Please also see our recent correspondence in current science "Climate change matters because the oak can not move upward" it is uploaded in our profile.

Climate change is a very complicated and at the same time very difficult to analyze and understand. I have my personal oppinion about this question. Of course climte change location is very specific. There are so many facks conected with this. Being small country in Armenia the climate change is very different in valleys and in high mountains.

Dear Hrachuhi, nicely quoted. Like that there are many small countries where climate change is very much pronounced and observed, but the infrastructural support to that country is so meagre that they can't understand that problem to a fullest extent. I require more opinions from the researchers to comment further......

I have a quetion in return:

did you study the report of IPCC Working group 1. It is freely available on the web and it provides the science of Climate Change and especially the regional changes. I suggest you to read that scientific compilation of the literature.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

I agree with Harry ten Brink. If you have not gone through IPCC reports then please go through it. But I feel that still lot of understanding is required to clearly distinguish natural climate variability, man-made climate variability and climate change.

Hi Pribhat, Climate change does definitely have regional to local flavors in addition to the global impact. One of the best example is what is happening with glacial melt. In the same watershed, but opposite slope, you will see glacier advancing, and on the other side, they are retreating. There are some spectacular examples in the Andes.

Climate change is not location specific. But while conducting climate change research you can not conduct a global level experiment, expect using some simulation model which are most of the cases unrealistic and need to be standardized with measured data. For Climate Change Research I will go with the phrase 'Think Globally Act Locally'.

The world is not in a steady stae but a dynamic state thus the effects of climate change as integrated over the planet scale are quite evident but there are local variations athe regional scale as a consequence of the dynamics e.g. higher sealevel rises around SE asia and Australasia than the rest of the world etc etc.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am overwhelmed with the vast knowledge and experience of Kenneth Towe and linking it to climate change scenario. How remarkably he is correlating the climate change events. Yes of course, climatic variability and climate change have different perspectives but ultimately the resultant is ecological imbalance....

I tend to agree with John and Kenneth. The changes are on a global scale but some regions are more affected than other and predictive models tend to suggest that some regions will be more affected than others.... We, for example, see big changes in the Icelandic environment, both on lands, where we are getting colonised by species such as bumble bee, red crosbill, and at sea with changing migration pattern of fish and marine mammals. It is happening just right now!

Well, are you sure Kenneth. We are not seeing increasing abundance of local fish but invasion, like the well known case of mackerel or the monkfish. So this is not an expansion of common species in our waters but really new species appearing. I think this is a bit different from Drinkwater paper, as we do get more. But I agree that he mentioned mackerel but that is not comparable to what we have now. Concerning bird, the species we did see invading Iceland in the last ten years are less migrants than gulls, e.g. chaffinch, crossbills, blackcap, more southern duck. For some these are rare records, for others that is beginnig to be colonisation. Would be nice to compare these 1920s data to our current data. So thanks to remind me about this paper I had read some time ago.

Thanks Kenneth. This is indeed very interesting. Ok, then it has already happened earlier, but my feeling is still that this is more pronounced nowadays. When I see these numbers I think we see more of this, more frequently. Just right now we start to have barn swallow and house martin arriving! We definitively need to check with the weather condition in the last ten years. Funny thing is that while we are speaking about that now, we got the coldest spring ever in the last ten years and the temps are not easily going above 10°C and for May, that's strange!

Hello, local (regional) effects of global climate change equates to more extremes and variability; while the global mean temperature may be going up, on a local scale this may mean a colder spring (in Christophe's example) or broadly shifting of the seasons or possibly in my hometown extreme wind events out of season. Spring is categorised by warming therefore cold snaps are not favourable for us (in our heated houses) or the natural environment that relies on temperature cues. We should not use local examples to try and justify that the climate is not changing due to anthropogenic influences since 1000 years ago, i believe. Thanks, great question.

If the class of problems you are dealing with is closely related to "infrastructural support [... and ...] explorative study" in vulnerable areas, probably you are already working with physical/demographic/human-geographical/agricultural aspects that may be affected by extreme events, and may be able to somehow outline classes of vulnerability from these variables alone. If this is the case, you could deal with the complexity of modeling location-specific climate change by considering just a range of alternative outputs from different climate models that may be available for your regions of study, and define different scenarios of extreme events based on these outputs; perhaps this may also help you to circumvent the lack of specific model results for too small areas, by always focusing on extreme values forecasted for larger areas.

Have enjoyed following the discussion.

It may be interesting to consider the additional dimension of any (un)measured "potential" for change.

Take, for example, global warming. Some propose that our predictions are way off...the increases in atmospheric temperature seem to be half that predicted. Others argue to the contrary, claiming that the oceans have provided a heat sink to store that extra energy.

So, let's consider the dimension of "potential" for change. If the ocean is a buffer against changes in atmospheric temperature, it can also be assumed that, as a buffer, its potential to mediate change over time is a function of both its present capacity (to buffer), and the changing environment in which it acts. And these changes may, or may not be, local.

Be it weather, sociology or innovation, the notion of a changing buffering capacity in any system brings a whole different level of complexity and intellectual challenge.

Hello! Reading all the answers in this discussion has widened my view on the matter and has actually increased my enthusiasm to answer this question with my own opinion.

I think, that climate change in a regional or local scale usually changes more often than not. A certain area could experience a great increase in climate change during certain amount of time. Although the changes in climate at the local level is variable, it can be predicted.

However, on a global scale, climate change may have affected the biosphere but only slightly because as Stuart Ali has previously stated, buffers, like the ocean could stabilize the change in climate.

In the simplest terms I would say Climate change is Global but the impacts could be local/regional

Climate change have different local effects:

-direct local effect like temperature and weather evolution, this can lead to a progressive local biosphere change

-indirect effect from global change, like increase risk of :tornado, hurricane, rise of sea level, avalanche, etc...

Those can be used in vulnerability maps, some studies already noted the progress of thoses risk

Re: Kenneth. Thank you for taking note of my home country. Port Elizabeth(PE) is situated in a very unique area in South Africa and the predominant ocean currents resonate this all year around. On the East coast, offshore, the warm Agulhas current flows south from the equatorial Indian ocean, where it abuts the Kwa-Zulu Natal coast more north. PE is situated in the southern cape, where the continental shelf widens creating an off-shore warm current while the inshore waters are cooler because of its latitude and upwelling events. Darwin was therefore documenting this warm current offshore. Climate scientists have predicted that the Agulhas is weakening however isotope studies of baobab trees inland and other oceanographic studies have indicated that the current may be intensifying. Therefore the difference may we more stark now than 1836.

These major oceanic currents have an enormous effect on Southern Africa’s climate with regional weather implications. In general our warm currents are warming and cold (ie. Benguela current) is cooling. This has negative physiological effects on ocean biota. The intensified differences in water temperature also create more intense weather events on a regional scale.

Re: your above comment to Craig. I truly believe this is a unique global change event caused by man however as events in the past left incomplete evidence on the rate of extinction it is difficult to prove and quantify. Nevertheless drastic changes have been measured and are creating extinctions. Therefore I believe the argument is not, is the change happening at our hands but what are we going to do to mitigate and adapt at a local level to these changes. At the end of the day humanity is at risk of extinction as well and is not omitted from the threat of global change. Thanks Kenneth :)

Hi, I think that the climate change location specific is variable dependind of the solar radiation explotion, the change climate has been effect of it.

Yes climate change is region specific in the sense that the effect is not same throughout the world. For example, when we talk about the sea level rise, there are regions where sea level has gone down.

Well, for this approach is necessary to have a global vision, so the climate change effect should be consider as global.

Its an interesting question and it is yes. The climate change could be noticed and realized in different locations.

The effects of changes in climate are felt in various regions of the globe. There are unprecedented heat wave, cold wave, drought and floods. But whether it will remain confined to the same region in future is highly doubtful. We have still not understood the dynamics of climate change.

To almost all of you

Before you come with your own ideas you should as scientists first read the reports of IPCC; they are a drawn on the latest SCIENTIFIC peer-reviewed publications on climate change.

You can freely download the report here

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

The latest information, the 2d draft report of the so-called AR5 2013, is illegally at this site:

stopgreensuicide

you really should consult these before you dare to come with your own claims

I am acording with the collegue Kenneth, i don't know if it possible to show some tools for measure it.

Kenneth

Well as you cite IPCC it is only with a great likelehood that there is climate change and then that it is for a better part induced by man. It is indeed according to IPCC not settled let alone how the local climate would have faired and will fair. IPCC only gives some very general sketch on the regional climate (change).

What I did is showing here how science works in all disciplines also climate: read before you opine

Climate is, by nature, not homogenous. Think about various locations around the globe and the atmospheric dynamics that drive the dominant weather. From the location of the subtropical ridges, to monsoons and ocean currents.. Also periodic phenomena such as ENSO, MJO etc..

For example look at (Hope et al 2010) with respect to southern Australia's reliance on frontal systems for rainfall.. a Southwards shift of the southern subtropical ridge would push these systems further south.. Just as an example..

So in a word YES.

Hope, P. and B. Timbal and R. Fawcett, 2010: Associations between rainfall variability in the southwest and southeast of Australia and their evolution through time. International Journal of Climatology, 30, 1360-1371

I would like to add the impact or variations on the ecological system as local climate change, follow to IPCC report NATURAL TERRESTERIAL SYSTEM http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_II/ipcc_far_wg_II_chapter_03.pdf

Ken

I refer to the subquestion of the questioner:

Climate change study can fully be understood only when various zones of climate change studies be classified; so he himself gives the answer that it is only at a very large area that one can speak about climate. IPCC gives you their gross division of the (climate) zones

Ken

That is very remarkable given that IPCC's stance is that warming by GHG is much more pronounced at the poles and also gives the reason?

Can you please add the Marcott comment here as well as that of Anderson or else send these by mail via RG? Like to study these

Ken

@Your last paragraph

I saw your nice correlation of CO2 and population. I hope you are not serious that we will have 15 billion and the corresponding CO2.

Anderson: I am sorry I do not recognize the name of Anderson re climate change and do not know in what context he says what he says.

For the latest of IPCC (2d draft AR5) I refer to

greensuicide AR5 chapter 10:

Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

for instance fig FAQ 10.1, Figure 1

Also: ch 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface; there you also find a discussion on the US data trend.

Ken

correction to site:

stopgreensuicide