Weather!

[Beyond]

I read an article a while ago that said scientists that studied the artic warming, discovered that most of the ice melt occurs from below the ice. They weren't expecting that. Apparently some of the ocean currents are changing. Maybe it's one of those 10,000 or 100,000 year cycle thingies?

It is antarctic ice shelves that are observed to be melting from the bottom, not arctic ice. And while some long term cyclical phenomenon may be responsible, the most likely explanation involves a slight speed increase in the eastward wind loop that circles Antarctica, caused by atmospheric warming in the southern hemisphere. That is a component of the rapid anthropogenic warming the Earth is now experiencing.

Chris, i don't remember seeing any 'ant' in the artic article i read about. For some reason, i remembered about what you said about the Antarctic, but this article didn't mention any of that. It was for the top of the world, not the bottom. I suppose i should have posted it, but geeze, i gotta leave something for others to post. IF i happen to come across it again, I'll post it.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, i don't remember seeing any 'ant' in the artic article i read about. :no: For some reason, i remembered about what you said about the Antarctic, but this article didn't mention any of that. It was for the top of the world, not the bottom. I suppose i should have posted it, but geeze, i gotta leave something for others to post. :mrgreen: IF i happen to come across it again, I'll post it.

The thing is, the actual dynamics of ice melt in the arctic are quite a bit simpler in some respects, because the ice is thin, and much of it is annual- that is, there is an annual cycle between frozen and melted sea. That's very different from the antarctic ice shelves, which are hundreds of feet thick and thousands of years old.

No doubt, arctic ice melts away because of heat from both sides. I don't think there are any surprises there. But the big concern in terms of consequences of climate change comes from the antarctic melt, which contributes significantly to sea level rise (and is expected to contribute even more in the next few decades).

[Beyond]

Ah... found it. Here it is. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1894740.stm

[Ann]

What about the weather where you live, Chris? And what about the rest of you U.S. residents?

Ann

[Chris Peterson]

What about the weather where you live, Chris? And what about the rest of you U.S. residents?

Well, we're still in drought. It's not as bad as last year, since we had a couple of centimeters of rain in the spring, and a little moisture now and then since then. Emphasis on "little". Two days ago we were excited to get 0.05 inches (1.3 mm) and yesterday even more excited to get 0.06 inches. Yes, we're excited about what's happening in the hundredths column! Still, that's enough to at least keep the plants alive, and what little grass we have from dying off completely.

But it's been hot. Last week we had a couple of days that reached 28°C, which means I was useless. Couldn't go outside, just sat around and was miserable. Highs around this time of year ought to be more like 23°C- still uncomfortable, but not debilitating. But what's "normal" anymore?

We might be seeing the beginning of the southwest monsoons (which didn't even happen last year). Went out riding this morning, since that sometimes encourages Loki to throw some rain at us. Brought up some impressive clouds, as seen below, but no rain. But hark! I speak too soon. A downpour is hitting now- over a tenth of an inch! Whoopee!

The small amount of moisture has made for a much better flower season this year. Out riding, we saw daisies, asters, penstemon, loco, vetch, paintbrush, wallflower, geranium, and much more. Orange, yellow, white, blue, pink, purple. The flowers are a little stunted, but pretty abundant.

(The rain is slowing down, with the gauge reading 0.16 inches - 4mm - the most in a single shower in maybe two years.)

[owlice]

Chris, I've got standing water in my backyard. If I had a way to get it to you, I'd be happy to do so!

[geckzilla]

What I want to know is what Loki has to do with rain. Maybe this drought thing is just a big misunderstanding.

[rstevenson]

Chris, it's hard for those of us in wetter climes to imagine such dryness. Here in the greater Halifax area of Nova Scotia the average June rainfall occurs over about 11 days, and totals 3.3" or 84mm. This June we'd already exceeded that amount by the 13th. I don't know what the total for the month is but, since we just had 3 days of sometimes heavy rain to end the month including 6.6mm yesterday, I won't be surprised if it comes out to double the usual amount. And July is starting off wet too!

Rob

PS
Just checking some records. Two factoids jump out at me...
1. The largest amount of rainfall in Halifax over one day in June -- 65.8mm -- occurred June 10th 1972.
2. In comparing local daily record precipitation amounts for June, no rainfall records have been set since 1984 and no snowfall records since 1993, with most such records being set in the 1970s. Evidence that our local climate is getting warmer and drier? Or is it too short a time period to make such a claim?

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, it's hard for those of us in wetter climes to imagine such dryness.

One reason the dryness is so hard on us is that it isn't normal. Although this region borders on semi-arid, it has been much drier in recent years than at any time in the historical past. We should have several inches of moisture (in rain or snow) during spring and early summer.

Just checking some records. Two factoids jump out at me...
1. The largest amount of rainfall in Halifax over one day in June -- 65.8mm -- occurred June 10th 1972.
2. In comparing local daily record precipitation amounts for June, no rainfall records have been set since 1984 and no snowfall records since 1993, with most such records being set in the 1970s. Evidence that our local climate is getting warmer and drier? Or is it too short a time period to make such a claim?

Of course, it's hard to look at something like this and make broad claims about climate. But the fact is, when looked at globally, a great many places have seen radical shifts in the pattern of extreme weather as reflected in the frequency of record setting events. I certainly think that the pattern you are seeing locally can be taken as evidence of a climatic shift.

[Beyond]

It's over 90'F in the shade where i am now. I was just outside for a few minutes, when the sun poked out from the clouds. I could almost feel my aquaporins diffusing water at a much faster rate. Ahh... now I'm back in the air conditioning. The radar tells me a small thunder shower should be upon me shortly. Hope it drops the temperature down to 70' or so.

[rstevenson]

The past 3 days we've had temperatures over 30°C (about 86° Imperial) with Humidex readings close to 40. Our normal temps for this time of year are about 6° below that so it's pretty hot and muggy for us. But it's supposed to cool down to normal and get wet for the next couple of days. Not that I'm complaining. I complain about cold, but never about the heat.

Rob

[geckzilla]

I'd take Chris's 28 C or Rob's 30 C right now. It's 35 C here with a dew point at around 19 C. The heat index earlier today was 38. I've been outside working in 35 degree weather in So Cal before and that was hot but there's no getting me outside during this. The air feels heavy there's not a lot of trees to hide under. I'm scrawny and do a lot better in the heat than I do the cold but this kind of heat can be deadly.

[Chris Peterson]

I'd take Chris's 28 C or Rob's 30 C right now. It's 35 C here with a dew point at around 19 C. The heat index earlier today was 38. I've been outside working in 35 degree weather in So Cal before and that was hot but there's no getting me outside during this. The air feels heavy there's not a lot of trees to hide under. I'm scrawny and do a lot better in the heat than I do the cold but this kind of heat can be deadly.

We're sitting at 13°C right now, after a terrific thunderstorm. Just about the perfect temperature (and a relief from today's unpleasant high of 23°C). Had just over 10mm of rain today, 13mm the day before yesterday, 10mm the day before that. Things are actually wet now, the ground is damp, you can smell plants and soil, wildflowers are everywhere. Such a relief! Strange, though, as these almost daily storms are blowing from the north, and seem disconnected from the southern monsoon we ought to be seeing about now.

[Beyond]

Man... one of these days I'm going to have to get ... Oh, i do have C on my thermometer. I just never seemed to notice it before, just like not paying attention to the kph on my speedometer.
It was up to 37'C. Thundershowers missed me, but brought the temperature down anyway. It's now 24'C. Funny... if i don't think in F, it just doesn't seem to have any meaning. I guess I'm just stuck in the F rut. Heck, never had any use for C until i boarded the Asterisk*. Actually, i still don't have a use for C. I have to go look at the thermometer to translate it into a meaningful F.

[Chris Peterson]

Man... one of these days I'm going to have to get ... Oh, i do have C on my thermometer. I just never seemed to notice it before, just like not paying attention to the kph on my speedometer.
It was up to 37'C. Thundershowers missed me, but brought the temperature down anyway. It's now 24'C. Funny... if i don't think in F, it just doesn't seem to have any meaning. I guess I'm just stuck in the F rut. Heck, never had any use for C until i boarded the Asterisk*. Actually, i still don't have a use for C. I have to go look at the thermometer to translate it into a meaningful F.

Nothing wrong with using F. I'm comfortable with either, and just lean towards C since this is a somewhat international forum. When I'm talking to other people around here, I always use F.

Since this is a science forum, I'm willing to assume that everybody can at least deal with metric, even if they need to convert to really "feel" what a value is.

[geckzilla]

I could get used to the metric system easily. C in particular is easy because all the computer temp monitors use it and it's too easy to remember 0 is freezing and 100 is boiling. F certainly has its merits, though. Being able to say the temperature will reach triple digits has a certain impact in a weather report. Hearing the Europeans complain when their thermometers reach 40 degrees is amusing when you have associated that number with cold for so long.

What I tried and couldn't get used to was a 24 hour clock. I really tried, too. I set all my clocks to 24 hour time and just couldn't bear it after a few months.

[rstevenson]

I kid people about using the Imperial system, but actually I still use a mixture of both. Our thermostat was a cheap model back in 1990 when we bought it. It displays °F and can't be switched. But Canada is officially metric and has been for decades, so all the weather reporting is in °C. I'm used to walking out of a 68° house into a 20° yard, knowing I'll be comfortable in both with the same shirt on.

Also, likely because we're locked into a single market with the US, all of our everyday length measurements (except for km) are Imperial. We still buy 2x4s (which haven't actually been 2" by 4" since my Daddy was a pup) and sheets of 4x8 plywood (which really are 4' by 8'), and our houses all still built using Imperial measurements.

Rob

[Beyond]

Hurricanes Likely to Get Stronger and More Frequent.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/stud ... wide-16204

[Beyond]

With so many heat waves all over, this time lapse of a 2013 blizzard might seem a bit refreshing. It starts automatically, after the commercial.
http://www.wfsb.com/video?clipId=8345613&autostart=true

[Moonlady]

Clear blue sky over my town. It's pleasant at evenings but today afternoon I had trouble with breathing.
It's expected that it will get hotter, maybe it will storm next weekend.
Temperature: 33°C

[geckzilla]

It finally cooled off here. A lot of rain moved in with the cooler air.

[mjimih]

More dire news from Journal Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 9401a.html

Unlike the loss of sea ice, the vulnerability of polar bears and the rising human population, the economic impacts of a warming Arctic are being ignored.

July 24th
http://www.livescience.com/38406-arctic ... lions.html
Global Price Tag for Arctic Thawing: $60 Trillion


When brought to the surface, methane gas will escape from the hydrate and can be burnt off as seen in this picture. Credit: Department of Energy

....Permanently frozen ground, called permafrost, beneath the Arctic's East Siberian Sea could belch out 50 billion tons of methane at any time, researchers said in an analysis published today (July 24) in the journal Nature. More than a trillion tons of methane is thought to be trapped in the Arctic Ocean's icy marine sediments in the form of what are called methane hydrates, some of it in shallow water.
As the Arctic sea ice cover shrinks and the Arctic Ocean warms, the frozen sediments may thaw and release the stored methane, said study co-author Peter Wadhams, an oceanographer at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. Plumes of methane gas have already been rising each summer in the East Siberian Sea, Wadhams said.

"That's an economic time bomb that's not been realized at this stage," said lead study author Gail Whiteman of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Because methane traps atmospheric heat 25 times more efficiently than carbon dioxide, a sudden Arctic methane release would have a catastrophic effect on the global climate, the study authors said.

Adding 50 billion tons of methane to the atmosphere would hasten this century's predicted 3.6-degree Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) global temperature rise by 15 to 35 years, the researchers said. (Climate negotiators hope to limit planetary heating by that 2-degree C target, though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses a range that goes up to 4 degrees C (7.2 degrees F).)....

7 degrees F is a disaster. All weather everywhere will become "different", causing ecosystem-shift, animal stress, invasive species creep, etc etc. We need to act now.

[Beyond]

On a 'lighter' note, after about a week of reaching into the 90's F, it's now 52' F and raining lightly. 52' F in the latter part of July Well, i guess it's not unheard of around here, but it sure is uncommon That said, it's a welcome change from the humid 90's. I might even have to use a little bit of heat tonight.

[neufer]

On a 'lighter' note, after about a week of reaching into the 90's F, it's now 52' F and raining lightly. 52' F in the latter part of July Well, i guess it's not unheard of around here, but it sure is uncommon That said, it's a welcome change from the humid 90's.

I might even have to use a little bit of heat tonight.

• You could always hydrate.

[BMAONE23]

More dire news from Journal Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 9401a.html

Unlike the loss of sea ice, the vulnerability of polar bears and the rising human population, the economic impacts of a warming Arctic are being ignored.

July 24th
http://www.livescience.com/38406-arctic ... lions.html
Global Price Tag for Arctic Thawing: $60 Trillion


When brought to the surface, methane gas will escape from the hydrate and can be burnt off as seen in this picture. Credit: Department of Energy

....Permanently frozen ground, called permafrost, beneath the Arctic's East Siberian Sea could belch out 50 billion tons of methane at any time, researchers said in an analysis published today (July 24) in the journal Nature. More than a trillion tons of methane is thought to be trapped in the Arctic Ocean's icy marine sediments in the form of what are called methane hydrates, some of it in shallow water.
As the Arctic sea ice cover shrinks and the Arctic Ocean warms, the frozen sediments may thaw and release the stored methane, said study co-author Peter Wadhams, an oceanographer at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. Plumes of methane gas have already been rising each summer in the East Siberian Sea, Wadhams said.

"That's an economic time bomb that's not been realized at this stage," said lead study author Gail Whiteman of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Because methane traps atmospheric heat 25 times more efficiently than carbon dioxide, a sudden Arctic methane release would have a catastrophic effect on the global climate, the study authors said.

Adding 50 billion tons of methane to the atmosphere would hasten this century's predicted 3.6-degree Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) global temperature rise by 15 to 35 years, the researchers said. (Climate negotiators hope to limit planetary heating by that 2-degree C target, though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses a range that goes up to 4 degrees C (7.2 degrees F).)....

7 degrees F is a disaster. All weather everywhere will become "different", causing ecosystem-shift, animal stress, invasive species creep, etc etc. We need to act now.

Dr. Schmidt replied on Twitter in multiple tweets with an essay of bullet points. This marks the first time Dr. Schmidt publishes on WUWT, as well as the first essay here ever composed on Twitter.



I’ve collated his responses below.

Also the PETM (55 My) and Eocene small events. But no evidence under near-current temps. Outside of quaternary range of arctic temps, many fewer constraints…. Pliocene CH4 may well have been higher (but no direct evidence), multiple sources though…

Some more context on Arctic methane release story to follow:

Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing over 20thC. Human caused increase from 0.7ppm to 1.8ppm

Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and strat water vapour which have additional impacts

Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane about 0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add about 0.4 W/m2. For ref: CO2 forcing is about 1.8W/m2

Natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future – via wetland response to T/rain chng, atmos chem &, yes, arctic src

Monitoring and analysis of atmos conc of CH4 is very important. However, despite dramatic Arctic warming and summer sea ice loss ….. > …. In recent decades, little change has been seen in atmos concentrations at high latitudes.

There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation

There’s evidence in deep time records of large, rapid exogenous inputs of carbon into climate system; leading theory relates this to CH4

It is therefore not silly or alarmist to think about the possibilities, thresholds and impacts for these kinds of events

In more recent past, there have been a number if times when Arctic (not necessarily globe) has been significantly warmer than today.

Most recently, Early Holocene, which had significantly less summer sea ice than even 2012. Earlier, Eemian 125kyrs ago was sig warmer

At neither of these times is there any evidence for CH4 emissions or concentrations in excess of base pre-industrial conditions.

This means that we are not currently near a threshold for dramatic CH4 releases. (Though we may get there)

Much of the concern re dramatic changes in Arctic methane come from one off surveys and poorly calibrated remote sensing

But we should not take what-if sensitivity experiments as predictions.