# Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Share
Barriers in the Atmosphere: Arctic Oscillation (3)
 By: RickyRood, 12:50 AM GMT on October 03, 2013 +20
Barriers in the Atmosphere: Arctic Oscillation (3)

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.

Here are the previous entries in the series:
Behavior
Definitions and Some Background

This blog is mostly a setup for the next one. (And yes I did notice that the IPCC AR-5 report was released, but I don’t have anything different to say about it than many of my more able colleagues. I’ll get to it.)

In the talk that I linked to above, I used a couple of diagrams that the audience told me worked very well. I am going to try them out in this blog. In the previous blogs I used the CPC Climate Glossary to give 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.” This definition does not really do much for me. It’s one of those definitions that I imagine if I ask 10 atmospheric scientists to tell me what it means, I will get 12 answers. Therefore, I will draw a picture.

Figure 1: Adapted from Jim Hurrell – This picture is a schematic representation of the positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation. In the positive phase the pressure is low at the pole and high at middle latitudes. This is the positive phase because if you calculate the difference between middle and high latitudes it is large. In the negative phase the pressure is not as low at the pole and not as high at middle latitudes. This is the negative phase because if you calculate the difference between middle and high latitudes it is small. The refrigerator suggests that this is like opening and closing the refrigerator door (see Behavior).

This figure helps me with the definition. I want to focus on the low pressure at high latitudes, which in this figure is drawn idealistically at the pole. In reality, it is likely to wander off the pole, a fact that will be important in the next blog. When the pressure is low at the pole, then there is a stronger vortex of air circulating around the pole. When the pressure at the pole is not as low, then there is a weaker vortex. In both cases, strong or weak vortex, the air generally moves from west to east.

For clarity, vorticity is a parameter that describes rotation in a fluid. A vortex is a feature in a fluid dominated by vorticity – that is it is rotationally dominated. Tornadoes and hurricanes are weather features that we often call vortices; there is an obvious circulation of air in these features. In the Earth’s atmosphere at middle and high latitudes rotation is an important characteristic of the flow, due to the rotation of the Earth. The reason air moves in the west to east direction for both the weak and strong vortex cases of Figure 1 is that the rotation of the Earth is important to the flow.

In Figure 2 I have set up an even more idealized figure. I also provide this link to a Powerpoint animation, that I am not smart enough to incorporate into the blog. In the animation I have five slides that clarify the point that I make in Figure 2.

Figure 2: A vortex and a ball. In the center of the figure is low pressure, meant to be an analogue to the vortex over the pole in Figure 1. Parcels of air move around the low pressure system. If it takes the same amount of time for a parcel farther away from the low pressure center to go around the vortex as a parcel nearer the center, then the parcel farther away has to go faster because the distance it has to go is longer. That is why I drew that arrow, saying that air moves “faster” at the outside edge of the vortex.

To set my point a little more, imagine you are on a bridge overlooking a running stream. If you drop a stick in the water near the edge where the water is moving slowly, then if the stick drifts towards the more rapidly flowing water, it is carried downstream at the edge of the fast moving water. It does not cross the core of fast moving water – this jet of water. In fact the jet is something of a barrier that keeps material from crossing the stream. Material is transported downstream.

Back to Figure 2: Imagine that you want to roll a ball into the center of a vortex. As the ball gets to the edge it gets caught up in the flow and pulled around the edge. It does not roll into the center. Look at the this link to a Powerpoint animation to get a better idea of what’s going on.

Now go back to Figure 1. The vortex in Figure 1 is also a barrier. The southern edge of vortex is a jet stream. Air on the two sides of the vortex often has different characteristics. Intuitively, there is colder air on the poleward side. If you look at trace gases, like ozone, they are different across the edge of the vortex. The takeaway idea is that the edge of the vortex is a barrier. It’s not a perfect barrier, but air on one side is largely separated from the air on the other side. In the next blog, I will describe the difference between the strong and the weak case and its relevance to weather, climate and, perhaps, climate change.

r
Categories: Climate Change
 Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted
Viewing: 1 - 51

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

 2. Astrometeor 12:56 AM GMT on October 03, 2013 Thanks for the set-up Dr. Rood, looking forward to the next blog sir!I feel as if Brian was tuned in with your new posting Doc, he plussed it before my computer could even load the blog...lol. Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 76 Comments: 7693
 3. RevElvis 1:15 AM GMT on October 03, 2013 The Story of Solutions The Story of Solutions explores how we can move our economy in a more sustainable and just direction, starting with orienting ourselves toward a new goal.In the current 'Game of More', we're told to cheer a growing economy – more roads, more malls, more Stuff! – even though our health indicators are worsening, income inequality is growing and polar icecaps are melting. But what if we changed the point of the game? What if the goal of our economy wasn't more, but better – better health, better jobs and a better chance to survive on the planet?Truth-Out.org Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 4. BaltimoreBrian 1:24 AM GMT on October 03, 2013 This article just came up and it is important enough that I am adding it now.!!! How to detect pseudo-science B.S. Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7502
 5. BaltimoreBrian 1:24 AM GMT on October 03, 2013 Quoting 2. Astrometeor:Thanks for the set-up Dr. Rood, looking forward to the next blog sir!I feel as if Brian was tuned in with your new posting Doc, he plussed it before my computer could even load the blog...lol.Face it astro. I'm just older and faster ;) Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7502
 6. cyclonebuster 5:02 AM GMT on October 03, 2013 Try to roll the box towards the vortex? How do you roll a box? Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 7. Xandra 11:39 AM GMT on October 03, 2013 Glaciologist Aslak Grinsted says the IPCC are too optimistic and over-confident in their ice-sheet predictions and that the ice sheet experts are actually more pessimistic.Optimistic & over-confident ice sheet projections in AR5 "AR5 process based model projections are much more conservative/optimistic and has much more narrow uncertainties than the ice sheet experts (Fig.1). There can be no good reason for why the AR5 authors have much greater confidence in their ability to project ice sheet loss than ice sheet experts themselves. Notably the best guess view of ice sheet experts nearly falls outside the AR5 process based range. The worst case scenario from ice sheet experts is more than 60 cm higher than the worst case from the AR5 process models."Figure 1: Projections of ice sheet mass loss over the 21st century under RCP4.5. The AR5 process based projections appear optimistic and over confident when compared with views of ice sheet experts.More from Aslak Grinsted:AR5 sea level rise uncertainty communication failure "I am disappointed in how the sea level rise projection uncertainties are presented in the IPCC AR5. The way the numbers are presented makes people believe 98 cm by 2100 is a worst-case scenario which it clearly isn't. The AR5 does have caveats which explains why it could be more, but unfortunately this is buried in language that clearly goes over the heads of most people." Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1144
 9. SteveDa1 2:16 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Quoting 6. cyclonebuster:Try to roll the box towards the vortex? How do you roll a box?I don't get it either.It must be a typo; I think they meant ball. Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
 10. Patrap 2:23 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Me tinks maybe datz a "spelling" error on the Image.It's "Ball"We dont get to say dat un here everyday.; ) Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 410 Comments: 124088
 13. RickyRood 3:26 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 That's worse that a spelling error ... It's old man trying to do too many things cognitive slippage. That's how you end up at Dallas instead of Dulles ...Will change (after class).rQuoting 10. Patrap:Me tinks maybe datz a "spelling" error on the Image.It's "Ball"We dont get to say dat un here everyday.; ) Member Since: January 31, 2007 Posts: 290 Comments: 221
 14. barbamz 3:41 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Thank you for the comprehensive explanations and graphics, Dr. Rood; very appreciated. And those penguins in the powerpoint file really made my smile :)Link Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 42 Comments: 4879
 15. cyclonebuster 5:12 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Quoting 9. SteveDa1:I don't get it either.It must be a typo; I think they meant ball.Specifically a soccer ball I think... Anyways I get what the good Dr. meant and know what he was trying to convey though his example... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 16. cyclonebuster 5:16 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Quoting 13. RickyRood:That's worse that a spelling error ... It's old man trying to do too many things cognitive slippage. That's how you end up at Dallas instead of Dulles ...Will change (after class).r I think the good Dr. is very tired... "than" not "that".... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 17. cyclonebuster 5:36 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Water 6,700 times more radioactive than legal limit spills from FukushimaLink.. Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 18. RickyRood 5:55 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 And even worse it's in the NPS talk and the animation ... got to get my editor (sister) back in the mix.before long I'll be saying there's no their there or want no what to where when I'm there I'm not even very good at being clever ... Quoting 10. Patrap:Me tinks maybe datz a "spelling" error on the Image.It's "Ball"We dont get to say dat un here everyday.; ) Member Since: January 31, 2007 Posts: 290 Comments: 221
 19. cyclonebuster 6:02 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Let's vote is it a Volleyball a Soccer ball or a box? Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 20. Some1Has2BtheRookie 6:29 PM GMT on October 03, 2013 Your blog topic is an interesting read, Ricky. I look forward to your expansion on this in the next blog. Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4717
 21. RevElvis 12:30 AM GMT on October 04, 2013 Fukushima Leak Traced To Overflow Tank Built On a SlopeThe operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant says the latest leak of radioactive wastewater has been traced to the overfilling of a storage tank built on a slope.Tokyo Electric Power Company officials apologized at a news conference on Thursday for the leaks that surface on an almost daily basis.They estimate that 430 liters of wastewater seeped outside the barrier around the tank and say some of this water may have flowed into the sea, about 200 meters away.Shortly after 8:00 PM on Wednesday, workers found wastewater leaking from the upper part of the tank.They detected 200,000 becquerels per liter of beta ray-emitting radioactive substances in water pooled inside the barrier around the tank. The safety limit is 30 becquerels per liter.The tank is on the mountain side of the plant's No.4 reactor. The TEPCO officials said the tank was built on ground that slopes toward the ocean, and the leak occurred on the side that faces the sea.NHK World Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 22. RevElvis 1:25 AM GMT on October 04, 2013 What Would Our Country Look Like Without the EPA?President Richard Nixon (R) created the EPA in 1970. Imagine an America without the environmental protections that have improved our lives over the last 43 years.Cue music for dream sequence: Scene One opens at a C&O Canal National Park campsite in Maryland. Ah, suppertime. No need to light a fire to cook those weenies! Just hold them over the open flame of the burning river. Though it might sound crazy to young people today, Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969, burning off industrial waste piped legally into it. Yes, legally.Scene Two: After enjoying our flame-broiled weenies, we drive next day to Chesapeake Bay for some seafood. Sadly, there's no local catch at the fish shacks. But we're in luck! There's tons of rotting fish floating belly-up in the bay. Dig in kids!Scene three: Deciding we'd like to swim, we drive to the mouth of the Bay. At the beach, the kids pick the least convenient time to - using a nautical term - hit the head. But no worries. The foul-smelling sand (without 43 years of EPA regulation) is a litter box covered in filth and TP.Before EPA, America's cities and towns discharged human waste straight out the pipe into waterways. The Clean Water Act enforced by EPA strived for sewage-free rivers and lakes by 1985. Though we're still short of the goal, there are thousands of beaches across the U.S. today where you can safely swim today - that's the honest poop!Alternet.org Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 23. SteveDa1 1:29 AM GMT on October 04, 2013 I hadn't seen post #8, but this is about the same subject.Researchers Find Historic Ocean Acidification Levels: 'The Next Mass Extinction May Have Already Begun'BY KATIE VALENTINE ON OCTOBER 3, 2013 AT 4:41 PMThe oceans are more acidic now than they've been at any time in the last 300 million years, conditions that marine scientists warn could lead to a mass extinction of key species.Scientists from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) published their State of the Oceans report Thursday, a biennial study that surveys how oceans are responding to human impacts. The researchers found the current level of acifification is "unprecedented" and that the overall health of the ocean is declining at a much faster rate than previously thought."We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure," the report states. "The next mass extinction may have already begun."Acidification causes major harm to marine ecosystems, especially coral, which has a hard time building up its calcium carbonate skeleton in acidic water. Coral reefs serve as nurseries to many young fish, so they're essential both to ecosystem health and the survival of the fishing industry. If temperatures rise by 2 degrees C, the study found, coral may stop growing altogether, and may start to dissolve at 3 degrees C. Similarily, acidic ocean waters can hamper shellfish larvae's ability to grow shells. Acidification is already hurting the shellfish industry -- in the U.S., northwestern and East Coast shellfish industries have struggled to adapt to increasingly acidic waters. And pteropods, tiny sea snails that are a keystone species in the Arctic and are an essential food source for many birds, fish and whales, are also threatened by acidity -- they too require strong calcium carbonate shells to survive.It's not just acidification that's threatening the oceans, either [...]More at Climate Progress... Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
 24. 1911maker 1:53 AM GMT on October 04, 2013 Not sure just how "recent" of issue this is, but if it is a "new" issue, that speaks to changing water use issues in a nice graphic way.http://blog.ucsusa.org/energy-water-collisions-ou r-2013-update-258LinkRecent energy-water collisions across the U.S. — north, south, east, and west. Plenty of reasons to think there have to be better ways of making sure our power plants are there for us when we need them. Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 473
 25. 1911maker 2:41 AM GMT on October 04, 2013 Not sure if this is a violation or not, but it just fits to well around here to pass up. Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 473
 27. BaltimoreBrian 2:46 AM GMT on October 04, 2013 An excellent find JohnLonergan! (referring to comment #8) Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7502
 28. JohnLonergan 11:58 AM GMT on October 04, 2013 Top Climate Scientists Assess Latest Report from U.N. PanelLinkYale Environment 360 asked some leading climate scientists to discuss what they consider to be the most noteworthy or surprising findings in the recently released report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s working group on the physical science of a warming world.Read the full article in Yale Environment 360 >> Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2584
 29. JohnLonergan 12:09 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model AccuracyEarlier this week, I explained why IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think. Given the popularity of the Models are unreliable myth (coming in at #6 on the list of most used climate myths), it's not surprising that the post met with substantial resistance from climate contrarians, particularly in the comments on its Guardian cross-post. Many of the commenters referenced a blog post published on the same day by blogger Steve McIntyre. McIntyre is puzzled as to why the depiction of the climate model projections and observational data shifted between the draft and draft final versions (the AR5 report won't be final until approximately January 2014) of Figure 1.4 in the IPCC AR5 report. The draft and draft final versions are illustrated side-by-side below.I explained the reason behind the change in my post. It's due to the fact that, as statistician and blogger Tamino noted 10 months ago when the draft was "leaked," the draft figure was improperly baselined. IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4 draft (left) and draft final (right) versions. In the draft final version, solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).Read more at SkS Link... Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2584
 30. georgevandenberghe 12:17 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 25. 1911maker:Not sure if this is a violation or not, but it just fits to well around here to pass up.This fits fine and is sadly appropriate. Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 17 Comments: 1225
 31. Xulonn 2:23 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 28. JohnLonergan:Yale Environment 360 asked some leading climate scientists to discuss what they consider to be the most noteworthy or surprising findings in the recently released report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s working group on the physical science of a warming world.Excellent link, John. I've copied and saved the left column with the replies from top AGW/CC knowledgeable climate scientists, and e-mailed a friend who repeatedly sends me stuff from Heartland, Goddard, Watts, Curry, Lindzen, etc. If you copy and save it with Firefox, you can paste a section of the forum/interviews into an e-mail like Thunderbird, later versions of MS Word, etc. and it will retain its HTML formatting and render into an adaptable width article with images intact.It's amazing how information technology works when properly implemented!! Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1057
 32. JohnLonergan 2:58 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 From The Guardian:Let's be honest – the global warming debate isn't about scienceThe scientific evidence on human-caused global warming is clear. Opposition stems from politics, not science.The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans have caused most, and probably all of the rapid global warming over the past 60 years. Approximately 97 percent of climate experts and peer-reviewed climate science studies agree.There are of course open questions yet to be answered by climate scientists – precisely how sensitive the climate is to the increased greenhouse effect, for example. But even in a best case, low sensitivity scenario, we're headed for dangerously rapid climate change if we continue on our current business as usual path. And the worst case scenario, which is just as likely as the best case scenario, would mean we're headed for a global catastrophe.The IPCC warns that if we want to avoid very dangerous climate change, we're on track to blow through our allowed carbon budget in as little as two to three decades if we continue on our current path of relying on fossil fuels. If we're lucky and the low sensitivity scenario is accurate, perhaps we'll have an extra decade or two, but even in this best case scenario, we're on an unsustainable climate path.Politically biased media climate coverage is not a coincidenceRead more in The Guardian >> Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2584
 34. bappit 3:53 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 18. RickyRood:And even worse it's in the NPS talk and the animation ... got to get my editor (sister) back in the mix.before long I'll be saying there's no their there or want no what to where when I'm there I'm not even very good at being clever ... Posting blogs like yours without an editor is like skydiving without a parachute. Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5512
 35. Xulonn 4:25 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 From an ongoing exchange with a couple of conspiracy theorist expat friends here in Boquete, Panama - after I sent them a copy of the Yale 360 interviews:Quoting A climate denialist, conspiracy theory friend:Scientific talking heads, all looking for a funding teat to suck on. I'm not impressed by any number of "experts" (on either side) nor am I denigrating the science itself. Read the AR5 science and make your own judgements. Climate sensitivity estimates are decreasing, error bars are much larger than before and there is great uncertainty about fundamental processes, like what is driving the Antarctic ice expansion. The point is that the more we study climate, the more we discover that we don't understand and the more we realize that the devil is in the details - things we thought were obvious and certain are not so when you know more about what is actually happening. AND, the levers that mother nature is pulling are VERY large and powerful. Obviously we are not going to throw out fossil fuels any time soon, much as we would like to see a replacement for many reasons. The problem I have with the discussion is that it always devolves into a call for draconian control or destruction of civilization, one world government and so on. Really the return of the Bolsheviks. I'm open, show me way to accomplish the conversion without that and I am all ears. When the economics are right, the change will happen, not before.Quoting me:I know you two guys are conspiracy theorists who knock most of the scientists in the world based on the "lying and misleading for funding" myth, which has no basis in fact or evidence. I am also aware that you cannot dispute the science which is based on multiple lines of evidence - not just lower atmosphere temperature data, which is why you have to rely on climate denialist websites. And where multiple egregious errors and lies on their side are perfectly o.k. and not a cause for invalidation.I find is oddly amusing to know that neither of you guys would pass a basic college or university course on climate science, because you would deny the basic physics, chemistry and other science that so strongly supports AGW/CC and the reasons it is occurring. However, I don't mind if you send me occasional e-mails based on the fossil fuel/ultra-conservative think tank sphere sponsored blogosphere that denies the reality of AGW/CC - a world where a single typo or e-mail is considered sufficient to invalidate a veritable mountain of evidence. A place where multiple egregious errors and lies on their side are perfectly o.k. and not a cause for invalidation. Where greed trumps reality. After watching the denial of AGW/CC trump human needs, I now understand why someone cut down the last tree on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). I hope you don't mind if I send you occasional information based on the work and publications of the global scientific community - where even scientists who don't rely on grants and capricious funding almost all agree, and the data and evidence is so overwhelming, that within the working, active global scientific community, whether AGW/CC is real or not is even discussed. It's the same as doctors and medical researchers who don't feel they have to announce that they accept germ theory when writing a related paper based on their research and analysis. The world moves on, but you are welcome to catch up any time you choose. Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1057
 36. Cochise111 8:32 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Look at this Arctic ice. Ouch!:Link Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 251
 37. FLwolverine 9:39 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 36. Cochise111:Look at this Arctic ice. Ouch!:LinkToo bad you didn't notice that the chart you linked to has been superseded: Link"The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while." Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1718
 38. Naga5000 9:43 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 37. FLwolverine:Too bad you didn't notice that the chart you linked to has been superseded: Link"The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while."Nicely done. Too bad it will go right over his head. Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2426
 39. Xulonn 9:47 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 36. Cochise111:Look at this Arctic ice. Ouch!:LinkWhy the "ouch"? Stop believing the denialist propaganda!Sea ice extent goes down. Sea ice extent goes up. But it's gone down more than up in recent years. Do you understand the definitions of noise and fluctuations in long term trends?Are you aware the it was an unusually cool and cloudy summer in the Arctic - which, incredibly - lead to less melting this summer!!! The slope of the annual fall "recovery" indicates that the rate of recovery is nothing special - perhaps even less than some recent years. I'm sorry that you are unable to comprehend sea ice dynamics. Such lack of knowledge can cloud your understanding of AGW/CC. Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1057
 40. indianrivguy 9:59 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 22. RevElvis:What Would Our Country Look Like Without the EPA?President Richard Nixon (R) created the EPA in 1970. Imagine an America without the environmental protections that have improved our lives over the last 43 years.Cue music for dream sequence: Scene One opens at a C&O Canal National Park campsite in Maryland. Ah, suppertime. No need to light a fire to cook those weenies! Just hold them over the open flame of the burning river. Though it might sound crazy to young people today, Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969, burning off industrial waste piped legally into it. Yes, legally.Scene Two: After enjoying our flame-broiled weenies, we drive next day to Chesapeake Bay for some seafood. Sadly, there's no local catch at the fish shacks. But we're in luck! There's tons of rotting fish floating belly-up in the bay. Dig in kids!Scene three: Deciding we'd like to swim, we drive to the mouth of the Bay. At the beach, the kids pick the least convenient time to - using a nautical term - hit the head. But no worries. The foul-smelling sand (without 43 years of EPA regulation) is a litter box covered in filth and TP.Before EPA, America's cities and towns discharged human waste straight out the pipe into waterways. The Clean Water Act enforced by EPA strived for sewage-free rivers and lakes by 1985. Though we're still short of the goal, there are thousands of beaches across the U.S. today where you can safely swim today - that's the honest poop!Alternet.org There is a bill before Congress right now that would take away federal authority over clean water and give it back to the individual states. If it passes we are back to the same corporate polluters controlling state governments who sell out the citizens again. Like in Florida.. and I would sadly point out that this was revived by Florida Congressman John Mica. Here is an article that Bobby wrote back in 2011 that discusses this. The article may be dated, but given the revival, it is again relevant.. Our environment and safety is being assaulted from all directions.. check it out... An Assault on Clean Water and Democracy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr / an-assault-on-clean-water_b_891613.html Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2350
 41. Birthmark 10:46 PM GMT on October 04, 2013 Quoting 36. Cochise111:Look at this Arctic ice. Ouch!:LinkI think it's nice that you found a graph you like out of all those available.But if you're interested in the realities of the Arctic, this one is probably a better indicator.Or one could simply pore through all available graphics to find a graph that makes one feel better. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 4921
 42. ScottLincoln 12:59 AM GMT on October 05, 2013 Quoting 41. Birthmark:I think it's nice that you found a graph you like out of all those available.But if you're interested in the realities of the Arctic, this one is probably a better indicator.Or one could simply pore through all available graphics to find a graph that makes one feel better.Surprise surprise... "more" ice but it's still super thin and not multiyear ice. AKA, arctic sea ice is not normal, recovering, or slowing down in the downward spiral. Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2850
 43. RevElvis 1:56 AM GMT on October 05, 2013 During the government shutdown, some scientists can't talk about science - Cory DoctorowI'm a guest of honor this weekend at the Dallas's Fencon this weekend, and I've just learned that some of the other speakers won't be able to talk, thanks to the government shutdown. They're government space scientists, and the 143-year-old Antideficiency Act makes it a crime (punishable by fines and imprisonment) for government employees to volunteer to do their own jobs (which, in their cases, includes talking about science to the public).boingboing.netAntideficiency Act (wiki) Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 46. JohnLonergan 12:28 PM GMT on October 05, 2013 Temperature vs Concentration in AR5As I was saying, somewhere, to someone the other day, – oh, I reemember, it was to Timmy – you can get rid of some of the problems with future projections by drawing temperature against CO2 emissions, instead of against time. If you do that, you (the person drawing the figure) doesn’t have to prejudge the separate issue of future CO2 emissions – you can just let your reader decide that for themselves, and then read temperature changes corresponding to CO2 off the chart.I’m glad to see that the IPCC have been paying attention to my private conversations, and have included figure 10. David Hone is very keen on it too. The RCPs closely overlay each other. Note that the 1% CO2 line and its grey-blue shading is rather misleading: its lower than the rest because, as the IPCC sayeth, “the 1% per year CO2 simulations exhibit lower warming than those driven by RCPs, which include additional non-CO2 drivers”. I’d have omitted it if I was drawing the pic. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2584
 47. Xulonn 1:42 PM GMT on October 05, 2013 Quoting 46. JohnLonergan:...re CO2 Concentration,etc...Excellent series of posts, John - thanks.There are many acronyms used in meteorology, climate science and climate change research and discussion. RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) is one the is not common and does not easily roll off the tongue, and is not included in most online lists of climate change acronyms. Even though it is a core concept in IPCC reports, I don't think a lot of people are familiar with it. I think we should always define this acronym in posts for the passing parade of readers and lurkers.The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has the best acronym list for this subject that I've run across so far. Check it out - you'll even find out what ABC stands for! Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1057
 48. FLwolverine 2:23 PM GMT on October 05, 2013 Quoting 47. Xulonn:.........The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has the best acronym list for this subject that I've run across so far. Check it out - you'll even find out what ABC stands for!Thank you, Xulonn, this is very useful. Interesting what terms they don't define: CC, GW, AGW, BAU./sardonic :-\ Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1718
 49. FLwolverine 2:59 PM GMT on October 05, 2013 Following one of Brian's links, I ended up here with an animation explaining the Higgs field and boson (I am a fan of the Higgs boson because it so exotic yet - if the analysis is correct - so utterly fundamental). This animation turns out to be part of a whole collection put together by the TED people as TEDed: Lessons worth sharing.Very good stuff. Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1718
 50. ScottLincoln 3:23 PM GMT on October 05, 2013 Quoting 46. JohnLonergan:Temperature vs Concentration in AR5As I was saying, somewhere, to someone the other day, – oh, I reemember, it was to Timmy – you can get rid of some of the problems with future projections by drawing temperature against CO2 emissions, instead of against time. If you do that, you (the person drawing the figure) doesn’t have to prejudge the separate issue of future CO2 emissions – you can just let your reader decide that for themselves, and then read temperature changes corresponding to CO2 off the chart.I’m glad to see that the IPCC have been paying attention to my private conversations, and have included figure 10. David Hone is very keen on it too. The RCPs closely overlay each other. Note that the 1% CO2 line and its grey-blue shading is rather misleading: its lower than the rest because, as the IPCC sayeth, “the 1% per year CO2 simulations exhibit lower warming than those driven by RCPs, which include additional non-CO2 drivers”. I’d have omitted it if I was drawing the pic.If I'm understanding correctly, wouldn't the lower "1% annual CO2" lines be helpful because they are showing what the warming would be as a direct result of CO2, not including positive feedbacks?Again, if understanding correctly, that graph is then showing that CO2 alone isn't the best match for observed temperatures. Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2850
 51. JohnLonergan 4:27 PM GMT on October 05, 2013 Quoting 47. Xulonn:Excellent series of posts, John - thanks.There are many acronyms used in meteorology, climate science and climate change research and discussion. RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) is one the is not common and does not easily roll off the tongue, and is not included in most online lists of climate change acronyms. Even though it is a core concept in IPCC reports, I don't think a lot of people are familiar with it. I think we should always define this acronym in posts for the passing parade of readers and lurkers.The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has the best acronym list for this subject that I've run across so far. Check it out - you'll even find out what ABC stands for! It could be that RCP is a relatively new term, a quick search of Google scholar shows the earliest use in a couple of 2010 papers that referred to RCP's being in development. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2584

Viewing: 1 - 51

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

New Comment
Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.