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: 907 - 857

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

907. auburn (Mod)
Please keep personal disputes out of Dr. Ricky Roods blog. Thanks All.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 893. MisterPerfect:
Evaluating Sea Ice

By Joe Bastardi · Oct. 24, 2013


You should ask Climate Oaf Bastardi why the Earth hasn't cooled appreciably, with all these negative factors? What's kept us from temperatures like those we saw in the early 20th century?

Of course, you won't ask, nor will you address that issue. Neither will Bastardi. Propagandists are like that. ;)

The Arctic Sea Ice is still extremely low, despite a summer that was near perfect to prevent melting.



Bastardi can stuff it. He's an ignoramus.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
They will suck every last BBL out the ground for profit over People.

The Forces involved care not for Humanity.

Govt's come and go, but Oil is King, of All.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 128240
James Hansen: How We Can Stop Big Oil in its Tracks and Keep Dirty Energy in the Ground

Here's a way to stop the global reach of Big Oil, hasten the transition to clean energy, and keep coal and tar sands deposits where they belong – in the ground.

I could not help thinking of David versus Goliath earlier this week as I was working on a letter to Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission.

I was writing about the tax that Europe applies to unconventional fossil fuels in its Fuel Quality Directive: Will it account for all the emissions during the mining and processing of such fuels or will they pretend that energy from tar sands and oil shale is the same as conventional oil?

It matters – a lot. If total emissions are counted, the fees tacked to oil from tar sands or tar shale will make that carbon-intensive fuel less competitive in the market. Add a rising fee on carbon, and these dirtiest of fuels will be the first to be eliminated and replaced by clean energy and energy efficiency.

Tar sands production today is moderate, but there are plans to quintuple the rate of extraction over the next decade. Tar sands operations today are ugly enough, but if that expansion happens and infrastructure is put in place to carry the products to market, we surely will see a monstrous pillage of the land.

Massive carbon load

From the climate standpoint, we cannot accept the massive carbon load associated with unconventional fossil fuels without guaranteeing climate disasters. Conventional oil and gas should be the transition fuel to a clean energy future, and they could be that, if we put a rising fee on carbon,...

Alternet.org



People are shocked that drug users would inject themselves with a cheap version of Krokodil that makes their skin die off, but say nothing when the millions of people who are addicted to oil would inject the planet with nasty chemicals and kill off large swaths of land and ocean. - Alternet Poster

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
when the Atlantic flips to cold, the Arctic sea ice will recover to normal.

Really ?




Go Phish JB.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 128240
I missed this in my last post, all you need to know about James Taylor's climate credibility:



Background

James Taylor is a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute and managing editor of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News.


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
Quoting 894. Neapolitan:
Still going on about that, are they? Wilson--"implicated" in the thoroughly manufactured and debunked "climategate 2.0" "scandal" has previously spoken out against denialists misconstruing his comments. And Mann certainly didn't "lash out" at Wilson; he merely questioned Wilson's own dendroclimatological methods, a subject with which Mann is intimately familiar. That's what scientists do...



Question, if Wilson is not in the skeptic camp, why did he make his claim on uber denialist Andrew Montford's blog, Bishop Hill? If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Just saying
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
Quoting 888. iceagecoming:

Mann Attacks Fellow Warmist for Questioning Hockey Stick
October 22, 2013
James M. Taylor, J.D.
James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly... (read full bio)
EMAIL



PrintPrint
EmailEmail

Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann venomously attacked fellow warmist Rob Wilson after Wilson pointed out flaws in Mann’s “hockey stick” reconstruction of historic temperatures.

Wilson, a paleoclimatologist who is a post-doctoral research fellow at Scotland’s prestigious University of Edinburgh and an adjunct research fellow at Columbia University in the United States, delivered a two-hour lecture on climatology last week at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. While discussing historical climate, Wilson documented several major procedural and substantive flaws in Mann’s hockey stick. Taking care to reassure people he is not part of the “skeptic” camp, Wilson nevertheless emphasized the importance of sound, unbiased science. Wilson concluded Mann’s hockey stick was “ultimately a flawed study.”


Link


I sense a lawsuit brewing, Dr. Mann will be right, no matter how wrong.

Time for a political distraction in VA, Oh! that already happened.
Still going on about that, are they? Wilson--"implicated" in the thoroughly manufactured and debunked "climategate 2.0" "scandal" has previously spoken out against denialists misconstruing his comments. And Mann certainly didn't "lash out" at Wilson; he merely questioned Wilson's own dendroclimatological methods, a subject with which Mann is intimately familiar. That's what scientists do...

Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Evaluating Sea Ice

By Joe Bastardi · Oct. 24, 2013



This just about sums up the attitude on Antarctic sea ice which continues to break records, this time doing so about 10 days after the average annual peak.


Additionally, the Arctic has recovered to almost the mid-point of the past 35 years (satellite era) – still nothing to write home about as it's still below normal.


But, it's certainly a stunning increase in ice/snow compared to the death spiral year of 2007 at this same time of year.


I explained why at the Heartland conference last year, but of course no one on the other side want to listen to any idea that they don't support or haven't thought of.

When the Pacific and Atlantic enter their warm cycles – like we saw in 1978 in the Pacific and the early 90s in the Atlantic – the increase in heat to the atmosphere is seen most where it's coldest and driest as it takes less energy to heat something that's very cold than to heat something that's warmer. Here's the dirty little secret: The sun heats the earth, and the earth heats the air above it. The warming of the Arctic is cyclical in nature from decades, perhaps even centuries of action and reaction to all the natural forces that affect the climate.

The sun heats the Northern Hemisphere more than the Southern Hemisphere. Because of this, there is a “distortion” in the temperature pattern of the planet that is misrepresented as warming. When it comes to energy, though, a degree is not a degree. There is far more bang for the buck in warm water than cold, dry air. Therefore, it's easier to “warm” where it's very cold.

So what do you think happens to ice in what is essentially a land-locked ocean when the seas and continents around them warm? Brace yourselves: It shrinks.

But the earth – which has been compensating naturally for imbalances for its entire existence without any contribution from you and me – has compensated that warming with cooling elsewhere. The fact that the southern ice cap has increased is completely consistent with the idea that there is a back and forth swing that goes on. The assumption was that the earth was warming, so Antarctic sea ice would shrink. Instead, in classic climate cycle fashion, the warming in one place is compensated by cooling in another. This is why the temperatures leveled off once the atmosphere absorbed the added input of the warm oceanic cycles.

The increase in sea ice around Antarctica is impressive and of equal significance to the decrease in the Arctic because it is surrounded by water. This signifies that the large scale energy picture of the earth hasn't changed, or at least not in a way that should force a conclusion that a climatic catastrophe is lurking. Slight drops in water, even where it's near freezing, carry far more bang for the buck than 5-10 degrees of warming where temperatures are routinely well below 0 in dry air. In fact, if the southern ice cap does not decrease in the coming years, that would be a big problem. Why? The Pacific flipped into its cold cycle in 2008, and since then, the Bering sea ice has been increasing. But the Arctic ice cap has far less exposure to the Pacific than the Atlantic, and when the Atlantic flips to cold, the Arctic sea ice will recover to normal. This was all forecasted by me (and roundly trashed) about 4 years ago when I predicted we would return to the temperatures globally that we experienced in the late 1970s (the beginning of the satellite era) and the northern ice cap would recover to where it was then. The southern oceans should warm a bit as the northern lands chill. If the increase in Arctic ice that is coming isn't met with a decrease in ice in the Southern Hemisphere, that spells trouble – and not of the warmer variety.

By the way, since that forecast, the leveling has turned into a slight cooling, which will be more pronounced once the Atlantic's cycle turns colder.


Shocking, isn't it? The earth has done this for millenniums and is doing so again.

Link
Member Since: November 1, 2006 Posts: 71 Comments: 20137
Quoting 890. iceagecoming:

Thanks for the weather report!

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 888. iceagecoming:

Mann Attacks Fellow Warmist for Questioning Hockey Stick
October 22, 2013
James M. Taylor, J.D.
James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly... (read full bio)
EMAIL



PrintPrint
EmailEmail

Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann venomously attacked fellow warmist Rob Wilson after Wilson pointed out flaws in Mann’s “hockey stick” reconstruction of historic temperatures.

Wilson, a paleoclimatologist who is a post-doctoral research fellow at Scotland’s prestigious University of Edinburgh and an adjunct research fellow at Columbia University in the United States, delivered a two-hour lecture on climatology last week at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. While discussing historical climate, Wilson documented several major procedural and substantive flaws in Mann’s hockey stick. Taking care to reassure people he is not part of the “skeptic” camp, Wilson nevertheless emphasized the importance of sound, unbiased science. Wilson concluded Mann’s hockey stick was “ultimately a flawed study.”


Link


I sense a lawsuit brewing, Dr. Mann will be right, no matter how wrong.

Time for a political distraction in VA, Oh! that already happened.

More imaginary anti-Mann nonsense. Mann's "hockey stick" has been replicated in numerous other studies. It's going to take more than blowhard spouting on a denialist website to displace it. It will require science. There's very little chance of that happening, of course.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 845. Xulonn:
Sinners - repent. For AGW/CC denialism violates the 8th Commandment - "Bearing false witness."



You can keep your religion, as well!
I 'll stay with the facts.





UK Outlook - 22nd March 2013 - Record Cold Weekend!

Leon Brown, Chief Meteorologist Published: Mar 23, 2013, 4:30 PM EDT



More heavy snowfalls

Tonight and through Saturday morning snow will become widespread across central Britain with some heavy falls across the Midlands to southern Pennines, East Wales and the east of Ulster in Northern Ireland. Some places will likely see the heaviest falls of the whole winter, even though we are supposed to be in spring. Further north the snow will be more showery across eastern Scotland and the NW of Scotland should be dry and bright on Saturday morning. In the SE snow is likely across Kent to the north and east of London, spreading westwards across Sussex to northern Hampshire through the morning, although amounts here slight. The best of the weather over the SW with bright ad mild weather in Cornwall and west Devon.


Gas 'will add more to energy bills than renewables' – government advisers

Finding by Committee for Climate Change contradicts coalition's line on energy, despite using government's own research

Fiona Harvey
The Guardian, Wednesday 12 December 2012

The CCC also found that energy bills were likely to be higher for commercial and industrial users, because their energy costs are more tightly linked to electricity than to gas for heating. Business energy bills are likely to rise by about 20-25% from 2011 to 2020 due to low-carbon policies.
But the committee pointed out that, while for most households rising energy bills are a substantial part of household budgets and a major concern, energy costs represent only a very small share of the total costs to business, at less than 0.5% of costs in the commercial sector and about 3% of costs in the industrial sector. That means the impact of higher energy prices on businesses is relatively limited, and the knock-on effect on the price of goods and services to consumers will be even smaller – the CCC estimated it as about one penny to every £10 spent in the commercial sector, and six pence to every £10 spent on manufactured goods. Companies also have scope to minimise the impact through energy efficiency, which is still not widely practised.

Link




Hmm, the above poster rings true for many reasons on this side of the pond. ACA, NSA, EPA, IRS, BATFE, etc.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
"Think about it this way: We're killing people in foreign lands in order to extract 200 million-year-old sunlight. We frack our own backyards and pollute our rivers, or we blow up our mountaintops... for an hour of electricity, when we could just take what's falling free from the sky."

- Danny Kennedy, former Greepeace activist & founder of Sungevity
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Mann Attacks Fellow Warmist for Questioning Hockey Stick
October 22, 2013
James M. Taylor, J.D.
James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly... (read full bio)
EMAIL



PrintPrint
EmailEmail

Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann venomously attacked fellow warmist Rob Wilson after Wilson pointed out flaws in Mann’s “hockey stick” reconstruction of historic temperatures.

Wilson, a paleoclimatologist who is a post-doctoral research fellow at Scotland’s prestigious University of Edinburgh and an adjunct research fellow at Columbia University in the United States, delivered a two-hour lecture on climatology last week at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. While discussing historical climate, Wilson documented several major procedural and substantive flaws in Mann’s hockey stick. Taking care to reassure people he is not part of the “skeptic” camp, Wilson nevertheless emphasized the importance of sound, unbiased science. Wilson concluded Mann’s hockey stick was “ultimately a flawed study.”


Link


I sense a lawsuit brewing, Dr. Mann will be right, no matter how wrong.

Time for a political distraction in VA, Oh! that already happened.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
The IPCC explains... Reliability of Climate Projection Models

IPCC FAQ 8.1
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

"...models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions."

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.
Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 128240
co2now.org
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 128240
Quoting 879. JohnLonergan:


http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/09/2 7/bbc-interview-global-warming-pause-climate-scept ics-long-timescales/

Try this, works for me.

Works for me, too. Thanks!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 877. Birthmark:

The last link in your post doesn't work.

. This is what the denialists argue when they claim that there's been no warming, though they probably haven't thought about it up to now.

(I will also post this on my blog for those that want to discuss this or correct me without the trolls.)


http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/09/2 7/bbc-interview-global-warming-pause-climate-scept ics-long-timescales/

Try this, works for me.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
Climate debate must stick to the science: professor



The author of a report that lays bare the connection between climate change and extreme bushfires has expressed his ''frustration'' with Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Environment Minister Greg Hunt for their refusal to accept scientific consensus on climate change.
Professor Will Steffen, who co-authored the soon-to-be-released bushfire report by the Climate Council, was responding to Mr Abbott's assertion in a newspaper interview with leading climate sceptic Andrew Bolt that drawing a link between the savage fires now plaguing NSW and climate change was ''complete hogwash''.
We never go to secondary sources like that.

The Climate Council report, a summary of which was revealed by Fairfax Media on Friday, found a clear link between rising temperatures and a longer, more dangerous bushfire season in south-eastern Australia.
"We never go to secondary sources like that.": Professor Will Steffen.
"We never go to secondary sources like that.": Professor Will Steffen. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
''We would certainly prefer that this debate be elevated to the real scientific facts as are reported in the scientific literature and as are assessed very competently by the IPCC, the CSIRO and the Bureau [of Meteorology] and the scientists we rely on,'' Professor Steffen said.


Read more >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
Quoting 856. JohnLonergan:

Figure showing NASA GISS global average temperatures with trendlines from 1992-2006 (light blue) and 1998-2012 (green) as well as the most recent 30-year trend in red. Naturally, starting in a very cold volcano-influenced or very warm El Nino influenced year will inflate or deflate the trend. (source: Stefan Rahmstorf)

Read more >>

The last link in your post doesn't work.

But what you've posted is interesting and important. When denialists state "it hasn't warmed in fifteen years" they are attempting to claim that CO2 doesn't cause warming. However, there are other things they are claiming, inadvertantly:

-They are claiming that La Nina doesn't cause cooling since there has been a preponderance of La Nina over El Nino beginning in 1999, and weak El Ninos. (The El Ninos have all been weak, too.)


-They are claiming that Solar variation doesn't affect temperatures. We had the lost solar minimum in roughly one hundred years and a subsequent very weak solar maximum...

..yet we haven't cooled precipitously.

-They are claiming that the PDO has no real effect since we have been in a negative PDO since ~1999.


Despite all of the downward forcing on surface temperature since 1998, temperatures have risen in all but one data set (RSS) over that time-frame. That is impossible unless the above mentioned factors have no effect on temperature or some other mysterious force is offsetting the cooling or Earth's surface temperature is magical. This is what the denialists argue when they claim that there's been no warming, though they probably haven't thought about it up to now.

(I have also posted this on my blog for those that want to discuss this or correct me without the trolls.)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 875. schwankmoe:


why do you ask a question to which you already know the answer?


You're right, of course. I guess I just wanted to read the answer from the source directly, hoping for a reasonable reply and for cooler heads to prevail. Maybe I'm naive in that respect.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Quoting 874. Daisyworld:


So then, what purpose does it serve for you to be manufacturing an unrelated controversy in the comments of a blog devoted to climate change communication and understanding of climate science?


why do you ask a question to which you already know the answer?
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 678
Lordy, all this "fluff" sure has ZERO impact as to the continued warming of the Earth via Fossil Fuel burning increasing the CO2 ppm score.




Seems the naysayers have actually gone off da rails and into the Science surge.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 128240
I know, lol about "hate speech". dude's pretty sensitive about being constantly debunked and starts flailing after awhile. pretty juvenile.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 678
Quoting 824. iceagecoming:


You can keep your theories and hate speech to yourself. Trying to point out the inconsistencies that many try to (overlook, fudge) is telling. Empirical data Xulonn?
Not working for you.
The only thing that is not working is trying to get you to understand science - but most of us here know that is quite an impossible task, and respond to you to keep readers and lurkers informed about the bad science and misinformation you post. In the long run, posting bad science, pseudoscience, lies, misinformation, claptrap and b.s. doesn't work here, and gets slapped down with a heavy dose of reality and evidence every time.

And "hate speech"?? Just because I support Dr. Masters and his staff, and you come here to ridicule his science and his position on AGW/CC? Please....

BTW, I haven't posted any theories...

Quoting LiveScience.com:

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.


AGW/CC is reality, and you constantly flog the dead horse of AGW/CC denialism. The scientific theory behind AGW/CC is solid, and is accepted by the vast majority of the world's scientists. Every single one of the world's established and legitimate scientific associations accepts AGW/CC.

There may be inconsistencies in some of the AGW/CC data and evidence, but they are minor, and being studied if they are valid and pertinent. Science moves ahead every day - there will always be more to study and understand. I've never seen you post anything that science has overlooked with respect to AGW/CC.

What you post, icdeagecoming, is almost always already heavily debunked, easily debunk-able, or about weather and not climate - one of your biggest flaws. You refuse to debate and simply post more and more of the same old, tired denialist industry bullcrap.

I would love to see an intelligent debate by you with anyone here who understands AGW/CC science, but I'm not holding my breath.

And just in case you are interested, Dr. Masters has provided us with a wonderful and informative Climate Change (not simply climate) page here at WeatherUnderground, and he provides us with a prominent link to to SkepticalScience.com. The WU Climate Change page and the Skeptical Science.com website are jam-packed with empirical evidence, debunking of climate myths (which you are not apparently not aware), and lots and lots of links to peer-reviewed and other hard science. After pointing out the wrongness of a climate myth that you posted for the thirty-seventh time, it gets a little old.

In closing, perhaps the debunkers here should note that since your stated role here is to point out inconsistencies and "fudging", perhaps we should include a rating of your comments on their consistency with those stated goals.

ps: I have some recommended reading for you from a couple of colleagues of Dr. Masters.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1446
Quoting 852. Doxienan:

We installed a heat pump water heater. Initially, we wanted to install a solar hot water system, but the solar installer explained that the cost of solar PV is so low that solar thermal doesn't make sense. We added another 2KW of solar panels to provide hot water. There is more than enough for the two of us and lots of company on weekends. And I think we got a rebate from the electric company for it.

Our house is south-facing and unobstructed. We live in New Hampshire at a high elevation. Lots of sun, but lots of winter. The PV system supples more than enough for our household electric, the water heater, and our plug-in car. We also added a lot of insulation (spray-on and rigid foam) and new windows. So far, an efficient woodstove is all we need to heat the house, with the original oil furnace as backup if we ever have to go away.

If you're building a new house, I would investigate the German 'passive house'. Although our house is more than 200 years old, with careful planning, we have insulated it to withstand even the coldest NH winters.



I like the passive house concept. I didn't know it at the time, but we incorporated a few of the design elements. The HVAC is a high efficiency reversable heat pump, with a 95% efficient propane furnace as back-up when the temps are too cold for the heat pump. The house is heavily insulated and well sealed. I'm hoping the heat pump water heater saves a lot of energy, along with energy star appliances. It only makes sense to us- it's responsible, and it saves money. We are also adding solar outside lighting.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1228

Viewing: 907 - 857

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.