CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[Tizer]

'Trump threat' to dominate UN climate negotiations LINK
From the news report:
Concerns over a Trump presidency are set to dominate the early days of global climate talks in Morocco. Some 20,000 participants will meet in Marrakech for two weeks, starting on Monday, to agree new rules to limit warming on the planet. These plans were boosted when the Paris Climate Agreement came into force last week. However Mr Trump, who calls climate change a "hoax" [Tizer's italics] , has vowed to cancel the deal if elected....
....Concern over the rise of Mr Trump helped galvanise the global push to bring the Paris agreement into force. Now that it is operational and binding on countries, taking the US out of the deal would not be easy. "The Paris agreement prohibits any exit for a period of three years, plus a year-long notice period, so there will be four stable years," said Segolene Royal, the French environment minister who played a role in negotiating the treaty. While Mr Trump would not be able to withdraw easily from Paris, his scepticism about climate science and his determination to revive the coal industry put him at odds with most international leaders. "Electing a climate science conspiracy theorist like Trump would make America a global laughing stock and embarrassment, all the while relinquishing our leadership role in the world," said Khalid Potts from US environmental group, the Sierra Club. "The ice caps don't negotiate, and neither do rising seas. Donald Trump's moral failure to acknowledge the climate crisis might very well mean planetary disaster if he is elected."

[Stanley]

Give Clinton her due, when she was campaigning in West Virginia she laid out the demise of the coal industry and the investment in new technology very clearly even though it was not popular.

[Tizer]

`WMO: Five hottest years on record have occurred since 2011' LINK
"New data released by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) shows that the five years from 2011 to 2015 were the warmest on record. The report, published at global climate talks in Morocco, strongly links human activities to rising temperatures. It says that some studies found the the burning of fossil fuels had increased the probability of extreme heat by 10 times or more. The authors say that 2016 will likely break the record for warmest year."

Although the majority of people now accept that climate change is happening there is still a reluctance to accept that it contributes to the extreme weather events we are experiencing. But the news article says: "The new report highlighted the human fingerprint in these emissions and the link to extreme weather events by looking at academic literature in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS). `Of 79 such studies published by BAMS between 2011 and 2014, more than half found that anthropogenic climate change contributed to the extreme event under consideration' says the new report".

"The review says that the most consistent influence of the use of fossil fuels on the climate has been on the probability of extreme heat. Some studies showed that the probability has increased by ten times or more. Among the heat events that the report highlights include the record high seasonal and annual temperatures in the US in 2012 and in Australia in 2013. Other significant events that the WMO believes are linked to warmer temperatures include the East African drought in 201-2011 which caused an estimated 258,000 excess deaths. They also point to heat waves in India and Pakistan in 2015 that claimed more than 4,100 lives. "The effects of climate change have been consistently visible on the global scale since the 1980s: rising global temperature, both over land and in the ocean; sea-level rise; and the widespread melting of ice," said the WMO's Petteri Taalas. "It has increased the risks of extreme events such as heatwaves, drought, record rainfall and damaging floods," he said."

[Stanley]

This can't possibly be true. Donald Trump says it is a con trick......

[Tizer]

Elsewhere, Bodger asked the question: "On tv when discussing air pollution they generally show cooling tower emission, what pollution is there in steam ?"

Showing steam from cooling towers has been criticised frequently. It's the news media people partly not understanding the greenhouse effect and partly seeking something visible for their pictures, regardless of whether or not it's really relevant. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere but it's lifetime in the atmosphere is measured in days, unlike CO2 which stays there for decades. So when a cooling tower pumps out water vapour it will be back in the soil as rain within days and therefore doesn't change the greenhouse effect. When CO2 is emitted it accumulates and boosts the greenhouse effect (it's removal is by geological processes and is much slower).

[Stanley]

As a corollary, the emissions from gas-fired plant, including your domestic CH, are invisible. Therefore the assumption is that it is 'clean'. Those gases would kill you if discharged inside the house.....

[Tizer]

Dramatic news about unexpected high temperatures and low ice cover in the Arctic.

`North Pole above freezing in sign of 'sudden' and 'very serious' climate change'
"Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, told The Independent that such warmth in the Arctic at this time of year was once virtually unheard of. “Temperatures of more than zero are really exceptional for this time of year. It’s remarkable in terms of the way the climate used to be, but over the past six years this is what’s developed,” he said. It was, he said, the result of a “sudden” change in the jet stream – high altitude winds that circle the globe and have a major effect on the weather. “When the sea ice retreated in the Arctic Ocean, in summer it led to much warmer air over the Arctic,” Professor Wadhams said. “That reduced the temperature difference between the Arctic and the tropics and that caused the jet stream to slow down and adopt these big lobes. “Each of these lobes brings warm air up to the Arctic and takes cold air down to other places. “It is a trend that’s giving us a [relatively] fast rise in sea level, which will become apparent in nasty effects on coastal zones pretty soon. “It is very serious. It is an increasing concern that this is happening rapidly on so many fronts.” LINK

What Wadham doesn't mention is the concern that such sudden climate changes at the North Pole could divert the Gulf Stream with serious consequences for the British Isles and the rest of north-west Europe. We could suddenly find ourselves with a permanent very cold local climate, while other parts of the world are scorched dry. It would mean our rivers, seashores and ports frozen solid in winter.

Further information on this change in the Arctic is provided here by other scientists:
`'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists: Danish and US researchers say warmer air and sea surface could lead to record lows of sea ice at north pole next year'
"The Arctic is experiencing extraordinarily hot sea surface and air temperatures, which are stopping ice forming and could lead to record lows of sea ice at the north pole next year, according to scientists. Danish and US researchers monitoring satellites and Arctic weather stations are surprised and alarmed by air temperatures peaking at what they say is an unheard-of 20C higher than normal for the time of year. In addition, sea temperatures averaging nearly 4C higher than usual in October and November. “It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia. This is unprecedented for November,” said research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers university. Temperatures have been only a few degrees above freezing when -25C should be expected, according to Francis. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary,” she said.

Francis said the near-record low sea ice extent this summer had led to a warmer than usual autumn. That in turn had reduced the temperature difference between the Arctic and mid-latitudes. “This helped make the jet stream wavier and allowed more heat and moisture to be driven into Arctic latitudes and perpetuate the warmth. It’s a vicious circle,” she added.

Sea ice, which forms and melts each year, has declined more than 30% in the past 25 years. This week it has been at the lowest extent ever recorded for late November. According to the US government’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre, (NSIDC), around 2m square kilometres less ice has formed since September than average. The level is far below the same period in 2012, when sea ice went on to record its lowest ever annual level. Francis said she was convinced that the cause of the high temperatures and ice loss was climate change. “It’s all expected. There is nothing but climate change that can cause these trends. This is all headed in the same direction and picking up speed.”

Rasmus Tonboe, a sea ice remote sensing expert at the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen, said: “Sea surface temperatures in the Kara and Barents seas are much warmer than usual. That makes it very difficult for sea ice to freeze. “When we have large areas of open water, it also raises air temperatures, and it has been up to 10/15C warmer. Six months ago the sea ice was breaking up unusually early. This made more open water and allowed the sunlight to be absorbed, which is why the Arctic is warmer this year,” he said. “What we are seeing is both surprising and alarming. This is faster than the models. It is alarming because it has consequences.”

Julienne Stroeve, the professor of polar observation at University College London said ice that should be growing at this time of year was retreating. “It’s been a crazy year. There is no ice at Svalbard yet. In the last few days there has been a decline in sea ice in the Bering sea. Very warm air has flooded into the Arctic from the south, pressing the ice northwards. “Air temperature drives the formation of the ice. It has been really delayed this year so the ice is also much thinner than it usually is. The speed at which this is happening surprises me. In the Arctic the trend has been clear for years, but the speed at which it is happening is faster than anyone thought,” said Strove. “Ice is very sensitive to weather. There is a huge high pressure over the Kara sea, and Eurasia and Canada. We are seeing very strong winds bringing warm air north.” The significance of the ice forming late is that this affects its growth the following year, with consequences for climate. “Extreme wind and high air temperatures [now],” she said, “could see ice extent drop next year below the record 2012 year”. She added: “The ice could be even thinner than it was at the start of 2012. This is definitely a strange year.”

Ed Blockley, the lead scientist of the UK Met Office’s polar climate group, said: “The sea ice is extremely low. It is freezing but very slowly. Last week the Barents sea reduced its ice cover. There was less ice at the end than the start. “These temperature anomalies are not unprecedented but this is certainly extraordinary. We are seeing a continual decline in ice. It it likely to be a hiccup but it puts us in bad starting position for next year.”
LINK

[Stanley]

Someone should tell Trump.....
And in addition, if there is this dramatic warming in the Arctic, what's happening to the permafrost in Northern Russia? As it melts it releases methane which reinforces the whole process..... Is this the start of the Tipping Point?

[Whyperion]

1) Is reversal possible ?
2) Over What Time Period
3) How best can one (all) cope with permanent changes (that in themselves maybe variable) for agriculture in particular
4) 1-3 ignores most wildlife problems.
5) I still blame the Russians for attempting to alter the solid vs liquid state around the North Pole (without evidence , but I am a bit of a conspiracy theroist)

[Whyperion]

On a more serious note, I am attempting to work out if proposed district heating scheme in and around London (Gas fired Electric Generators - Electric distributed via a 80 year agreement, probably with E-On for a 1600 unit dwelling scheme) Is more, or less , benificial to local residents health, and /or more or less efficient for CO2 savings.Presumably its neutral if 'Grid' Electric is also Gas generated, less efficient if Electric coming from renewables or biomass burning. The proponents dont seem to wish to supply any evidence for the schemes.

[Stanley]

See THIS for a BBC report on the floods of last winter. Interesting that even though more severe they didn't do as much damage as in 1947. In a BBC report this morning on R4 they interviewed victims in Cumbria and Carlisle and many of them report that they are still not back in their homes and there were complaints about some contractors cashing in and doing inferior work. What was it that Cameron said? "Expense is no object"?

[Tizer]

Whippy asks 1) Is reversal possible ? 2) Over What Time Period?
These questions are almost impossible to answer because they depend on so many factors, some under our control others not. A lot depends on how far we allow the present changes to progress. We have a chance now but at some later stage it would become a case of `possibly' but `not in out time'.

[Stanley]

I am a fatalist. We work on Human time, the Earth works on a different scale of Geological time. The two are not comparable. We are only passengers and how arrogant to assume that we are a permanent fixture. What is absolutely certain is that sooner or later the planet will be uninhabitable. All we can do if we are sensible is do nothing to hasten the inevitable and look for a get-out clause!

[Stanley]

THIS might be bad news for all of us. Trump has appointed an arch climate change denier and advocate of coal, Scott Pruitt, as his head of the Department of the Environment.

[Tizer]

Pruitt is the US Environmental Protection agency's greatest enemy, having attempted to sue it a number of times and failed so far. America is going to be in a strange position when Trump will probably be the only world leader who doesn't believe climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.

[Stanley]

He promised he would 'drain the swamp'. Now we see him enrolling the crocodiles.

[Tizer]

Crocodiles...that sounds like another description for the new US defence secretary, `Mad Dog'.

[Stanley]

The apologists are telling us he is a 'very complex man'. He is also very rich..... Like all of Trump's nominees.

[Tizer]

They mention several sources of the methane in this article but seem to have forgotten about the release due to melting permafrost which I would have thought was a likely candidate for the sudden surge.

`Methane surge needs 'urgent attention'' LINK
"Scientists say they are concerned at the rate at which methane in the atmosphere is now rising. After a period of relative stagnation in the 2000s, the concentration of the gas has surged. Methane (CH4) is a smaller component than carbon dioxide (CO2) but drives a more potent greenhouse effect. Researchers warn that efforts to tackle climate change will be undermined unless CH4 is also brought under tighter control. "CO2 is still the dominant target for mitigation, for good reason. But we run the risk if we lose sight of methane of offsetting the gains we might make in bringing down levels of carbon dioxide," said Robert Jackson from Stanford University, US."

[Tizer]

In addition to methane being released from frozen ground due to warming there is also the potential for CO2 to be released but there has been some dispute about the extent of this. Now there's strong evidence from a Yale University study that warming would release vast amounts of CO2 from naturally stored carbon in the soil of cold regions of Earth. Unfortunately the cold regions are where warming is occurring at the greatest rate.
`Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.S. emissions' Yale study

A couple of decades ago Al Gore took a senior US Navy admiral to the Arctic and showed him how fast the glaciers were retreating. The admiral was shocked by the scale of it and on his return he triggered the release of previously secret data collected by navy submarines from under the Arctic ice. This further confirmed the changes occurring and allowed climate research to make a big jump ahead. Someone needs to take Trump to the Arctic and show him, but perhaps in his case it would be best if they left him there!

[Stanley]

What a good idea......

[Tizer]

A coincidence...after me mentioning Al Gore and the secret Polaris Arctic data yesterday I found this in the news this morning...
`Spy satellites reveal Himalayan melt'
"Scientists have used Cold War spy satellites to reveal the dramatic environmental changes in the Himalayas. They compared pictures collected by a US reconnaissance programme with recent satellite data to measure the extent of glacial melt. They believe the now-declassified images could help to show how other remote regions have changed over time." LINK

[Stanley]

I think we all know what they will 'discover'!

[Tizer]

Our discussion about the availability or otherwise of data is in other folk's minds too, it seems. This report today on the possible effects of Trumps ascendancy makes interesting reading:
`Former Nasa chief scientist says access to federal data is critical' LINK
"Limiting access to federal research would do an "enormous disservice" to the US and the world according to former Nasa chief scientist. Dr Waleed Abdalati told the BBC the that continued access to data is in "everyone's best interest". Many US scientists are rushing to copy information onto servers outside the control of the federal government. They are afraid the Trump administration will curb access to climate and other research. The President-elect has blown hot and cold on the issue of climate change, having previously tweeted about global warming being a hoax. On Wednesday, one of his advisers compared scientists who support the mainstream view on global warming to flat-Earthers."...

"...researchers are taking a more pessimistic view on the question of data access and are encouraging colleagues and students to make copies. Prof Robert Paterson, from the University of Texas, Austin, says that he learned this the hard way under the administration of George W Bush, another president cool on climate. "Within a month of coming into office the EPA website went down for three weeks and when it went back up stuff wasn't available anymore," Prof Paterson told BBC News. "If history repeats itself with another administration that is basically a naysayer to climate change science, I would say it would be prudent for folks to do what they can to keep as much as they can on mirror sites."

"Attempts by the Trump transition team at the DoE to obtain a list of all those employees who had worked on climate change have provoked anger as well as fear. "I was horrified by the report with regard to Department of Energy scientists being named. We must stand up to that and I have said so. We are all DoE scientists in that regard," said Dr Kevin Trenberth who has been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "That is a pretty chilling action by an incoming administration - the rhetoric suggests that revenge is a valid response to people who disagree with you," said Prof Robert Paterson."

[Stanley]

"That is a pretty chilling action by an incoming administration - the rhetoric suggests that revenge is a valid response to people who disagree with you," said Prof Robert Paterson."
That's the key I think and it should be noted that as Trump's team grows and they get more active statements will come from them which are their interpretation of what Trump thinks. Many of the new men and women are inexperienced in administration and slightly to the right of Genghis Khan and simplistic concepts like revenge will be common. They will not necessarily reflect Trump who is a pragmatist and could possibly adjust his view. Much depends on how well he controls them. He is driving too many separate teams at the moment as the question of his business interests has not been resolved. I think the advice on mirror sites is excellent!