fraction of a per cent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural
if the Sun continues to dim."

Predictions of future climate are usually based on global climate models. Up until now, these models have failed
to consider variable energy from the Sun. The significance of this cannot be overstated as the Sun is the only
source of energy to power Earth's climate, so all global climate change is directly or indirectly linked to it.

There is little doubt that average annual global temperature has been generally trending upwards in line with the
expectations of many climate scientists. The cause, however, is debatable since the trend started before modern
industrialisation began pumping millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere.

From 1940 to 1980 during the post World War II industrial boom when carbon dioxide increased rapidly, there
were 40 years of global cooling.

On the other hand, there was a distinct global warm period in mediaeval times when carbon dioxide levels were
much lower than they are now.

Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is currently higher than at any time in the past 600,000 years,
yet global temperatures were much higher during all the major warm interglacial periods that occurred during
this time, despite much lower levels of carbon dioxide.

From all this it is clear that warming and carbon dioxide are not well correlated.

The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is almost saturated, so that the effect of carbon
dioxide on global temperature is already close to its maximum. Adding more has an ever decreasing effect.

To illustrate the process, compare painting over a glass window with thin paint. The first coat of paint reduces
some light shining through; the second coat cuts out a little more. Beyond this additional coats have an ever
decreasing effect.

In the light of the latest evidence, a new question is being asked: What is the basis for the claim that carbon
dioxide is a major driver of global climate?

If it turns out that there is no basis, or that the evidence for it is weak, a new and perhaps more important
question arises: Are carbon dioxide emissions unwelcome?

It's a well-known fact that carbon dioxide is food for plants, and that at current concentrations they are carbon
dioxide-starved. Increased carbon dioxide has a pronounced fertiliser effect on plant growth. Plants convert the
carbon dioxide into food and fuel. It keeps our forests and pastures healthy.

No one knows for sure what the future holds, but there are some good clues as to what's going on. It hinges
on growing evidence that natural influences on climate are in fact stronger than any man-made greenhouse effect.

It may be premature to discard our anxiety over the threat of possible human-caused global warming, but this
anxiety should not be based on ignorance of what science can tell us.

* Chris de Freitas is a climate scientist at the University of Auckland.

dyrt
05-10-2009, 06:01 PM
From wikipedia:

The Earth's atmosphere (or air) is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

Torange
05-11-2009, 03:14 PM
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/snowreports/overview/default.aspx

snip

Summary

Tignes in France is now closed for the winter ski season and preparations on being made for the summer ski season which commences on 20 June.

The Presena glacier ski area in Italy reports the deepest snow base of our featured European summer skiing destinations, with six metres of snow on the glacier slopes. The other open European summer skiing destinations we report on all have excellent bases for this time of year, with Stubai recording the shallowest base at 320cm.

The conditions in North America are also excellent thanks to the recent snowfalls at Whistler in Canada and Timberline in America, and further snowfalls are expected this week.

Snow has already fallen in the southern hemisphere. This enabled Mount Buller in Australia to open on the first weekend of May which is the earliest they have ever opened. The snow has since melted, decreasing the base depth and the resort is now temporarily closed for snowsports.

All of the other resorts that we report on in Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Chile are yet to open for the 2009 winter season.

snip

Torange
05-11-2009, 03:31 PM
From the first post:
Default Michel Jarraud: Global warming proof undeniable
The observed increase in global surface temperatures is unequivocal and a clear manifestation of global warming.

That conclusion comes in particular from 150 years of data collected by the 188 members of the World Meteorological Organisation through observing networks of tens of thousands of stations on land, at sea, in the air and from constellations of weather and climate satellites.

How in the world can this be believed when most of the rural stations are closed and the new stations are mounted next to huge black wal-mart parking lots. (exaggeration)


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/10/a-report-on-the-surfacestations-project-with-70-of-the-ushcn-surveyed/#more-7758

snip

I know many of you have wondered when I would post an update about the www.surfacestations.org project. That wait is over.

You can now download the PDF of the publication reporting on what the project has found with 70% of the network surveyed, See the link at the end of the article.

I’ve been exceptionally busy in the past few months. Since November 08, I’ve made 4 trips in the US to get more stations surveyed in areas that were lacking, and these trips have been funded entirely by donations from individuals.

Evan Jones and I have been actively working on logging new aerial surveys. Plus there has been a lot of review and quality control taking place to make sure that surveys and ratings are correct. Google imagery has now improved in many places, and it is now fairly easy to spot some stations from the air. To make certain that we’ve actually got the right station location, telephone calls are made to the curator and descriptions and measurements compared to the aerial photos. I also have 4 digital cameras that have been sent to station curators for them to “self survey” with and mail the cameras back.With additional aerial surveys done plus a few new hands-on surveys that have now come in, we are now at about 79% of the USHCN network surveyed. The sample is large and representative, with good spatial distribution and broad coverage.

The figures below from my Spring 2009 report represent coverage @ 70% of the network surveyed.

snip

Note: Other countries are getting ready for global cooling. They get it!

Ross
05-11-2009, 04:29 PM
www.surfacestations.org

Thanks for that link Torange , absolutely hilarious .

In a rush at this moment but I cannot wait to sit down and read more .

:ll:

Fiddlerdave
05-18-2009, 03:15 AM
Note: Other countries are getting ready for global cooling. They get it! Wow! Torange has really straightened ME out! I guess the farmers, the plants, the animals, the crops ALL have been reading the falsely warm temp figures, and thinking they were living in warmer hardiness zones, with later freezes and earlier thaws! Fooled into thinking and growing as if it were warmer summers and warmer nights! Instead, all the plants and critters and insects were reading faked NASA numbers and just THINKING the environment had changed because of evil environmentalists out to do their evilly things because They Hate Our Way of Life!

And soon, when the plants and trees and critters and farmers all realize they were really frozen a month earlier in the fall, and couldn't sprout so early in the spring, the climate will crash just like the stock market and we will all freeze as the glaciers, held back by the Global Warming thoughts of the Liberal-Controlled Climate fanatics, spill out and wipe away our cities because we didn't burn another few cubic miles of oil annually!

I get it! :re: I am saved. Hallejuhah! Gimme one of dem Hummers and a Mcmansion with open windows winter and summer!

http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-04-23-gardening-map_N.htm

By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
Every gardener is familiar with the multicolor U.S. map of climate zones on the back of seed packets. It's the Department of Agriculture's indicator of whether a flower, bush or tree will survive the winters in a given region.
It's also 18 years old. A growing number of meteorologists and horticulturists say that because of the warming climate, the 1990 map doesn't reflect a trend that home gardeners have noticed for more than a decade: a gradual shift northward of growing zones for many plants.

The map doesn't show, for example, that the Southern magnolia, once limited largely to growing zones ranging from Florida to Virginia, now can thrive as far north as Pennsylvania. Or that kiwis, long hardy only as far north as Oklahoma, now might give fruit in St. Louis.

Such shifts have put the USDA's map at the center of a new chapter in the debate over how government should respond to climate changes that were described in a report last year by a United Nations-backed panel of scientists. The panel said there was "unequivocal" evidence of global warming fueled by carbon dioxide emissions, which have created an excess of the greenhouse gases that warm the Earth.

Climate change is reshaping how people garden. Across the agricultural industry, the issue is driving a dispute over climate maps that involves economics, politics and meteorological standards.

Here is a very good review about the irrelevance of these surface stations. The poorly informed (or duplicitous) analyst will not tll you the majority of these stations are not part of the data, only a selection of carefully-montored and compliant stations are used. And secondly, Global Warming is NOT determined from surface measurements in this way, scientific Global Warming is Global Warming analysis, involving the entire planet, atmosphere, land and ocean alike, and much is determined by things like measurement of heat leaving the the planet, direct measurement of surface and air temps some spc (covering literally every square inch of the square miles surveyed).

For those who have not had time to study, this "Surface Station" analysis project is simply a ploy to try to discredit AGW by attacking an simplistic and trivial data collection points.

Here is a fairly manageable discussion of the major points of this Surface Station pointlessness, have a look, I will post two of the more notable reasons - the same junk the Denialists state over and over with the tedious return of this discredited effort. Lots of peer-reviewed links, charts, references and studies are there for validation of the claims of RealClimate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=454
Mistaken Assumption No. 5: Finding problems with individual station data somehow affects climate model projections.

The idea apparently persists that climate models are somehow built on the surface temperature records, and that any adjustment to those records will change the model projections for the future. This probably stems from a misunderstanding of the notion of a physical model as opposed to statistical model. A statistical model of temperature might for instance calculate a match between known forcings and the station data and then attempt to make a forecast based on the change in projected forcings. In such a case, the projection would be affected by any adjustment to the training data. However, the climate models used in the IPCC forecasts are not statistical, but are physical in nature. They are self-consistent descriptions of the whole system whose inputs are only the boundary conditions and the changes in external forces (such as the solar constant, the orbit, or greenhouse gases). They do not assimilate the surface data, nor are they initiallised from it. Instead, the model results for, say, the mean climate, or the change in recent decades or the seasonal cycle or response to El Ni˝o events, are compared to the equivalent analyses in the gridded observations. Mismatches can help identify problems in the models, and are used to track improvements to the model physics. However, it is generally not possible to 'tune' the models to fit very specific bits of the surface data and the evidence for that is the remaining (significant) offsets in average surface temperatures in the observations and the models. There is also no attempt to tweak the models in order to get better matches to regional trends in temperature.

Mistaken Assumption No. 6: If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away

This is really two mistaken assumptions in one. That there is so little redundancy that throwing out a few dodgy met. stations will seriously affect the mean, and that evidence for global warming is exclusively tied to the land station data. Neither of those things are true. It has been estimated that the mean anomaly in the Northern hemisphere at the monthly scale only has around 60 degrees of freedom - that is, 60 well-place stations would be sufficient to give a reasonable estimate of the large scale month to month changes. Currently, although they are not necessarily ideally placed, there are thousands of stations - many times more than would be theoretically necessary. The second error is obvious from the fact that the recent warming is seen in the oceans, the atmosphere, in Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, earlier springs, reduced snow cover etc., so even if all met stations were contaminated (which they aren't), global warming would still be "unequivocal". Since many of the participants in the latest effort appear to really want this assumption to be true, pointing out that it doesn't really follow might be a disincentive, but hopefully they won't let that detail damp their enthusiasmů

What then is the benefit then of this effort? As stated above, more information is always useful, but knowing what to do about potentially problematic sitings is tricky. One would really like to know when a problem first arose for instance - something that isn't clear from a photograph from today. If the station is moved now, there will be another potential artifact in the record. An argument could certainly be made that continuity of a series is more important for long term monitoring. A more convincing comparison though will be of the existing network with the (since 2001) Climate Reference Network from NCDC. However, that probably isn't as much fun as driving around the country taking snapshots.

dyrt
05-18-2009, 08:36 PM
scientific Global Warming is Global Warming analysis, involving the entire planet, atmosphere, land and ocean alike, and much is determined by things like measurement of heat leaving the the planet, direct measurement of surface and air temps some spc (covering literally every square inch of the square miles surveyed). Translation: computer models kept and nurtured by the high priests.

Fiddlerdave
05-18-2009, 10:27 PM
Translation: computer models kept and nurtured by the high priests.Sorry, you are wrong. The computer models are for prediction and trend analysis. The information I referred to is in public databases for anyone to see.

There are other "models" we all can understand. Spring comes earlier, winter leaves sooner, plants and animals move northward and higher in elevation, and die out in their old habitats. These apparent conclusions of the world climate processes are unequivocal, no computers required.

Torange
05-19-2009, 03:33 PM
http://snowboardclub.co.uk/news-8163.html

snip


* New Zealand ski season brought forward by two weeks following more early snowfalls.
* Fresh snow at still-open US ski areas.
* Last weekend to ski in Spain this season approaches, Europe’s most southerly ski area still open!
* Fresh snow on Norway’s glaciers – three now open for summer snow sports.
* All ski areas in France now closed until summer skiing starts next month.


But for those northern hemisphere ski areas still open, there has been Fresh snow. In Europe, Chamonix in France, which was the last in the country to close, along side Tignes, last weekend, did so in style with a further 25cm (ten inches) of fresh snow. The country’s ski areas now begin a five week break which will end with Les 2 Alpes opening for summer skiing on June 13th, with Tignes following a week later and Val d’Isere a week later still on the 27th.

Norway’s three summer ski areas are all open and Folgefonn has seen some of the best new snow of the past week with 20cm (eight inches) more falling. The Galdh°piggen and Stryn glaciers are also now open. Riksgransen in Sweden's Arctic circle is another Scandinavian choice, with 24 hour daylight and midnight skiing due to begin any day now.

In Switzerland there are three ski areas currently operational. Engelberg has another 11 days of the season to go with the Titlis glacier currently reporting a 425cm (14 feet) base and temperatures still hovering around zero by midday. The Diavolezza glacier ski area near St Moritz in the Engadin region will stay open later in the month. Two lifts are open serving three runs.

Austria currently has the most ski areas open of any country in Europe, with five to choose from – equalled only by the US. The Molltal glacier currently has the deepest snow base in the country with 410cm (nearly 14 feet) but it is in the middle of a 10 day close down for maintenance – re-opening on the 20th from when it will remain opening right through to 16 May 2010! The Dachstein glacier also has an 11+ month season but is closed this month.

So the Tux glacier, with a 395cm (13 foot) base and the biggest ski area currently open anywhere, with more than 64km (40 miles) of runs still available, has the biggest and deepest ski slopes at present. It doesn’t really close at all, all year, weather permitting. Other options currently open are the Kaunertal and Kitzsteinhorn (above Kaprun) glaciers.

The Pitztal glacier is also open, through to 24th May with its remarkable new Israeli-built plus-temperatures (if needed) snowmaking system. Currently it has a 315cm (10 foot, 6 inch) base at the top so perhaps it’s not needed.

The Stubai glacier near Innsbruck is another good choice with 12 lifts and 12 runs still operating and a snow base 5cm (two inches) deeper than Pitztal’s! It is open for another month through to mid-June.

In Italy only the Presana Glacier above Passo Tonale is currently open with three red and black runs to choose from. It will be joined in a few weeks by two more summer ski choices of Val Senales and Passo Stelvio but in the meantime claims some of the deepest snow depths in Europe with around six metres (20 feet) accumulated.

Elsewhere in Europe ski areas in the Pyrenees have finally ended operations after their spectacular 2008-9 season, but Europe’s most southerly major ski area, Sierra Nevada in Spain, is open for a final weekend, with 80-300 cm (3-10 feet) of snow still lying near the Mediterranean coast to enjoy (with perhaps a swim in that warm sea in the afternoon).

There has also been fresh snow on the hills of Western Scotland, although no ski-areas have re-opened.

snip

Fiddlerdave
05-19-2009, 10:18 PM
Interesting post about more snow. Sadly, since I would guess (due to the author) it is posted as a suggestion that "global cooling" is in effect, it betrays a very poor understanding of what GW is all about.

Additional snow precipitation (happening in parts of Antartica as well) is a very likely part of the major changes GW weather patterns will accelerate in mountain areas, since mountains are one of the major interfaces and cause of continental weather patterns. For instance, the western slope of the Rockies in places like Utah get enormous amounts of snow because the water laden air from the coast rises and precipitates.

As temps get warmer to the west, MORE snow will fall in the mountains, although the plains East of the Rockies may see much less precipitation because the lower to higher elevation temp differentials are greater, draining more moisture out of the air from the west over the mountains. Floods WEST of the Rockies, permanent drought EAST of the Rockies. More snow in the mountains, but average warmer temps, still cold enough to make it snow - maybe 20 degrees F average instead of 15 degrees F average - means the snow melts faster and produces bigger spring floods and dry, oops, I mean even drier riverbeds in July and August and September for megacities to go to war over.

If we are going to post little stories as some kind of "proof", here's a little local stuff from Aspen. Rain in January in Aspen (over 8,000 feet elevation)? That place is COLD!

http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/ASPENWEEKLY/109300009
Like that record dump in 2003, other signs of global warming are appearing. It has rained in January in Aspen and Vail during the last several years. Who remembers the last time it got to 30 below? On the other hand, do you recall this past March? A record season was washed out by melting snow.

None of these things can be linked unquestionably to global warming, and some scientists warn against making too much of short-term and local weather phenomena. Still, these recent weather events suggest what computer models have predicted will become more common in our climate during coming decades.

Problems are greatest for ski areas at lower elevations. The problem is most apparent for ski areas at 4,000 feet in the Alps, but even the Arrowhead portal to Vail Resorts' Beaver Creek ski area, with a base elevation of 7,400 feet, would become less functional.

Add all this up and skiing - already highly dependent upon uncertain weather - becomes a more risky business proposition.

Lars
05-26-2009, 12:52 PM
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

Torange
05-26-2009, 10:03 PM
The little ice age had much more rain than normal. Fields became unusable because of erosion. There was mass starvation. During one of the temperature dips, a queen of France lost her head. When governments doesn't address food issues, there are consequences.

My family supported the wrong side during the French Revolution and now I live in the United States. I am a U.S. citizen for one reason and one reason only, global cooling. The Europeans are beginning to get some sense. Soon it may be time to go to the ancestral home for a few generations.