Behavioral Science: Arctic Oscillation (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:49 AM GMT on September 10, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

Behavioral Science: Arctic Oscillation (2)

The day job continues to overwhelm – so it’s been a while. I want to continue with the Arctic Oscillation / North Atlantic Oscillation. First, however, here is the link to my August presentation. 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.

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.

To give some measure of the Arctic Oscillation meteorologists developed an index. This is a common method to give some sense of behavior. In the Arctic Oscillation the index is the difference in pressure between some middle and some higher latitude regions or weather station. Historically, indices were often developed prior to our modern observing system, and sailors, explorers and scientists noticed that when the weather was, say, wet in one region it was reliably dry in another. As we get more observations and develop a more complete understanding of processes responsible for weather patterns, new definitions of indices are proposed. This paper by Kuzmina et al. 2005 includes an analysis of how some climate model results are related to some different definitions of the North Atlantic Oscillation.

The first figure shows North America temperature differences for a set of winters in the late 1970s and a set of recent winters. What is done here is to take the average temperature for a particular winter, and from that subtract a 30-year average from 1961-1990. Thirty-year averages are used to define “climate” by the standard definition of climate as average weather. Blues mean it is colder than average and reds mean it is warmer than average. Look first at 1978 and 1979. These were very cold winters, and 1979 was the coldest observed North American winter. The spatial extent of the cold included much of the U.S. and Canada. Indeed, in the 1970s some scientists and the press started talking about the coming ice age. I was a student then, and I remember both it being very cold in Tallahassee, Florida and seeing talks about cycles of climate. In class here in 2013, I ask students to think about how today’s claims of warming are different from this episode in the 1970s. 2006 and 2007 are notably warm. 2010 and 2011 received a lot of press for being cold, but compared to the 1970s they don’t seem so extreme.



Figure 1: North America temperature differences for a set of winters in the late 1970s and a set of recent winters. What is done here is to take the average temperature for a particular winter, and from that subtract a 30-year average from 1961-1990. Thanks to Jim Hurrell



Figure 2: The top plot in the figure shows the Arctic Oscillation Index. The bottom plot shows the December, January and February average temperature for North America. Thanks to Jim Hurrell


In Figure 1 at the very highest latitudes plotted, it is always warmer than the thirty-year average. This statement is least convincing in 2008. Otherwise in the recent record, the temperatures in northern Canada and Greenland are flirting with being 10 degrees F above average.

The maps with the cold temperatures over the U.S. are the times of the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation and the times of the warmer temperatures are the positive phase. This is shown better in Figure 2. The top plot in the figure shows the Arctic Oscillation Index. The bottom plot shows the December, January and February average temperature for North America. In the years since 1970 there is a very strong correlation between the phase of the Arctic Oscillation and whether or not it is colder than average. There is not an easy relationship between the strength of the Arctic Oscillation Index and how much colder. This will be discussed more fully in a future entry.

In the earlier part of the record, prior to 1960, the relation between warm and cold and the Arctic Oscillation is not as simple as it has been in the more recent years. Not only that, but the magnitude of the Arctic Oscillation index does not reach either the positive or negative extremes recently observed. Further examination, for example in Jim Hurrell’s classic 1995 paper, shows that in about 1960 there is a change in the statistical behavior of North Atlantic / Arctic Oscillation.

There are many interesting features in these two figures. From a climate perspective, February 1985 was the last month when we observed global-average temperatures that were below the twentieth century average. When we arrive at February 2015 we will have had thirty years above average – an entire definition of “climate.” The warming has been especially large at the highest northern hemispheric latitudes. This means that there is a distinct trend in the North American averages temperature of the past twenty years. The warm parts at higher latitude are much warmer and the cool parts at middle latitudes are also warmer. If we stay on this trend, soon the average might not be below the 1961-1990 average used in Figure 2. There are also many other interesting climate and climate change features that will be discussed in the next, not too far off, blog.



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: 386 - 336

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Quoting 385. yoboi:


do you have a link to the new IPCC report??? I did not know it was out....please provide a link...I am sure he has alot to say and ya seem to have a lot to say also......so why not debate him???


The AR5 hasn't been officially released yet, but here is a link to the leaked report. I suppose they are trying to ease the damage:

Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
385. yoboi
Quoting 384. CEastwood:


Handle what? Exactly what will he say? Every climate model has been incorrect. Warming has stopped, even using doctored data. Are we supposed to believe that climate "scientists" have a crystal ball and can predict the future when they have been so incorrect so far? I think not. The IPCC report admits that climate models have been abysmal at predicting the future. Why should we take their word that the world is warming?


do you have a link to the new IPCC report??? I did not know it was out....please provide a link...I am sure he has alot to say and ya seem to have a lot to say also......so why not debate him???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
Quoting 383. yoboi:


Maybe ya should invite neap to a debate??? I am sure he will accept the challenge??? Thats is if you think you can handle neap....


Handle what? Exactly what will he say? Every climate model has been incorrect. Warming has stopped, even using doctored data. Are we supposed to believe that climate "scientists" have a crystal ball and can predict the future when they have been so incorrect so far? I think not. The IPCC report admits that climate models have been abysmal at predicting the future. Why should we take their word that the world is warming when the data show the exact opposite?
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
383. yoboi
Quoting 382. CEastwood:
I guess everyone on this site has their panties in a wad after seeing that the IPCC is severely curtailing their warming predictions. Neapolitan is probably crying right now.


Maybe ya should invite neap to a debate??? I am sure he will accept the challenge??? Thats is if you think you can handle neap....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
I guess everyone on this site has their panties in a wad after seeing that the IPCC is severely curtailing their warming predictions. Neapolitan is probably crying right now.
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Quoting 377. yoboi:



what makes ya think that????


I'd better not write any more. The moderators may deem it offensive. I'm not certain if the picture he posted originally is actually he. BTW, I can see that armadillo in your picture, but is he drinking a Bud Light?
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
377. yoboi
Quoting 375. CEastwood:


I thought so at first, but sometimes he makes me wonder.



what makes ya think that????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
Quoting 374. yoboi:


that's a low blow..


Only a response to his needless comment.
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Quoting 372. yoboi:



I think neap is a guy....


I thought so at first, but sometimes he makes me wonder.
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Quoting 370. CEastwood:


Amusing. You should become a comedian (comedienne). As your entire religion crumbles before your eyes, all you can do is attack the messenger. Shouldn't you be banned for ad-hominem attacks? Biased moderation around here.
Yeah, unfortunately biased toward a preposterous "let's hear both sides" approach that lets you continue posting here. As if you and other deniers had any facts to "debate" with. Oh, well, at least this Lomberg guy is a better writer than the dreck you usually post from Stevie and Tony.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2384
372. yoboi
Quoting 370. CEastwood:


Amusing. You should become a comedian (comedienne). As your entire religion crumbles before your eyes, all you can do is attack the messenger. Shouldn't you be banned for ad-hominem attacks? Biased moderation around here.



I think neap is a guy....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
Quoting 368. Neapolitan:
Are you? I myself am still looking for that first coherent, original, science-based thought from you. Can I expect one to be forthcoming anytime soon? Or should I just give up now?

Using a verb such as "looking" implies that he is actually making an effort to do something. Unprecedented times ahead.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210
Quoting 366. CEastwood:
I'm still looking for that "missing" heat...
Are you? I myself am still looking for that first coherent, original, science-based thought from you. Can I expect one to be forthcoming anytime soon? Or should I just give up now?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13560
Quoting 366. CEastwood:
em


I believe your train of thought has left you at the station. However, I'm still trying to find one post of yours that makes any sense whatsoever. I would say I've failed just as poorly as you have failed at posting science.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3489
I'm still looking for that "missing" heat:

Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers.

Guysgal posted this link at Dr. Masters' blog, and I thought it was well worth reading. I have stuff to do for the rest of the day, but may re-read and comment on the piece later this evening.
Quoting Naomi Klein:
I should say I'm representing my own views. I see some big changes as well. I think the Sierra Club has gone through its own reformation. They are on the front line of these struggles now. I think a lot of these groups are having to listen to their members. And some of them will just refuse to change because they're just too entrenched in the partnership model,[with corporations] they've got too many conflicts of interest at this stage. Those are the groups that are really going to suffer. And I think it's OK. I think at this point, there's a big push in Europe where 100 civil society groups are calling on the EU not to try to fix their failed carbon-trading system, but to actually drop it and start really talking about cutting emissions at home instead of doing this shell game. I think that's the moment we're in right now. We don't have any more time to waste with these very clever, not working shell games.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1465
Quoting 363. FLwolverine:
Very very interesting, and just goes to show how one's personal perception can be out of sync with measured data. The numbers for Michigan are June 50, July 58, August 53, all in the "near normal" range, but I would have guessed (from being there) that July was noticeably hotter than average and August was significantly cooler. Interesting.

Thanks for the link, Rookie.

Climate changes so slowly (even though the current climatic changes are quite rapid in geological timescales), that many do not even notice. Some do, but many don't. People think their cold weather episodes in the last several years are really a big deal, but they rarely are.

The dice are heavily weighted toward warm events, and we are just getting started (even in CO2 emissions ceased today).
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210
Quoting 360. Some1Has2BtheRookie:
The Climate Lottery Blog - Guy Walton
Very very interesting, and just goes to show how one's personal perception can be out of sync with measured data. The numbers for Michigan are June 50, July 58, August 53, all in the "near normal" range, but I would have guessed (from being there) that July was noticeably hotter than average and August was significantly cooler. Interesting.

Thanks for the link, Rookie.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2384
362. yoboi
Quoting 361. Naga5000:


I get what you're saying, CB. But in order to get people behind your idea of climate manipulation, you have a steep hill to climb. You need to show a) that cooling the gulfstream will have an effect globally, b) what these effects will have on regional variations, c) what possible interactions or problems may arise with changing of this one variable, d) what effect weakening tropical systems will have on climatological rain rates in the affected areas, and e) what possible effects in altering tropical cyclone strength will have on other regional and global factors.

There's a lot of variables at play here CB. I think you have an idea that goes outside the box and I do applaud you for some very creative thinking. But I also think if you really want this idea to be taken seriously by experts in the field, you may want to work on a literature review of what we know about the gulfstream and it's contribution on the regional and global patterns and what your project means for the interrelated mechanisms at work. Until then, your idea will only be pursued for energy production and nothing more.

I mean this, not as an insult to your tunnels, but as a very serious piece of constructive criticism.




that and you need to watch his youtube video....he is dumping a red liquid out of an antifreeze bottle into the water....he will not listen he just says it's not antifreeze....and he needs to change his picture of the tunnels it looks like a cartoon with the fish and seagulls.....CB you need to change things up.....it's obvious that your current plan is not working...I hope you will listen to the people on here they are trying to give you good advice....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
Quoting 359. cyclonebuster:


We are artificially messing with it now in an uncontrolled manner with fossil fuel GHG's would it not be better if we artificially messed with it in a controlled and regulated manner to bring world temperatures back to what they were prior to the industrial revolution?


I get what you're saying, CB. But in order to get people behind your idea of climate manipulation, you have a steep hill to climb. You need to show a) that cooling the gulfstream will have an effect globally, b) what these effects will have on regional variations, c) what possible interactions or problems may arise with changing of this one variable, d) what effect weakening tropical systems will have on climatological rain rates in the affected areas, and e) what possible effects in altering tropical cyclone strength will have on other regional and global factors.

There's a lot of variables at play here CB. I think you have an idea that goes outside the box and I do applaud you for some very creative thinking. But I also think if you really want this idea to be taken seriously by experts in the field, you may want to work on a literature review of what we know about the gulfstream and it's contribution on the regional and global patterns and what your project means for the interrelated mechanisms at work. Until then, your idea will only be pursued for energy production and nothing more.

I mean this, not as an insult to your tunnels, but as a very serious piece of constructive criticism.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3489
The Climate Lottery Blog - Guy Walton
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting 358. Naga5000:

No one here doubts the capacity to produce power. We doubt the lack of regard for messing with nature by going the extra step of artificially messing with sea surface temperatures and weather modification.


We are artificially messing with it now in an uncontrolled manner with fossil fuel GHG's would it not be better if we artificially messed with it in a controlled and regulated manner to bring world temperatures back to what they were prior to the industrial revolution?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 357. cyclonebuster:
With 21,000 times the energy of Niagara Falls, Florida’s Gulf Stream possesses the world’s fastest and most powerful ocean currents. Experts estimate that the Gulf Stream currents are capable of generating between four and ten gigawatts of power—the same amount of energy produced by four to ten new nuclear power plants. If ocean energy technology harnessed just 1/1000 of the Gulf Stream’s available energy, we could power up to 7 million homes and businesses in the state of Florida with renewable, reliable, emission-free electricity.

Link

No one here doubts the capacity to produce power. We doubt the lack of regard for messing with nature by going the extra step of artificially messing with sea surface temperatures and weather modification.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3489
With 21,000 times the energy of Niagara Falls, Florida’s Gulf Stream possesses the world’s fastest and most powerful ocean currents. Experts estimate that the Gulf Stream currents are capable of generating between four and ten gigawatts of power—the same amount of energy produced by four to ten new nuclear power plants. If ocean energy technology harnessed just 1/1000 of the Gulf Stream’s available energy, we could power up to 7 million homes and businesses in the state of Florida with renewable, reliable, emission-free electricity.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 350. RevElvis:


Bill Schorr, Cagle Cartoons


LOL! That's some funny stuff right there... Where's the palm trees?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
Not sure if this was posted already, but if so, feel free to cuss at me, I am used to it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1236.a bstractLink

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/15/222638783/remote-an tarctic-glacier-is-disappearing-from-belowLink

"I was surprised by how much like a river this was. It's a river, but instead of eroding a channel, it's melting a channel," Shaw says.

And it turns out that channel is melting very fast. As they report in , the ice in that channel was disappearing at the rate of 2 inches a day. Stanton said their measurement is consistent with what scientists had inferred from satellite measurements.

At the moment, it's contributing a tiny amount to rising sea levels. But the melting has been accelerating in recent years, and if it keeps accelerating, in the very long run, the Pine Island Glacier could add several feet to global sea levels.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 346. schistkicker:


The only "interesting" thing about this nonsense comment is that the second part of it is lifted, word-for-word, from the comments section of this article... which was made by a "Joe Jones" three months ago. My only question is 338 a bot, or a really lazy paid commenter who clutters up websites with word-salad claptrap as he/she comes across them?
Yes.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13560
Quoting 344. JohnLonergan:
If anything, the linear trend has increased!
Quoting 348. JohnLonergan:
Take a look at the 25 year trend line(yellow), even extended to 2012, there is no hiatus when a sufficiently long interval is used.

FYI... If you look at 25yr periods in the GISS monthly data, the period ending with 2006 had a slightly higher trend than the 25yr period ending with 2013. Using the same starting point (1950) instead of a moving window seems to make the trend higher with the longer period, but just be aware of the result from the moving period, at least for GISS. I'm sure someone somewhere is looking at that ready to make a mountain from their molehill, even if the difference is minor. And both trends are higher than the entire 1950-2012 trend, which suggests a faster rate in the latter half of the period.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210
Parts of Europe heating faster than global average

Climate change hits different regions in different ways and, as Europe’s climate warms, some areas are already having to adapt. New crops are being planted and there’s a call for buildings that don’t overheat in warm weather.

Temperatures in some parts of Europe have already increased by more than 2C in the last 60 years with changes in local climate allowing new crops to be grown.

An example is the new wine growing area in southern England, which this year is celebrating its best ever grape harvest. Hundreds of acres of new vineyards are being planted to take advantage of the changing climate.

Many parts of Europe are experiencing more hotter days in the summer and fewer very cold nights in winter. Overall the increase is four times greater than the global average over the 60 year period.

Researchers at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, in collaboration with the University of Warwick, show that not all regions are warming at the same pace.

The results of their research, which appear in a study in the journal, Environmental Research Letters, indicate that the hottest 5% of days in summer have warmed fastest in a band from southern England and northern France to Denmark. In eastern Spain and central Italy there has been a general warming in all seasons.

In some areas, Norway and Sweden for example, the changes have been much smaller in summer and in some cases there have been no measurable differences. However nights in the depths of winter have been getting warmer – by more than 2C in both countries.


more at ClimateNewsNetwork.net
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
137445 600 arctic summer cartoons

Bill Schorr, Cagle Cartoons
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Media blackout on the fracking flood disaster in Colorado?



DemocraticUnderground.com

Colorado flooding: Evacuations, broken oil pipeline in Weld County (DenverPost.com)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis in Pictures



FAQ 3.1, Figure 1. (Top) Annual global mean observed temperatures1 (black dots) along with simple fits to the data. The left hand axis shows anomalies relative to the 1961 to 1990 average and the right hand axis shows the estimated actual temperature (°C). Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981 to 2005, 1956 to 2005, 1906 to 2005, and 1856 to 2005, respectively. Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming. The blue curve is a smoothed depiction to capture the decadal variations. To give an idea of whether the fluctuations are meaningful, decadal 5% to 95% (light grey) error ranges about that line are given (accordingly, annual values do exceed those limits). Results from climate models driven by estimated radiative forcings for the 20th century (Chapter 9) suggest that there was little change prior to about 1915, and that a substantial fraction of the early 20th-century change was contributed by naturally occurring influences including solar radiation changes, volcanism and natural variability. From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s. (Bottom) Patterns of linear global temperature trends from 1979 to 2005 estimated at the surface (left), and for the troposphere (right) from the surface to about 10 km altitude, from satellite records. Grey areas indicate incomplete data. Note the more spatially uniform warming in the satellite tropospheric record while the surface temperature changes more clearly relate to land and ocean.

Take a look at the 25 year trend line(yellow), even extended to 2012, there is no hiatus when a sufficiently long interval is used.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
Quoting 343. yoboi:


Don't ya think that was a bit rough response????
No.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2384
Quoting 338.


The only "interesting" thing about this nonsense comment is that the second part of it is lifted, word-for-word, from the comments section of this article... which was made by a "Joe Jones" three months ago. My only question is 338 a bot, or a really lazy paid commenter who clutters up websites with word-salad claptrap as he/she comes across them?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The UK Met Office issued a press release this morning regarding The Fail article.

Met Office in the Mail on Sunday

An article appears in the Mail on Sunday today focusing on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) which it bills this as the ‘world’s most authoritative climate study’.

It’s fair to say that AR5 is expected to be the most comprehensive review of climate change science to date. The first part of the report, from its Working Group I (WGI), has been worked on by more than 800 scientists from around the world who have assessed more than 9,000 scientific publications and taken into account more than 50,000 comments from over 1000 expert reviewers.

The WGI report is now in its final stages and the major conclusions will be finalised and released on 27 September. It is at that point that we should debate its findings and their implications.

Further parts of the report, from its Working Group II and III, as well as a final version of the whole report will be published next year.

The Mail article also discusses the recent pause in warming, which the Met Office looked at in a series of papers, released in July. Many of the issues raised in the article are addressed in those reports, which you can see on our website.

The article also goes on to mention some of the claims made in a commentary published by Nic Lewis yesterday. This is a lengthy and technical commentary covering several topics and will require time to provide as helpful a response as possible, so further comment will be released in due course.

There are a couple of points raised in the Mail story which should be addressed now, however.

The article states that the Met Office’s ‘flagship’ model (referring to our Earth System Model known as HadGEM2-ES) is too sensitive to greenhouse gases and therefore overestimates the possible temperature changes we may see by 2100.

There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. It is indeed the case that HadGEM2-ES is among the most sensitive models used by the IPCC (something the Met Office itself has discussed in a science paper published early this year), but it lies within the accepted range of climate sensitivity highlighted by the IPCC.


Equally when HadGEM2-ES is evaluated against many aspects of the observed climate, including those that are critical for determining the climate sensitivity, it has proved to be amongst the most skilful models in the world.

Finally, in our aim to provide the best possible scientific advice to the UK Government, the Met Office draws on all the scientific evidence available to us. This includes many other physically based climate models from leading research centres around the world, which provide a range of climate sensitivities and a range of potential future warming.


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
HotWhopper takes more idiocy from David Rose of The Fail



"Serial disinformer David Rose from the tabloid rag the Daily Mail doesn't care about facts, only headlines. He's come out with another "not even wrong" article (archived here) as a follow up to his last one.

David starts with a false headline: Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong.

Unsurprisingly, David doesn't cite any of the world's top scientists so I figure he just made that up. It's what he does - see here and here and here and here and here and here and here (and more here)."...



...If anything, the linear trend has increased!

How about David's implied claim that the IPCC said the world has warmed at 0.2 degrees since 1951 and is only warming at 50% of that - or 60% if you use David's numbers rather than his wrong calculation? What I think he must have done is try to convince his readers that the modeled projection for future temperature rises under a "business as usual" scenario was the same as the actual rise since 1951. But who knows. The mind of the science denier is a tangle of lies and disinformation and it's not for me to try to fathom.

So instead let's look at the record itself. Here is a chart of global average surface temperature from 1951 to the present, and from 1951 to 2006 - the last full year before the publication of IPCC's AR4 report:



Interesting, eh. To get a very rough estimate, subtract the value at the bottom of the trend line (the straight line) from the value at the top of the trend line, divide by the number of years and multiply by ten. (But don't tell Tamino I said this!) If you do the sums you'll get the following:

1951-2006 trend ~ 0.124 degrees per decade
1951-2012 trend ~ 0.127 degrees per decade.

If you want to quibble about decimal places, let's round it to two decimal places. The linear trend has increased from 0.12 degrees a decade for 1951 to 2006 to to 0.13 degrees a decade for 1951 to 2012!

David Rose has a lot of cheek, too. Pretending that he "first reported" a pause. He doesn't say, but what he is most likely referring to is another slab of lies and disinformation that the Met Office called him out on - here and here."...

Judith Curry gets into the act:

..."The Incomprehensible Judith Curry

I'll mention that David quotes Judith Curry (scientist turned denying fan of David Rose) as saying it's "incomprensible to me" that the IPCC would state, very conservatively, that it is 95% certain that humans have caused more than half the temperature rise from 1951 to 2010. Some science suggests we've caused more than 100% of the rise in temperature since the 1950s. Here's an article on realclimate.org about attribution and one on SkepticalScience, with this chart:


Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple),Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange). .
Source: SkepticalScience.com

..."Going by David Rose's record, I won't take it as read that Judith Curry did say that. However there is little that she says these days that surprises me. She could claim tomorrow that the moon was made of cheese and it wouldn't surprise me. Although she probably wouldn't be categorical and would add "but there is a lot of uncertainty" and "we can't be sure if it's Italian cheese". (Apologies to Italians and their wonderful cheeses.)"...

Sou concludes:

..."This article is more of a mish mash than other articles by David Rose. It hops and skips and jumps all over the place. I'd say he's rattled. He denies the science but is finding it hard to balance his denial with his possible desire to be viewed as anything but another James Delingpole or Anthony Watts.

I won't bother going into any more detail of the rest of it because it's a gish gallop of "the models are wrong", Bob Ward said his last article was "error strewn" (it was) and complaints about allusions to Nazis - which I myself abhor but which denialati more commonly resort to than do people who accept science.

Message to David Rose - you are just another denier who has somehow managed to hold down a job with a UK tabloid. Try writing an article on UFOs and little green men from Mars and your typical fans will probably "believe" you."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
343. yoboi
Quoting 341. Neapolitan:
For future use, you should know that mentioning the name "Al Gore" automatically deducts 90% of the intelligence from any comment made, and using it wrapped in an infantile "pun" deducts 90% of the remainder. And brother, you had very little to start with.

But no hard feelings; better luck next time, huh?


Don't ya think that was a bit rough response????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
Quoting 341. Neapolitan:
For future use, you should know that mentioning the name "Al Gore" automatically deducts 90% of the intelligence from any comment made, and using it wrapped in an infantile "pun" deducts 90% of the remainder. And brother, you had very little to start with.

But no hard feelings; better luck next time, huh?


No next time from me!
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
Quoting 338. vpdura:
Many of the input data assumptions used in ... [incoherent, nonsensical rambling deleted]
For future use, you should know that mentioning the name "Al Gore" automatically deducts 90% of the intelligence from any comment made, and using it wrapped in an infantile "pun" deducts 90% of the remainder. And brother, you had very little to start with.

But no hard feelings; better luck next time, huh?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13560
338.

You really need to start questioning your thoughts.

I'm sure you won't but that's probably the wisest thing you can do at the moment.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1298
338.

What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this blog is now dumber for having%uFEFF read it.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
Quoting 336. RevElvis:
US bid to name "Science Laureate" hits snag with climate denialists

Conservative lobbying groups freak out, get bipartisan bill pulled.

You may not be aware of it, but the US has an official poet. Named by the Librarian of Congress, the Poet Laureate is meant to increase the public's appreciation of poetry and the arts in general. Inspired by this example, a bipartisan group of Representatives introduced a bill that would create a Science Laureate to indicate to the US public the value placed on science. Unfortunately, that plan has hit a snag, as lobbyists freaked out over fears the Science Laureate could introduce the US public to reality on the topic of climate change.

According to Science Insider, when the bill was first introduced, it had bipartisan backing in both the House and Senate - including from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who is not consistently on friendly terms with the US government's science bodies. In fact, the bill had such broad support, the House bypassed committee votes and sent it straight to the floor, where it was expected to pass without incident.

There was an incident. A leader of the American Conservative Union spotted the bill and blew a gasket. In a letter sent to all Republican Representatives and other conservative lobbying groups, the American Conservative Union alleged that Obama would use the opportunity to politicize the position and use it for advocacy about "climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases."

Science Insider also talked to someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who basically said that his group didn't want to see scientists talking to the public,...

more at ARSTechnica.com

"It is difficult to get a man to undertand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it !" - Upton Sinclair


The Republicans would have a hard time arguing with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
US bid to name "Science Laureate" hits snag with climate denialists

Conservative lobbying groups freak out, get bipartisan bill pulled.

You may not be aware of it, but the US has an official poet. Named by the Librarian of Congress, the Poet Laureate is meant to increase the public's appreciation of poetry and the arts in general. Inspired by this example, a bipartisan group of Representatives introduced a bill that would create a Science Laureate to indicate to the US public the value placed on science. Unfortunately, that plan has hit a snag, as lobbyists freaked out over fears the Science Laureate could introduce the US public to reality on the topic of climate change.

According to Science Insider, when the bill was first introduced, it had bipartisan backing in both the House and Senate - including from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who is not consistently on friendly terms with the US government's science bodies. In fact, the bill had such broad support, the House bypassed committee votes and sent it straight to the floor, where it was expected to pass without incident.

There was an incident. A leader of the American Conservative Union spotted the bill and blew a gasket. In a letter sent to all Republican Representatives and other conservative lobbying groups, the American Conservative Union alleged that Obama would use the opportunity to politicize the position and use it for advocacy about "climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases."

Science Insider also talked to someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who basically said that his group didn't want to see scientists talking to the public,...

more at ARSTechnica.com

"It is difficult to get a man to undertand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it !" - Upton Sinclair
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Viewing: 386 - 336

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog 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.