Wobbles in the Barriers: Arctic Oscillation (4)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:22 PM GMT on October 14, 2013

Share this Blog
29
+

Wobbles in the Barriers: Arctic Oscillation (4)

This is a continuation of my series on the Arctic Oscillation / North Atlantic Oscillation. Links to background material and previous entries are at the end.

In the last entry I suggested that if you were on a bridge overlooking a swiftly flowing creek then you would notice that twigs floating in the water did not move across the current. They are carried downstream along the edge of the current. The purpose of that comparison was to demonstrate how fast-moving, concentrated flows have the effect of isolating one side of the creek from the other. This is true in the creek, and it is also true about jet streams in the atmosphere.

One way to understand the Arctic Oscillation is to think of it as the variation of an atmospheric jet stream. For the Arctic Oscillation the jet stream of interest is the southern edge of vortex of air that circulates around the North Pole (see previous entry). Air inside the vortex often has characteristics different from air outside it. Intuitively for the Arctic, there is colder air on the side toward the pole. 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 the air on one side is largely separated from the air on the other side. In this blog, I describe the difference between a strong and a weak vortex – which is the same as the difference between the positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation.



Figure 1: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). Compare this perspective to Figure 1 in previous blog. This represents a strong, circular vortex centered over the pole, which encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex.

Figure 1 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the strong vortex case, when there is exceptionally low pressure at the pole. Low pressure is associated with counterclockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere. This direction of rotation is called cyclonic. This strong vortex case is the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation. During this phase, the vortex aligns strongly with the rotation of the Earth, and there are relatively few wobbles of the edge of the vortex – the jet stream. I drew on the figure two points, X and Y. In this case, the point X is hot and the point Y is cold. It is during this phase when it is relatively warm and moist over, for example, the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Figure 2 compares a strong vortex and a weak vortex. In both cases, the circulation around a central point is counterclockwise or cyclonic. However, in the weak vortex case, the vortex does not align as strongly with the rotation of the Earth and there are places where the edge of vortex extends southwards. The vortex appears displaced from the pole; it is not centered over the pole.



Figure 2: Examples of a strong, circular vortex and a weak, more wavy vortex. See text for a more complete description.

Whether the vortex is stronger or weaker is determined by the atmospheric pressure at the pole. In the winter, an important factor that determines the circulation is the cooling that occurs at polar latitudes during the polar night.

What determines the waviness or wobbles at the edge of this vortex? The structure at the edge of vortex is strongly influenced by several factors. These factors include the structure of the high-pressure centers that are over the oceans and continents to the south of jet stream. One could easily imagine a strong high-pressure center over, for example, Iceland, pushing northward at the edge of the vortex. This might push a lobe of air characteristic of the middle latitude Atlantic Ocean northward. Since the edge of the vortex is something of a barrier, this high-pressure system would distort the edge of the vortex and, perhaps, push the vortex off the pole. This would appear as a displacement of the vortex and its cold air over, for example, Russia. If the high grew and faded, then this would appear as wobbles of the vortex.

Other factors that influence the waviness at the edge of the vortex are the mountain ranges and the thermal contrast between the continents and the oceans. The impact of mountains is easy to understand. Returning to the creek comparison used above, the mountains are like a boulder in the stream. The water bulges around and over the boulder; the air in the atmosphere bulges around and over the mountain ranges. The Rocky Mountains in the western half of North America are perfect examples of where there are often wobbles in the atmospheric jet stream.



Figure 3: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). This represents a weak, wavy, wobbly vortex displaced from the pole. The vortex encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex. (definition of vortex)

Figure 3 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the weak vortex case, when the low pressure at the pole is not as low as average and the pressure is much higher than the strong vortex case of Figure 1. This weak vortex case is the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. During this phase, the alignment of the vortex with the rotation of the Earth is less prominent, and there are wobbles of the edge of the vortex – the jet stream. In this case, the point X is cold and the point Y is hot. It is during this phase where it is relatively cool and dry (but potentially snowy) over, for example, the eastern part of the United States.

These figures help to explain the prominent signal of the Arctic Oscillation discussed in the earlier entries (specifically, this blog). That is, when the vortex is weak and wobbly, then there are excursions of colder air to the south and warmer air to the north. This appears as waviness and is an important pattern of variability - warm, cold, warm, cold.

The impact of the changes in the structure of edge of the vortex does not end with these persistent periods of regional warm and cold spells. The edge of the vortex or the jet stream is also important for steering storms. Minimally, therefore, these changes in the edge of the vortex are expected to change the characteristics of how storms move. Simply, if the edge of the vortex has large northward and southward extensions, then storms take a longer time to move, for example, across the United States from the Pacific to the Atlantic Oceans. In the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation they just whip across. In the negative phase, the storms wander around a bit. A more complete discussion of this aspect of the role of the Arctic Oscillation will be in the next entry. (Note use of dramatic tension and the cliffhanger strategy of the serial.)

r

Previous entries:

Barriers in the Atmosphere
Behavior
Definitions and Some Background

August Arctic Oscillation presentation

CPC Climate Glossary “The Arctic Oscillation is a pattern in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between negative and positive phases.”

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: 1007 - 957

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Could the NAO alter Global Warming?

The winter cold blast: blame the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
Why has the winter been so cold over Eastern North America and northern Europe? Well, don't blame El Nio. El Nio winters are rarely this cold. Instead, blame the the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO is a climate pattern in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of sea-level pressure between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. It is one of oldest known climate oscillations--seafaring Scandinavians described the pattern several centuries ago. Through east-west oscillation motions of the Icelandic Low and the Azores High,the NAO controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks across the North Atlantic. A large difference in the pressure between Iceland and the Azores (positive NAO) leads to increased westerly winds and mild and wet winters in Europe. Positive NAO conditions also cause the Icelandic Low to draw a stronger south-westerly flow of air over eastern North America, preventing Arctic air from plunging southward. In contrast, if the difference in sea-level pressure between Iceland and the Azores is small (negative NAO), westerly winds are suppressed, allowing Arctic air to spill southwards into eastern North America more readily. Negative NAO winters tend to bring cold winters to Europe, and the prevailing storm track moves south towards the Mediterranean Sea. This brings increased storm activity and rainfall to southern Europe and North Africa.

The winter of 2009 - 2010 has seen a very strong negative NAO, causing much of our cold weather over Eastern North America and Europe. The NAO index for the month of December 2009 was -1.93, which is the third lowest NAO index since 1950 for a winter month (December, January, or February). The only winter months with a lower NAO index were February 1978 (-2.20) and January 1963 (-2.12). January 1963 was one of the coldest months on record in the UK and the Eastern U.S.. February 1978 was the coldest February on record for five U.S. states, and featured the historic blizzards in both the U.S. and UK. The NAO so far for January 2010 has continued to stay strongly negative, ranging between -1.5 and -2.1.

Link



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Again, yoboi in 1005 posts made up numbers. It sounds like something the fake "Steven Goddard" would say. Of course "Steven Goddard" posted in his blog last year that Hispanics and African-Americans are less intelligent than white people so naturally yoboi considers him a credible source.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
1005. yoboi
US Has Half As Many 100 Degree Days As It Did Eighty Years Ago




Summers in the US have gotten much less extreme since the 1930s, with only half as many 100ºF readings as eighty years ago. The current year had the second fewest 100ºF readings on record, just behind 2004, only only one seventh as many as 1936.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record.

Yoboi you seriously need to stop lying here. I and others have posted official reports on global temperature which show that there has been no pause and you have seen them. Yet you keep lying repeatedly.

Why do you lie day after day, yoboi?

I suppose we should be thankful that yoboi is not posting links to the anti-semite or racist sites that he follows.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
1003. yoboi
Well we have some more good news....2 months 11 days and we will have 17 yrs and no warming...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1002. pintada
Quoting 997. FLwolverine:
Why do you think it is likely by 2050?


AGW is not the only problem, and may not even be the worst.

Per Guy:
"Malcolm Light in 2012 concluded, based on data from NOAA and NASA, that methane release had gone exponential and was leading to the demise of all life on Earth, not just human extinction, by the middle of the century.

So 3.5 C to 4 C is almost certainly a death sentence for all human beings on the planet, not because it'll be a warmer planet, but because the warming of the planet will remove all habitat for human beings. Ultimately we're human animals like other animals, we need habitat to survive."

Add in the other issues, with which i have bored you before, and shaazzzam.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

9/12/2013 @ 1:02PM |24,531 views
Remember All Those Breathy Predictions About An Ice Free Arctic By 2015? Nevermind...


Arctic sea ice experienced record 60-percent growth in August 2013 compared to August 2012. Global warming alarmists now tell us they predicted this, despite our collective memories to the contrary.

Remember all those claims last year about accelerating Arctic ice loss and an ice-free Arctic by 2015 or 2020? Well, actually you don’t, because nobody ever made those claims. In fact, you heard exactly the opposite. You may think you heard claims about accelerating Arctic ice loss and an imminent ice-free Arctic, but they were merely figments of your imagination. You were merely hallucinating. How do I know this? Global warming alarmists just told us so.

Arctic ice loss and an imminent ice-free Arctic, but they were merely figments of your imagination. You were merely hallucinating. How do I know this? Global warming alarmists just told us so.

Writing in Monday’s UK Guardian, alarmists John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli claim global warming alarmists predicted this year’s record growth in Arctic sea ice. And all those claims of doom-and-gloom predictions about Arctic sea ice in 2012? They were apparently just figments of our collective imagination.

So when you click on this article published by the very same UK Guardian last September 17, you really aren’t reading the article title that you think you are reading:

“Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years.”


Link



In the Mediterranean region, an early deciduous forest phase was followed by a phase around 125,000 y.a. with more 'typical' species such as Olive (Olea) and evergreen oaks (perhaps suggesting greater summer aridity?).
An Eemian 'optimum' climate map has been published by Velichko et al, based on their review of diverse sources of evidence (but mainly plants). They suggest that winter (January) mean temperatures were less than 2 degrees above present values in western Europe, but 2-6 deg.C higher over much of Scandinavea. In the north of Scandinavea, January temperatures are suggested as having been 8 deg.C higher. The same authors also suggest that Mediterranean winter temperatures were slightly lower than at present. In another map in the same volume, Frenzel (1992) takes a slightly different view, suggesting winter temperatures 2-3 degrees higher in NW Europe, and 4-5 deg.C higher across most of Scandinavea. For summer (July/August) temperatures, a 2-3 deg.C warming across most of western and central Europe and Scandinavea is suggested by Velichko et al. (1992), and by Frenzel (1992), but only Velichko et al. suggest a slight cooling in the Mediterranean region.

van Andel & Tzedakis (1996) suggest that the evidence for warmer early Eemian conditions in southern and central Europe is less strong than for northern Europe. However, they note that plankton indicators in the western Mediterranean tentatively suggest a 3 deg.C higher mean temperature.

On the basis of palaeobotanical indicators, both Velichko et al. and Frenzel suggest substantially higher annual precipitation across most of Europe during the peak Eemian warm phase; 100-300mm more than present across central and western regions, and 200-300mm more in the south. It is not clear how this relates to other interpretations suggesting drier conditions for at least part of the year in northern Europe (e.g. the yew phase) and in southern Europe (e.g. the olive phase).

Mid-Eemian cooling event?

A possible 'cold' phase within the Eemian has been suggested as occurring towards the end of 5e, at about 122,000 y.a., on the basis of pollen records of tree distributions from central and western Europe (Field et al. 1994, Thouvenay et al. 1994). Open forest-steppe vegetation seems to have appeared for several hundred years in areas that were fairly closed forest both before and afterwards. The issue remains controversial, as this review article explains. Plankton indicators of north Atlantic surface temperatures and deep Atlantic circulation patterns appear to corroborate this event, suggesting that the north Atlantic climate experienced a sudden cool phase resulting from a weakening of the Gulf Stream (lasting perhaps several centuries) at about 121,000 or 122,000 y.a. (Maslin 1996). After this the climate never returned to its previous warmth, although the pollen records seem to suggest that conditions more similar to those of today, lasting for perhaps 5,000 years up until around 115,000 y.a


Link




You folks just don't get it, it all happened before, plain as day, it will all happen again, nothing to do but move south, or north, depending on your fancy. Ah, when the hippo's roamed the Thames!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1000. yoboi
Well some good news.. we are gaining ice at both poles.....Let's give it a few yrs to see what will happen.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 975. Birthmark:

Yeah? You should probably look into that.

Some very interesting names on that list, too. Dig through that list and see if you don't some funny (and unlikely) "scientists" on that list. Then add your own name. Give yourself a Ph.D. They won't argue with you. LOL
Quoting 975. Birthmark:

Yeah? You should probably look into that.

Some very interesting names on that list, too. Dig through that list and see if you don't some funny (and unlikely) "scientists" on that list. Then add your own name. Give yourself a Ph.D. They won't argue with you. LOL


I see someone I know personally, so at least one really exists :) Jay Badenhoop
has a PhD in chemistry and teaches at a branch college of WVU. If you met him, you would understand why he signed...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
998. yoboi
Looks like with solar 25 we are heading into global cooling....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 996. pintada:




7 billion dead give or take a few is inevitable and since it is likely by 2050, we will get to watch (up to a … um … certain point).

I would like it if some of the decent species can survive, but if the liars, and/or the stupid get their way, nothing will make it.
Why do you think it is likely by 2050?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2320
Quoting 993. Birthmark:

I have a very hard time with human extinction. It seems virtually impossible barring the complete destruction of Earth --not just its surface, but the whole planet.

Here's why: Turns out, despite our irresponsibility, we're very clever --especially under pressure. Plus, we can create the artificial environment we need, along with a means of producing food. So, while human population could conceivably plummet by 99%, the human species will survive.

I just don't believe an environmental catastrophe can do in the entire species, particularly one that moves in relative slow motion, meaning months or years.

Still, seven billion dead is, um, not a preferable outcome.


Quoting 994. indianrivguy:


Researchers Discover Arctic Warmer Than Anytime in Last 44,000 Years


7 billion dead give or take a few is inevitable and since it is likely by 2050, we will get to watch (up to a … um … certain point).

I would like it if some of the decent species can survive, but if the liars, and/or the stupid get their way, nothing will make it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 994. indianrivguy:
Researchers Discover Arctic Warmer Than Anytime in Last 44,000 Years


Last sentence of article:

“And it really is in the last 20 years that the warming signal from that region has been just stunning,” Miller concluded. “All of Baffin Island is melting, and we expect all of the ice caps to disappear, even if there is no additional warming.

So a tipping point has passed us by and no one noticed at the time.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5955
Quoting 992. pintada:
And you guys think I'm an alarmist. (-:

Guy is spot on and (unlike me) has the citations to prove it.


Party on dude!

I have a very hard time with human extinction. It seems virtually impossible barring the complete destruction of Earth --not just its surface, but the whole planet.

Here's why: Turns out, despite our irresponsibility, we're very clever --especially under pressure. Plus, we can create the artificial environment we need, along with a means of producing food. So, while human population could conceivably plummet by 99%, the human species will survive.

I just don't believe an environmental catastrophe can do in the entire species, particularly one that moves in relative slow motion, meaning months or years.

Still, seven billion dead is, um, not a preferable outcome.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
And you guys think I'm an alarmist. (-:

Guy is spot on and (unlike me) has the citations to prove it.


Party on dude!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 990. Birthmark:

That's what I suspected, but didn't check it out. It's not like IAC is going to post anything interesting or honest.

(Off to slightly edit my comment.)


It"s fair to say that he has exactly as much credibility as the sources he cites.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 989. JohnLonergan:


But he has published, the first item I found in Google Scholar for Michael Lockwood says:

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

I think Pal Hudson is seriously misrepesenting D. Lockwood's views. Of course misinformation is a denier's stock in trade.

That's what I suspected, but didn't check it out. It's not like IAC is going to post anything interesting or honest.

(Off to slightly edit my comment.)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 988. Birthmark:

As usual, my advice to Lockwood is stop talking and start publishing...if that's what he thinks.

But since we're just going with blog articles, you should check this out. That's probably why stuff gets said instead of published, you know? lol


But he has published, the first item I found in Google Scholar for Michael Lockwood says:

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

I think Pal Hudson is seriously misrepesenting D. Lockwood's views. Of course misinformation is a denier's stock in trade.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 983. iceagecoming:

Nice job misrepresenting Lockwoods work! (Thanks to JohnLonergan and Neapolitan for doing the work I should have done.)

But since we're just going with blog articles, you should check this out. That's probably why stuff gets said instead of published, you know? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
..the Sun is the same in a relative way but yer older,
but shorter of breath,and one day closer to death.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127566
Quoting 985. Neapolitan:
Mike Lockwood--the subject of Paul "Deny Til You Die" Hudson's article--said this at the end of a 2010 paper:

"...there is an 8% chance that the Sun will return to Maunder Minimum conditions within 50 years. The recent evolution of solar cycle 24 indicates that the Sun may well be following such a trajectory (Owens et al. 2011). Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) and Jones et al. (2012) have used GCMs and EBMs to
predict that this will offset anthropogenically rising global temperatures by no more than about 0.2 C in the year 2100, relative to what would happen if the solar output remained constant. Similarly, Lean and Rind (2009) find that the solar decline would delay the arrival at a given temperature level by no more than about 5 years. Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the first time since about 1900, long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions. Non-robust fits will fail sooner rather than later because of the change in solar behaviour. Thus, the next few years will give us much better estimates of the solar contribution to both global and regional climate change. For global temperature rise, there is every indication that these new estimates will, if anything, be smaller that previous estimates."


Since then, based on new data, Lockwood has indeed upped the odds on a new Maunder-like/Dalton-like solar minimum. But he has not in any way suggested that cooling is imminent. Lockwood has reaffirmed what he has previously stated: that a deep solar minimum would--obviously--delay the onset of the worst effects of anthropogenic warming. But the words "an ice age is upon us" have never, to the best of my knowledge, escaped his lips.

So, in a nutshell, Hudson has--in his usual very unscientific way--grabbed Lockwood's comments about a coming low solar minimum, mixed them in with his typical "it's cooling so let's burn all the fossil fuels we can" wishful thinking, smashed everything together, and has now sold it to his audience (the low information WUWT crowd) as Lockwood claiming we're head for cooling, something which Lockwood absolutely did not say and does not believe.

Now repeat after me: Paul Hudson has no climate credibility.

Next!


Obviously he must be a Global Warming heretic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 983. iceagecoming:




Real risk of a Maunder minimum 'Little Ice Age' says leading scientist

Monday 28 October 2013, 06:22

Paul Hudson

[snip]
Mike Lockwood--the subject of Paul "Deny Til You Die" Hudson's article--said this at the end of a 2010 paper:

"...there is an 8% chance that the Sun will return to Maunder Minimum conditions within 50 years. The recent evolution of solar cycle 24 indicates that the Sun may well be following such a trajectory (Owens et al. 2011). Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) and Jones et al. (2012) have used GCMs and EBMs to
predict that this will offset anthropogenically rising global temperatures by no more than about 0.2 C in the year 2100, relative to what would happen if the solar output remained constant. Similarly, Lean and Rind (2009) find that the solar decline would delay the arrival at a given temperature level by no more than about 5 years. Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the first time since about 1900, long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions. Non-robust fits will fail sooner rather than later because of the change in solar behaviour. Thus, the next few years will give us much better estimates of the solar contribution to both global and regional climate change. For global temperature rise, there is every indication that these new estimates will, if anything, be smaller that previous estimates."


Since then, based on new data, Lockwood has indeed upped the odds on a new Maunder-like/Dalton-like solar minimum. But he has not in any way suggested that cooling is imminent. Lockwood has reaffirmed what he has previously stated: that a deep solar minimum would--obviously--delay the onset of the worst effects of anthropogenic warming. But the words "an ice age is upon us" have never, to the best of my knowledge, escaped his lips.

So, in a nutshell, Hudson has--in his usual very unscientific way--grabbed Lockwood's comments about a coming low solar minimum, mixed them in with his typical "it's cooling so let's burn all the fossil fuels we can" wishful thinking, smashed everything together, and has now sold it to his audience (the low information WUWT crowd) as Lockwood claiming we're head for cooling, something which Lockwood absolutely did not say and does not believe.

Now repeat after me: Paul Hudson has no climate credibility.

Next!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?

[1] During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming. However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher-emissions scenarios.

DOI: 10.1029/2011JD017013
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 955. Daisyworld:



Following yours and Xulonn's link to WtD, I also learned that the Sydney Morning Herald has also taken the bold stand against the Manufactured Doubt industry:

"Climate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts. This applies to all our contributors on any subject. On that basis, a letter that says, 'there is no sign humans have caused climate change' would not make the grade for our page..."

Here's hoping that science reporting in journalism is starting to wake up...




Real risk of a Maunder minimum 'Little Ice Age' says leading scientist

Monday 28 October 2013, 06:22

Paul Hudson


It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.

The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.

I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.

According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.

Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.


He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now - and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate - witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years - and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

Link

Obviously he must be a Global Cooling heretic.


Governor issues emergency declaration
October 17, 2013 Staff Report



Link


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
@945 Don't insult Galileo. He got physics rolling. You will forever be in his debt. Referencing Galileo when describing crackpots gives them way too much credit.

Broadly speaking, the denialists operate more in the vein of Galileo's enemies.

"He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials."

(Yeah, that's from Wikipedia. If anyone doesn't like what it says, fix it!)
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5955
Quoting 979. Xulonn:
Some of them docs - most of them crocks.

Names on the "petition" included "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Ginger Spice, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, one of the Spice Girls, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' Here's one of your scientists:


Quite a collection! I understand that their screening process was quite rigorous to make sure only qualified names got on the list. Scientific rigor, accuracy, and such stuff, you know.


I'm sure these docs signed it, too.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 979. Xulonn:
Some of them docs - most of them crocks.

Names on the "petition" included "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' Here's one of your scientists:


Quite a collection! I understand that their screening process was quite rigorous to make sure only qualified names got on the list. Scientific rigor, accuracy, and such stuff, you know.

If I'm not mistaken, OISM is located on this gentleman's premises:
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 973. tramp96:

31k scientists many of them docs. I'll sleep well tonight as
I create more C02. I just had a thought on how the libs
could reduce the C02 levels. : )
Some of them docs - most of them crocks.

Names on the "petition" included "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Ginger Spice, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, one of the Spice Girls, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' Here's one of your scientists:


Quite a collection! I understand that their screening process was quite rigorous to make sure only qualified names got on the list. Scientific rigor, accuracy, and such stuff, you know.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 973. tramp96:

31k scientists many of them docs. I'll sleep well tonight as
I create more C02. I just had a thought on how the libs
could reduce the C02 levels. : )


They could pump it all into your house and make you die of asphyxiation? Not sure if that's a good idea for your well-being. Neither is pumping our planet full of CO2 a good idea. Of course, it won't asphyxiate us, but a slight change upwards in temperature could lead to dire consequences for the human race.
I recommend that you plant a tree so to have a closer net-zero impact on your home's atmospheric environment. Remember, little things count.

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
SLR has been accelerating over the last two decades

Quantifying recent acceleration in sea level unrelated to internal climate variability

Abstract:
“Sea level observations suggest that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated during the last 20 years. However, the presence of considerable decadal-scale variability, especially on a regional scale, makes it difficult to assess whether the observed changes are due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Here we use a regression model with atmospheric pressure, wind, and climate indices as independent variables to quantify the contribution of internal climate variability to the sea level at nine tide gauges from around the world for the period 1920–2011. Removing this contribution reveals a statistically significant acceleration (0.022 ± 0.015 mm/yr2) between 1952 and 2011, which is unique over the whole period. Furthermore, we have found that the acceleration is increasing over time. This acceleration appears to be the result of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, along with changes in volcanic forcing and tropospheric aerosol loading.”

doi: 10.1002/grl.50731
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 974. tramp96:

That's the best you can do. Comedy is not your strong point.
If only Al had a radio show you could listen to. Oppppps

That's all I have to do. Neither article is science.

(You're wasting the "Gore card" on someone who has never read a word Gore wrote -that wasn't quoted by denialists, anyway- never have I listened to him speak on AGW, nor have I seen his movie.)

And "oooooops" is what you're after unless you just like flapping your lips. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 973. tramp96:

31k scientists many of them docs. I'll sleep well tonight as
I create more C02. I just had a thought on how the libs
could reduce the C02 levels. : )

Yeah? You should probably look into that.

Some very interesting names on that list, too. Dig through that list and see if you don't some funny (and unlikely) "scientists" on that list. Then add your own name. Give yourself a Ph.D. They won't argue with you. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 971. Birthmark:

Yes, investors.com is a silly place to go for science information.

That's what you were asking, isn't it? lol

That's the best you can do. Comedy is not your strong point.
If only Al had a radio show you could listen to. Oppppps
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 968. Astrometeor:


The best that site could do was quote Cato Institute scholars. Cato is a libertarian think-tank, not a scientific journal or group of scientists.

And the site is called Investors.com. Really? How does quoting desperate investors help your position?

31k scientists many of them docs. I'll sleep well tonight as
I create more C02. I just had a thought on how the libs
could reduce the C02 levels. : )
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 966. tramp96:

Yep. Forbes is another place to not get your science information.

We're always glad to help. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 965. tramp96:

Yes, investors.com is a silly place to go for science information.

That's what you were asking, isn't it? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 967. JohnLonergan:

Life is a tragedy for those who feel,
a comedy for those who think.

Bad childhood huh. See a shrink maybe their science can help
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From uknowispeaksense writing from Down Under:

Time to count our exported CO2 emissions

If, by some miracle, the Tony Abbott led conservative Australian government’s climate policy, Direct Action actually achieves the grossly insufficient target of a drop in CO2 emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 (I know, who am I kidding? Play along though) the one thing missing from the equation, is how much CO2e we actually export. The figures are staggering.

From Reuters Point Carbon via Climate Spectator

MINING KEEPS AUSTRALIA’S EMISSIONS FROM FALLING: DATA
Rising emissions from coal and gas production cancelled out greenhouse gas cuts achieved through reduced electricity generation in Australia in the year to March 2013, government data released Thursday showed.

Australia emitted 557 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in the 12 months to March 2013, not counting changes in land use, according to data published on the website of the Department of Climate Change – a reduction of 0.1 million tonnes year-on-year.

Cleaning up the coal-dependent power sector is expected to play a key role in Australia’s efforts to reduce output of greenhouse gases to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.

The report found that emissions from electricity generation, the country’s biggest source of heat-trapping emissions, fell 6.1 per cent to 187 million tonnes, largely driven by a drop in demand.

But emissions resulting from fossil fuel extraction rose 12.7 per cent to 45.8 million tonnes of CO2e per year.

“The great majority of increased coal production is exported, with black coal exports increasing by 10.1 per cent over the corresponding period,” the report said.
Read More >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 966. tramp96:
Link


The best that site could do was quote Cato Institute scholars. Cato is a libertarian think-tank, not a scientific journal or group of scientists.

And the site is called Investors.com. Really? How does quoting desperate investors help your position?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 951. tramp96:

Many feel that GW is theory regardless both theory and science have been proven wrong many times in throughout
history.



Life is a tragedy for those who feel,
a comedy for those who think.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 963. JohnLonergan:
Seeing the environmental forest

Enough hockey sticks for a team

One of the persistent denier myths is that the Hockey Stick (usually meaning Mann et al. 1999) has been discredited. Not only is that myth false but Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999.

This is something that even the science-minded among us haven't stressed enough, imo. That is, that repeatability in science is of enormous importance. A single paper on its own can be important, especially if it is the first of it's kind, like MBH. But until other scientists can confirm those results, it is very tentative.

That is why denialist papers have so little weight in climatology (aside from "mathturbation" and blatant error). The results of these papers are never repeated by anyone other than the original author(s).
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Seeing the environmental forest

Enough hockey sticks for a team

One of the persistent denier myths is that the Hockey Stick (usually meaning Mann et al. 1999) has been discredited. Not only is that myth false but Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999. Here is a brief list of the ones I know:



Long list of papers here


As for what most of the temperature reconstructions show, the data from Marcott et al. (2013) combined with 30-year smoothed HadCRUT4 data is fairly representative: Link

The proper response to someone who asserts that the Hockey Stick has been falsified is to ask "Which
one?"


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 951. tramp96:

Many feel that GW is theory regardless both theory and science have been proven wrong many times in throughout
history.


Thank you very much for this awesome example of the Bandwagon Fallacy (also known as ad populum).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 951. tramp96:

Many feel that GW is theory regardless both theory and science have been proven wrong many times in throughout
history.

Science is theory.

Like AGW/CC, many feel that Evolution Theory is wrong. Thus far, those feelings haven't made into science in any significant way in either case.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 951. tramp96:

Many feel that GW is theory regardless both theory and science have been proven wrong many times in throughout history.
"Many feel"?? Interesting phrase. Feelings trump hard science? I don't think so!

Actually, bad science is not overturned by "feelings," but rather evidence - perhaps the finding of which is motivated by "feelings". However, until that evidence appears, and withstands review, feelings don't count.

So what is your evidence - or even your logic and rationalization - that the AGW/CC and the very solid theory behind the current AGW/CC event is wrong?

But far more important than quibbling about surface temperature measurements, you would have to disprove all of the lines of evidence in the below graphic - and there are many more as well. These are what Dr. Masters calls "nature's thermometers."



I would love to find out that AGW/CC is not happening, and that the future of our civilization is not in jeopardy - but I see no evidence that this is likely.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
TOON OF THE WEEK from SkS

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Quoting 956. tramp96:

Again what is fact today might be fantasy tomorrow. Also one
must fact check the numbers that are put into said formulas.
Then tomorrow, policies can be changed.

However, in the world of rigorous science, numbers that are put into formulas are indeed checked. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the denial-o-sphere blogs - which is primary source of the bad, and often completely discredited science that we are talking about.

It is blatant and obvious that the denialist postings here are mostly based on numbers that have not been fact checked.

Applying your logic, posting the writings and rantings of people like Spencer, Lintzen, Watts, Goddard and others should not be posted here, because their numbers (forumlas?) are nearly always discredited as full of errors.

Quoting Dr. Masters approved Climate Change Position at WunderGround:

Earth's climate is warming. This time, humans are mostly responsible, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years. We can choose to take economically sensible steps to lessen the damage of climate change, and the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action.
That is the position and the foundation of the climate science side of this website. To dispute it with denialist propaganda that has not only been fact checked, but found to be bogus, and often totally debunked and eviscerated, shows disrespect to the founders, staff and intelligent and informed people who regularly come here to discuss climate science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 948. Daisyworld:


I'm really pleased to see this concept of standing up to the denial machine is starting to catch on around the world. I posted a plea in Michelle Schlachta's blog last week (WU admin; sensitivethug) for the WU policy makers to consider adopting similar policies as Popular Science and the LA Times. Of course, there was much mocking, but I'm still holding out hope that they'll implement something.



Ha! :-D "Google Galileos!" Love it!



Paraphrasing Carl Sagan:

"They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown"


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166

Viewing: 1007 - 957

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog 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.