Definitions and Some Background: Arctic Oscillation (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 11:12 PM GMT on August 18, 2013

Share this Blog
23
+

Definitions and Some Background: Arctic Oscillation (1)

Every now and then I take an unexpected blogging hiatus because the day job is overwhelming. That’s the last three weeks as the project that I have been working on the past couple of years came to its first major milestone – a workshop on the evaluation of model projections to improve their usability in planning. Plus it is canning season – any good chutney recipes?

During the run up to the workshop, thanks to my expertise in time management, I gave a seminar on the Arctic Oscillation for a National Park Service webinar series “Climate Change in America's National Parks - Post-Sandy Recovery Series I: Storms, Barrier Islands, and Implications for the Atlantic Coastline.” I’m going to spend a few entries going through some the ideas in the presentation. First, however, here is the link to my presentation. It was recorded, but I have not figured out how to post that yet. Also here is a link to the GLISAclimate.org project workspace where I collected together the materials I used in the presentation - Arctic Oscillation: Climate variability in the Great Lakes.

The reason I was asked to give this talk followed from my participation in a planning exercise for Isle Royale National Park. During that planning project the Arctic Oscillation emerged as a topic of special interest. I have written a number of blogs in the past that discussed the Arctic Oscillation, regionally often referred to as the North Atlantic Oscillation, and its role in variability of winter and spring temperatures. We hear about the Arctic Oscillation the most when winters in the eastern half of the United States are cold and snowy. People get excited and start writing that climate change is bogus. I have put just a few of the links to previous blogs at the end.

What is the Arctic Oscillation? Here from the CPC Climate Glossary is the start of the definition of the Arctic Oscillation. “The Arctic Oscillation is a pattern in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between negative and positive phases.” I think the definition is a little easier to explain if I focus on the North Atlantic Oscillation and, again from the glossary, “The North Atlantic Oscillation is often considered to be a regional manifestation of the Arctic Oscillation.” In the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation there is higher than average pressure over the pole and lower than average pressure over the North Atlantic, for example, over Iceland. In the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation there is lower than average pressure over the pole and higher than average pressure over the North Atlantic. Going back to the original focus, the Arctic Oscillation, rather than the pressure differences at sub-polar latitudes being over the North Atlantic, they might be over some other place, like the North Pacific. Here is a schematic figure showing the North Atlantic Oscillation from educational material at Lamont-Doherty.



Figure 1: Positive Phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. from LDEO



Figure 2: Negative Phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. from LDEO


These changes in the weather pattern have large consequences on the weather in the U.S. When the North Atlantic Oscillation is in its positive phase, the winters in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern U.S. are moist and mild. When the North Atlantic Oscillation is in the negative phase, the winter in the same regions of the U.S. are cold and snowy. Though snowy, the actual amount of water that falls from the sky is less than average.

The discussion of the Arctic Oscillation often focuses on the winter and spring because in the U.S. the discussion of weather and climate often over emphasizes what is happening in the Interstate 95 corridor. (Isn’t it great that I-95 has its own website?). However, the Arctic Oscillation is the dominant mode of variability in the Northern Hemisphere middle latitudes, and this is true all of the year. When we say that something is the “dominant mode,” we mean that if we formally measure the variance and then try to describe the variance by recognizable patterns, then the single largest way to describe the variance is with the Arctic Oscillation.

Meteorologists describe the Arctic Oscillation as an atmospheric phenomenon as opposed to a phenomenon that might represent the coupling between the atmosphere and the ocean. The El Nino – La Nina oscillation involves both the atmosphere and ocean. Since the ocean is important, El Nino and La Nina are at least a little bit predictable. The Arctic Oscillation is notoriously difficult to predict.

The reason the Arctic Oscillation took on as much importance as it did in the Isle Royale National Park project was its impact on ecosystems. In the area around Lake Superior, when the Arctic Oscillation is in the positive phase it tends to be warm and dry. There is very little snow. When the Arctic Oscillation is in the negative phase, there are cold air outbreaks from Canada and the likelihood of large snowstorms is higher. If the atmosphere bounces back and forth between the positive and negative phase, then you can imagine a snowstorm followed by a thaw. This stands to change the ebb and flow of the annual water cycle with winter thaws and perhaps winter floods. There might be a lot of snow in the winter, but there is less snow on the ground going into spring. An example of an ecosystem impact is in the forest – if it is warmer and dryer in the spring at peak growth time, this is a major stress on the forest. Next blog a little more on the Arctic Oscillation and temperature.



r

(I will look for new likes on old blogs!)

Confounding Variability: A short blog from the early times.

Bumps and Wiggles (8)Ocean, Atmosphere, Ice, and Land

La Nina and Missouri River Flooding

Jeff Masters Extreme Arctic Oscillation

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1165 - 1115

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28Blog Index

1165. bappit
Quoting 1142. PensacolaDoug:


But I only watch the other 7% of the time when they get it right. And those 14 propaganda Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

That's the best mind trick a con man has: get the mark to think that smart idea is theirs.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5913
1164. Xulonn
Quoting 1128. PensacolaDoug:
Watching FOX news again..?

Sometimes. Why?


We're trying to understand why you're so poorly informed, Doug. And I think that Fox so-called News is part of your problem.


Quoting BusinessInsider:
Watching FOX news again..?brMedia outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Thus, those who watched no news—answering questions by guessing or relying on existing knowledge—fared much better than those who watched the most popular 24-hour cable news network (i.e. Fox News).

...[And Fox isn't alone]...Cassino concluded that "the most popular of the national media sources—Fox, CNN, MSNBC—seem to be the least informative."

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1395
Quoting 1150. Creideiki:


Can I propose an alternate hypothesis?...

I'm still stuck on your proper usage of hypothesis vs. theory.
Usually "long time lurker, just wanted to stop in and share my amazing new IMHO" persons have trouble with even that fundamental of a scientific concept, that it makes me sad.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3158
1162. Patrap
Just how many of the predictions of your favorite "scientists" have come to pass?

Why not tell us yerself?

Cuz you can't, cuz they aren't any datz why.

Your a moniker without a Name,

Snickers at the prose and drop talk.



LOL
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127368
1161. Xandra
Quoting 1154. Neapolitan:
Once again, the UK's Telegraph once again proves its utter worthlessness--it is indeed Great Britain's print equivalent of Fox--by claiming the following against every tiny shred of logic and reality: Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists; A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling..

And who are the "scientists" the article cites as believing this nonsensical rubbish? Why, none other than Dr. Judith "Someday I Hope To Learn How To Do Actual Science" Curry and Anastasios "Oh Please Why Can't I Be Famous" Tsonis, the latter from the University of Wisconsin, and a man who is quoted as saying, "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped".

Teh stoopid, it burns...

"We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped"

Cooling trend? LOL


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Roy Spencer is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration on Global Warming, which states

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history. ...

...We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.


By signing this declaration, Roy Spencer loses all pretense of being a credible climate scientist.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3120
Quoting 1155. CEastwood:


Only insult those who disagree with you.

It doesn't look like an insult to me. It appears to be a dispassionate review of the scientific value of Curry's and Tsonis' opinions. They are simply stupid opinions based on nothing of substance. They should be called out for such opinions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1155. CEastwood:


Only insult those who disagree with you.


Credibility is gained not given.

One who expects credibility for rubbish cannot be taken seriously.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1150. Creideiki:


Can I propose an alternate hypothesis?

The denialists, by and large, aren't "playing make believe". They're desperately hoping that the reality of the situation isn't true. Because accepting reality would require changes in activity and policy.

I found this really telling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdaZ5zIWB-M

It's old, but the telling moment is at 4:10. Until the cost came up, even Inhofe accepted science.

I wouldn't dispute your hypothesis in the least.

It is laughably interesting that Inhofe says that he believed the science until he found out how much it cost. (Wait until he finds out what it cost to ignore the problem!)

Welcome aboard!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks for the morning laugh!!

They need to realize that not every scientist is as credible as any other.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1154. Neapolitan:
Once again, the UK's Telegraph once again proves its utter worthlessness--it is indeed Great Britain's print equivalent of Fox--by claiming the following against every tiny shred of logic and reality: Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists; A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling..

And who are the "scientists" the article cites as believing this nonsensical rubbish? Why, none other than Dr. Judith "Someday I Hope To Learn How To Do Actual Science" Curry and Anastasios "Oh Please Why Can't I Be Famous" Tsonis, the latter from the University of Wisconsin, and a man who is quoted as saying, "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped".

Teh stoopid, it burns...


Only insult those who disagree with you. They are only "scientists" if they support your charade. Just how many of the predictions of your favorite "scientists" have come to pass? I'd say probably, none. They can't predict past climate, much less future. Is that really science?
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Once again, the UK's Telegraph once again proves its utter worthlessness--it is indeed Great Britain's print equivalent of Fox--by claiming the following against every tiny shred of logic and reality: Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists; A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling..

And who are the "scientists" the article cites as believing this nonsensical rubbish? Why, none other than Dr. Judith "Someday I Hope To Learn How To Do Actual Science" Curry and Anastasios "Oh Please Why Can't I Be Famous" Tsonis, the latter from the University of Wisconsin, and a man who is quoted as saying, "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped".

Teh stoopid, it burns...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Climate Change Leaves Hares Wearing The Wrong Colors. Link

The effects of climate change often happen on a large scale, like drought or a rise in sea level. In the hills outside Missoula, Mont., wildlife biologists are looking at a change to something very small: the snowshoe hare.
....................
Hares switch color in the spring and fall in response to light, when the days get longer or shorter. But that means they're at the mercy of the weather. If the snow comes late, you get a white hare on brown ground.

"And they really think that they're camouflaged," Kumar says. "They act like we can't see them. And it's pretty embarrassing for the hare."

Kumar calls this "mismatch," and it's becoming more of a concern with climate change.

"If the hares are consistently molting at the same time, year after year, and the snowfall comes later and melts earlier, there's going to be more and more times when hares are mismatched," he says.

Scott Mills of North Carolina State University leads the research. He says they're finding that mismatched hares die at higher rates. That's a concern for the threatened Canada lynx, which mainly eats these hares.
------------------------

According to some of the comments, this is just the latest in "NPR's incessant proselytizing of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture (in the face of obvious contradictory evidence)". Sigh.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2305
Quoting 1149. Creideiki:
yoboi, I'd like to thank you. After lurking here for years, you've motivated me to actually post. I remember when you started coming to the Climate Change blog claiming that you wanted to learn. Apparently, that was never the point.

I'm truly sorry that you never got to take a college-level chemistry class. We actually covered Arrhenius' initial experiments that demonstrated that carbon dioxide would be partially responsible for warming. I am sure, however, that a local community college likely has a chemistry class that you could take in the evenings.

Meanwhile, here in Denver, the gardeners I know have been wondering if and when we'll get a brief window to get our fall greens in the ground. It's been just to blasted hot for kale, lettuce, mustard and collards, much less radishes to actually germinate and grow. Fortunately, the bizarre mid-to-late August/early September heat wave looks like it might break. The only question for us is if this will mean that we will get a long enough late growing season before the sharper cold snaps inevitably come that would kill the last of our efforts until springtime.

Yes, winter will come, and then spring, and then summer again. The local temperatures will cool, and freeze, and warm, and scorch again. The gardeners I know and talk to all know that. However, the last two years have really challenged even the locals.

Last year, we started with an intense heat that started in late March. The debate in the community was weather to risk early planting and losses (keep in mind we're non-commercial, but some of the gardeners use their garden produce to supplement through the winter) or to wait. Those of us who kept looking at NOAA's seasonal predictions and the longest range reliable sources went early. Others got scorched out as temperatures quickly got above germination temperatures. This year, we're now looking at the same problem, but on the tail end of the season. For me, I can look at the NOAA site and see a return to equal chance of slight variation...until late fall. So I think I'll try one more container planting of cool-weather veggies later today. I'm sure that some of the people who are insisting that the climate isn't changing won't try. I'll likely still share some spinach, mustard greens, and kale with them. (No radishes--those are ALL MINE!)

If I had any advice for you, I'd recommend that you look at taking a community college course. Then keep looking for authoritative sites that are providing long-range forecasts and see what they have to say and then compare the current conditions to what they forecast before. Things are changing though. Anyone who has gardened throughout the last 40 years would tell you that. And as Dr. Rood has covered recently on his blog, any of the larger-scale farmers would tell you the same thing. Sadly, they're so entrenched in personality derangement syndromes that all they can do is wonder why God is doing this to them. And the reality is that God isn't. She merely put the mechanisms in place and will continue to talk to us should we choose to listen.


Welcome to the blog. Thanks for the great post and I hope to see you post more often. Cheers!
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
Quoting 1141. yoboi:



BTW Dr Roy Spencer never said there is no warming.....He is not an alarmist with C02....his cloud theory makes the most sense I have seen as of yet.....
His views on the scientific infallibility of the biblical creation myth coupled with his concomitant non-support of silly old evolutionary theory are what tell me he's exactly the kind of rock-solid, evidence-based person we should be listening to. :-\

Seriously, this bears repeating: someone who is so badly mistaken about the planet's past can absolutely not be trusted to predict the planet's future. Period.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting 1133. Birthmark:

As long as the data and empirical observation lead inescapably to that conclusion.

A better question is when will denialists quit playing make-believe? For instance, just the other day I posted a graphic for four data sets (two land-based, two satellite), all of which demonstrated warming over a time-period that *you* picked.

And here you are again, just days later claiming that there is no warming. LOL


Can I propose an alternate hypothesis?

The denialists, by and large, aren't "playing make believe". They're desperately hoping that the reality of the situation isn't true. Because accepting reality would require changes in activity and policy.

I found this really telling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdaZ5zIWB-M

It's old, but the telling moment is at 4:10. Until the cost came up, even Inhofe accepted science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
yoboi, I'd like to thank you. After lurking here for years, you've motivated me to actually post. I remember when you started coming to the Climate Change blog claiming that you wanted to learn. Apparently, that was never the point.

I'm truly sorry that you never got to take a college-level chemistry class. We actually covered Arrhenius' initial experiments that demonstrated that carbon dioxide would be partially responsible for warming. I am sure, however, that a local community college likely has a chemistry class that you could take in the evenings.

Meanwhile, here in Denver, the gardeners I know have been wondering if and when we'll get a brief window to get our fall greens in the ground. It's been just to blasted hot for kale, lettuce, mustard and collards, much less radishes to actually germinate and grow. Fortunately, the bizarre mid-to-late August/early September heat wave looks like it might break. The only question for us is if this will mean that we will get a long enough late growing season before the sharper cold snaps inevitably come that would kill the last of our efforts until springtime.

Yes, winter will come, and then spring, and then summer again. The local temperatures will cool, and freeze, and warm, and scorch again. The gardeners I know and talk to all know that. However, the last two years have really challenged even the locals.

Last year, we started with an intense heat that started in late March. The debate in the community was weather to risk early planting and losses (keep in mind we're non-commercial, but some of the gardeners use their garden produce to supplement through the winter) or to wait. Those of us who kept looking at NOAA's seasonal predictions and the longest range reliable sources went early. Others got scorched out as temperatures quickly got above germination temperatures. This year, we're now looking at the same problem, but on the tail end of the season. For me, I can look at the NOAA site and see a return to equal chance of slight variation...until late fall. So I think I'll try one more container planting of cool-weather veggies later today. I'm sure that some of the people who are insisting that the climate isn't changing won't try. I'll likely still share some spinach, mustard greens, and kale with them. (No radishes--those are ALL MINE!)

If I had any advice for you, I'd recommend that you look at taking a community college course. Then keep looking for authoritative sites that are providing long-range forecasts and see what they have to say and then compare the current conditions to what they forecast before. Things are changing though. Anyone who has gardened throughout the last 40 years would tell you that. And as Dr. Rood has covered recently on his blog, any of the larger-scale farmers would tell you the same thing. Sadly, they're so entrenched in personality derangement syndromes that all they can do is wonder why God is doing this to them. And the reality is that God isn't. She merely put the mechanisms in place and will continue to talk to us should we choose to listen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1146. iceagecoming:

Quoting 1147. iceagecoming:

I think you want the politics board. This is about climate change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I suspect most here are enamored by the Al Gore-jeerza
network. What irony, I wonder, Olbermann will be back, he'd fit right in, Right Pat, Daisy , NEO?????

Wahoo!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Australia's PM-elect Tony Abbott says his top priorities in office are to scrap the carbon tax and to stop asylum-seekers arriving by boat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/asia/

Link


Too bad we can't dump the current administration mis-direction, and get on the right track Like the Ozzie's.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1141. yoboi:



BTW Dr Roy Spencer never said there is no warming.....He is not an alarmist with C02....his cloud theory makes the most sense I have seen as of yet.....

He doesn't have a cloud theory, yoboi. He has a cloud hypothesis...and it's unsupported by the published science, observation, and experimentation.

Worse than that, it's irrelevant. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1144. Xandra
Earth science: How plate tectonics clicked

Fifty years after a paper linked sea-floor magnetic stripes with continental drift, Naomi Oreskes explains its legacy as a lesson in achieving scientific consensus.


The US research vessel Explorer towed a magnetometer to map fields over the sea floor in 1960.

NOAA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1142. PensacolaDoug:


But I only watch the other 7% of the time when they get it right. And those 14 propaganda Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

They got ya just where they want ya. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1130. Daisyworld:



Because FoxNews has been found to be wrong about climate science 93% of the time, and has perfected no less than fourteen different propaganda techniques to brainwash Americans on a daily basis. This has resulted in FoxNews viewers becoming the least informed of all audiences.


But I only watch the other 7% of the time when they get it right. And those 14 propaganda Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1141. yoboi
Quoting 1138. Birthmark:

Look at what you quoted above. The link says temperature rose "at a rate of 0.14 � 0.06 per decade." Please explain how that is a hiatus as they claim in their sub-title. TIA

Here is a graph of the trends for four data sets, two land-based and two satellite for the twenty years mentioned in the link.


(Of particular interest to you, perhaps, is that Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH shows the greatest increase.)

And we haven't even touched the warming of the cryosphere and oceans over the same time-period. There is no hiatus.

EDIT TO ADD:
It should also be pointed out that the link looks at only one data set.



BTW Dr Roy Spencer never said there is no warming.....He is not an alarmist with C02....his cloud theory makes the most sense I have seen as of yet.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2322
Quoting 1139. yoboi:



Go back and read what I said...I bolded your part to show you my statement was true....

Yes, what you said is correct. They did "mention" the temperature trend -- in one data set. They didn't compute it. They obviously don't know what "hiatus" means given that they claim that the trend I posted is a "hiatus."

So while what you said was true, it was neither substantive nor supportive your earlier claim that the link "was surface temps."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1139. yoboi
Quoting 1138. Birthmark:

Look at what you quoted above. The link says temperature rose "at a rate of 0.14 � 0.06 per decade." Please explain how that is a hiatus as they claim in their sub-title. TIA

Here is a graph of the trends for four data sets, two land-based and two satellite for the twenty years mentioned in the link.


(Of particular interest to you, perhaps, is that Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH shows the greatest increase.)

And we haven't even touched the warming of the cryosphere and oceans over the same time-period. There is no hiatus.

EDIT TO ADD:
It should also be pointed out that the link looks at only one data set.



Go back and read what I said...I bolded your part to show you my statement was true....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2322
Quoting 1137. yoboi:




Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993%u20132012) rose at a rate of 0.14 0.06 C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models (see Supplementary Information).


you are correct the never said surface temps.....

Look at what you quoted above. The link says temperature rose "at a rate of 0.14 0.06 per decade." Please explain how that is a hiatus as they claim in their sub-title. TIA

Here is a graph of the trends for four data sets, two land-based and two satellite for the twenty years mentioned in the link.


(Of particular interest to you, perhaps, is that Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH shows the greatest increase.)

And we haven't even touched the warming of the cryosphere and oceans over the same time-period. There is no hiatus.

EDIT TO ADD:
It should also be pointed out that the link looks at only one data set.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1137. yoboi
Quoting 1136. Birthmark:

No, it really wasn't.




Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models (see Supplementary Information).


you are correct the never said surface temps.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2322
Quoting 1134. yoboi:



If you read the link he provided it was surface temps.....

No, it really wasn't.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1127. RawhideAcademics:
Thanks Dr. Ricky for bringing on the science. I'm a historian of religions and have come to believe that we are living a world where American culture is seriously and deeply considering what the science means for our lives, but we are only doing it through allegory, literature, fiction. We are surrounded by dystopias and zombie apocalypse, and the end of electricity--utterly up to our eyeballs in deeply detailed consideration of life after the convenience and comfort of the past centuries have failed. We are daily encountering the imagination of life without and we are imagining small communities learning to sustain themselves amidst good guys, bad guys, and complicated characters. When I first saw "Beasts of the Southern Wild" I thought "That's brilliant--the child is looking the big monster in the face, and she's coming away stronger for so doing. This producer is letting us look at that which we cannot yet look. We are in the bathtub, and the storm is coming, and everyone knows it, but we'll only look at it with the magical realism of the movie to bring us face to face."

That's an interesting observation that I've toyed around with for a few years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1134. yoboi
Quoting 1133. Birthmark:

As long as the data and empirical observation lead inescapably to that conclusion.

A better question is when will denialists quit playing make-believe? For instance, just the other day I posted a graphic for four data sets (two land-based, two satellite), all of which demonstrated warming over a time-period that *you* picked.

And here you are again, just days later claiming that there is no warming. LOL



If you read the link he provided it was surface temps.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2322
Quoting 1101. CEastwood:
More definitive proof demonstration that the Earth is not warming. Exactly how long will the warmists claim that the earth is still "warming"?

Link

As long as the data and empirical observation lead inescapably to that conclusion.

A better question is when will denialists quit playing make-believe? For instance, just the other day I posted a graphic for four data sets (two land-based, two satellite), all of which demonstrated warming over a time-period that *you* picked.

And here you are again, just days later claiming that there is no warming. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thought I share this with you all, this made my local newspaper, The Tennessean:

Environmentalists score a win in Tennessee against fracking:

Fracking in Tennessee? Nope.

Environmentalists aren't calling it a victory yet, citing University of Tennessee's 10-year effort to get a company to drill in the Cumberland forests.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1130. Daisyworld:



Because FoxNews has been found to be wrong about climate science 93% of the time, and has perfected no less than fourteen different propaganda techniques to brainwash Americans on a daily basis. This has resulted in FoxNews viewers becoming the least informed of all audiences.


I tend to watch all of the major news networks, CNN, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX News (not for the science), and NPR (when I get the chance). But, I know not to rely on the media for accurate information on science, I come here or go look it up on my own.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1128. PensacolaDoug:
Quoting 1126. Patrap:
Watching FOX news again..?







Sometimes. Why?



Because FoxNews has been found to be wrong about climate science 93% of the time, and has perfected no less than fourteen different propaganda techniques to brainwash Americans on a daily basis. This has resulted in FoxNews viewers becoming the least informed of all audiences.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A Change Is in the (Interstellar) Wind

As Earth and the other planets orbit the sun, the solar system itself travels through space. Its slow journey is taking it though a wispy expanse of gas called the Local Interstellar Cloud. Now, astronomers have discovered signs of potential turbulence in the cloud, indicated by a shift in direction of helium atoms that flow into the solar system. If the shift is real and continues for hundreds to thousands of years—a dicey extrapolation—it could be a harbinger of more dramatic changes in our solar system, notes study co-author David McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.

The finding, which McComas, Priscilla Frisch of the University of Chicago, and their colleagues report in the 6 September issue of Science, could foreshadow a change in the heliosphere, the vast bubble that shields the solar system from harmful cosmic rays. The heliosphere consists of charged particles blown out by the sun in the so-called solar wind. The size and shape of the heliosphere depends on the balance between the outward push of the solar wind and the inward pressure from gas in the Local Interstellar Cloud—the interstellar wind.

To detect the wind shift, researchers drew on measurements by 11 spacecraft and satellites that have recorded directly or indirectly the flow of helium atoms into the solar system. Many kinds of atoms infiltrate the heliosphere, but helium is a particularly good tracer for all of them because it is abundant and typically survives in its uncharged, atomic state all the way to Earth’s orbit, Frisch says.

So far, the apparent change in direction is small, about 4° to 9° over the past 40 years. But if it continues to shift direction and flips to the other side of the solar system, the heliosphere could be substantially distorted, notes astronomer William Reach of the Universities Space Research Association at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, who is not a member of the study. A smaller heliosphere would let in a greater a number of galactic cosmic rays, which are harmful to life on Earth.

more at ScienceMag.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Watching FOX news again..?






Sometimes. Why?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks Dr. Ricky for bringing on the science. I'm a historian of religions and have come to believe that we are living a world where American culture is seriously and deeply considering what the science means for our lives, but we are only doing it through allegory, literature, fiction. We are surrounded by dystopias and zombie apocalypse, and the end of electricity--utterly up to our eyeballs in deeply detailed consideration of life after the convenience and comfort of the past centuries have failed. We are daily encountering the imagination of life without and we are imagining small communities learning to sustain themselves amidst good guys, bad guys, and complicated characters. When I first saw "Beasts of the Southern Wild" I thought "That's brilliant--the child is looking the big monster in the face, and she's coming away stronger for so doing. This producer is letting us look at that which we cannot yet look. We are in the bathtub, and the storm is coming, and everyone knows it, but we'll only look at it with the magical realism of the movie to bring us face to face."

It's hard to believe that people still troll on these science columns, but if our artists and writers let us look very carefully at what happens after excess, only they shift the story line to zombies and television series (because we all know that it's only a tv story), even the trolls are up to their eyeballs imagining what the new normal will mean to small communities. We are over "Friends" and are on to "Hunger Games" and "Revolution" because we know that we and our children need to start looking, with our peripheral, literary vision, at how people will adapt. We know that we cannot sustain the conditions to which we became accustomed, and we became pretty sick with our own excess (obesity and diabetes). It ought to be the conservatives pointing out that nothing comes free and it's time to pay up for our carbon binge, not because we have become better people, but because volatility is exacting the fee. When we add your science to the writers and movie makers of our times, I think the political unconscious is in fact taking in the science--they just do it in the veins of denial and entertainment which are also central to American consciousness. So tonight I take heart that the trolls are coming to face reality, doing it sideways, and perhaps their spirit of fight will mean that they will build great vertical gardens to provide for their people. We are going to need as many good guys as we can get, even if they get their looking sideways.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1126. Patrap
Watching FOX news again..?

Maybe You should discuss science here instead of being entertained there on a Saturday Night.




; )



Larry W. Smith/European Pressphoto Agency
A dry lake bed at Lake Arrowhead State Park near Wichita Falls, Tex. A severe drought in the Midwest was one of several extreme weather events analyzed in a new report on climate change published Thursday.

Research Cites Role of Warming in Extremes

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: September 5, 2013

Scientists have long predicted that global warming will worsen heat waves and torrential rainfalls. In some parts of the world, that is exactly what happened last year, climate scientists reported Thursday.


Rising temperatures add energy to the atmosphere, and computer models warn that this will produce wider and wilder swings in temperature and rainfall and alter prevailing wind patterns. In examining a dozen extreme weather events last year, scientists found that evidence that human activity in particular, emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels was a partial culprit in about half of them.

Yet other extreme weather events, including the drought that withered the Midwest, appear to be just part of a natural pattern, the scientists concluded. The research, a series of 19 studies by 18 teams, was published in a special issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

While global warming will likely increase the number and severity of extreme weather events, climate scientists have been reluctant to attribute a particular heat wave, storm or drought directly to global warming, because of the natural variations of weather. But with advances in computer modeling and analysis of climate data, they are now able to tease out the contributions of human civilization.


The extreme weather events would have likely occurred regardless of climate change, said Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

The importance of attribution research comes with understanding, however, the impact that climate change adds, or doesn't add, to any extreme event, he added.

The articles editors likened climate change to someone habitually driving a bit over the speed limit. Even if the speeding itself is unlikely to directly cause an accident, it increases the likelihood that something else a wet road or a distracting text message will do so and that the accident, when it occurs, will be more calamitous.

Even when global warming contributes to extreme weather,natural variability can still be the primary factor in any individual extreme event, the editors wrote.

To examine causes of the Midwest drought last year, the most severe since the 1950s, researchers ran computer models comparing two situations: one with present-day concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the other with the much lower greenhouse gas concentrations before the Industrial Revolution. They found little difference in the frequency of Midwest droughts.

But scientists performing a similar comparison for the heat wave that blanketed much of the United States in July last year estimated that such heat waves now occur four times as frequently because of the influence of greenhouse gas emissions.

It was really clear and it was really stark, said Dr. Thomas Peterson, principal scientist at the climate center.Things had changed dramatically.

Another team, reviewing data on a heat wave in the eastern United States in the spring of last year, estimated that the activities of humans contributed about one-third of the 6.6-degree spike in temperatures.

An analysis of Hurricane Sandy did not look at the dynamics of the storm, but rather how often floodwaters have reached the heights seen last October. Because sea levels have been rising, the chances of Sandy-like flooding inundating the Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan have risen from once every 2,330 years in 1950 to once every 1,570 years today, the researchers said.

If sea level rise over the next 40 years is low, about half a foot, then the chances of flooding increase slightly. If sea level rise is at the top end up of predictions two yards then much smaller storms would cause as much flooding as Sandy did and Lower Manhattan could be inundated every couple of years by 2100, the researchers said.

Coastal communities are facing a looming crisis due to climate-related sea level rise, said William Sweet, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the authors of the Sandy study.

Record-low ice cover in the Arctic in 2012 was partially caused by global warming, researchers also said. But heavy rains in northern Europe, China and Japan were all explainable by natural variability.

A version of this article appears in print on September 6, 2013, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: Research Cites Role Of Warming In Extremes.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127368
Now this is entertainment!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1105. yoboi:



Yes I read it....did not buy anything it's free
Yoboi linked to a 2013 paper from PNAS which is still behind a paywall. Picasso linked to a 2012 paper from PNAS by the same researchers that is free for full text. Maybe yoboi read the 2012 paper.


Aslak Grinsted, John C. Moore, and Svetlana Jevrejeva
Projected Atlantic hurricane surge threat from rising temperatures
PNAS 2013 110 (14) 5369-5373; published ahead of print March 18, 2013,

Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here, we relate a homogeneous record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity based on storm surge statistics from tide gauges to changes in global temperature patterns. We examine 10 competing hypotheses using nonstationary generalized extreme value analysis with different predictors (North Atlantic Oscillation, Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Sahel rainfall, Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, radiative forcing, Main Development Region temperatures and its anomaly, global temperatures, and gridded temperatures). We find that gridded temperatures, Main Development Region, and global average temperature explain the observations best. The most extreme events are especially sensitive to temperature changes, and we estimate a doubling of Katrina magnitude events associated with the warming over the 20th century. The increased risk depends on the spatial distribution of the temperature rise with highest sensitivity from tropical Atlantic, Central America, and the Indian Ocean. Statistically downscaling 21st century warming patterns from six climate models results in a twofold to sevenfold increase in the frequency of Katrina magnitude events for a 1 °C rise in global temperature (using BNU-ESM, BCC-CSM-1.1, CanESM2, HadGEM2-ES, INM-CM4, and NorESM1-M).


> Current Issue > vol. 109 no. 48 > Aslak Grinsted, 19601–19605
Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923
Aslak Grinsteda,1,2, John C. Moorea,b,c, and Svetlana Jevrejevaa,d

Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here we construct an independent record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on the basis of storm surge statistics from tide gauges. We demonstrate that the major events in our surge index record can be attributed to landfalling tropical cyclones; these events also correspond with the most economically damaging Atlantic cyclones. We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02).
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2305
1123. Patrap
I liked da Stone Age, the beaches were way less crowded.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127368
Quoting 1106. CEastwood:


A lie? You and the rest of your Gaia worshipers continue to live in your fantasy world and ignore data. I know you'd like to revert us back to the Stone Age, but it ain't happening. I'm sure you never use the internal combustion engine either.


How ironic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1121. Patrap
Quoting 1118. CEastwood:
Speaking of lying... it appears the new IPCC report will be DOA. It is replete with bad data, false assumptions, and out-of-date studies:

Link


Just like 100% of your unsubstantiated Links here.

hockeyschtick.blogspot.com



; )

The IPCC Report coming is a straight forward confirmation of a well known Thang.

Try talking to the Sofa maybe, they have more ears dan a chair.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127368
Quoting 1118. CEastwood:
Speaking of lying... it appears the new IPCC report will be DOA. It is replete with bad data, false assumptions, and out-of-date studies:

Link


What is it that you can't understand about using 15 and 20 years to try and get a statistically significant trend? This point has been refuted multiple times over the past 2 days (which have included you posting the same BS over and over and yet to grasp the concept).

It's funny, because the papers linked to in your articles do not actually show what your buddies at Hockeyschtick even claim. Just more misrepresentation of ideas, misunderstanding studies, and poor reading comprehension. However, I'm sure you won't let any of that get in your way.

Mods, is this enough monomania for you yet???
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
1119. whitewabit (Mod)
Quoting 1115. yoboi:


That's what they were hinting at...sometimes you have to read between the lines Naga.....


When you as you say read between the lines you are injecting your own personal beliefs into what the author has written .. not what he said !!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Speaking of lying... it appears the new IPCC report will be DOA. It is replete with bad data, false assumptions, and out-of-date studies:

Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Quoting 1115. yoboi:


That's what they were hinting at...sometimes you have to read between the lines Naga.....


No, they were not. They were saying they expect the strength of tropiacl cyclones to increase 2-11%, in this case "reading between the lines" is falsely accusing scientists of making up evidence to support your belief that scientists attributed Katrina to climate change.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
Quoting 1110. Naga5000:


If your skills at reading, understanding, and analyzing information were only half as good as your use of hyperbole and rhetoric.


ANYONE who uses GWPF and their Flying Monkeys as a source of support for *any* scientific assertion is akin to using Ben and Jerry's© "Chunky Monkey" as a weight loss aid. Both equally fallacious and a fail.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3120
1115. yoboi
Quoting 1113. Naga5000:


So, no, they did not say Katrina was caused by global warming. Thanks.


That's what they were hinting at...sometimes you have to read between the lines Naga.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2322

Viewing: 1165 - 1115

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.