# Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Share
Barriers in the Atmosphere: Arctic Oscillation (3)
 By: Dr. Ricky Rood, 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: 151 - 201

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

 152. cyclonebuster 11:00 PM GMT on October 09, 2013 Quoting 151. yoboi:well if they can't tell why the pause.....then most certainly they don't know the cause.......I am all for going to clean energy but when I see a hoax I will call it a hoax.......I look at the science and many here have provided some things I can agree with some of it no.....see I have an open mind......I have ask for advice from neap with several things....the most recent with what type of shingles to use on my roof to deflect the most heat.......well of course he never said anything nor did his pied- pipers......It's just about bashing people that see things different......even just yesterday steveda1 was talking about making a change and was talking about dsal operations well I could tell by the response that he got probably had his feelings hurt.....I see it with cb and his tunnels you all bash him and he is trying to do good and make a change for the better.....but no you all make fun and bash people that talk about solutions and fixing things and giving each other plusses and put dunce hats with peoples name that don't agree with you all.......Most people over at Dr Masters blog call this place the rude blog and no they are not misspelling it just how people observe how things are done over here......I have enjoyed the debates or whatever you all want to call it......no hard feelings here......I will continue to post things here.....you all can ignore it or discuss it or bash it....it's all good to me....see I can handle the intimidation and the bashing...well good day peeps...')Oh BTW neap....any suggestions about what type of shingles best deflect the heat???? TIAOcean mass is the cause.... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 153. Patrap 11:08 PM GMT on October 09, 2013 Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 409 Comments: 123906
 154. RevElvis 11:17 PM GMT on October 09, 2013 TEPCO Workers Remove Wrong Pipe Get Splashed With Radioactive Water"A day after TEPCO workers mistakenly turned off (post #64) cooling pumps serving the spent pool at reactor #4 at the crippled nuclear plant comes a new accident - 6 workers apparently removed the wrong pipe from a primary filtration system and were doused with highly radioactive water. They were wearing protection yet such continuing mishaps and 'small mistakes' are becoming a pattern at the facility."Slashdot.org*editFukushima has 'new leak of radioactive water which may have entered the Pacific OceanTEPCO spokesman Masayuki Ono told an urgent news conference Thursday that the overflow occurred at a tank without a water gauge and standing on an unlevel ground, slightly tilting toward the sea.Experts have faulted TEPCO for sloppiness in its handling of the water management, including insufficient tank inspection records, lack of water gauges, as well as connecting hoses lying directly on the grass-covered ground.dailymail.co.uk Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 155. Naga5000 11:20 PM GMT on October 09, 2013 There is no "missing" or "hidden" heat...those are terms straight from the mouths of pseudo science/denier websites. If you only look at land temperatures, you've been fooled. Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2350
 157. Doxienan 1:38 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 117. SteveDa1:Just wanted to tell you all that I'm moving on from this blog... Farewell everyone.Sorry to be late in my farewell. It's been a pleasure, Steve. Perhaps we will meet again on a different site! All the best,Nan Member Since: April 28, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 53
 158. JohnLonergan 2:05 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 150. RevElvis:Up to Five Billion Face ‘Entirely New Climate’ by 2050 - From Climate Central's Andrew FreedmanSnipDr. John Abraham has commented on this paper at SkepticalScience:Global warming – a world of extremes and biological hotspotsAn article just published in the journal Nature has helped advance our understanding of climate extremes and how the Earth of the near future will differ from our world as we have come to know it. We all know that as the climate warms, we will see more extremes – extreme heat and drought, storms and flooding – depending on where you live.Regardless of the cause, it would be useful for policy makers and city planners to know when the future climate will depart from its normal variability. How much time do we have to act? A decade? A century?This very question was the focus of the recent paper. The authors (Camilo Mora and colleagues at the Department of Geography, University of Hawaii) used the complete set of available climate models to calculate the year when the Earth's climate will move beyond what we have experienced in our recent past. In other words, in what year will the climate become more extreme than the year of the most extreme events we have witnessed in the last 150 years?They looked at seven different climate variables, including temperature, precipitation, and ocean acidity. According to their results, the climate of the Earth will depart from its normal variability about 35 years from now (in approximately 2050) under business as usual human activity. On the other hand, if we take seriously the threat of climate action, we can push that date by some 20 years.But this global average threshold is only part of the story. The authors recognized that climate change will occur more rapidly near the poles (for instance, temperature changes will be greater near the poles than in the tropics). However, the present climate in the polar regions is already more variable, and biologic systems and humans living there are more adapted to climatic shifts.Read more... Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 159. Doxienan 2:18 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 146. Naga5000:One would think.I second that thought! Member Since: April 28, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 53
 160. JohnLonergan 2:36 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 144. Naga5000:Bravo L.A. Times. They will not be publishing letters from climate deniers. Link" I’ll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review. And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists — said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn’t whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us." - Paul Thornton (Letter's Editor for the L.A. Times)From the LA Times link -Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.Exactly, a policy all journalists should use. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 161. yoboi 2:37 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 155. Naga5000:There is no "missing" or "hidden" heat...those are terms straight from the mouths of pseudo science/denier websites. If you only look at land temperatures, you've been fooled.If you can't explain the pause you don't know the cause.......IFWC Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1820
 162. JohnLonergan 2:57 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 As climate changes, animals move fast to escape the heat.Australia is already feeling the effects of climate change, with record-breaking temperatures not just over summer, but over the past 12 months as well. Research suggests that such events are many times more likely thanks to climate change.The IPCC fifth assessment report on climate science found evidence for climate change is unequivocal. The impacts of increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events on people and our environment are real and undeniable. But what’s happening to our animals and plants? Our research in Queensland is starting to give us some clues.Read more at uknowispeaksense... Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 164. bappit 3:58 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 "Read more" links are vastly preferable to posting entire articles. Too much text deters readers (besides the ethical issues). I like Baltimore Brian's style of posting links. No walls of text. Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5503
 165. BaltimoreBrian 4:00 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Bappit can you imagine how long my comments would be if I pasted the articles' text and images? Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7368
 166. bappit 4:16 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 165. BaltimoreBrian:Bappit can you imagine how long my comments would be if I pasted the articles' text and images?I quiver in abject terror at such a prospect. Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5503
 167. BaltimoreBrian 4:19 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Thanks for your compliment bappit. Helps make it worthwhile. Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7368
 168. RevElvis 4:53 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 Has The Media Failed Us In Climate Change Reporting?SXSW Eco Panel Highlights Media's Climate Change Coverage, Or Lack ThereofHow can the media do a better job reporting on the rapidly growing problem of climate change? Some of the country's leading climate journalists are coming together at this year's SXSW Eco festival in Austin, Texas to try and answer that question.John Metcalfe (The Atlantic Cities), Kiera Butler (Mother Jones), Suzanne Goldenberg (The Guardian), Phil Plait (Slate) and HuffPost's Kate Sheppard will join moderator Chris Mooney to discuss the current state of climate change coverage in the media, or lack thereof, as the Obama administration ramps up discussion of the global issue and news outlets paradoxically scale back environmental coverage.HuffingtonPost.com Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 169. RevElvis 5:08 AM GMT on October 10, 2013 By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in PastIf greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers said Wednesday. Scientists from the University of Hawaii at Manoa calculated that by 2047, plus or minus five years, the average temperatures in each year will be hotter across most parts of the planet than they had been at those locations in any year between 1860 and 2005.To put it another way, for a given geographic area, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past,” said Camilo Mora, the lead scientist on a paper published in the journal Nature. NYTimes.com Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 170. JohnLonergan 12:24 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 171. JohnLonergan 12:44 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 An Open Letter to the Editors of the Los Angeles TimesIn response to this OpEd in the Los Angeles Times, I have written them an open letter.Dear L.A. Times Editors:It has come to my attention that you will no longer be publishing letters to the editor from Flat-Earthers. This is an outrage, and shows your obvious spherist bias.By taking the stance that the Earth is round, you are going against six thousand years of obvious truth. Look around you! Do you see the world curving down, away from you? Of course not. And the idea that we live on a thin skin of crust outside a giant sea of molten rock is simply ridiculous. If that were true, the ground would be warmer than the air above it! Duh.The claim of a scientific consensus is another orbist lie. Have you not seen the Global Flattening Petition Project, which is signed by thousands of scientists* who know the true unbent shape of our planet? And don’t forget Geocentrismgate, where scientists’ emails revealed they say “The Moon rises at 8:30 tonight,” showing they clearly have been lying about heliocentrism, too.Do I even need to mention that Round-Earth scientists calculate the positions of so-called “satellites” using relativity, and that’s just a theory?Read More at Bad Astronomy... Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 172. yoboi 1:14 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Dessler & North Demonstrate Why Scientists Appear CluelessLink Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1820
 173. Cochise111 1:58 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 IPCC AR5: Billions spent, nothing gained. A re-hash of AR4 while completely ignoring solar impact on climate as well as ignoring the fact that C02 increase has no correlation with temperature:Link Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 251
 174. Naga5000 2:03 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 173. Cochise111:IPCC AR5: Billions spent, nothing gained. A re-hash of AR4 while completely ignoring solar impact on climate as well as ignoring the fact that C02 increase has no correlation with temperature:"Nir Shaviv was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over \$67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations." LinkPaid liar. You should check your sources better. Seems like a good percentage of things you post have affiliations with Big Oil and the extreme right wing Heartland, coincidence? It's honestly not even worth debunking due to the loads of actual science that does the job. It may be time to rethink the information you get through the conservative echo chamber of science denial. Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2350
 175. Cochise111 2:13 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 174. Naga5000:"Nir Shaviv was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over \$67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations." LinkPaid liar. You should check your sources better. Seems like a good percentage of things you post have affiliations with Big Oil and the extreme right wing Heartland, coincidence? It's honestly not even worth debunking due to the loads of actual science that does the job. It may be time to rethink the information you get through the conservative echo chamber of science denial.You mean that all of the "scientists" who receive government funding are supposed to be credible? They've spent billions and have less of an idea exactly what's occurring with the climate than they had thirty years ago. Talk about paid liars. The entire AR5 is nothing but a fantasy that ignores reality. Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 251
 176. Naga5000 2:14 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 "Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that the data attracting the most attention from those who would minimize the findings of climate science are only surface temperatures of the globe. The ocean covers 70 percent of our planet, and its depths now hold more than 90 percent of the extra heat that has been absorbed, due to humanity's greenhouse-gas emissions. Data show that the ocean has warmed to 6,000-foot depths in many regions - an observation that as a graduate student working in the north Pacific decades ago, I could not have imagined possible within my lifetime." Link "Climate change 'paused'? Uh, deniers, just listen to the warm" Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2350
 177. Naga5000 2:18 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 175. Cochise111:You mean that all of the "scientists" who receive government funding are supposed to be credible? They've spent billions and have less of an idea exactly what's occurring with the climate than they had thirty years ago. Talk about paid liars. The entire AR5 is nothing but a fantasy that ignores reality.Ha. So it comes down to you believing the idiotic conspiracy about scientists getting the big bucks from research grants. You have shown an amazing lack of scientific literacy over and over here, and quite frankly, you're embarrassing yourself. You show the exact confirmation bias seen in the last presidential election which lead to the right being shocked they lost. So please, believe what you want, just don't post it here...unless you want to continue to be the class clown. Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2350
 178. Cochise111 2:19 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 176. Naga5000:"Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that the data attracting the most attention from those who would minimize the findings of climate science are only surface temperatures of the globe. The ocean covers 70 percent of our planet, and its depths now hold more than 90 percent of the extra heat that has been absorbed, due to humanity's greenhouse-gas emissions. Data show that the ocean has warmed to 6,000-foot depths in many regions - an observation that as a graduate student working in the north Pacific decades ago, I could not have imagined possible within my lifetime." Link "Climate change 'paused'? Uh, deniers, just listen to the warm"Another violation of the laws of physics. Heat cannot be stored in the depths of the oceans without the surface being warm also. The surface hasn't statistically warmed. Another fantastic invention by Trenberth et al to place the "missing heat" somewhere where it can't be measured. If the very depths of the ocean have warmed, it is due to closer proximity to the earth's mantle. Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 251
 179. Naga5000 2:24 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 178. Cochise111:Another violation of the laws of physics. Heat cannot be stored in the depths of the oceans without the surface being warm also. The surface hasn't statistically warmed. Another fantastic invention by Trenberth et al to place the "missing heat" somewhere where it can't be measured.Seriously, did you really just say that? Mind boggling. It really is considering. "Roughly two thirds of the warming since 1980 occurred in the upper ocean. The heat content of the upper layer has gone up twice as much as in the lower layer (700 – 2000 m). The average temperature of the upper layer has increased more than three times as much as the lower (because the upper layer is only 700 m thick, and the lower one 1300 m). That is not surprising, as after all the ocean is heated from above and it takes time for the heat to penetrate deeper." Try again, buddy. Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2350
 180. luvtogolf 2:26 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 177. Naga5000:Ha. So it comes down to you believing the idiotic conspiracy about scientists getting the big bucks from research grants. You have shown an amazing lack of scientific literacy over and over here, and quite frankly, you're embarrassing yourself. You show the exact confirmation bias seen in the last presidential election which lead to the right being shocked they lost. So please, believe what you want, just don't post it here...unless you want to continue to be the class clown.Calling someone a "class clown" is a personal attack that is not accepted on this blog. Reported. Member Since: June 12, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 855
 181. Naga5000 2:42 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 180. luvtogolf:Calling someone a "class clown" is a personal attack that is not accepted on this blog. Reported.Welcome to the blog! Any climate science to share today? Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2350
 182. ScottLincoln 2:48 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 179. Naga5000:Seriously, did you really just say that? Mind boggling. It really is considering. "Roughly two thirds of the warming since 1980 occurred in the upper ocean. The heat content of the upper layer has gone up twice as much as in the lower layer (700 – 2000 m). The average temperature of the upper layer has increased more than three times as much as the lower (because the upper layer is only 700 m thick, and the lower one 1300 m). That is not surprising, as after all the ocean is heated from above and it takes time for the heat to penetrate deeper." Try again, buddy.Not to mention that the sea surface is warmer than the deep oceans. So yes, a colder area below the surface can warm faster than the surface. And that would be following the laws of physics.Some love to throw around science terms but it really shows that they do not know how to use them properly. Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2832
 183. Xulonn 3:44 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 173. Cochise111:IPCC AR5: Billions spent, nothing gained. A re-hash of AR4 while completely ignoring solar impact on climate as well as ignoring the fact that C02 increase has no correlation with temperature:LinkFirst, a question. Do you have a reason for believing Dr. Shaviv, or are you just posting anything that supports your "beliefs" and opinions? Solar impact was not ignored - it has been examined by the global scientific community was examined and found to be trending toward a cooling, not a warming impact. Therefore not included as a positive forcing factor in the AR5 report.Quoting DeSmogBlog: Nir J. Shaviv's credentials: Ph.D., Physics. Israel Institute of Technology, 1996. M.A., Physics. Israel Institute of Technology, 1994. B.A., Physics. Israel Institute of Technology, 1990.BackgroundNir J. Shaviv is an associate professor of Physics at the Racah Institute at the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He contends that the sun's rays are the primary driver of climate change.Dr. Shaviv says that he is not funded by the oil industry or large corporations. Although he is skeptical of man-made climate change, he stresses that there are a "dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn less fossil fuels." His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favor of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power.Stance on Climate ChangeShaviv does not agree with scientific claims that greenhouse gases are the main driver of global warming. He believes there is no scientific evidence linking carbon dioxide and global warming:"In fact, there is no substantial evidence which proves that CO2 and other GHGs are the primary cause for the warming, and not some other mechanism. You may have seen articles which point to the contrary, that there is clear evidence, but if you dig deeply into them, you will realize that these are merely suggestions for a CO2 climate link and not evidence." [2]The real driver of climate change and global warming, according to Shaviv, is solar activity.Shaviv explains that "when there are fewer ions, the clouds that are formed are composed of large drops. Clouds of this type are less white and refract less of the sun's rays outward, and so the heat is preserved and the earth gets warmer." [3]In a view completely opposite to that of the IPCC, Dr. Shaviv believes that increasing temperatures lead to an increase in carbon dioxide, and not the other way around. He contends that "if we double the amound of CO2 by 2100, we will only increase the temperature by about one degree Celsius."According to Shaviv, two thirds of the warming in the 20th century were caused by natural factors, and only one third by anthropogenic causes. He does stress anthropogenic causes will most likely be the dominant driver of warming in the 21st century. That being said, Shaviv is against the Kyoto Protocol and believes that "the hysteria surrounding the concept of 'global warming' will fade over the years."Dr. Shaviv apparently denies that the above graphs are true, and goes against the consensus of scientists from around the world. He appears to be bitter about the fact that he cannot get his hypotheses past peer review. His specialty is cosmic rays, and he seems to be utterly convinced that he is right and the majority of the world's atmospheric physicists and chemists are wrong - but he doesn't have evidence that can convince the others in his field of science. So he goes to the Heartland Institute anti-AGW/CC events as a featured speaker, and sells his ideas to the fossil fuel industry. And of course, they gleefully incorporate this extremely dubious and poorly supported "science" into the climate denialist handbook.SkepticalScience, the source of the above graphs, covers the myth of "It's the Sun!" quite thoroughly. Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1026
 184. Xulonn 4:36 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 178. Cochise111:Another violation of the laws of physics. Heat cannot be stored in the depths of the oceans without the surface being warm also. The surface hasn't statistically warmed. Another fantastic invention by Trenberth et al to place the "missing heat" somewhere where it can't be measured. If the very depths of the ocean have warmed, it is due to closer proximity to the earth's mantle.I'm sorry that your knowledge of physics is so limited and wrong. You could begin to improve your knowledge of the subject by studying water stratification by temperature and mixing by currents to begin to become more knowledgeable. Please be aware that there is no "missing" heat - it's going into the deep oceanic, and is being carefully measured and studied. The oceans consist of a "liquid" fluid divided by randomly shaped continents and islands, and shallow to deep, smooth to irregularly bottomed basins, are not as well mixed as the atmosphere. There is a complex mix of vertical stratification and transport of heat via currents. This is a complex and difficult to study system, but scientists are working hard of advance their knowledge in this area, and are understanding more about it every day. A good place for you (and anyone else who is interested) to begin to learn about oceanic heat and transport is Stefan Rahmstorf's 2006 paper, "Thermohaline Ocean Circulation" from the Encyclopedia of QuaternaryWith respect to a related AGW/CC factor, the gaseous fluid we call the "atmosphere" is better mixed than the liquid oceans because of global wind patterns. Although there are mountains and topography, the modify, but don't prevent, the movement of air around the earth like land masses do to the oceans. Wind is why CO2 doesn't sink to the bottom ow the atmosphere, and the atmosphere does not stratify according to the density of its components, or even according to temperature as happens in many bodies of water. However, there is a constant transfer of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere, with spikes in heat transfer from cyclonic storms.I have not taken the time yet to find and examine recent publications on the role of the addition of vast amounts of "heat" to the deep oceans. The tiny increases in "temperature" due to this current AGW/CC trend/event may seem insignificant, but I will wait for the science to published on the subject before making any firm judgements on it's role in climate change.One of the least understood aspects of ocean dynamics is the timing and frequency of ENSO episodes, e.g., El Nino and La Nina events. I'm guessing that scientists are frantically trying to understand this, because another El Nino like 1998 - or stronger - will bludgeon the b.s. of the "it hasn't warmed since 1998" crowd into oblivion. Amusing side note: If it's o.k. to measure warming from a strong El Nino year like 1998 to the present, will it also be o.k. to measure from the 2000 La Nina to present after the next El Nino? Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1026
 185. JohnLonergan 7:48 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 183. Xulonn:First, a question. Do you have a reason for believing Dr. Shaviv, or are you just posting anything that supports your "beliefs" and opinions? Solar impact was not ignored - it has been examined by the global scientific community was examined and found to be trending toward a cooling, not a warming impact. Therefore not included as a positive forcing factor in the AR5 report.Dr. Shaviv apparently denies that the above graphs are true, and goes against the consensus of scientists from around the world. He appears to be bitter about the fact that he cannot get his hypotheses past peer review. His specialty is cosmic rays, and he seems to be utterly convinced that he is right and the majority of the world's atmospheric physicists and chemists are wrong - but he doesn't have evidence that can convince the others in his field of science. So he goes to the Heartland Institute anti-AGW/CC events as a featured speaker, and sells his ideas to the fossil fuel industry. And of course, they gleefully incorporate this extremely dubious and poorly supported "science" into the climate denialist handbook.SkepticalScience, the source of the above graphs, covers the myth of "It's the Sun!" quite thoroughly.I'd suggest that he read and digest this, Principles of Planetary Climate, by Raymond Pierrehumbert, it is considered "the book" by climate physicists. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 186. JohnLonergan 8:11 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 From RealClimate:The IPCC AR5 attribution statementLinkLast year I discussed the basis of the AR4 attribution statement:Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.In the new AR5 SPM (pdf), there is an analogous statement:It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.This includes differences in the likelihood statement, drivers and a new statement on the most likely amount of anthropogenic warming.More » Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 187. JohnLonergan 8:20 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2558
 188. georgevandenberghe 8:44 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 Quoting 137. Xulonn:It's really sad and pathetic when a Harvard-educated Ph.D. Atmospheric Physicist who was on the faculty at MIT stoops so low as to tell and support such lies. He knows damn well that he is telling denialist lies based on misinterpretation of the data behind this graph. I thought Christians weren't supposed to lie?The sea ice extent graph has another name on Wall Street. Used to describe a declining equity it illustrates that even a dead cat will bounce when dropped and is called the dead cat chart. Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 16 Comments: 1207
 189. RevElvis 9:10 PM GMT on October 10, 2013 OECD: 'No bailout' for climate threatGovernments forced to rescue the world's banking system are being warned there will be no bailout if there is a crisis in the Earth's climate system.That is the view of the head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Angel Gurria is expected to rebuke nations failing to curb CO2 emissions in a speech on Wednesday.He will say the analysis of the climate threat is far clearer than were the warning signs for the financial crisis.Mr Gurria is due to address the topic of climate change, investment and energy policies in a London lecture co-organised with the London School of Economics and the Climate Markets & Investors Association (CMIA)In his speech, Mr Gurria will ask if leaders overseeing the financial system that led to the "train wreck" of the banking crisis would have been happy to take the risks if they had known the consequences."Unlike the financial crisis, we do not have a 'climate bailout option' up our sleeves," he will say. Mr Gurria will also warn that renewable technologies will be harmed by stop-start policies. Renewables firms in the UK have benefited from a stable policy framework in the medium term, but are uncertain about long-term investments as right-wing Conservatives attempt to abandon CO2 targets for 2030, arguing that they damage competitiveness.He also takes a swipe at fossil fuel subsidies, currently estimated at over \$500bn a year globally. These typically provide cheap motoring for the rich, he says, and fail to help the poor.The world, he says, needs to become zero-carbon in the second half of the century, and needs to start on that pathway immediately if climate change is to be stabilised.bbc.co.uk*edit - just realized this article was posted already - Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 190. cyclonebuster 2:10 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 192. Patrap 2:24 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 They will suck out every drop of the Oil,every lb of coal, and all the others out the Earth as they control the World Economies from top to bottom.Action is needed now.Anything less will only bring about the calamity predicted.500 billion a year buys a lotta clout.But we have the internet to outwit, outsmart, and out play them.Survival is not a game anymore.Their weakness are many. Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 409 Comments: 123906
 193. RevElvis 3:05 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 U.S. flips switch on massive solar power array that also stores electricityThe array is first large U.S. solar plant with a thermal energy storage systemThe switch has been flipped on a massive solar array field near Phoenix, producing up to 280 megawatts of electricity - enough to power 70,000 households.Arizona's largest public utility, Arizona Public Service (APS), will purchase all of the electricity produced by the solar plant for 30 years through a power purchase agreement with Abengoa Solar, the company that built the array.The solar array, financed in part by a Department of Energy loan guarantee, is the county's first large-scale solar plant with thermal energy storage system. The thermal energy storage system can provide electricity for six hours without the concurrent use of the solar field.The Solana solar array field covers three square miles with about 3,200 mirrored parabolic trough collectors. Each collector is about 25 feet wide, 500 feet long, and 10 feet high.The Solana solar plant will generate enough clean energy to power 70,000 households and will prevent about half a million tons of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere per year, according to Abengoa Solar. Solana received a federal loan guarantee of \$1.45 billion to build the plant.The construction of the plant created more than 2,000 jobs and a national supply chain that spans 165 companies in 29 states.ComputerWorld.com Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 194. RevElvis 3:08 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 Fusion "Breakthrough" At National Ignition Facility? - Not So Fast"One unintended effect of the U.S. federal shutdown is that helpful press officers at government labs are not available to provide a reality check to some of the wilder stories that can catch fire on the Internet. They would have come in handy this week, when a number of outlets jumped on a report on the BBC News website. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, it reported, had passed a 'nuclear fusion milestone.' NIF uses the world's highest energy laser system to crush tiny pellets containing a form of hydrogen fuel to enormous temperature and pressure. The aim is to get the hydrogen nuclei to fuse together into helium atoms, releasing energy.The BBC story reported that during one experiment last month, 'the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel — the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.' This prompted a rush of even more effusive headlines proclaiming the 'fusion breakthrough.' As no doubt NIF's press officers would have told reporters, the experiment in question certainly shows important progress, but it is not the breakthrough everyone is hoping for."SlashDot.org Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 195. iceagecoming 3:18 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 Quoting 173. Cochise111:IPCC AR5: Billions spent, nothing gained. A re-hash of AR4 while completely ignoring solar impact on climate as well as ignoring the fact that C02 increase has no correlation with temperature:LinkThe IPCC report - is the science settled?Thursday 3 October 2013, 15:44 Paul HudsonLast week the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) issued their latest high profile report on the current understanding of climate change. Their main conclusion is that there can be little doubt that man is responsible for at least half of the rise in global temperatures since the 1950s, due to man-made greenhouse gases. As a geophysicist myself, I cannot argue with the science behind the greenhouse effect, which is based on sound physical principles. To that end, the science behind how greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide would cause warming of the atmosphere, in my mind, is settled. But there are areas of the science which cannot be described as anywhere near settled, where there are uncertainties that cannot be easily dismissed. These uncertainties have been an area that I have focused on over the last few years on this climate blog. The one area which is perhaps as crucial as any is that of climate model performance, because governments around the world are using climate projections to make long term planning decisions, in particular on future energy generation. Judge for yourself if this part of the science is settled, from the IPCC report, Section D1: ‘The observed reduction in surface warming over period 1998-2012 is due roughly in equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and cooling from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).’ ‘There is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend.' ‘There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increase greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing.’ To highlight this area of uncertainty further, in late 2009, I wrote an article which you can read HERE in which I look at the then apparent slowdown in global warming. In it, I discuss research from the Met Office Hadley Centre. In the research the authors discuss why they believe a levelling off of temperatures can be expected at times. The research shows that near zero temperature trends for intervals of a decade or less can be expected due to the model’s internal climate variability. But crucially, the research rules out zero (temperature) trends for intervals of 15 years or more. We are now 15 years into the so called ‘pause’ in global temperatures and the research further illustrates that this crucial part of climate science is far from settled, and it’s disappointing that more time wasn’t given to this issue across the media in the days since the report was published. Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 22 Comments: 977
 196. iceagecoming 3:29 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 Quoting 192. Patrap:They will suck out every drop of the Oil,every lb of coal, and all the others out the Earth as they control the World Economies from top to bottom.Action is needed now.Anything less will only bring about the calamity predicted.500 billion a year buys a lotta clout.But we have the internet to outwit, outsmart, and out play them.Survival is not a game anymore.Their weakness are many. Yes Sir, the truckers are hard at work to prevent the presidential motorcade from making it for tee time at the un-shutdown Camp David and golf course.Wide-ranging protest aimed at trucking issues, Congress, Obama and 'corruption'Brace yourselves, Washington, D.C., drivers. Angry truckers are coming to town Friday as part of a three-day protest to "shut down America" and "restore our Constitutional Republic."Enraged by low wages, fuel prices, regulations, the government shutdown, the debt ceiling, President Obama and "the corruption that is destroying America," the "Truckers Ride for the Constitution" aims to tie up three lanes of Interstate 495 circling the nation's capital, with big rigs traveling 55 mph, an organizer told U.S. News & World Report.Last week, one of the promoters said 3,000 truckers had said they planned to participate in the holiday-weekend rally. Two convoys reportedly will leave from the Doswell Truck Stop in Doswell, Va.The "general strike" seeks to enlist sympathetic motorists - and will let them pass if they display the group's calling card: T2SDA, which stands for "Truckers to Shut Down America," the original name.The group behind the rally, "Ride for the Constitution," said in a news release that the "stage is now set for what we now consider the last peaceful defensive stand in a war that has been declared by Wall Street, Washington, and the Whitehouse upon the American people."But a Georgia trucker handling logistics, Earl Conlon, told U.S. News & World Report that he and other truckers would block the highway if police intervened and that they also would try to arrest members of Congress for disregarding the Constitution."We want these people arrested, and we're coming in with the grand jury to do it," he said. "We are going to ask the law enforcement to uphold their constitutional oath and make these arrests. If they refuse to do it, by the power of the people of the United States and the people's grand jury, they don't want to do it, we will. ... We the people will find a way."In a statement posted to its Facebook page Monday evening, the Truckers Ride said Conlon did not speak for the group.Folks, here's the entire scoop on US News & World Report attempting to get a sensational title from someone not authorized to speak on behalf of all peaceful protesters. As we approach the event, this is what we can expect from the MSM and potential saboteurs --- but NOTHING will stop us!Obama keeps his military golf course & Camp David openObama feels your pain. If you are affected by the Obama/Reid shut down (which is highly unlikely unless you want to visit war memorials), Obama has a message for you. Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 22 Comments: 977
 197. BaltimoreBrian 3:32 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 Nothing admirable about truckers or anyone else tying up traffic and stopping people from getting to work and messing up everyone's day. If they do that they are law-breaking thugs and deserve to go to jail and have their CDLs and regular drivers licenses revoked.Not any different than the NYC biker gang that beat up the young father.Blocking traffic? Threatening police? Unlawful imprisonment of members of congress? If they try it they will get the justice thugs deserve. Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7368
 198. RevElvis 3:51 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 197 - Kinda makes you wonder - who would profit from such a thing?LINK Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 199. FLwolverine 3:58 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 You know, you have to wonder about a group that wants to shut down something that's already shut down, and in the process cause problems for a lot of regular working people - members of Congress have probably already gone back to their districts for the weekend, and most of the government workers aren't working. Not to mention the taxpayer money that will be spent on extra police. I wonder who's underwriting this. Tell me again what this is supposed to accomplish?No, wait, I didn't mean that! One post about this "protest" is enough drivel. Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1649
 200. BaltimoreBrian 4:00 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 Quoting 198. RevElvis:197 - Kinda makes you wonder - who would profit from such a thing?LINKI doubt the Koch brothers are that stupid. Seriously, post 9/11 security in the Washington metro is a lot tighter than it looks at first glance. Any protest shutting down the highways and attempting to falsely imprison members of congress will be dealt with severely and they will be prosecuted harshly.The truckers will not be dealing with Deppity Dawg. They will be very sorry if they really do all that.Here is the article that got the most coverage.'Truckers for the Constitution' Plan to Slow D.C. Beltway, Arrest Congressmen (U.S. News & World Report) Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7368
 201. RevElvis 5:08 AM GMT on October 11, 2013 Watch what happens when a climate change denier takes his kid to the science fair"Children are being embarrassed at unprecedented rates"League of Conservation Voters (LCV.org) Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Viewing: 151 - 201

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

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