Barriers in the Atmosphere: Arctic Oscillation (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 12:50 AM GMT on October 03, 2013

Share this Blog
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

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: 120 - 70

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

And I will post all legitimate science as it comes out.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8884
Quoting 117. SteveDa1:
Just wanted to tell you all that I'm moving on from this blog...

Farewell everyone.


Goodbye Steve. You'll be missed.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8884
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.

!!! Hot air: are models that show the economic effects of climate change useless?

Arctic Oil Discovery Heralds More Finds in Norway's Barents

* Battery-Stored Solar Power Sparks Backlash From Utilities

Higgs boson scientists win Nobel prize in physics


*** Madness! Male Marsupial Mating Mortality

Emissions rate puts billion more at risk

Diamond 'Super-Earth' May Not Be Quite So Precious

Evolutionary Question Answered: Ants More Closely Related to Bees Than to Most Wasps

Iron Melt Network Helped Grow Earth's Core, Study Suggests

Making Martian Clouds On Earth: Clouds On Mars Form in Much More Humid Conditions Than Clouds On Earth

Something in the (Expecting Mother's) Water: Contaminated Water Breeds Low-Weight Babies, Sometimes Born Prematurely

* Working Together: Bacteria Join Forces to Produce Electricity

* Rural Land Use Policies Curb Wildfire Risks -- To a Point

* More Than 500 Million People Might Face Increasing Water Scarcity

First Ever Evidence of a Comet Striking Earth

*** Terrestrial Ecosystems at Risk of Major Shifts as Temperatures Increase

High risk green energy drives Wall Street's top-performing fund

* Fracking the US trade deficit

*** Shutdown puts the entire US Antarctic research program on ice

After the Nobel, what's next for particle physics? Supersymmetry!

_________________________________________________

Megastorm Aftermath on NOVA on PBS at 9 p.m. Wednesday October 9th
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8884
Just wanted to tell you all that I'm moving on from this blog...

Farewell everyone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A possible nascent solution to the climate crisis quashed by the US government shutdown:

Apparent breakthrough in nuclear fusion silenced by shutdown

Chenda Ngak | CBS News | October 8, 2013

Scientists have come one step closer to harnessing the power of the sun. Researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) have passed a milestone in achieving self-sustaining nuclear fusion -- but you won't hear about it from the researchers. The NIF team has been furloughed as a result of the U.S. government shutdown, which began on Oct. 1, and is not releasing updates to the press.

According to the BBC, a research experiment conducted in late September succeeded in releasing more energy through a fusion reaction than it absorbed by the fuel going in. NIF is the first research facility in the world to achieve this goal. A spokesperson for the NIF could not give CBSNews.com a comment on the results of the experiment.

NIF's method for achieving fusion involves sending 192 laser beams through a 1,500-meter journey that increases its energy output by a factor of more than a quadrillion. The laser beams' energy grows from one-billionth of a joule to 4 million joules in 5 millionths of a second.

Scientists believe that fusion can fuel our future without threat of nuclear proliferation or environmental damage because the process of creating fusion requires very few resources. One of the biggest challenges in producing energy derived from fusion has been to pass the break-even point -- a goal that has eluded scientists for nearly 50 years.

Nuclear fusion is not to be confused with nuclear fission. Instead of splitting an atom's nucleus, like in fission, nuclear fusion is the process of bringing together two atomic nuclei to form a new nucleus.

While the NIF has passed the break-even point, it is just shy of reaching "ignition" -- when nuclear fusion produces as much energy as is supplied to the lasers.

The NIF set a goal for achieving ignition by 2012, but a series of technical difficulties put the research behind schedule. The $3.5 billion Livermore, Calif. lab houses the world's largest laser. A research facility in Cadarache, France called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is also pursuing nuclear fusion research. However, ITER scientists aim to conduct experiments in burning plasma.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
On the failure of US scientific education.


Listening to the public discourse in the US, one cannot help but think that basic science education in this country has failed. Oh, sure, we have good science teachers (and bad), and textbooks filled with knowledge, but as a nation we have utterly failed to grasp the most fundamental lessons of science. And I think that reflects poorly on scientists and science educators (myself included).

The first lesson we have failed to impart is that people must know scientific facts. "Fact" in science means data as revealed through experiments and observations. In essence, we have failed to teach the data. It's much easier and faster to present the theories as in the textbook with a few supporting facts, especially given the limited time to cover any one topic in most general education science courses. And for most topics (i.e. sliding filament theory of muscle contraction, optimal foraging theory, germ theory, general theory of relativity, etc), that is sufficient. However, for evolution and climate change, that approach is insufficient.

The reason is simple. There is a lot of misinformation about the basic facts about both climate change and evolution. People honestly believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that adding more CO2 won't affect climate, that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human technology, that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, that all geologic strata were laid down in one calendar year, that evolution cannot happen, and that the radiometric decay is variable. Combating that sort of misinformation requires starting at the basic facts, even if it means reviewing in detail facts discovered centuries earlier, i.e. superimposition (1669), faunal succession (1799), the greenhouse effect (1820s), index fossils (1830s), the laws of thermodynamics (1824-1912), CO2 is a greenhouse gas (1861), the Stefan-Boltzmann law (1870s), etc.

The second lesson that, in my opinion, we've failed to impart is that nothing happens by magic. There is always a physical cause. I'm most familiar with magical thinking about the current global warming. One common example is a claim that global warming is due to natural cycles. What makes that claim "magical" thinking? First, citing "natural cycles" without specifying exactly which natural cycle is the cause simply means that you don't really have any cause. Second, there's no evidence that natural cycles are sufficient to cause the current global warming and multiple published papers that show that natural cycles aren't sufficient (i.e. Meehl et al. 2004). You cannot just wish that evidence away.

Another example of magical thinking in the global warming "debate" is the claim that global warming is due to water vapor. Why is this "magical" thinking? Well, there's the fact that water vapor is controlled by air temperature and therefore cannot control air temperature by itself (remember the Clausius-Clapeyron relation?). Then there's the fact that if water vapor is causing global warming, you must explain why water vapor suddenly started acting to warm the planet since AD 1900, after a 5,000 year period of a cooling trend. Just citing water vapor and not stating what caused water vapor to suddenly warm the planet is pure magical thinking as everything must have a physical cause.

As for the evolution "debate", magical thinking abounds, from claims that a 1-year, worldwide flood could magically change the rate of radiometric decay to the claim that the geologic column is due to a single flood to claims that information theory disproves evolution. The Talk Origins website has an extensive catalog debunking various creationist claims. The claim about radiometric decay is particularly ludicrous in light of the amount of heat produced. The average rate of heat from radiometric decay that reaches the Earth's surface today is 47 trillion Joules/second (Davies and Davies 2010). Accelerating that by 1 billion would mean an average of 47 septillion Joules/second of heat—more than enough heat to vaporize the oceans and melt the planet. As for the geologic column–flood claim, there are several rock layers scattered throughout the geologic column which are laid down slowly and only in quiet water (i.e. shales) and therefore could not have been formed by a flood. The information theory claim has been debunked multiple times (i.e. here, here, and here), mainly because neither Shannon information theory or Kolmogorov-Chaitin theory truly apply to living organisms.

Last and most glaringly, we've failed to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking is the ability to ask "Does this {new discovery, data, opinion, etc} make sense in light of what we already know about this subject?" What we mostly teach in science class is simply rote memorization—we teach theories and facts but don't teach students how to tie those facts and theories together. Are there exceptions to this generalization? Certainly. But those are unfortunately the exception rather than the rule. And it's the lack of critical thought that magnifies deficiencies in teaching the basic facts and the magical thinking.

As for how to correct these issues, I suggest a two-pronged approach. First, rather than rote memorization, I have started presenting facts, then asking students to evaluate those facts based on their prior knowledge, and then to draw conclusions based on the total body of knowledge. When covering evolution (haven't reached that section yet), I will be spending more time laying out step-by-step the discoveries that lead to our current understanding of the geologic column before diving into natural selection and the Hardy-Weinberg Theorem. For global warming at the end of the ecology section, I've already started rewriting my lecture to include more of the basic facts and concepts (i.e. the laws of thermodynamics), and history of the discovery of the greenhouse effect and the gases that comprise it. Yes, this approach takes more time and effort, but I believe I'll have better informed students at the end. Ideally, this process would begin in elementary school rather than the first year of college but better late than never.

Second, we simply need more scientists to get involved explaining the basics to the general public, countering the misinformation coming from climate science denier and creationist camps. I know that most scientists are more comfortable hiding in laboratories and behind computer screens but it's really the only way we're going to change the course of public debate in the US.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 92. indianrivguy:


how do you power the plants and get the HUGE amount of water we consume.. desal is NOT the answer. Preventing oil and agriculture from poisoning it and capturing runoff might be. How do the millions of people inland and the millions of acres of crops inland get enough.. Every power plant on the planet would not desal enough volume for the virus known as man.. the human herd will be culled in a terrible way this century. We simply cannot sustain our current lifestyle given our population and the available resources.


Sometimes I have moments of excessive thought shallowness! I should refrain from commenting during those times.

I agree we will suffer as a whole but better times will follow. We have been going in a forward direction extremely quickly without much thought and it will lead to catastrophe in the near-future but we will learn from our mistakes... Too bad we could learn now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 108. Naga5000:


No, Yoboi, no. If that's the case, keep believing hacks. There is no hoax. If you have the hard evidence that contradicts AGW, publish it. Until then, stop with the bull.

Save your sanity. Use your ignore list.
He goes in circles over and over. If it isn't you, it's someone else. Intellectually honest debate left the station years ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 109. yoboi:


What do you think Al Gore cares more about money or the planet earth??????


Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Give it up.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
Quoting 107. yoboi:


I just don't understand how you don't see the hoax....it is so plain as day it amazes me that some people can't see it.....they are no different than the fossil fuel industry.....


No, Yoboi, no. If that's the case, keep believing hacks. There is no hoax. If you have the hard evidence that contradicts AGW, publish it. Until then, stop with the bull.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
Quoting 102. yoboi:


What about the IPPC?????


Dr. Madhav Khandekar, who worked with the IPCC until becoming outraged by its lack of interest in proper scientific review


He went to where the money is, the Heartland Institute. If you think groups like Heartland, CATO, NIPCC are scientific and accepted in the real world outside of the right wing echo chamber, you are sorely mistaken.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
Quoting 101. yoboi:


why is it every Scientist I post... you all have something bad to say about that person???? According to your fav pic only 24 scientist are against AGW....I have posted more than 24.......


You pick paid denialists. You wouldn't catch me calling them Scientists. Your "more than 24" have repeatedly lied, misrepresented positions, some have even had papers retracted. You can keep playing this "look at both sides" game. I am not doing it anymore.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam

updated: June 15, 2009

There is a line between public relations and propaganda - or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth - to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival.

And it is infuriating - as a public relations professional - to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.

That's what is happening today, and I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, you have the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – as well as the science academies of every developed nation in the world – confirming that:

climate change is real;
it is caused by human activity; and
it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.

On the other hand, you have an ongoing public debate - not about how to respond, but about whether we should bother, about whether climate change is even a scientific certainty. While those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change, mainstream media was, until very recently, covering the story (in more than half the cases, according to the academic researchers Boykoff and Boykoff) by quoting one scientist talking about the risks and one purported expert saying that climate change was not happening – or might actually be a good thing.

Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of disinformation – one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel – and a deep humiliation – and I want to see it stop.

Here’s how it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you’re likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying your can of New Coke.

No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.

In the best cases – the cases that are most personally rewarding – your advice actually guides corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they’re running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.

It's the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: "smoking isn't necessarily bad for you;" "it's not certain that asbestos will give you cancer;" "your seatbelt might actually kill you if you're the one person in five trillion whose buckle jams just as your car flips into a watery ditch."

But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders.

I have filled a whole book with details of the documented corporate action plans to deny climate change and confuse the public. Climate Cover-up hit the shelves in the fall of 2009.

One of the best proofs of climate disinformation came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.

In a section entitled "Winning the Global Warming Debate," Luntz says this:

"The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

If you download the memo and read the whole thing, you will notice that Luntz never expressly denies the validity of the science. In fact, he says, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed."

" ... not yet closed"? Among those who disagreed with that assessment when Luntz wrote this report were the 2,500 scientists in the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada.

In 2004, Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, said, "We're in the middle of a large uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have." And to back up this sense of certainty, he reported that University of California, San Diego science historian Dr. Naomi Oreskes had published an analysis in Science in which she had combed through 928 peer-reviewed climate studies published between 1993 and 2003 and found not a single one that disagreed with the general scientific consensus.

Yet journalists continued to report updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both were equally valid.

Notwithstanding, Luntz wrote: "There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." He recommended that his Republican Party clients do just that. He urged them to marshal their own "scientists" to contest the issue on every occasion. He urged them to plead for "sound science" a twist of language of the sort that George Orwell once said was "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind."

Luntz's goal – which was embraced with unnerving enthusiasm by the Bush Administration - was to manufacture uncertainty and to politicize science. Like all tragedy, it would be hilarious if you could play it for laughs.

Luntz himself actually backed off this position a couple of years later, saying that the evidence of climate change was overwhelming. So it’s difficult to tell who is being wilfully blind and who, like Luntz, was falling victim to gross negligence in the way they ignore the science - and in the potentially catastrophic risks that they promote. Whichever way you cut it, their actions reflect badly on the whole public relations industry.

As you might assume from my earlier criticism, I'm not suggesting that Frank Luntz or even a dubious cabal of ethics-free PR people are solely to blame for the public confusion on climate change. They have received extensive, if clumsy assistance from the media, which in a facile attempt to provide "balance" is willing to give any opinion an “impartial” airing as long as it is firmly in contradiction with another.

This is not just a feature of the point/counterpoint talking heads that have emerged as the principal vehicle for television news. Newspaper reporters are just as guilty of canvassing "both sides" of every argument, often without providing any critical judgment as to the validity or relative weight of either side.

On the issue of climate change, journalists have consistently reported the updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both are equally valid. This is not balanced journalism. It is a critical abdication of journalistic responsibility. Any reporter who cannot assess the relative merits of a global scientific consensus - especially in contradiction to an "expert" that the coal industry is paying to help "clear the air" - deserves to have his pencil taken away in solemn ceremony and broken into bits.

There is yet more blame to go around. You could criticize scientists for the dense, cautious and conditional language that they use in talking about the threats of climate change. But in science, credibility is a currency (this, in apparent contradiction to the state of affairs in journalism or PR). A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of certainty or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.

You could also criticize environmentalists, whose tendency has been to stray too far in the other direction, extrapolating scientific assumptions to create scare stories so dispiriting that they create apathy rather than activism. These, in turn, have made easy targets for the energy industry's climate change deniers.

The important thing at this point, however, is not to assign blame. It is to educate yourself and to join this increasingly urgent political debate. This is not one of those relatively low-level PR boondoggles. We're not talking about single individuals dying because the auto industry held out against seat belt laws. We're not even talking about many 100s of thousands of people dying of lung cancer because the tobacco industry held out for "sound science" while actively increasing the amount of addictive nicotine in their product. We're talking about the future of the planet.

So please read on.

Read everything.

If you are actually practicing public relations, take a close look at your clients and at your own performance. There has to be a point where principle trumps short-term economic gain, a point where you admit to yourself that it’s not worth the money to put the planet at risk.

Whatever you do, you must keep a wary eye. By all means, read the sites that deny the reality of climate change. But then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions. Read the DeSmogBlog. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics." Be skeptical yourself. Ask yourself what motive the scientific community has to gang up and invent a phony climate crisis. Compare that to the motives that ExxonMobil or Peabody Coal might have to deny that burning fossil fuels indiscriminately could change irrevocably our existence on the planet.

And if you still leave the lights on when you're done, make sure they're shining in the shamed faces of the PR pros who are still trying to prevent sound, sensible policy change to affect this, perhaps the biggest threat humankind has ever faced.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 99. JohnLonergan:


Yeah, it is too easy when everyone they reference is right there in the DeSmogBlog Global Warming Disinformation Database

The NIPCC is also included in the debunking I read today from CHEK CLIMATE NEWS:

Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming denialism are doubling down on trying to discredit the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they’ve been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public’s mind before the report is published, with no end in sight, Chek Climate News has learned.


“The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn’t have all the science to make informed judgments,” said Jim B’Ozo, a spokesman for the Clownshoe Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.

Clownshoe gained notoriety last year after running a billboard campaign comparing climate change believers to “Tunabomber” Jed Kyrgyzsta (pronounced ‘kyrgyzsta’), which caused several corporate donors and ichthusophiles worldwide to withdraw support for the group.


Read more at CHEK CLIMATE NEWS


A dead giveaway is the name, just a lame attempt to look official and confuse.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
Quoting 98. Naga5000:


Yoboi, the NIPCC is fraudulent. End of line. Link


Yeah, it is too easy when everyone they reference is right there in the DeSmogBlog Global Warming Disinformation Database

The NIPCC is also included in the debunking I read today from CHEK CLIMATE NEWS:

Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming denialism are doubling down on trying to discredit the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they’ve been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public’s mind before the report is published, with no end in sight, Chek Climate News has learned.


“The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn’t have all the science to make informed judgments,” said Jim B’Ozo, a spokesman for the Clownshoe Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.

Clownshoe gained notoriety last year after running a billboard campaign comparing climate change believers to “Tunabomber” Jed Kyrgyzsta (pronounced ‘kyrgyzsta’), which caused several corporate donors and ichthusophiles worldwide to withdraw support for the group.


Read more at CHEK CLIMATE NEWS
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 96. yoboi:
“CO2 is ‘the gas of life,’” said NIPCC contributing author Dr. Tom Segalstad, associate professor of resource and environmental geology and geochemistry at the University of Oslo. “The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth. CO2 is contributing very little to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ Clouds have much more influence on temperature.” NIPCC lead author and meteorologist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, who worked with the IPCC until becoming outraged by its lack of interest in proper scientific review, also pointed out that human-added CO2 is not destabilizing the climate.

The NIPCC authors, whose report contains thousands of citations to peer-reviewed literature, also do not believe man-made global warming represents a crisis. They argue that not enough is even known about the climate to make policy-relevant recommendations at this point. Executive Director Tom Harris with the International Climate Science Coalition, however, went further, saying the NIPCC report “demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong.” Indeed, the independent scientists even point out that whatever small warming may occur would probably produce some benefits as well.



Link


Yoboi, the NIPCC is fraudulent. End of line. Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
Quoting 94. yoboi::


snip


You mean this Zbigniew Jaworowski:

...
Affiliations

International Climate Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) — "Expert." [8]

Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures group (BELLE) — "International Member." [9]

Sponsors for BELLE include British American Tobacco, ExxonMobil, Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco.

Publications

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Jaworowski has published 17 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of radioactivity.

According to a search of Google Scholar, Jaworowski has published some articles on climate, in skeptical journals such as Energy & Environment:

Zbigniew Jaworowski. "Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate" (PDF),
21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004.
"Nature Rules the Climate," Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1 (January 2005).


So, Dr ZJ has no relevant scientific publications and is a paid shill for the tobacco industry.

I wonder if he was one of the 9 out of 10 doctors who preferred Camels?

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 94. yoboi:
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski,




Link


So she was backwards back then and still backwards today. Thanks.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
From Nature News Blog:

United States suspends Antarctic research season

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) is recalling staff and scientists from Antarctica due to the ongoing US government shutdown. Nearly all science at the three US bases will grind to a halt.

The agency’s decision, posted today, could spell the end of this year’s Antarctic field season at McMurdo, Amundsen-Scott and Palmer stations, depending on the duration of the shutdown, which began on 1 October and shows no signs of ending.

The NSF said it would work to restore the research season "to the maximum extent possible" once funding is restored. The agency said, however, that some activities could not be restarted once the evacuation was complete and the seasonal windows for research and operations had passed.

Lockheed Martin, the contractor that runs the US bases for the NSF, had already been preparing to put the facilities in 'caretaker status'. The company received its last funding from the NSF on 30 September, according to internal e-mails obtained by Nature. In its statement, the NSF said Lockheed had enough money on hand to ensure operations through 14 October.

A skeleton crew will remain to properly maintain each of the three bases, as is normally the practice during the Antarctic off-season, from March to September. During a normal year, roughly 700 scientists head south each year to study Antarctica’s ice, ecosystems and atmosphere from October to February.

Scientists are frustrated that long-term studies will be interrupted. "If we lose a year of observations, they are gone forever," says Hugh Ducklow, a biological oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.

Ducklow is working on a 20-year-old project to monitor the ecosystem near Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula. The work includes an annual census of penguin populations, which have shifted significantly in recent years as the peninsula has warmed. "A number of the remaining colonies of Adélie penguins in our study are so low now that they could go extinct almost any time," Ducklow says.

The US shutdown could also have repercussions for other nations’ Antarctic research programmes. New Zealand’s Scott Base and the joint French-Italian Concordia Station rely on the US programme for some transportation needs, including helicopter support of field research and access to McMurdo Station’s sea-ice runway, which can handle heavy cargo plane landings. Lisa-Marie Brooks, a spokesperson for Antarctica New Zealand, said in an e-mail that the agency was developing contingency plans to minimize the impact of the US shutdown on its operations but did not offer more details.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 88. SteveDa1:


That has never bothered me because we can always use desalination plants to supply all our watery needs. In fact, I don't understand why people make such a big deal about lack of water when it is so abundant. Sure it requires a lot of money but what is money when the most precious thing on earth is needed?

Rainfall on the west coast of Australia has substantially diminished in the last century and what did they do?

You guessed it.


how do you power the plants and get the HUGE amount of water we consume.. desal is NOT the answer. Preventing oil and agriculture from poisoning it and capturing runoff might be. How do the millions of people inland and the millions of acres of crops inland get enough.. Every power plant on the planet would not desal enough volume for the virus known as man.. the human herd will be culled in a terrible way this century. We simply cannot sustain our current lifestyle given our population and the available resources.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Didn't what I said make sense?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Doctor Masters is in RealClimate today:

Making a film about climate change is difficult, especially if you want it to reach a wide audience. One problem is the long time scale of climate change, which fits badly with the time scale of a typical film narrative. That was the reason why in the Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow some laws of physics were treated with a certain artistic freedom, in order to present a dramatic climate change within a few weeks instead of decades.

Mike and I have spent the last few days at a very interesting workshop in Iceland, where climate scientists, social scientists and filmmakers were brought together in conjunction with the Reykjavik International Film Festival. I will make no attempt to reproduce the many exciting discussions which we had, that often continued into the night. Instead, I’d like to present two short films by workshop participants. I chose a contrast of hot and cold.

First, the cold. The following film is a trailer by Phil Coates, a British filmmaker and expedition leader, who has filmed in extreme conditions on all seven continents. It is a “work in progress” under the working title “North Pole Living on Thin Ice”. Coates was dropped off with three scientists on the sea ice near the North Pole. On foot out on the Arctic Ocean they made oceanographic and ice thickness measurements. Soon you will be able to experience this research expedition on film. The scientific findings of the team will of course come out in the scientific literature.

Video: Living on Thin Ice

Now, the heat. Peter Sinclair is a cartoonist from the US Midwest. Some years ago, out of anger over the aggressive disinformation campaign of climate deniers (he prefers this term), he started his now well-known video series “Climate Denial Crock of the Week”. Sinclair now also produces the film series, “This is Not Cool” for the renowned Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media , and has made more than a hundred short films on climate issues. The following short film “Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives” was created in summer 2012 after the record heat wave in the United States. By his own admission, when he had finished it his film brought himself to tears.

Video: Dr Jeff Masters Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 84. Cochise111:
Where's the missing heat? It certainly isn't in the oceans. It's funny that Trenberth thought he could hide the heat in some seemingly inaccessible spot. Too bad for him. I guess he'll next say it is being stored in the Earth's mantle:

Link


Wow...you really don't know how to read a scientific research paper do you? Seems consistent with the denizens of those pseudo science blogs.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
Quoting 87. RevElvis:
9 billion people worldwide attempt to share the planet's three percent of useable water


That has never bothered me because we can always use desalination plants to supply all our watery needs. In fact, I don't understand why people make such a big deal about lack of water when it is so abundant. Sure it requires a lot of money but what is money when the most precious thing on earth is needed?

Rainfall on the west coast of Australia has substantially diminished in the last century and what did they do?

You guessed it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How We're All Going to Die in 2050

While some current causes of death should continue on their increasingly deadly pace, several potentially fatal problems developing today could join these common killers, including deadly superbugs, the ever-changing climate and more.

Malaria and dengue fever

Heat-related deaths might quadruple by 2050

Urban pollution will kill 3.6 million people a year by 2050

Antibiotic-resistant diseases kill at least 23,000 people per year in the United States. Another two million are infected with these diseases each year.
The strengthening of superbugs - and the weakening of antibiotics - could cause these diseases to wipe out large clusters of people by 2050.

9 billion people worldwide attempt to share the planet's three percent of useable water


Weather.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 962
Nobel Medicine Prize winners warn: Science in the U.S. is in peril

Three American winners of the Nobel Prize for Medicine on Monday said scientific progress in the United States is in peril due to unprecedented funding cuts and ideological challenges.

It seems to me there is a significant increasingly vocal percentage of the population that thinks we shouldn't go after truth and truth is not important. And so that worries the hell out me," said Suedhof, who is an American citizen.

But he described the biggest problem as %u201Cthis cognitive dissonance - in America. "You can't at the same time be for science and against it," he said.


RawStory.com (AFP)


2012 Nobel Prize Winner Furloughed Due To Government Shutdown

HuffingtonPost.com

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 962
Where's the missing heat? It certainly isn't in the oceans. It's funny that Trenberth thought he could hide the heat in some seemingly inaccessible spot. Too bad for him. I guess he'll next say it is being stored in the Earth's mantle:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 79. JohnLonergan:


Actually Reid Bryson won't be supporting anything these days. He also has not published anything in 30 years according to Google Scholar. More about the late Dr Bryson at Desmogblog, I don't consider anyone in the Desmogblog denier database as even remotely credible.


The idea of global cooling from aerosol was viable in the early 70s and followed 15 years of observed cooling in the 60s and early 70s. However it was NEVER settled the way GW theory has been in the past 10 years and it got more visibility in the popular press where it was treated as an imminent certainty, than in the scientific literature.
I find it somewhat ironic that Dr Bryson worked at Wisconsin where growing degree days were closely tracked each summer of the 70s and 80s to answer the question "will the corn get enough heat to mature this year". Tracking of GDD has been less visible in recent years with apparently less concern about getting enough.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Horatio Algeranon takes a whimsical look at "The Pause" with some very solid analysis:

Double Standard Deviation
-- by Horatio Algeranon

It's double standard deviation
When "skeptics" claim a "pause",
Ignoring double-sigma ration
Because that helps their cause.


As pointed out by Tamino in Double Standard, climate "skeptics" focus on the last 15 years which appear to show a surface temperature trend less than the long term (30-40 year) upward trend (~0.17 degC/decade since 1975), while ignoring 15 year periods that show an "apparent" trend greater than the long term trend.

In the case of the last 15 years, they conveniently ignore the "2-standard-deviations" uncertainty that is the normal scientific standard for determining whether trends are actually "significantly" different (statistically speaking).

Appearances can be deceiving. Trends taken over short time periods (even 15 years) are only "apparent" and are very uncertain, because of year to year noise due to things like El Nino, La Nina and volcanic eruptions.*

Read more at Horatio Algeranon
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
From The Guardian

UN climate change panel: two graphs that tell the real story of the IPCC report

The sensitivity of the climate is not as important as how much carbon we can 'safely' emit, as these graphs show

Millions of words have been written about the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But for me, two key messages stand out – one for its importance, the other for its lack of importance, relative to the attention that it has received. Since our interactive graph about temperatures in your lifetime has generated so much interest, I thought I'd do a graph to explain each of these two points too.




The thing that doesn't matter (much): revisions of climate sensitivity

Hover over the lines on the graph for more details. Or for a bigger version see the original on the Kiln website.
Commentators such as Matt Ridley and David Rose who are keen to play down the importance of climate change, plus the editorial team at the Economist, have made a lot of noise about the fact that the new IPCC report contains reduced estimates for the 'sensitivity' of the climate to increased levels of greenhouse gas in the air.

Any evidence that the climate is less sensitive to carbon than we previously thought is good news: it means we can expect less warming from any given carbon concentration, reducing the risk of dangerous impacts. But as my first graph makes clear, the gains are actually rather small. It shows four IPCC emissions scenarios, from the highest (RCP 8.5, which so far reflects business as usual) to the lowest (RCP 3PD, which involves actions well beyond the scope of what is currently seen as politically plausible, with emissions falling steeply almost straight away and humans becoming carbon negative later in the century). For each scenario, the graph allows you to compare future warming based on estimates of the climate's sensitivity from the previous and new IPCC reports. The conclusion: this is really no game changer. On current emissions trends, it means global warming of up to 6C rather than 7C over the next century, relative to preindustrial levels. With low emissions, it's the difference between an upper-end warming of around 3.5C and 3C in the same timeframe – an improvement, yes, but hardly reassuring.

For those wanting to understand the numbers on the graph, the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is usually described in terms of two factors: the transient climate response (TCR), which is the amount of warming that we can expect by the time that carbon emissions reach double their preindustrial levels; and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the (larger) temperature rise that would ultimately ensue if those doubled CO2 concentrations persisted long enough for the world to settle into a new stable state. Neither TCR nor ECS can be precisely pinned down; instead scientists estimate upper and lower values for each. The new IPCC report revised down the upper estimate of TCR and the lower estimate of ECS. One climate scientist summed up the importance of these changes to me succinctly: "Which one matters? Well, neither of them, if we're honest."

One key thing to understand about TCR and ECS is that a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels is just a convenient but arbitrary point for scientists to use for their calculations. No-one is saying that doubled CO2 has any relation to what's actually going to happen. Worryingly, the UK's environment minister Owen Paterson appears to have completely misunderstood this. He told journalists recently that we don't need to worry much about climate change because the new IPCC report says we're on track only for warming of 1–2.5C. But those are the figures for the TCR – a variable for climate models, not a forecast. It would be funny, were it not so alarming, that Paterson has got so badly confused.

In reality, we're likely to hit a climate forcing equivalent to double preindustrial CO2 by mid-century even with reasonably ambitious emissions cuts, and even sooner on current trends. At that point we'd need to switch off every remaining fossil fuel-burning vehicle, boiler and power station overnight, in order for Paterson's 1–2.5C to be realistic. Perhaps that's his idea of a climate change mitigation plan?

The thing that does matter: cumulative carbon budgets


Hover over the graph to explore the data. Or for a bigger version see the original on the Kiln website.
The really big news in the new IPCC report is the recognition of something that various scientific papers have made clear over the past few years: that to avoid any given temperature rise, the world needs to set itself an all-time carbon budget. The reason is that carbon accumulates in the air over time, so it's the total amount of carbon emitted since the industrial revolution – cumulatively – that determines the level of warming. My second graph shows this, demonstrating that no matter what emissions scenario the world follows, there's a roughly straight-line relationship between temperature rise and cumulative emissions. It also highlights the obvious but often overlooked point that even when annual emissions are falling, cumulative emissions are still rising.

As the graph shows, for a decent chance of limiting warming to 2C, as the world has agreed to do, the global carbon budget is around a trillion tonnes of carbon (which equates to 3.7 trillion tonnes of CO2), give or take a bit depending on much risk of failure we're prepared to accept. Of that total, more than half has already been used up, leaving a remaining budget of around 450 billion tonnes. As Mike Berners-Lee and I show in our recent book, The Burning Question, that's approximately half the carbon in the remaining fossil fuel reserves that are already commercially viable ("proven" in the jargon), and just a small fraction of all the fossil fuels remaining in the ground, including the obscure and unconventional reserves that companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year trying to bring to commercial viability.

In other words, the IPCC has finally confirmed that to meet the agreed global climate target, the vast majority of the remaining fossil fuel reserves either need to be left in the ground or burned only with some form of carbon capture. We knew this before, of course, but without IPCC recognition, governments have been able to avoid facing up to the implications. Indeed, negotiators at the UN climate talks have failed so far even to discuss the concept of a global carbon budget in any meaningful way, focusing instead on piecemeal national pledges in the blind hope that one day these will add up to a solution. Thanks to the new report, however, virtually every government in the world has been forced to consider and recognise that most of the world's fossil fuel reserves need to be left untouched, either forever or at least until we can capture the carbon. If the likes of Owen Patterson, Matt Ridley and the Economist accept the science of the new report, as they seem to suggest, this stark fact is what they are implicitly acknowledging.

To make the situation even tougher, it's not clear that the things we usually assume will help cut fossil fuel use actually work as expected. As The Burning Question argues, the long term trends suggest that global fossil fuel use and carbon emissions have so far been completely unaffected by huge gains in energy efficiency, cleaner energy sources and slowing population growth. Efficiency gains don't necessarily mean less energy use overall; more clean energy supply doesn't automatically mean less dirty energy supply; and a reduction in population growth doesn't in itself slow emissions growth. To avoid a high chance of shooting far past 2C, therefore, we need to focus on the root problem: the production and unabated burning of fossil fuel.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 78. JohnLonergan:


Better than a fish slap.
But not better than the fish slapping dance. Link
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2444
Quoting 77. FLwolverine:
Congratuations! You've found a scientist who supported the global cooling theory: (from Wiki).

"Bryson's main contribution to the debate on climate change was the idea of "the human volcano" causing global cooling, via an increase in aerosol loading.[2] This idea was sparked in 1962 by his own observation, while flying across India en route to a conference, that his view of the ground was blocked not by clouds but by dust. At the time, the instrumental temperature record did not show unambiguous warming and the view that the earth might be cooling, and heading for further cooling, was not unreasonable. Others, including Hubert Lamb, who created a Dust Veil Index,[3] thought volcanoes were more responsible for global-scale aerosol."

Unfortunately, I don't think a 2007 article from an intelligent design website is going to have much credibility.


Actually Reid Bryson won't be supporting anything these days. He also has not published anything in 30 years according to Google Scholar. More about the late Dr Bryson at Desmogblog, I don't consider anyone in the Desmogblog denier database as even remotely credible.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 74. BaltimoreBrian:


Better than a fish slap.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Quoting 70. yoboi:
Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.


Link
Congratuations! You've found a scientist who supported the global cooling theory: (from Wiki).

"Bryson's main contribution to the debate on climate change was the idea of "the human volcano" causing global cooling, via an increase in aerosol loading.[2] This idea was sparked in 1962 by his own observation, while flying across India en route to a conference, that his view of the ground was blocked not by clouds but by dust. At the time, the instrumental temperature record did not show unambiguous warming and the view that the earth might be cooling, and heading for further cooling, was not unreasonable. Others, including Hubert Lamb, who created a Dust Veil Index,[3] thought volcanoes were more responsible for global-scale aerosol."

Unfortunately, I don't think a 2007 article from an intelligent design website is going to have much credibility.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2444
Water for a Thirsty World




Angel Boligan, Cagle Cartoons, El Universal, Mexico City
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 962
Oceans face 'deadly trio' of threats, study says

The world's oceans are under greater threat than previously believed from a "deadly trio" of global warming, declining oxygen levels and acidification, an international study said on Thursday.

The oceans have continued to warm, pushing many commercial fish stocks towards the poles and raising the risk of extinction for some marine species, despite a slower pace of temperature rises in the atmosphere this century, it said.

"Risks to the ocean and the ecosystems it supports have been significantly underestimated," according to the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), a non-governmental group of leading scientists.

"The scale and rate of the present day carbon perturbation, and resulting ocean acidification, is unprecedented in Earth's known history," according to the report, made with the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The oceans are warming because of heat from a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Fertilizers and sewage that wash into the oceans can cause blooms of algae that reduce oxygen levels in the waters. And carbon dioxide in the air can form a weak acid when it reacts with sea water.

"The ‘deadly trio' of ... acidification, warming and deoxygenation is seriously affecting how productive and efficient the ocean is," the study said.


Reuters.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 962
Quoting 67. Cochise111:
It's the water, stupid:
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8884
Quoting 67. Cochise111:
It's the water, stupid:

Link


Why do you believes his story instead of a climate scientist's work? Because the climate scientist is in a conspiracy, right. Then how do you know Steve Goreham isn't in one?

I'm asking you to be honest with yourself; I must have lost it!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 66. Xandra:
Who Created the Global Warming "Pause"?

How climate skeptics and the media—with a little inadvertent help from scientists themselves—forged a misleading narrative.



Not who but what caused it???? Answer is mass...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20469

Viewing: 120 - 70

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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.