http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/16/ocean-temperature-el-nino-noaa

Record ocean temps despite a weak El Nino in the Northern summer. Didn't I say a few months ago that we were going to see some records broken when the La Nina event finished?

You ain't seen anything yet.

For those who are interested, the Copenhagen Synthesis report, now available online, makes for interesting reading:

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport


Quote:

Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sealevel rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

well predicted muso.

what are your ideas on ways to reduce the global temp ?
more holes in the ozone layer to let the temp out ???

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 1:05pm:

well predicted muso. what are your ideas on ways to reduce the global temp ? more holes in the ozone layer to let the temp out ???

They are actually predicting that the Ozone hole will grow as a result of warming. I'll find the reference for you. Before that happens, it will shrink slightly as a result of the fact that we no longer use CFC's.

don't worry about the reference muso.

thought a big hole would let the heat out into space??
like a hole in a tent??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 1:41pm:

don't worry about the reference muso. thought a big hole would let the heat out into space?? like a hole in a tent??

It's actually quite a bit more complicated than that. The 1987 Montreal protocol, which restricted the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals, will cut warming by five or six times more than the Kyoto protocol over time.

However, the main driving force is atmospheric circulation patterns over Antarctica, and some recent studies suggest that the recovery of the ozone hole will actually increase warming.

I realise that the two statements appear to be contradictory. They are, on the face of it, but the devil is in the details.

The main impact of ozone depletion is increased UV radiation in the the more Southern parts of Australia for example. This has damaging effects on plant life etc.

Any plans being drawn up for Copenhagen at the moment centre on limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees C. That in itself is very ambitious.

The 2007 assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that stratospheric ozone has a cooling effect of 0.05 Watts per square metre and that the halocarbons currently in the atmosphere have a warming effect of 0.34 W/m2.

As I've said before, it's not just a simple matter of increasing global temperature. We also have to contend with a dropping ocean pH which has implications for the demise of corals and most marine life with an exoskeleton, including krill and some major food chain animals.

We could conceivably reduce global temperatures by using sulfate aerosols. James Lovelock suggests spraying it in the stratosphere from aircraft, but that would have no effect on reduced calcification in the oceans.  If anything it would increase that effect.

Thanks Muso,
I coud see increased UV having a bad effect on the land.
If the krill is depleted, the food chain in the oceans is depleted at the beginning

thermal momentum is unavoidable, we deal with it at work.
heat is very hard to dissipate, it is the main problem of most machines.

thanks for your precis.