Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

206
Mathematical researcher Douglas J. Keenan, a former Morgan Stanley employee and current independent mathematical researcher, who has authored numerous peer-reviewed studies, accused the UN of "fabrications" and "discovered that the sources used by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) have disregarded the positions of weather stations." Keenan accused the UN of "intentionally using outdated data on China from 1991 and ignoring revised data on the country from 1997." (LINK) "One of the big problems in global warming studies, and in science generally, is that research data is often not available to outsiders. Instead, researchers tend to hoard the data for themselves and their friends (who are reluctant to be critical)," Keenan on April 4, 2007. (LINK) Keenan wrote in a March 28, 2007 blog, "The problems with the peer review process have implications for our understanding of global warming (as well as for science generally). Once something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal-particularly a prestigious journal-it tends to be considered as established, possibly even heralded as ‘truth'. This means that other researchers will often rely on its conclusions, with little, if any, further checking. The extent to which this happens varies among different branches of science. It seems to be especially so in the study of global warming." Keenan continued, "The primary body tasked with advising government policy makers about global warming is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Policy makers generally regard the IPCC as authoritative. The IPCC bases its analyses on peer-reviewed research, but it does no checking of that research itself. Yet most peer-reviewed research is not properly checked prior to its publication. In other words, most of the research that is relied upon by the IPCC, and thus government policy makers, has never been properly checked. That probably seems incredible; it is unfortunately true."

Article abstract

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nature Geoscience 1, 620 - 624 (2008)
Published online: 31 August 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo285


Subject Categories: Climate science | Cryospheric science | Palaeoclimate and palaeoceanography

Rapid early Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide ice sheet
Anders E. Carlson1, Allegra N. LeGrande2, Delia W. Oppo3, Rosemarie E. Came4, Gavin A. Schmidt2, Faron S. Anslow5, Joseph M. Licciardi6 & Elizabeth A. Obbink1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract
The demise of the Laurentide ice sheet during the early Holocene epoch is the most recent and best constrained disappearance of a large ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, and thus allows an assessment of rates of ice-sheet decay as well as attendant contributions to sea level rise. Here, we use terrestrial and marine records of the deglaciation to identify two periods of rapid melting during the final demise of the Laurentide ice sheet, when melting ice contributed about 1.3 and 0.7 cm of sea level rise per year, respectively. Our simulations with a fully coupled ocean"atmosphere model suggest that increased ablation due to enhanced early Holocene boreal summer insolation was the predominant cause of Laurentide ice-sheet retreat. Although the surface radiative forcing in boreal summer during the early Holocene is twice as large as the greenhouse-gas forcing expected by the year 2100, the associated increase in summer surface air temperatures is very similar. We conclude that our geologic evidence for a rapid retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet may therefore describe a prehistoric precedent for mass balance changes of the Greenland ice sheet over the coming century.

The vast Greenland ice sheet could begin to melt more rapidly than expected towards the end of the century, accelerating the rise in sea levels as a result of global warming, scientists warned yesterday.

Water running off the ice sheet could triple the current rate of sea level rise to around 9mm a year, leading to a global rise of almost 1 metre per century, the researchers found.

Sea levels are already on the rise as a result of increasing temperatures, because the oceans expand as they warm up, but until now scientists have had a poor understanding of how quickly ice sheets such as those in Greenland and Antarctica will begin to disappear.

There are signs that the Greenland ice sheet, which covers 1.7 square kilometres of land, has already begun to melt faster than expected. The reason is thought to be surface water on the ice sheet trickling down through fissures to the underlying bedrock, making the ice sheet less stable, and the loss of buttressing ice shelves along the coastline.

Climate scientists are uncertain how susceptible ice sheets are to global warming, largely because they have never witnessed one disappear, so researchers led by Anders Carlson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison decided to look back to the end of the last ice age for clues.

Around 20,000 years ago, when the last ice age was at its peak, a giant mass of frozen water called the Laurentide ice sheet covered much of what is now North America. The ice sheet, which was three miles thick in some places, had almost completely melted 6,500 years ago as the world warmed as part of its natural cycle. At the time, surface air temperatures were similar to those that climate scientists predict for 2100.

The researchers used evidence in the geological record and computer simulations to reconstruct the demise of the Laurentide ice sheet, which was the last ice sheet to completely disappear in the northern hemisphere.

They dated boulders and fossilised organisms left on fresh ground as the ice sheet retreated, and found that it went through two periods of rapid melting. Computer simulations revealed that around 9,000 years ago, water melting off the ice sheet caused sea levels to rise by about 7 metres at a rate of around 1.3cm a year. The second stage of rapid melting began 7,500 years ago, when sea levels rose by 5 metres at a rate of around 0.7cm a year.
[...]

03.09.2008

THE WEATHER IN 100 YEARS
Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on Germany

By Axel Bojanowski

More heat waves, far less snow: Using a new more precise climate model, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology has calculated the impact of global warming on weather patterns in Germany stretching up to the year 2100.

For "Remo," Germany is nothing more than an array of boxes, each of them 10 by 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) in area and 100 meters (328 feet) tall. But these are no ordinary boxes. Brimming with data, they are designed to forecast changes to Germany's climate between now and the year 2100. This makes "Remo," a climate model developed by the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), more than 20 times more precise, from a spatial standpoint, than the global models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A more precise calculation of the consequences of climate change does not exist anywhere in the world. It is intended to serve as a basis for political planning, as well as to enable disaster relief agencies, farmers, vintners, power plant operators and the tourism industry to adjust to the new environment in a timely way.

To complete the calculations, commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency, the MPI-M researchers assumed only a gradual decline in worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and factories. At the intersections of the grid made up of virtual cubes, the MPI-M's mainframe computer has calculated various weather variables, such as temperature, humidity and wind speed.

To calculate such values for every 30-second period over the next 92 years, the computer had to perform hundreds of quadrillions of calculations. Processes occurring in the air, in the oceans and on earth were expressed in mathematical formulas. In addition, about two dozen influencing variables on the ground were incorporated into the calculations, including vegetation, the composition of the top layer of soil and the water coating leaves.

According to the model's results, a warming climate will change Germany, but not as dramatically as has been widely feared. The scientists calculated the following risks for Germany:
Declining groundwater levels in the summer, especially in southwestern Germany
- An elevated risk of forest fires, especially in southwestern and northeastern Germany
- An increase in heat-related illnesses, especially in southern Germany
- A risk to the cooling systems of nuclear power plants in the summer, also especially in southern Germany
- A greater risk of flooding in the rainy fall, especially along the Elbe River

However, the Hamburg researchers emphasize that climate change also brings opportunities for Germany, such as:

- Higher agricultural yields, especially in northern Germany
- A more productive grape harvest in southern Germany
- Fewer cold-related illnesses
- A tourism boom in Germany, especially along the coast
- According to the calculations, palm trees will not be lining the Baltic seacoast in the future, the North Sea will not flood Cologne's cathedral and the Alps will keep their snow cover, although it will shrink. "We will not get a Mediterranean climate," says Holger Göttel of MPI-M. According to Göttel, Germany will continue to lie within the west-wind zone and, as has been the case for a very long time, rain-filled low-pressure zones will travel across the country. The calculations predict that by the end of the century, average annual rainfall will be about the same as it is today, and neither dry periods nor occurrences of torrential rain will become more frequent.
... ... ...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

207
Chief Meteorologist Craig James, of a Michigan NBC TV affiliate, questions the computer model predictions of climate doom. James, who was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society for outstanding contribution to the atmospheric sciences, wrote in a February 14, 2007 blog post, "It seems to make sense, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the temperature should increase. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. If CO2 was the only thing that changed and there were no other what are called ‘forcings' and ‘feedbacks', then maybe it would be simple." "It seems to me there is plenty of room for skepticism about the scenarios painted by the models based on purely scientific grounds. Anyone who takes the time and effort to study the issue would not make the incredible statement that skeptics are on a par with ‘Holocaust Deniers' as Ellen Goodman did in a Boston Globe article a couple of weeks ago," James wrote. According to James, computer models do not include volcanoes, which cool the atmosphere, and "the models do not properly account for the role clouds may play in a warmer world. We don't clearly understand whether they produce a positive or negative feedback (additional warming or cooling)." (LINK) James probed the heart of the argument for man-made global warming when he asked in a June 4, 2007 blog, "Is it good science to never once mention the problems with the General Circulation Models (GCMs)?" "The rationale seems to be that the models produce the kind of warming we see only when you include an increasing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The warming cannot be reproduced by natural processes alone in the models. That's because the models do not handle those natural processes correctly. They either don't include or are woefully inadequate in their handling of major climate forcings such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, El Nino, La Nina, water vapor, cloud feedbacks, etc. This is one case where getting the answer you are looking for in the models occurs for the wrong reason. There may have to be a snowstorm in Miami before it is no longer politically incorrect to say such a thing in public. Actually, the snowstorm would probably be blamed on global warming too," he explained. (LINK) James also wrote a blog post detailing how the IPCC downplays cold weather is a bigger killer than hot weather. James's April 4, 2007 blog was titled "Heat and Cold Related Deaths." "This paper from WebMD states: ‘Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics," James wrote. (LINK) James summed up his view in a May 28, 2007 blog: "The more I study this subject and become increasingly aware of the failings of the computer models, the more I think you can trust the Old Farmer's Almanac on what next year's winter will be like more than you can trust the climate models."

In the USA, when the jury clearly rules in favor of violation of law, the judge can set aside the verdict and declare a mistrial. Sounds like that should have happened in this case too. But maybe the judge agreed with the jury?

acccepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change.

Any judge that would ask a jury to 'look for an excuse' to break the law should be removed from office.

As said above: he gave a legal advice - something he's obliged to do. ("Lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage.)