''Some Greenland glaciers run slower in warm summers than cooler ones, meaning the icecap may be more resistant to warming than previously thought.''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12285230

I'm surprised that Gandalf hasn't pointed out that the rest of the report is supportive of the consensus.

Do you need him to point out the obvious?

On a more serious note, I wonder if this explains why Greenland wasn't entirely ice free even in the Eemian?

Well............he pointed it out to me in another thread and it was obvious there As regards your second question - I don't know whether the Eemian was icefree or not, but that very question is recognition of parameters unmodelled.

---

see -

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uoc--mfd012811.php

All this could no doubt be due to ocean temperatures only - without the need for AGW. Indian Ocean temperatures, I would imagine are now lower than they have been over the last 20 years.

 

The increased frequency of drought observed in Eastern Africa over the last 20 years is likely to continue as long as global temperatures continue to rise, according to UC Santa Barbara scientist Park Williams.

The new research, published in Climate Dynamics, indicates that more drought poses increased risk to millions of people in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia, who currently face potential food shortages.

"Forecasting precipitation variability from year to year is difficult, and research on the links between global change and precipitation in specific regions is ongoing so that more accurate projections of future precipitation can be developed," said Williams, first author and postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Geography.

Warming of the Indian Ocean, which causes decreased rainfall in eastern Africa, is linked to global warming. These new projections of continued drought contradict scenarios previously projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which predict increased rainfall in Eastern Africa.

This new research supports efforts by the USGS and the U.S. Agency for International Development to identify areas of potential drought and famine in order to target food aid and help inform agricultural development, environmental conservation, and water resources planning.

"Global temperatures are predicted to continue increasing, and we anticipate that average precipitation totals in Kenya and Ethiopia will continue decreasing or remain below the historical average," said co-author Chris Funk, USGS scientist. "The decreased rainfall in Eastern Africa is most pronounced in the March to June season, when substantial rainfall usually occurs. Although drought is one reason for food shortages, it is exacerbated by stagnating agricultural development and continued population growth."

Present temps below -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/psu_sst_anom.gif

---

Well............he pointed it out to me in another thread and it was obvious there As regards your second question - I don't know whether the Eemian was icefree or not, but that very question is recognition of parameters unmodelled.

I know you have a very good memory Dave, so once is sufficient - unless you want me to go through it again....

---

Well............he pointed it out to me in another thread and it was obvious there As regards your second question - I don't know whether the Eemian was icefree or not, but that very question is recognition of parameters unmodelled.

I know you have a very good memory Dave, so once is sufficient - unless you want me to go through it again....

Yes, my memory is very good.................but, unfortunately, my recall is rubbish.

---

Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.

Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.

................and I too, don't like it.

---

Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.

Surely you are not naive enough to believe this drivel are you, AIMSIR - or are you having a bad Sunday?

 

---

Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.

I would have thought that 'influenced by' might be more appropriate than caused. To what extent though, that is the question...

If global warming is happening then it stands to reason that all weather events in all parts of the world at all times will be affected to some extent (however small) by global warming. 

Unless global warming only affects a few places at a time?  Perhaps it spends summer in Indonesia and Autumn in Peru?

---

If global warming is happening then it stands to reason that all weather events in all parts of the world at all times will be affected to some extent (however small) by global warming. 

Unless global warming only affects a few places at a time?  Perhaps it spends summer in Indonesia and Autumn in Peru?

Cake analogy time

Bake cakes every year. Each year add a tiny amount more sugar.

Question: which year do you change the composition of the whole cake*? And at what point (if you only add a few percent extra sugar each year) do you notice? Indeed, if the change was slow, might you not notice as quickly as if it was sudden in one year?

* easy this one

---

If global warming is happening then it stands to reason that all weather events in all parts of the world at all times will be affected to some extent (however small) by global warming. 

Unless global warming only affects a few places at a time?  Perhaps it spends summer in Indonesia and Autumn in Peru?

Cake analogy time

Bake cakes every year. Each year add a tiny amount more sugar.

Question: which year do you change the composition of the whole cake*? And at what point (if you only add a few percent extra sugar each year) do you notice? Indeed, if the change was slow, might you not notice as quickly as if it was sudden in one year?

* easy this one

I'd not heard that one before - I may have to pinch it

---

Well if the cake has a sugar content of 380 ppm I think it would take several hundred years to notice much of a difference.

Anyway sugar makes a cake nicer to eat just as a CO2 rich atmosphere is nicer for plants to eat and then there are more plants for other life forms to eat.

Pretty much a win win situation.

You could change the analogy to incorporate a poisonous ingredient for the cake but that would be misleading because CO2 is a fertiliser and not a herbicide.

Of course any ingredient in excess could be a bad thing in the long term but on the relevant numbers the timescale would be so long that humanity will either be extinct for other reasons or will have dealt with it's problems in the meantime.

Well if the cake has a sugar content of 380 ppm I think it would take several hundred years to notice much of a difference.

Anyway sugar makes a cake nicer to eat just as a CO2 rich atmosphere is nicer for plants to eat and then there are more plants for other life forms to eat.

Pretty much a win win situation.

You could change the analogy to incorporate a poisonous ingredient for the cake but that would be misleading because CO2 is a fertiliser and not a herbicide.

Of course any ingredient in excess could be a bad thing in the long term but on the relevant numbers the timescale would be so long that humanity will either be extinct for other reasons or will have dealt with it's problems in the meantime.

Stephen, you're obfuscating, or perhaps you simply miss the point?

The point is a simple one, it's that we have changed the whole atmosphere, the question is not if but how much.

So, yes, we do have a hand in all climate, again, the question is not if but how much. Can we detect it? Those of us who go with the science think yes we can and that it will become increasingly obvious. You don't think that. Fine, see you in the future.

 

---

Well if the cake has a sugar content of 380 ppm I think it would take several hundred years to notice much of a difference.

Anyway sugar makes a cake nicer to eat just as a CO2 rich atmosphere is nicer for plants to eat and then there are more plants for other life forms to eat.

Pretty much a win win situation.

You could change the analogy to incorporate a poisonous ingredient for the cake but that would be misleading because CO2 is a fertiliser and not a herbicide.

Of course any ingredient in excess could be a bad thing in the long term but on the relevant numbers the timescale would be so long that humanity will either be extinct for other reasons or will have dealt with it's problems in the meantime.

For someone who is clearly intelligent you have the remarkable ability on occasions to miss the point.

The point, as you must know perfectly well, is about our ability to perceive the effects of very small incremental changes.  I assume you have children?  Did you notice them growing week by week - no, you didn't but over time the effect is quite noticeable (and not just in the visits to the clothing department)...

Higher levels of CO2 may be good for plants (although I have read that they do little for some crop yields) but is absolutely not good for the oceans, where increasing acidification is a known and growing issue.

---

I think I hit the point precisely. Just not the point that you wanted to convey with that cake analogy.

If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

Perhaps not. Try carbonating the water though.

---

I think I hit the point precisely. Just not the point that you wanted to convey with that cake analogy.

If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

Yes you have.

However, what we are doing to the atmosphere is of greater magnitude than that - or can you convince me a spit in a swimming pool is of ppm magnitude? You know that it isn't, so your point is misleading.

But your obfuscating is working, you're dragging us off the point, adding the U and D of FUD. Well done

 

 

---

I think I hit the point precisely. Just not the point that you wanted to convey with that cake analogy.

If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

Well if you were carrying an infectious disease yes you have.

But again you miss the point.  If you spit into the swimming pool every day and there are people watching how long before they decide you are changing the pool?

 

---

Sunlight kills bacteria and the poolwater is regularly replaced and/or recycled through a purifier (which equates to the hydrological cycle).

One can only go so far with an analogy though.

In practice everyone using a pool 'spits' into it whenever water enters or leaves their mouths which is pretty much all the time especially when moving energetically.

In practice everyone using a pool 'spits' into it whenever water enters or leaves their mouths which is pretty much all the time especially when moving energetically.

Heh. I see what you've done there.

Doesn't mean we should stop breathing so that carbon emissions go down (although they would, because we'd all asphyxiate and wouldn't be flying planes and burning coal and so forth).

Anyway Stephen, your comment about ppm was obfuscating, as we have established time and time again that although the concentration of trace gases is small their effect is large. Think of it more as saffron in the cake if you like - though then the first effect you notice might be on your wallet