This looks like bad news for the USA…

Current and future U.S. weather extremes and El Niño

Meehl et.al. GRL

…Future El Niño teleconnection patterns over the U.S. are projected to shift eastward and northward due in part to the different midlatitude base state atmospheric circulation in a warmer climate. Consequently, projections for the changes in the patterns of extremes over the U.S. during future El Niño events include: decreases of frost days over the southwestern U.S expand northward and eastward; increases in intense precipitation in the SW U.S. expands eastward and areas in the SE U.S. become stronger; and decreases of heat wave intensity over much of the southern tier of states turn to increases.

Whilst this at least is good news; at least some tundra types  should act as a carbon sink as conditions change in the far North; and remember, there’s a lot of tundra…

The exchange of carbon dioxide between wet arctic tundra and the atmosphere at the Lena River Delta, Northern Siberia

L. Kutzbach1,*, C. Wille1,*, and E.-M. Pfeiffer2

 The wet polygonal tundra of the Lena River Delta was observed to be a substantial CO2 sink with an accumulated net ecosystem CO2 exchange of −119 g m−2 over the summer and an estimated annual net ecosystem CO2 exchange of −71 g m−2.

 http://www.biogeosciences.net/4/869/2007/bg-4-869-2007.html

 

 But some less good news for those guys who were trying to get funding to try geoengineering a solution by dumping millions of tons of iron into the oceans; it don’t work…

The impact on atmospheric CO2 of iron fertilization induced changes in the ocean’s biological pump

X. Jin1, N. Gruber2,3, H. Frenzel1, S. C. Doney4, and J. C. McWilliams3

 http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/4/3863/2007/bgd-4-3863-2007.html

 …Despite high atmospheric uptake efficiencies, patch-scale iron fertilization of the ocean’s biological pump tends to remove little CO2 from the atmosphere over the decadal timescale considered here.

 

  And back to a popular subject here at the cave; how good are the models of the cryosphere?

Atmospheric forcing validation for modeling the central Arctic

Makshtas et.al. GRL.

…Our analysis shows an excellent agreement between observed and reanalysis sea level pressures and a relatively good correlation between observed and reanalysis surface winds. The observed temperature is in good agreement with reanalysis data only in winter. Specific air humidity and cloudiness are not reproduced well by reanalysis and are not recommended for model forcing. An example sensitivity study demonstrates that the equilibrium ice thickness obtained using NP forcing is two times thicker than using reanalysis forcing.

This is a disparate bunch of stuff which caught my attention as I trawled the net. They all have uses, though the US projections and the iron thing stand out. To readers, please note, an interesting but obscure paper is always a welcome thing here at the cave, especially if you understand its implications…

About these ads