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: 436 - 386

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

436. goosegirl1
6:07 PM GMT on September 19, 2013
Quoting 387. VR46L:


I remember last year you were trying to get him to debate you for some reason it never happened can't understand why ?

I wouuld enjoy to read either a Yoboi Neap debate or CEastwood Neap debate .. In fact I would pay to see it ...



Now that would be a waste of time... what would CEastwood and Yoboi use as evidence?
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1224
435. canyonboy
5:52 PM GMT on September 19, 2013
Example: As a weather buff, I typically check the temps every day in Orange County, CA, have for many years now. The long term station in our area is at the airport. Low reading at airport yesterday: 69. Average low: 64. A few miles away in Newport Beach: low: 63. Here inland: 56. Airport is now surrounded by 10 lane freeways, is covered in concrete and of course has aircraft. This is a typical case I've seen. Anecdotely, we are in three years of below average temperatures in OC (felt like November this morning)yet NOAA shows we are above average. Now, I'm the first to admit this isn't a formal analysis but it just doesn't seem to be adding up.
Member Since: December 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 29
434. georgevandenberghe
12:53 PM GMT on September 17, 2013
Concerning various denier and other outrageously wrong trolls I'd rather see the posts and decide to ignore them myself rather than have them censored. Most of them turn out to be best ignored and they'll get less attention and visibility if we only state why and how they're incorrect once and then leave them alone.
(Just my opinion)

Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 17 Comments: 1620
433. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
4:36 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
432. Naga5000
4:13 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 424. FLwolverine:
I guess all those, ahem, people you and I referred to were quite insulted. I just received my first ban! And I see your post was deleted also. That's ok - this one is better anyway!

But I thought the etymology of the word was so interesting and appropriate that I would share it with you.

[From New Latin ignrmus, a grand jury's endorsement upon a bill of indictment when evidence is deemed insufficient to send the case to a trial jury, from Latin, we do not know, first person pl. present tense of ignrre, to be ignorant; see ignore.]
............
modern usage originated from the use of Ignoramus as the name of an unlettered lawyer in a play by G. Ruggle, 17th-century English dramatist]

:-)


My first ban was for calling Al Gore fat, true story. :) I was just trying to add on to an obviously studpid post in Dr. Master's, but my humor was not appreciated.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3246
431. cyclonebuster
3:51 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 419. JohnLonergan:
Satellite data confirms humans are the main cause of temperature rise

Compare satellite records of temperatures over the last few decades with multiple simulations from the latest generation of climate models, and one thing is clear - warming near the earth's surface could not have occurred without the influence of human's greenhouse gas emissions.

That's the finding of a new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences identifies a unique human fingerprint in the 34-year record of temperature data collected by satellites. Other factors that can influence the climate, like the amount of sunlight reaching earth, can't reproduce the warming patterns seen in recent years when simulated by climate models, the research finds.

The human fingerprint

Instruments mounted on satellites have been collecting data for over 30 years, creating a detailed record of how temperatures in different layers of the earth's atmosphere are changing. According to the paper by a team of international scientists, that data reveals a distinct pattern, which can only be explained by rising levels of greenhouse gases.

The satellite data shows that in the atmospheric layer closest to earth's surface - the troposphere - temperatures have risen steadily since satellite records began in 1979. But in the layer above - the stratosphere - temperatures have cooled. The scientists wanted to know what was causing the neighbouring layers of the atmosphere to behave differently.

Using 20 new generation climate models, the team tried to recreate the patterns seen in the atmospheric temperature record by looking at all of the various factors which could affect the climate.

But when they simulated all the natural factors, such as changes in the sun's energy, volcanic eruptions and natural ocean-atmosphere cycles, they couldn't recreate the same trends seen in the satellite data.

Only when the rise in greenhouse gases over recent decades was included in their climate model simulations could this unique pattern be achieved.

Watching climate change unfold

This revelation from the satellite data is "clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", say the authors. But satellites tell scientists about a lot more than just temperature rise.

As the image below shows, they help monitor changes across the entire climate system, from the surface of the land and seas to the upper limits of the atmosphere:

s another new study shows, satellite data offers a number of benefits over traditional ways of measuring the climate.

Since satellites are continuously orbiting the earth they offer much better spatial coverage than a network of weather stations, for example, and they are less likely to be biased by local factors which can affect things like temperature readings. They also allow scientists to measure changes in remote locations, such as the temperature of the ocean.

In recent years, satellites have been used in a number of different ways to observe how ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice are changing in response to rising temperatures. In 2012, satellites recorded melting over 97 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, and witnessed the area of Arctic ocean covered in sea ice shrink to its lowest extent ever.

Satellites are also used to monitor important changes happening outside the climate system. They can measure phenomena such as the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface, and the level of sunlight-reflecting aerosols in the atmosphere. Knowing how external factors like these are changing is important in weighing up the role humans' role in the long term trend of global warming, relative to natural influences.

Confidence booster

The main downside of satellite data at the moment is that the record is quite short. Natural fluctuations in the climate can occur over decades, so separating out the human influence over such a short time isn't easy. But as the new study today shows, it is possible - and as the satellite record continues to grow, that differentiation should become easier to make.

Even with this shortcoming, satellites have brought about major advances in climate science in the last 30 years. They help scientists monitor how that warming is affecting the earth as climate change unfolds - measuring changes in the size of the ice sheets for example. And they have helped scientists say with increasing certainty what was first suggested more than 75 years ago - that humans' greenhouse gases are the main driver of global temperature rise.



Santer et al. (2013) Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1305332110

Yang et al. (2013) The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies. Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1908


Yep that's what happens when we warm deep Western boundary currents with GHG's....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
430. FLwolverine
2:46 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 428. SteveDa1:


Et ça c'est la vérité!
Mais oui!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2313
429. cyclonebuster
2:45 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 422. Daisyworld:
Ice shelves are melting from the bottom up, studies show

From:

Stanton, T.P., et. al., "Channelized Ice Melting in the Ocean Boundary Layer Beneath Pine Island Glacier, Antarctica", Science 13 September 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6151 pp. 1236-1239, DOI: 10.1126/science.1239373

Abstract:

Ice shelves play a key role in the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheets by buttressing their seaward-flowing outlet glaciers; however, they are exposed to the underlying ocean and may weaken if ocean thermal forcing increases. An expedition to the ice shelf of the remote Pine Island Glacier, a major outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that has rapidly thinned and accelerated in recent decades, has been completed. Observations from geophysical surveys and long-term oceanographic instruments deployed down bore holes into the ocean cavity reveal a buoyancy-driven boundary layer within a basal channel that melts the channel apex by 0.06 meter per day, with near-zero melt rates along the flanks of the channel. A complex pattern of such channels is visible throughout the Pine Island Glacier shelf.


Yep! That's what happens when we warm the Gulfstream with GHG's....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
428. SteveDa1
2:35 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 427. JohnLonergan:As far as the deletion, C'est la vie, certaines personnes ne peuvent pas supporter la vérité.



Et ça c'est la vérité!
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
427. JohnLonergan
2:28 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 424. FLwolverine:
I guess all those, ahem, people you and I referred to were quite insulted. I just received my first ban! And I see your post was deleted also. That's ok - this one is better anyway!

But I thought the etymology of the word was so interesting and appropriate that I would share it with you.

[From New Latin ignrmus, a grand jury's endorsement upon a bill of indictment when evidence is deemed insufficient to send the case to a trial jury, from Latin, we do not know, first person pl. present tense of ignrre, to be ignorant; see ignore.]
............
modern usage originated from the use of Ignoramus as the name of an unlettered lawyer in a play by G. Ruggle, 17th-century English dramatist]

:-)


I remembered the word ignoramus from Mr. Foley's Latin I class many, many years ago.

As far as the deletion, C'est la vie, certaines personnes ne peuvent pas supporter la vérité.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3153
426. SteveDa1
2:21 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 425. FLwolverine:
I read your post before you edited it. You made a good point.


Thanks... I deleted it because I had seen every post from CEastwood deleted and thought the admin had woken up.

But... they are still there. They have done some house-cleaning, however.

It's just so disturbing that this continues. :S You know, given the fact that the longer climate change is denied the more people will suffer in the future.

Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
425. FLwolverine
2:10 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 420. SteveDa1:
.
I read your post before you edited it. You made a good point.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2313
424. FLwolverine
2:07 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Quoting 400. JohnLonergan:


'That's silly you should be slapped with a fish
I guess all those, ahem, people you and I referred to were quite insulted. I just received my first ban! And I see your post was deleted also. That's ok - this one is better anyway!

But I thought the etymology of the word was so interesting and appropriate that I would share it with you.

[From New Latin ignrmus, a grand jury's endorsement upon a bill of indictment when evidence is deemed insufficient to send the case to a trial jury, from Latin, we do not know, first person pl. present tense of ignrre, to be ignorant; see ignore.]
............
modern usage originated from the use of Ignoramus as the name of an unlettered lawyer in a play by G. Ruggle, 17th-century English dramatist]

:-)
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2313
423. RevElvis
1:41 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
421 - Thanks John -

- I tried to post the graphic, but it wouldn't show up for some reason or another!
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
422. Daisyworld
1:41 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Ice shelves are melting from the bottom up, studies show

From:

Stanton, T.P., et. al., "Channelized Ice Melting in the Ocean Boundary Layer Beneath Pine Island Glacier, Antarctica", Science 13 September 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6151 pp. 1236-1239, DOI: 10.1126/science.1239373

Abstract:

Ice shelves play a key role in the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheets by buttressing their seaward-flowing outlet glaciers; however, they are exposed to the underlying ocean and may weaken if ocean thermal forcing increases. An expedition to the ice shelf of the remote Pine Island Glacier, a major outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that has rapidly thinned and accelerated in recent decades, has been completed. Observations from geophysical surveys and long-term oceanographic instruments deployed down bore holes into the ocean cavity reveal a buoyancy-driven boundary layer within a basal channel that melts the channel apex by 0.06 meter per day, with near-zero melt rates along the flanks of the channel. A complex pattern of such channels is visible throughout the Pine Island Glacier shelf.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 851
421. JohnLonergan
1:16 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
The first thing I saw in the RevElvis just posted is this image:

Projected warming on our current emissions path from Michael Schlesinger et al 2012. This devastating warming occurs even with (an unlikely) low climate sensitivity of between 1.5C and 2.0C %u2014 and assuming there are no major unmodeled feedbacks (like the thawing permafrost). A WSJ op-ed that cites this work erroneously claims it shows total warming will stay below 2C (3.6F) this century!

Every major projection of future warming makes clear that if we keep listening to the falsehoods of the anti-science crowd at the Wall Street Journal and keep taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution we face catastrophic 9F to 11F [5C to 6C] warming over most of the U.S. (see literature review here).
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3153
420. SteveDa1
12:54 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
419. JohnLonergan
12:46 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Satellite data confirms humans are the main cause of temperature rise

Compare satellite records of temperatures over the last few decades with multiple simulations from the latest generation of climate models, and one thing is clear - warming near the earth's surface could not have occurred without the influence of human's greenhouse gas emissions.

That's the finding of a new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences identifies a unique human fingerprint in the 34-year record of temperature data collected by satellites. Other factors that can influence the climate, like the amount of sunlight reaching earth, can't reproduce the warming patterns seen in recent years when simulated by climate models, the research finds.

The human fingerprint

Instruments mounted on satellites have been collecting data for over 30 years, creating a detailed record of how temperatures in different layers of the earth's atmosphere are changing. According to the paper by a team of international scientists, that data reveals a distinct pattern, which can only be explained by rising levels of greenhouse gases.

The satellite data shows that in the atmospheric layer closest to earth's surface - the troposphere - temperatures have risen steadily since satellite records began in 1979. But in the layer above - the stratosphere - temperatures have cooled. The scientists wanted to know what was causing the neighbouring layers of the atmosphere to behave differently.

Using 20 new generation climate models, the team tried to recreate the patterns seen in the atmospheric temperature record by looking at all of the various factors which could affect the climate.

But when they simulated all the natural factors, such as changes in the sun's energy, volcanic eruptions and natural ocean-atmosphere cycles, they couldn't recreate the same trends seen in the satellite data.

Only when the rise in greenhouse gases over recent decades was included in their climate model simulations could this unique pattern be achieved.

Watching climate change unfold

This revelation from the satellite data is "clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", say the authors. But satellites tell scientists about a lot more than just temperature rise.

As the image below shows, they help monitor changes across the entire climate system, from the surface of the land and seas to the upper limits of the atmosphere:

s another new study shows, satellite data offers a number of benefits over traditional ways of measuring the climate.

Since satellites are continuously orbiting the earth they offer much better spatial coverage than a network of weather stations, for example, and they are less likely to be biased by local factors which can affect things like temperature readings. They also allow scientists to measure changes in remote locations, such as the temperature of the ocean.

In recent years, satellites have been used in a number of different ways to observe how ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice are changing in response to rising temperatures. In 2012, satellites recorded melting over 97 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, and witnessed the area of Arctic ocean covered in sea ice shrink to its lowest extent ever.

Satellites are also used to monitor important changes happening outside the climate system. They can measure phenomena such as the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface, and the level of sunlight-reflecting aerosols in the atmosphere. Knowing how external factors like these are changing is important in weighing up the role humans' role in the long term trend of global warming, relative to natural influences.

Confidence booster

The main downside of satellite data at the moment is that the record is quite short. Natural fluctuations in the climate can occur over decades, so separating out the human influence over such a short time isn't easy. But as the new study today shows, it is possible - and as the satellite record continues to grow, that differentiation should become easier to make.

Even with this shortcoming, satellites have brought about major advances in climate science in the last 30 years. They help scientists monitor how that warming is affecting the earth as climate change unfolds - measuring changes in the size of the ice sheets for example. And they have helped scientists say with increasing certainty what was first suggested more than 75 years ago - that humans' greenhouse gases are the main driver of global temperature rise.



Santer et al. (2013) Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1305332110

Yang et al. (2013) The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies. Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1908
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3153
418. RevElvis
12:45 AM GMT on September 17, 2013
Have Matt Ridley, Wall Street Journal Finally Embraced Strong Climate Action And 2 degrees C Warming Target?

Could it be that Matt Ridley and his fellow confusionists at the Wall Street Journal have finally embraced serious climate action? Have they actually endorsed the warming target of 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), long embraced by scientists and global leaders who want to avert the worst impacts of climate change?

Or have they published another epic blunder-fest of disinformation? Have they actually gone so far as to (mis)cite the work of a scientist who explained a year ago that Mr. Ridley is misusing his research and is "just plain wrong about future global warming!"? You be the judge.

Every major projection of future warming makes clear that if we keep listening to the falsehoods of the anti-science crowd at the Wall Street Journal and keep taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution we face catastrophic 9 degrees F to 11 degrees F [5 degrees C to 6 degrees C] warming over most of the U.S. (see literature review here).

Last year, Matt Ridley wrote one of the most error-riddled pieces ever to appear in the Wall Street Journal. For those who didn't know Ridley, the WSJ noted his "family leases land for coal mining in northern England, on a project that will cease in five years" (a point that is strangely absent from the current piece).

more at ThinkProgress.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
417. JohnLonergan
12:36 AM GMT on September 17, 2013

Scientists take the Mail on Sunday to task over claim that warming is half what IPCC said last time

The Mail on Sunday yesterday claimed the international climate community is conceding the world hasn't warmed as much since the middle of last century as previously thought. We ask climate scientists what they make of the story.

A major new report on the state of the climate is due imminently from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An involved process of review by experts and governments worldwide is coming to a close, and the first part of the report is set for release at the end of next week.

Last week, a draft summary of the document was leaked to journalists. In yesterday's Mail on Sunday, climate skeptic journalist David Rose claims to have seen information in the summary which "reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong".

The Mail on Sunday piece is entitled 'World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said'. It follows a series of other articles Rose has written for the Mail on Sunday recently which, taken together, suggest that the fundamentals of climate science are being thrown into doubt.

The Telegraph quickly repurposed the Mail on Sunday article under the headline, 'Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong'. Meanwhile, The Australian went a step further with a story headlined 'We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC'.

Rate of warming not halved

The Mail on Sunday gives the story a generous double page spread, and repeats many of the same arguments Rose has made in previous pieces. So let's focus on what's new - the central claim of the article that scientists have cut their assessment of warming since the middle of last century by half.

The Mail on Sunday says:

"Back [in 2007], [the IPCC] said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius every decade … But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12 Celsius per decade - a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction"

Dr Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, tells us this statement is quite simply wrong. He says Rose has mixed up the numbers in the last IPCC report.

"The main claim by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday is that rate of global warming since 1951 has been halved since the last IPCC report. This is completely incorrect."

In 2007, the IPCC said the rate of warming since 1951 had been not 0.2 but 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. If the new report says 0.12 degrees Celsius, as the Mail on Sunday suggests, this is a very minor revision of 0.01 degrees.

Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, who is quoted pretty heavily in the piece, posted a comment below the article pointing out Rose's error. He said:

"Neither the IPCC in 2007 nor the current crop of climate models ever suggested that the world has been, or should have been, warming at 0.2 degrees per decade since 1951. So the headline should have been "Global warming is just 92 percent of what we said it was", on an apples-for-apples comparison."

And Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at Reading University, tells us:

"The trend over the past 50 years [the Mail on Sunday] says is in [the new IPCC report] is almost identical to the [last report in 2007] so the article's headline and premise that global warming is half of what was said ... is incorrect."

So where does the 0.2 degree per decade figure come from? Richard Allan tells us it does appear in the last IPCC report, but refers to a 15-year period in the run up to the report's release, not the warming per decade since 1951. He says:

"The 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade figure relates to an observed warming over the period 1990-2005 which clearly cannot be compared with the period since 1951".

So the two figures Rose compares are not measuring the same thing. As the Met Office's Richard Betts tweeted yesterday: "Rose created a headline by misrepresenting [the 2007 IPCC report]."

Confusion abounds

The Mail on Sunday's error has led one or two other journalists astray, and resulted in some fairly confused media coverage.

The Telegraph appears to have repeated the Mail on Sunday story wholesale. But the paper was forced to make a swift correction yesterday after suggesting the 2007 IPCC report claimed warming since 1951 had been 1.3 degrees per decade - ten times the actual figure.

This was quickly changed online to the real figure of 0.13 degrees per decade. The change is likely to leave readers confused by what the article is actually claiming, as it now reads:

"The "summary for policymakers" of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade in their last assessment published in 2007."

As Richard Allan tells Carbon Brief:

"That's 0.01 degrees Celsius per decade difference, which makes the title [Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong] seem completely ridiculous and is an embarrassment to the serious reporting of climate change elsewhere."

Climate sensitivity

The Mail on Sunday also suggests climate models overestimate how much warming we will get in the future and by extension, the need to bring emissions down.

In 2007, the IPCC estimated a doubling of carbon dioxide above pre-industrial levels was likely to raise global temperature by between two and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with a best estimate of three degrees. This value is called climate sensitivity.

The Mail on Sunday says the new IPCC report "admits it is 'likely' [climate sensitivity] may be as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius - so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels."

It remains to be seen exactly what the new report says about climate sensitivity. T he New York Times reported recently that the lower end of the range of likely values has come down from two to 1.5 degrees since the last report. We will have to wait for the report's publication to see how the IPCC has tackled the issue.

But Myles Allen tells us Rose's suggestion that a revision of the lower bound estimate on climate sensitivity could take the pressure off efforts to reduce emissions is "patently absurd". He says:

"I have explained [this reasoning] to David several times, and he does understand this, so he also understands that any revision in the lower bound on climate sensitivity does not affect the urgency of mitigation."

Richard Allan gives a good explaination of this point on his University of Reading blog, saying:

"[A]rguing over a few tenths of a degree in climate sensitivity at the bottom of the range masks the real issue which is the expected substantial climate change in response to the continued emissions of greenhouse gases, which are at present following the worst case emissions scenarios."

The future of the IPCC

The piece also quotes Myles Allen, an IPCC lead author, in such a way as to suggest Allen thinks the IPCC design and process is flawed. Rose writes:

"One of the report's own authors, Professor Myles Allen … last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment - accusing its cumbersome production process of 'misrepresenting how science works'.

For the record, Allen tells us he supports the continued work of the IPCC to assess climate science:

"I did not say this should be the last IPCC report, I said that in my view producing a massive volume once every six years has become counterproductive … I would favour much shorter annual update reports, plus special reports on specific issues."

The IPCC won't comment on new material in the report before it is published, cautioning against drawing conclusions from the draft as the findings are still subject to change. With the official version of the summary for policymakers out next Friday, at least there's not long left to wait now.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3153
415. Some1Has2BtheRookie
11:59 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 381. CEastwood:


Yes, let's hope so. Neapolitan/Nostradamus insulted me personally, as did you by calling me an ignoramus. Obviously, I'm not ignorant or I wouldn't be ruffling your feathers.


Well, I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I do tolerate ignorance quite well. It is the self induced ignorance of an individual that tests my level of tolerance. I am not suggesting that you ignorant in any manner at all, but you could prove yourself one way or the other on this. Keep talking. I will not give anyone any hints.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
414. SteveDa1
11:57 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
China And California Form Unlikely Partnership To Address Climate Change

BY ARI PHILLIPS ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 AT 1:13 PM

In a move to strengthen cooperation on lowering carbon dioxide emissions, China’s top climate negotiator and California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Friday in San Francisco. The agreement includes pledges to work together on sharing low-carbon strategies and create joint-ventures on clean technologies.

Built on more than a year and a half of significant diplomatic and business exchanges between California and China, including the Governor’s Trade and Investment Mission to China, the opening of the California-China Office of Trade and Investment in Shanghai, and a meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping, it is a first-of-its-kind agreement between the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and a U.S. state.

California’s per-capita energy consumption has been almost flat since the 1970s, and it started trading its state carbon emissions with the launch of a cap-and-trade system in November 2012. China is also experimenting cap-and-trade carbon pricing mechanisms, and recently set up emissions trading schemes in seven large cities.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
413. Some1Has2BtheRookie
11:54 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 378. CEastwood:


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?


If you are not the former blogger, JBastardi, then you must have stolen his mind and claimed it as your own. The task before me know is to figure out which one I should feel the greater sorrow for. You or JBastardi. I may take the short cut on this one and call it a toss up. No net gain or net loss. An even trade.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
411. yoboi
9:23 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 410. FLwolverine:
yoboi, let's think for a minute about such a "debate". In a true debate, a proposition is stated that each side has to support or oppose. Let's say our proposition is:

"Global warming is happening now."

We talk about that a lot on here, don't we? What do you suppose would happen in this "debate"? Whoever supports this proposition (Nea, Birthmark, Naga, Scott, me, whoever) is going to offer a lot of scientific studies and papers and data.

Whoever opposes that proposition (CEastwood for example) is going to say a lot of stuff like he did earlier today - opinions and allegations and misstatements and in some cases downright lies - with no valid scientific support because there isn't any!

And then the other side - whoever asserts that global warming is happening - has to go back and refute those points about the measurements and point out the cherry picking and the misstatements and lies. And then the opposition will come back with more of the same.

Such a debate would be pointless. All it would do is provide entertainment to the deniers, skeptics, and people who don't want to have to think about AGW. If someone has not been convinced by the discussions on here as well as the science that is constantly referred to, then a debate is not going to change their mind.



I would like to see what both neap and eastwood would have to say....hopefully they would provide evidence and not just bash each other...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2328
410. FLwolverine
9:13 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 391. yoboi:


I will let ceastwood debate him...I would like to see what they both have to say.....
yoboi, let's think for a minute about such a "debate". In a true debate, a proposition is stated that each side has to support or oppose. Let's say our proposition is:

"Global warming is happening now."

We talk about that a lot on here, don't we? What do you suppose would happen in this "debate"? Whoever supports this proposition (Nea, Birthmark, Naga, Scott, me, whoever) is going to offer a lot of scientific studies and papers and data.

Whoever opposes that proposition (CEastwood for example) is going to say a lot of stuff like he did earlier today - opinions and allegations and misstatements and in some cases downright lies - with no valid scientific support because there isn't any!

And then the other side - whoever asserts that global warming is happening - has to go back and refute those points about the measurements and point out the cherry picking and the misstatements and lies. And then the opposition will come back with more of the same.

Such a debate would be pointless. All it would do is provide entertainment to the deniers, skeptics, and people who don't want to have to think about AGW. If someone has not been convinced by the discussions on here as well as the science that is constantly referred to, then a debate is not going to change their mind.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2313
409. yoboi
8:42 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 408. FLwolverine:
If you took the time to read the science, you would realize there is no debate that global warming/climate change is happening and that humans are causing it. But we've discussed this before.


I think humans cause some of it....just not as much as some people think....I am trying to understand solar 25......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2328
408. FLwolverine
8:37 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 387. VR46L:


I remember last year you were trying to get him to debate you for some reason it never happened can't understand why ?

I wouuld enjoy to read either a Yoboi Neap debate or CEastwood Neap debate .. In fact I would pay to see it ...
If you took the time to read the science, you would realize there is no debate that global warming/climate change is happening and that humans are causing it. But we've discussed this before.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2313
407. yoboi
8:37 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 406. Birthmark:

Nope. And you've had that demonstrated for you before.


wanted to see how eastwood was going to respond....I wanted to see what proof he had....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2328
406. Birthmark
8:32 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 404. yoboi:



Did NOAA really do such a thing????

Nope. And you've had that demonstrated for you before.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
405. indianrivguy
8:31 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Renowned Scientists Declare Human Activity the Root of Global Warming
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2519
404. yoboi
8:01 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 396. CEastwood:


So NOAA going back and revising past temperature records to show more contemporary warming is ok with you? Michael Mann posting the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph is ok with you? Using temperature station records that are known to be affected by heat sinks is ok with you? You have selective verity.



Did NOAA really do such a thing????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2328
403. ScottLincoln
7:48 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 371. CEastwood:
[Ad hominem attack on the NWS]

I am starting to wonder if the entire reason to come here is to scientifically test the limits of what you can say without getting banned. Perhaps you are a strange sociology student trying to work us over.

Maybe not, but I'm running out of logical explanations for your trolling.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3167
402. Birthmark
7:44 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 401. Naga5000:

That's a really good to post. Pity to see it wasted like that. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
401. Naga5000
7:26 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 396. CEastwood:


So NOAA going back and revising past temperature records to show more contemporary warming is ok with you? Michael Mann posting the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph is ok with you? Using temperature station records that are known to be affected by heat sinks is ok with you? You have selective verity.


You know what's not okay with me? You failing to understand that past adjustment using valid statistical methodology, which is freely available to all, is a normative practice in data adjustment and that using potentially contaminated unadjusted raw data in any kind of analysis is simply bad science.

I also take exception that you bring up the "hockey stick" as fraudulent, when it has been validated by other multiple times and only accused of being fraudulent by folks like yourself that seem to lack the scientific literacy needed to assert these claims of fraud.

Quoting 398. CEastwood:


Quickly, because I have to run. NOAA official weather stations don't comport with their own directives for siting. I guess that is ok with you? Climatologists now concur (including the IPCC) that warming has not occurred for at least fifteen years. Of course the IPCC calls this a "pause." But we are supposed to believe them that warming will continue, because they have been so accurate with their predictions as of late.


One again, see paragraph one. Those stations are adjusted using freely available methodology. Are you still trying to claim fraud and conspiracy when credible scientists and mathematicians find the methodology behind temperature adjustment valid? The argument itself shows hypocrisy in your stance. The NOAA has poorly sited stations but you don't want them adjusting the raw data. Make up your mind.

Lastly, there is no pause when looking at surface, sea surface, and deep ocean, yet you only harp on surface data. Your assumptions, half truths, flat out lies, and links to conspiracy blogs may work on a lot of the general population who has never examined the data, however, it doesn't fly here.


Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3246
400. JohnLonergan
7:18 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 398. :


'That's silly you should be slapped with a fish
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3153
399. Birthmark
6:57 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 398.

I understand that you have strong feelings on this topic. However, your complaint has been dealt with on this website, other websites, and even the peer-reviewed, reputably published scientific literature. These investigations have demonstrated that your claims are without scientific merit.

Of course, you already knew that.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
398. CEastwood
6:51 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 397. Birthmark:

Thank you for sharing your feelings. However, it should be noted that your feelings and assertions bear no relation to reality. If you feel that my statement is in error then it is upon you to put forth valid *scientific* evidence that supports your assertions.


Quickly, because I have to run. NOAA official weather stations don't comport with their own directives for siting. I guess that is ok with you? Climatologists now concur (including the IPCC) that warming has not occurred for at least fifteen years. Of course the IPCC calls this a "pause." But we are supposed to believe them that warming will continue, because they have been so accurate with their predictions as of late.
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
397. Birthmark
6:42 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 396.

Thank you for sharing your feelings. However, it should be noted that your feelings and assertions bear no relation to reality. If you feel that my statement is in error then it is upon you to put forth valid *scientific* evidence that supports your assertions.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
396. CEastwood
6:39 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 395. Birthmark:

No, just the ones who lie.



So NOAA going back and revising past temperature records to show more contemporary warming is ok with you? Michael Mann posting the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph is ok with you? Using temperature station records that are known to be affected by heat sinks is ok with you? You have selective verity.
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
395. Birthmark
6:34 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 392.
So you are calling scientists and reporters "liars" ...?

No, just the ones who lie.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
394. Birthmark
6:32 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 388.

Quoting 386.

Quoting 384.

Quoting 382.


Thank you for sharing your feelings. However, it should be noted that your feelings and assertions bear no relation to reality. If you feel that my statement is in error then it is upon you to put forth valid *scientific* evidence that supports your assertions.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
393. cyclonebuster
6:27 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
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.


A & B.) The gulfstream temperature effects the climate globally...Gulf Stream Leaves Its Signature Seven Miles High

Mar. 24, 2008 The Gulf Streams impact on climate is well known, keeping Iceland and Scotland comfortable in winter compared to the deep-freeze of Labrador at the same latitude. That cyclones tend to spawn over the Gulf Stream has also been known for some time. A new study reveals that the Gulf Stream anchors a precipitation band with upward motions and cloud formations that can reach 7 miles high and penetrate the upper troposphere. The discovery, announced by a Japan US team of scientists, shows that the Gulf Stream has a pathway by which to directly affect weather and climate patterns over the whole Northern Hemisphere, and perhaps even world wide.Our findings gain even more significance by the fact that the Gulf Stream is the upper limb of the Atlantic portion of the ocean conveyor belt that drives the global ocean circulation, says co-author Shang-Ping Xie, a research team leader at the International Pacific Research Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, and professor of meteorology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The conveyor belt is predicted to slow down with global warming, which implies that changes in the Gulf Stream will modulate spatial patterns of future climate change.


Link


.
C.) So,if we restore our climate to what we had prior to the industrial revolution then we can expect our climate to return to what it was in that time period.... So we must determine if we want that or business as usual thus melting off our Northern Arctic Ice until it is gone during the summer along with many other ill effects the fossil fuel GHG's are bringing us.

E.) Remember we will only effect those tropical systems that are forecast to hit land and so the other ones we leave alone.. The world can not afford more Katrina's,Andrew's,Wilma's,Sandy's,Hugo's,Ivan's, Fran's,Isabelle's,Floyd's,Hazel's,Bonnie's,Connie' s,Diane's,Dennis,Agnes,Carol's,Gloria's,1928 Okeechobee,Rita's,Gustav's,1900 Galvaston,Ike's,Camille's,Betsy's,Audrie's George's etc... etc.. pounding our coast's...

The computer can tell us when to cool and when not to cool. The variability in regulating the SST's is what makes them so appealing in negating all the negative effects that fossil fuel GHG's bring us today...

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
392. CEastwood
6:24 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 390. Birthmark:

I wonder why such a high percentage of these links you post begin with a bald-faced lie in the very first sentence?


So you are calling scientists and reporters "liars" who don't support your pre-conceived fraudulent fallacies?
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
391. yoboi
6:23 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 387. VR46L:


I remember last year you were trying to get him to debate you for some reason it never happened can't understand why ?

I wouuld enjoy to read either a Yoboi Neap debate or CEastwood Neap debate .. In fact I would pay to see it ...


I will let ceastwood debate him...I would like to see what they both have to say.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2328
390. Birthmark
6:22 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 366.

I wonder why such a high percentage of these links you post begin with a bald-faced lie in the very first sentence?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
389. yoboi
6:22 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 386. CEastwood:


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



Maybe neap or scott will debate the information...I would like to see what yall have to say...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2328
388. CEastwood
6:20 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Perhaps he should read the new IPCC report where they are backpedaling on most of their prior predictions.
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
387. VR46L
6:18 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
Quoting 383. yoboi:


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


I remember last year you were trying to get him to debate you for some reason it never happened can't understand why ?

I wouuld enjoy to read either a Yoboi Neap debate or CEastwood Neap debate .. In fact I would pay to see it ...
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6829
386. CEastwood
6:17 PM GMT on September 16, 2013
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

Viewing: 436 - 386

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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
55 °F
Mostly Cloudy