Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Recent warmth 'most widespread' (BBC)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 06:46 PM
Original message
Recent warmth 'most widespread' (BBC)
Edited on Thu Feb-09-06 06:50 PM by eppur_se_muova
In the late 20th Century, the northern hemisphere experienced its most
widespread warmth for 1,200 years, according to the journal Science.

The findings support evidence pointing to unprecedented recent warming of the climate linked with human activities.
***
The UEA team showed that the present warm period is the most widespread temperature anomaly of any kind since the ninth century.

"The last 100 years is more striking than either {the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age}. It is a period of widespread warmth affecting nearly all the records that we analysed from the same time," co-author Timothy Osborn told the BBC.

more at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4698652.stm

on edit: recommended read -- The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 by Brian M. Fagan (Paperback - December 2001)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465022723/qid=1139528873/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/t/002-3183177-7350452?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sasha031 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. This should be the major story, climate change
I think we are in for a terrifying future...

I look forward to seeing Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murray hill farm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. And are the ocean water temps above normal..
for this time of year..which i think they must be, but can find no information on this. If so, the 2006 hurricane season will begin earlier and be more severe than even last year....anyone have any info on this?????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ocean temps are warmer. What that means seems to be the
subject of some debate among hurricane experts. I, for one, am fully expecting 2006 to be at least as bad as last year. I think people, including many experts, are going to be shocked.

They're the ones with all the data, the models and the expertise, but I think their models and their expertise are based quite a bit on "what has gone before." They are surpised, because the rules are changing, and their heuristics do not account for the new rules. Whatever they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murray hill farm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. well..yes!
one hears about normal cycles, etc..which may well be true, but a normal cycle with higher water temps..and we have now both happening will create a totally new situation...i believe this summer will be the hurricane season that will..that must be the one that causes us to set down that debate and realize that it is not just cycles that are the same as what has gone before...and to finially take all the data..including cycle plus higher temps into consideration...and to acknowlege the situation we will then be forced to acknowlege...because of what will certainly occur. I just accepted an offer to buy my home on isla mujeres...a vulnerable caribbean island..and the folks are eager to close asap...which is fine with me..ha! Hopefully, they are not DUers..and will read this post..hahahahahahaha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Ha. Good move :-) One other factor they identified last year...
in the Gulf was "warm vortexes." Which are regions where the warm water goes deep. Normally, a hurricane will churn up the top layer of water, and expose cooler water underneath. That acts as a negative-feedback on the storm's energy. In the case of Katrina and Rita, they ran over a region where the warm water ran deep. It churned up the surface, but there was nothing but more hot water underneath. The brakes were gone. It was over those regions where the storms achieved their super-fast intensifications.

I imagine some oceanographers out there are trying to study this with intense interest, but my personal guess is that while we all weren't looking, the oceans have been warming in the lower layers. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. And they're going to be 400 pound mutant chickens with roid rage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. More detail available at RealClimate.org
The subject of reconstructions of temperature variations of the past millennium has been discussed many times before on this site (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). Despite the apparent controversy, the basic conclusion--that the global and hemispheric-scale warmth of the past few decades appears anomalous in a very long-term context--has stood up remarkably well in many independent studies (see Figure 1).

This is not to say that all estimates agree in their details. Indeed, there is a fair scatter among the various published estimates. Some of these differences are believed to reflect differences in seasonality and spatial emphasis. Past summer, extratropical temperature changes appear, for example, to have have differed significantly from annual temperature changes over the entire (tropical and extratropical) Northern Hemisphere, and tropical Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures appear to have varied oppositely with temperatures in the extratropical regions of the globe. See for example the review paper by Jones and Mann (2004), in particular the discussion and references in section 5.3 therein. Some differences appear to be related to the particular method used to "calibrate" the proxy data against modern instrumental records. While the various methods can be tested with climate model simulations , it would arguably be more satisfying if inferences could be obtained in a manner which bypasses the difficult issue of calibration entirely, and also eliminates any need to establish the precise seasonality of information reflected by the various available proxy records.

This is what Osborn and Briffa have done in their article "The Spatial Extent of 20th Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years", which appears in the Feb 10 issue of the journal Science. The article uses a rigorous statistical methodology to re-examine the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in the context of the past 1200 years. This is done in a manner that does not require the explicit calibration of the proxy records. In essence, the authors have revisited a question posed earlier in a paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (2003: see our previous discussion here), investigating whether or not evidence from past proxy records of temperature support the existence of past intervals of warmth with the widespread global scale of 20th century warming. The Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper was heavily criticized in the scientific literature (e.g. Mann et al, 2003) for failing to distinguish between proxy evidence of temperature and drought or precipitation, and for not accounting for whether temperature anomalies in different regions were contemporaneous or not.

Osborn and Briffa, by contrast, have carefully taken these issues into account. They make use only of those proxy records which demonstrate a statistically significant relationship with modern instrumental temperature records, and which were dated accurately enough that records from different locations could be compared against each other in a chronologically consistent manner. They then standardize the records and look for evidence of simultaneous relative departures that point in the same direction (i.e. "warm" or "cold") using appropriate pre-set thresholds for defining a significant event (they try both one and two standard deviations). There is an important distinction between this careful statistical approach, and the selective cherry picking that is often used by contrarian commentators to misrepresent the available evidence. For example, it is possible to find evidence of significant warmth or significant coldness over literally any century-long interval in at least one of the 14 records used by Osborn and Briffa (see Figure 1 in the article). However, this alone tells us very little. What is of interest, instead, is whether centuries-long intervals can be found over which warm events or cold events tend to cluster.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=253
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC