« Hawaiian officials are partly responsible for the ongoing "Birther" controversy | truthseeker77's Blog | Keith Olbermann "lying right in your liberal faces," says progressive media critic »
It's hot!
If you frequent right-wing blogs you may have noticed a pattern: Global Warming skeptics cite a city or a region in which temperatures have been cold in the past month or so. They then extrapolate this irrelevant event to conclude that the whole planet is cooling and therefore Al Gore is a liar and a fraud.
But since this is global warming we're talking about, let's look at the big picture:
Never in the history of recorded June temperatures had Earth's oceans been so hot as in June, 2009. This same month was the second warmest June recorded in the history of planet Earth (land and ocean combined), trailing only 2005.
I bet you didn't see that one in Drudge.
Source: National Climactic Data Center.
But since this is global warming we're talking about, let's look at the big picture:
Never in the history of recorded June temperatures had Earth's oceans been so hot as in June, 2009. This same month was the second warmest June recorded in the history of planet Earth (land and ocean combined), trailing only 2005.
I bet you didn't see that one in Drudge.
Source: National Climactic Data Center.
Advertisement
I'm not well-versed in climatology, but the engineer part of me frets when it thinks about the rate of polar icecap decrease. This is pure speculation, yet I've seen nothing in the way of good science addressing it.
Glaciers, mostly Polar, but others too; are primary heat-sinks, directly affecting equilibrium in Earth's Climate. One reason that some data on Global Climate Change has been inconsistent is that the ability of these heat-sinks to disperse excess heat within Earth's Climate, has been greatly underestimated. As the glaciers decrease, they become less effective at removing extra energy from the system; and if this trend continues, will at some future point break, and become impotent at affecting equilibrium significantly towards cooling. At that point, there will be a quick spike upwards, and the pace of Global Climate Change will increase unexpectedly.
As I said, I'm no climate scientist, and this is purely anecdotal, but anyone who has spent a fair amount of time soldering electronics parts together that are extremely heat-sensitive, knows what happens when heat-sinks break.
July 29, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this animated graphic to see the progressive shrinkage of glaciers in Glacier National Park.
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_model.htm
July 29, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The warming also speeds runoff from winter precipitation in mountains, more falls as rain, evaporation increases, and the snow-pack melts faster and all causing rivers to dry up in the middle of the summer growing season.
July 30, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The loss of heat sink capacity is not trivial, but a more important contribution to global warming of ice/snow melting is a reduction in planetary albedo (the fraction of sunlight reflected back into space). As the planet warms by virtue of the ability of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to trap infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, reflective snow or ice melts and is replaced by less reflective (more absorptive) bare ground or liquid water, thereby magnifying the warming effect (a so-called "positive feedback"). This amplification is greatest in Arctic polar regions, but influences global temperatures elsewhere as well through changes in wind and ocean currents.
July 30, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I really want to fret, I think about methane clathrates and tundra.
You should start going for the pure fret - the watered down stuff doesn't have the same kick.
July 30, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arctic Sea Ice Reached Record Low This Winter
Stunning Photos of Antarctica - thedailygreen.com
July 30, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Commercial shipping scheduled for this summer across the north pole.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/era-of-trans-arctic-shipping-nigh/
I remember a NOAA prediction, from the 90s, that warming would likely mean a wetter midwest. that is coming to pass, and we don't mind much, since it usually entails milder temps, since water evaporation and precipitation moderates the extremes.
But note the heat wave in Seattle, not mention continuing drought in the southwest.
July 30, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The June data are impressive. Single month anomalies are hard to interpret, but the very warm SST data for June are consistent with the overall global warming trend that we have consistently observed over decadal intervals, despite intermittent short term ups and downs.
To a small extent, the warming may reflect an incipient El Nino return in the Pacific, but more of it is likely attributable to the overall long term trend. It is also interesting in light of a countervailing natural phenomenon - a paucity of sunspots during the current solar minimum phase of a natural cycle of waxing and waning solar intensity (typical cycles are about 22 years in duration). The depth and length of this minimum phase suggests that the sun may be ameliorating the warming we are inflicting on the planet through our use of the atmosphere as a global garbage dump into which we have poured more than two trillion tons of CO2, but it does not appear anywhere near substantial enough to reverse what we are doing.
July 30, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, once the sunspots increase in number again, you are thinking that there's going to be a significant jump?
The hot oceans are really disconcerting to me. It takes a LOT of energy to heat water compared to land. Plus water doesn't like to cool down either. Warmer oceans in winter mean less harsh winters, which means......the feedback continues.
July 30, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When sunspots increase after a solar minimum, total solar irradiance (ie. the energy the Earth receives) also increases, although it is not the sunspots themselves but the surrounding increases in electromagnetic flux that drive the changes. There would not be a "jump" but rather a gradual increase in the warming effect of sunlight, typically with a lag period of something like 5 years. Quantitatively, these cyclic variations tend to be small relative to the long term effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
July 30, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another problem with hot oceans is they don't absorb gases as well, in this case CO2. They also might melt the methane clathrates in deep water, releasing unfortunate quantities of methane.
July 30, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Fred is making an important point here (or I'm reading one into what Fred's saying): be careful not to put too much emphasis on a single data point. (I'm not saying you are putting too much emphasis on it, but that we should be careful not to.) That this data point is part of a trend is significant, but this data point by itself proves nothing. It's possible that this November will be the coldest November on record, but that would not disprove global warming any more than having the second hottest June proves it.
Still, it's an interesting and sobering data point.
July 30, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand. Long trends are the most important factor to consider.
But June is part of a clear pattern. For a while now, we are told that X month si the 8th warmest, 2nd warmest, 12th warmest, etc. You never see "128th warmest October in history" or "104th warmest May." There are approximately 130 years measured so far.
Of course, wild swings occur in everything, so like you say an extremely cold month here and there will disprove nothing.
But I believe there is a constant trend, that every month is high up there ranking among the hottest ever. Meanwhile, Drudge, Beck, WSJ, etc. play games based on seaonal temperatures in the Ohio Valley, to name a hypothetical example.
July 30, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
When talking about the impact of global warming on humans, we usually stress melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise, inundating coastal cities.
A perhaps more immediate disaster looms: the disappearance of mountain ice that annually irrigates vast regions -- and sustains untold millions of people.
Think the High Atlas, Hindu Kush and Himalayas.
The timeline may seem long, but it's not. See the snows of Kilimanjaro for a scary preview.
July 30, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink