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: 757 - 707

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

IPCC’s New Estimates for Increased Sea-Level Rise

Recently released sea-level rise findings from IPCC project greater increases than earlier forecast, but continuing uncertainties persist, and drawing direct comparisons with past estimates is difficult.

Estimates for higher sea-level in coming decades are one of the major “take home” messages from the newly released IPCC report.
Projected sea-level rise had been a particularly controversial aspect of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, with many scientists decrying the absence of modeling of dynamic ice sheet movements and arguing that models had underestimated historical sea-level rise. As a result, many had expected treatment of sea-level rise to be the focus of much attention on the new report, and that has been the case.
Understanding why sea-level rise now is forecast to be greater, and why substantial uncertainties remain, requires examining the different causes of sea-level rise and the different ways of estimating future sea-level rise using both physical models and evidence from Earth’s geologic past.
Global sea levels have increased fairly steadily over the past 130 years, with some acceleration evident over the past few decades. The figure below shows observations both from tide gauges (from 1880 to 2009) and satellites (1993 to 2013), with measurement uncertainty reflecting incomplete coverage of tide gauges shown in grey.



...




...Latest Sea-Level Rise Estimates Still Too Conservative?

Despite the higher sea-level rise projections in the latest IPCC report and improved ability of models to reproduce historical rates of sea-level rise, some respected scientists maintain still that even the new AR5 numbers are too low.
Their argument primarily boils down to two different approaches: process models, which use climate models and physics to estimate sea-level rise, and semi-empirical models, which include evidence of past sea-level rise (mostly during the last ice age) to help determine the relationship between temperatures and sea level. Process models tend to produce lower estimates, empirical models higher ones.
The recently released IPCC Working Group I report discounts empirical models, saying that “Many semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea-level rise are higher than process-based model projections (up to about twice as large), but there is no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability and there is thus low confidence in their projections.” Researchers like Potsdam University Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, who have worked with semi-empirical models, argue that a wholesale discounting of these approaches is erroneous, and represents an overly conservative approach from the IPCC.
For now at least, it is still unclear just what exactly future sea-level rise will be, as uncertainty ranges remain large. At the same time, it is clear that the best estimates of future sea-level rise are considerably higher now than they were just five years ago. The level of sea-level rise by 2100 will mostly depend on which future emissions scenario societies follow, and it’s clear that significant efforts to reduce future emissions, coupled with well thought-out adaptation efforts, can significantly reduce future sea-level rise and its damaging impacts.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
Quoting 745. ncstorm:


thats sad Nea..how can you expect someone to change their mind when you are not willing to change your own and compromise..its pointless to even try I see..

by the way, please post this concrete evidence as well which you haven't done yet..


This is JohnLonergan posting via Neapolitan to say:

Compromise? So if you and I put our heads together and determine that we can agree that global warming will only be 3 degrees centigrade you think that will have any effect on the truth?

The science will not change, and reality will not change because I (see that, I used the word i, so i must be birthmark) let someone lie.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am Neapolitan!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 753. Skyepony:
Neapolitan only has that one handle...


Keystone Pipeline Opponents Plan Widespread Civil Disobedience



So is civil disobedience just another term for riots?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
753. Skyepony (Mod)
Neapolitan only has that one handle...


Keystone Pipeline Opponents Plan Widespread Civil Disobedience

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So if this were to hit us in 2032 would it cause warming or cooling??

Link


Link





....


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
751. cyclonebuster
12:55 PM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 748. Neapolitan:
I'll never compromise on the truth.

(On another note, I see a few sub-standard sockpuppets/trolls are working this morning--743, 744, 747--so I'm out for a bit, too.)


So the sock puppets have arrived? Can they also be tutored?








....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
750. JohnLonergan
12:26 PM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 748. Neapolitan:
I'll never compromise on the truth.

(On another note, I see a few more sockpuppets are working this morning, so I'm out for a bit, too.)


Yep, they're here

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
748. Neapolitan
12:19 PM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 745. ncstorm:


thats sad Nea..how can you expect someone to change their mind when you are not willing to change your own and compromise..its pointless to even try I see..

by the way, please post this concrete evidence as well which you haven't done yet..
I'll never compromise on the truth.

(On another note, I see a few sub-standard sockpuppets/trolls are working this morning--743, 744, 747--so I'm out for a bit, too.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
746. ncstorm
12:05 PM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 739. SheetUnion222Man:

Anyone accusing Neapolitan off multiple handles/sockpuppets is flat out wrong. I can be sure of that. Please redirect your flimsy, frivolous accusations elsewhere.

Thanks!



evidence? are you in the same room with Nea posting as well?

Im off to work as well..carry on the fight..on the internet..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 15696
745. ncstorm
12:03 PM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 731. Neapolitan:
In my comment #724, I specifically referred to my actual knowledge of sock puppets. That's not a guess or assumption on my part based on a single word in a single comment; it's based on stuff far more concrete. Feel free to disbelieve it if you wish; whether you do or not isn't my concern. But it's the truth.

Now, you implored "both sides" to stop with the "insults, speculation, bullying and insinuations", then you immediately followed that up by referring to my "camp", which is both insult and insinuation, not just towards me--I have thick skin--but towards the many other good people in this forum. Can you understand how some could interpret that to mean your plea wasn't offered in good faith?

At any rate, I doubt the "insults, speculation, bullying and insinuations" will ever stop here or in any public forum, mostly because those words mean different things to different people. If someone barges in here and says, "You climate change sheeple are socialist liars," is it "bullying" when a half-dozen people deride that commenter for such an inane sentence? If someone states for the 75th time that the planet is cooling as it enters an ice age, is it "insulting" to suggest that person lacks knowledge? If a person quotes from and links to denialist article after denialist article here without ever responding, is it "insinuation" or "speculation" to suggest that he's following to a 'T' the professional denial industry playbook?

Many of us will continue to ridicule the ridiculous. So if folks wish to avoid that ridicule, they should stop saying ridiculous things. Simple as that...


thats sad Nea..how can you expect someone to change their mind when you are not willing to change your own and compromise..its pointless to even try I see..

by the way, please post this concrete evidence as well which you haven't done yet..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 15696
742. PensacolaDoug
12:01 PM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 741. BrownWeather:

Have a good day at work, Doug.


At least its Friday.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
740. PensacolaDoug
12:00 PM GMT on October 25, 2013
I laid out my case in post 629. I gotta go to work.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
737. PensacolaDoug
11:57 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 735. SheetUnion222Man:

Ehem. You mean, comment, Dougie. ;-)


I fixed it... That's what I get for not proof reading.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
736. JohnLonergan
11:56 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Keystone XL and Canadian tar sands are incompatible with solving climate change
Canada will not be able to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets if Keystone XL is built and tar sands are expanded

The exploitation of the tar sands in Alberta, Canada - which may contain more oil than the entire world has consumed to date – has attracted considerable controversy lately. Massive expansion of tar sands operations are planned, but this cannot happen if many new pipelines out of landlocked Alberta are not built. Two such pipelines – Enbridge Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan Transmountain – would cross through British Columbia and have ignited such fierce opposition that they have little prospect of going forward. A third pipeline, Keystone XL, would run from Alberta to refineries on the US Gulf of Mexico coast.

Canada reneged on its Kyoto agreement, but has again promised to reduce its emissions – this time by 17 percent from the 2005 level by 2020. At the same time, the Canadian government, backed by the oil industry and its international investors, has been furiously lobbying the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which is seen as vital to plans to triple production of crude oil from the tar sands between now and 2020.

These two goals – reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent and tripling tar sands operations – are simply incompatible with one another. Based on where Canada stood in 2011, emissions outside tar sand operations would need to be reduced by 14 percent in order to achieve the 2020 target even if tar sands operations were frozen at their 2011 level. This would be a difficult task even if there were a genuine effort to reduce emissions. However, there is no program in Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions (what little that has been achieved to date is largely due to provincial efforts). With projected growth in tar sands emissions, the required reduction elsewhere in the economy is 23 percent. This will not happen. Thus, unless tar sands operations are at least frozen at current levels, Canada will once again break an international climate promise.

Read more at The Guardian >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
734. PensacolaDoug
11:54 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
In my comment #724, I specifically referred to my actual knowledge of sock puppets. That's not a guess or assumption on my part based on a single word in a single comment;

My contention is not based on a single word in a comment. There ya go again...
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
732. PensacolaDoug
11:53 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Nuclear waste in the Artic and Cod moving in...Can we expect "Codzilla"?
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
731. Neapolitan
11:51 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 727. ncstorm:


Ahem, you did the same thing in this thread posting a link about "sockpuppets"..you proclaimed people who plussed a post were the same and indeed trolls..where is the evidence in that? Just because you said so, doesnt make it so..the mirror has a reflection as well..in fact, I have done the same thing as well..

you know, the insults, speculation, bullying and insinuations need to stop on both sides!! its downright sickening and causing this site to fall into a pit of manure!!-I have been staying away as I found it very hard to read half the posts on here..Nea, whether you want to admit it or not, but you can stop all this by talking to your camp..I actually plussed ScottLincoln's post for the first time ever when he responded to Xulonn..that took a lot of courage to go against the norm here and he did it..



In my comment #724, I specifically referred to my actual knowledge of sock puppets. That's not a guess or assumption on my part based on a single word in a single comment; it's based on stuff far more concrete. Feel free to disbelieve it if you wish; whether you do or not isn't my concern. But it's the truth.

Now, you implored "both sides" to stop with the "insults, speculation, bullying and insinuations", then you immediately followed that up by referring to my "camp", which is both insult and insinuation, not just towards me--I have thick skin--but towards the many other good people in this forum. Can you understand how some could interpret that to mean your plea wasn't offered in good faith?

At any rate, I doubt the "insults, speculation, bullying and insinuations" will ever stop here or in any public forum, mostly because those words mean different things to different people. If someone barges in here and says, "You climate change sheeple are socialist liars," is it "bullying" when a half-dozen people deride that commenter for such an inane sentence? If someone states for the 75th time that the planet is cooling as it enters an ice age, is it "insulting" to suggest that person lacks knowledge? If a person quotes from and links to denialist article after denialist article here without ever responding, is it "insinuation" or "speculation" to suggest that he's following to a 'T' the professional denial industry playbook?

Many of us will continue to ridicule the ridiculous. So if folks wish to avoid that ridicule, they should stop saying ridiculous things. Simple as that...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
730. JohnLonergan
11:40 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Escaping the warmth: The Atlantic cod conquers the Arctic

Bremerhaven, 17 October 2013. As a result of climate change the Atlantic cod has moved so far north that it’s juveniles now can even be found in large numbers in the fjords of Spitsbergen. This is the conclusion reached by biologists of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), following an expedition to this specific region of the Arctic Ocean, which used to be dominated by the Polar cod. The scientists now plan to investigate whether the two cod species compete with each other and which species can adapt more easily to the altered habitats in the Arctic.

Read more >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
729. JohnLonergan
11:25 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Nuclear Waste Lurks Beneath Arctic Ice

Large-scale Soviet nuclear tests, dumping of spent fuel and two scuttled nuclear-powered submarines are a major source of pollution in the Arctic ocean, a Russian research institute has said.

There are 17,000 containers and 19 vessels holding radioactive waste submerged in the Kara Sea, as well as 14 nuclear reactors, said a report passed by Russia to the Norwegian authorities in 2012, according to Bellona, an environmental group that acquired a copy of document.

As the Arctic thaws under the influence of global warming, oceanic currents in the region could strengthen, carrying the radioactive material to other continents, Alexander Shestakov, head of the Global Arctic Program at WWF, or World Wildlife Fund, said.

The sinking of nuclear material and scuttling of ships used to be widespread practice. Of particular worry now is the Soviet nuclear submarine, K-27, scuttled in 1981 in the Kara Sea. The boat, equipped with two nuclear reactors, was filled with bitumen and concrete before being sunk, according to the Russian Nuclear Safety Institute, to ensure that it would lie safely on the ocean floor for 50 years.

That period is nearly up. Last year, speakers at a joint seminar with Bellona and state nuclear company Rosatom warned that a nuclear reaction could occur on the K-27.

"Before that, no-one knew about the danger," Igor Kudrik, a nuclear safety expert at Bellona said.



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
728. PensacolaDoug
11:22 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Now that were talking...
Remember when you posted that JB said "Karen could be a monster"? You never did reference that post

Here's a blast from the past to refresh your memory.

329. PensacolaDoug 8:41 PM GMT on October 06, 2013 +1
Quoting 278. Neapolitan:
Do you have references to show us which credible scientists said that? There was some hypothesizing of the possibility of fewer storms forming overall due to warming, but stronger storms for those that did form. But no one that I can recall actually proclaimed that as fact. I could be wrong, though...

At any rate, 2013 has been--so far at least--one of the most extreme hurricane seasons on record in the Atlantic. I'll be very much interested to hear over the next few years to what that might be attributed...



Speaking of references. Can you show us where JB said Karen could be a monster? Or is that asking too much? You know, holding you to same standard you want to hold everyone else to. TIA


Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
727. ncstorm
11:15 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 724. Neapolitan:
You know, after reading that, it occurs to me that you might be DealWithIt. After all, 'he' answered for you.

See how that works? ;-)

No, I am not Lonergan, nor any of the others I've been accused of being over the years: Scott, Xulonn, Xandra, Xyrus, even Dr. Masters himself. I have used, and continue to use, one handle here, and one handle only, and that's this one.

Now, I know of several sock puppets here, but that's actual knowledge, and isn't based on anything so flimsy as the 'evidence' you provided. The thing is, it's pretty standard to try to de legitimize ones opponents by assuming they are fewer in number than they truly are. But there really are a lot of us who believe in science. And if we often sound the same, it's because we've all studied the same facts and evidence. (In fact, if you took the time to study it yourself, you'd probably sound the same as us, Doug.) But either way, directly accusing someone of being a troll is a pretty nasty thing to do, so if you're going to stick with it, you'll probably need to come armed with more than the (mis)use of a pronoun. Ya know?


Ahem, you did the same thing in this thread posting a link about "sockpuppets"..you proclaimed people who plussed a post were the same and indeed trolls..where is the evidence in that? Just because you said so, doesnt make it so..the mirror has a reflection as well..in fact, I have done the same thing as well..

you know, the insults, speculation, bullying and insinuations need to stop on both sides!! its downright sickening and causing this site to fall into a pit of manure!!-I have been staying away as I found it very hard to read half the posts on here..Nea, whether you want to admit it or not, but you can stop all this by talking to your camp..I actually plussed ScottLincoln's post for the first time ever when he responded to Xulonn..that took a lot of courage to go against the norm here and he did it..



Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 15696
726. Neapolitan
11:06 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 725. luvtogolf:


Very nice post and I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I don't believe that Nea is Lonergan or any other of the bloggers on here. What I do know is that he and the others are nothing merely than a group of Stepford Husbands that were cloned to post on these sites 24/7. They all say the very same things over and over again all day long without any thought provoking ideas or opinions. You know?
Well, if some of us are here a lot, it's only because it's difficult to provoke thoughts in those who don't think; that is a Herculean and often frustrating task requiring nearly round-the-clock effort.

As to the rest of your comment, there's this from my previous comment: "...if we often sound the same, it's because we've all studied the same facts and evidence. (In fact, if you took the time to study it yourself, you'd probably sound the same as us.)"
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
724. Neapolitan
9:58 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 715. PensacolaDoug:


I laid out the sequence of events in post 629.
You know, after reading that, it occurs to me that you might be DealWithIt. After all, 'he' answered for you.

See how that works? ;-)

No, I am not Lonergan, nor any of the others I've been accused of being over the years: Scott, Xulonn, Xandra, Xyrus, even Dr. Masters himself. I have used, and continue to use, one handle here, and one handle only, and that's this one.

Now, I know of several sock puppets here, but that's actual knowledge, and isn't based on anything so flimsy as the 'evidence' you provided. The thing is, it's pretty standard to try to de legitimize ones opponents by assuming they are fewer in number than they truly are. But there really are a lot of us who believe in science. And if we often sound the same, it's because we've all studied the same facts and evidence. (In fact, if you took the time to study it yourself, you'd probably sound the same as us, Doug.) But either way, directly accusing someone of being a troll is a pretty nasty thing to do, so if you're going to stick with it, you'll probably need to come armed with more than the (mis)use of a pronoun. Ya know?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
723. Birthmark
7:16 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 705. overwash12:
I say that ice held up pretty good this summer,gonna be one hell of a winter up there!

Considering the extremely poor conditions for melt this past summer, it's probably more of a wonder at how much ice did melt.

As to your second point, the Arctic generally freezes almost completely in winter no matter what happened the previous summer. That will continue for at least a couple of decades into the future even under the most dire melt predictions.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
722. Astrometeor
4:11 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Not sure if anyone has seen this yet, but:

In response to a request from the Court (US Supreme Court), the parties in the greenhouse gases cases have agreed to reduce both the length and number of their briefs on the merits. Tony Mauro reports for the Blog of Legal Times on this recent development in those cases, in which the Court will consider the Environmental Protection Agency%u2019s authority to regulate greenhouse gases stemming from stationary sources such as power plants.

SCOTUS blog
the above blog's source
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10345
721. schwankmoe
3:46 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 718. Xulonn:
Fascinating - so Neapolitan (Jim Somebody) who lives in Florida is the same person as John Lonergan, who posts under his real name and lives in Holden, Massachusetts?

How does that work?

Like your stand on AGW/CC, you never do any research to look for the real truth, Doug. You're just grasping at straws and making yourself look pretty foolish.


i'm gonna take a page from yoboi's play book and assume some Jewish conspiracy at work here.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 681
720. Naga5000
3:42 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Just wanted to give everyone a heads up. I started a subreddit. Link come by, share your information, engage in discussion, and enjoy.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3501
719. Xulonn
3:29 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 717. Astrometeor:


Well, I have done the same sorta thing several times in the past. Jumping in on a conversation between two people, and inserting my own opinion using the first person. I just find it normal, never really thought that someone would think a blogger would have multiple handles (I realize/know some that do) and use them to support themselves till Doug made an issue of it.
So, while it may seem to Doug that JohnL is Nea, I highly doubt the case. Unless Nea is split personality or something.
Always appreciate your input, Astro. Looks like a case of classic denialist psychology. Defend your wrongness vigorously based on flimsy, easily disputed information, and deny things with strong evidence behind them when they conflict with your beliefs. I respect John's privacy, so I won't say publicly how I know where he lives.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
718. Xulonn
3:21 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 715. PensacolaDoug:


I laid out the sequence of events in post 629.
Fascinating - so Neapolitan (Jim Somebody) who lives in Florida is the same person as John Lonergan, who posts under his real name and lives in Holden, Massachusetts?

How does that work?

Like your stand on AGW/CC, you never do any research to look for the real truth, Doug. You're just grasping at straws and making yourself look pretty foolish.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
717. Astrometeor
3:18 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 714. Xulonn:
If it does turn out that the comments at the Rood and Masters blogs are being pummeled by sockpuppet postings, and somebody exposes it I will be the first to apologize to Doug. It's my understanding that the current brouhaha is over a single first versus third person pronoun issue - a likely typo or brain-fart. Is there more to it than that?


Well, I have done the same sorta thing several times in the past. Jumping in on a conversation between two people, and inserting my own opinion using the first person. I just find it normal, never really thought that someone would think a blogger would have multiple handles (I realize/know some that do) and use them to support themselves till Doug made an issue of it.
So, while it may seem to Doug that JohnL is Nea, I highly doubt the case. Unless Nea is split personality or something.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10345
716. beell
2:58 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
I'd be more intrigued with a denialist sock puppet controlled by a believer. But I'm sure (sorry no data to back this up) that would not happen here in the hallowed back room of Dr. Rood's blog. Where the greatest minds in the country dazzle us all with their brilliance on a daily basis while enlighting the poor ignorant masses. And in the midst of this important work; humiliating and shaming the same short-list of trolls on the same short list of subjects day-after-day-after mind-numbing day.

Sock puppet for science? Why that would be blasphemy.

Watching folks wallow around in the mud is much more entertaining though. Thanks, guys/gals/puppets(?)
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 143 Comments: 16733
715. PensacolaDoug
2:48 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 714. Xulonn:
If it does turn out that the comments at the Rood and Masters blogs are being pummeled by sockpuppet postings, and somebody exposes it I will be the first to apologize to Doug. It's my understanding that the current brouhaha is over a single first versus third person pronoun issue - a likely typo or brain-fart. Is there more to it than that?


I laid out the sequence of events in post 629.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
714. Xulonn
2:27 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 707. ScottLincoln:


Incompetence? Inability to think critically? Ok, well not necessarily. Without context and previous experience, it would probably jump out to most that a person responded for someone else. Technically, we are all posting behind internet handles to provide some sort of anonymity (although I chose mine back when I had others with a full name), so it's not always straight-forward to prove who is who.
I don't agree with Doug on much - it shouldn't come as a surprise - as I think he sometimes comes in here with vague accusations and doesn't get specific. Katrina was directly caused by climate change, anyone?
But what I will say is that a situation like this could, at least to some, beg the question. Even though we disagree with him often, I'm not sure that it warrants people piling on the insults. This particular post was probably one of the least-nice ways to convey disagreement. Contrary to many other times, he did actually provide the "proof" he was referring to specifically. How many actually double-checked to see if they were real? I did, and they were right there.

I'm not in a place to explain it one way or the other, but maybe we can try to play nicer.
If it does turn out that the comments at the Rood and Masters blogs are being pummeled by sockpuppet postings, and somebody exposes it I will be the first to apologize to Doug. It's my understanding that the current brouhaha is over a single first versus third person pronoun issue - a likely typo or brain-fart. Is there more to it than that?
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
713. PensacolaDoug
2:26 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 707. ScottLincoln:


Incompetence? Inability to think critically? Ok, well not necessarily. Without context and previous experience, it would probably jump out to most that a person responded for someone else. Technically, we are all posting behind internet handles to provide some sort of anonymity (although I chose mine back when I had others with a full name), so it's not always straight-forward to prove who is who.
I don't agree with Doug on much - it shouldn't come as a surprise - as I think he sometimes comes in here with vague accusations and doesn't get specific. Katrina was directly caused by climate change, anyone?
But what I will say is that a situation like this could, at least to some, beg the question. Even though we disagree with him often, I'm not sure that it warrants people piling on the insults. This particular post was probably one of the least-nice ways to convey disagreement. Contrary to many other times, he did actually provide the "proof" he was referring to specifically. How many actually double-checked to see if they were real? I did, and they were right there.

I'm not in a place to explain it one way or the other, but maybe we can try to play nicer.


Civility! Rare thing these days. As for the piling on and the insults, I'm a big boy. It wasn't unexpected. I just consider the source. I'm thick skinned.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 575
712. beell
2:23 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Sockpuppets for science. I like it.
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 143 Comments: 16733
711. ScottLincoln
2:16 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 710. overwash12:
History ,my friend. Science has nada to do with it.

...eh...what?
I dont think you said what you think you said.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210
710. overwash12
2:13 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 708. Xulonn:
What makes you so think that? The frigid Arctic air might come down to the mid-latitudes and freeze the heck out of the U.S. and Europe, and be warmer up there than normal.

Is your statement your "belief" or is there some science behind it?
History ,my friend. Science has nada to do with it.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1477
709. JohnLonergan
2:13 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
It’s about Ownership. Why Germany Kicks Butt in Renewable Energy.




Cleantechnica:

Germany is racing past 20% renewable energy on its electricity grid, but news stories stridently warn that this new wind and solar power is costing “billions.” But often left out (or buried far from the lede) is the overwhelming popularity of the country’s relentless focus on energy change (energiewende).

How can a supposedly expensive effort to clean up the energy supply be so popular?

1. It’s about the cost, not the price

Most news stories focus on the cost of electricity in Germany, which has some of the highest rates per kilowatt-hour in the world. But they don’t note that the average German electricity bill – about $100 a month – is the same as for most Americans. Germans are much more efficient users of energy than most, so they can afford higher rates without having higher bills. (Note to self: check out options for energy efficiency).

2. It’s about vision

Germany doesn’t just have an incremental approach to renewable energy, but a commitment supported by 84 percent of residents to get to 100% renewable energy “as quickly as possible.” A few U.S. states have renewable energy visions (e.g. 33% by 2020, 25% by 2025) that approach Germany’s, but they’re mired in the notion that despite enormous savings to society in terms of health and environmental benefits, renewable energy shouldn’t cost any more today than conventional, dirty energy on the utility bill. Germans have taken the long view (about energy security, price volatility, etc).

3. It’s about ownership


I lied in #1. Support for Germany’s renewable energy quest isn’t about cost of energy, but about the opportunity to own a slice of the energy system. Millions of Germans are building their retirement nest egg by individually or collectively owning a share of wind and solar power plants supplying clean energy to their communities. Nearly half of the country’s 63,000 megawatts of wind and solar power is owned locally, and these energy owners care as much about the persistence of renewable energy they own as they do about the energy bill they pay. Not only do these German energy owners reduce their own net cost of energy, every dollar diverted from a distant multinational utility company multiplies throughout their local economy.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
708. Xulonn
2:09 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 705. overwash12:
I say that ice held up pretty good this summer,gonna be one hell of a winter up there!
What makes you so think that? The frigid Arctic air might come down to the mid-latitudes and freeze the heck out of the U.S. and Europe, and be warmer up there than normal.

Is your statement your "belief" or is there some science behind it?
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
707. ScottLincoln
1:58 AM GMT on October 25, 2013
Quoting 706. Xulonn:
To believe that both handles belong to the same person would require a high level of incompetence and no ability to think critically. There may be some sockpuppets on the side of science, but they are rare and not at all like like the horde of rabid cockroaches that emerge from the denialist cyberverse to infest the world of AGW/CC blogs....The identity of one commenter at an internet blog isn't going to change the science - nor are multiple denialist sockpuppets at other sites going to change the science...


Incompetence? Inability to think critically? Ok, well not necessarily. Without context and previous experience, it would probably jump out to most that a person responded for someone else. Technically, we are all posting behind internet handles to provide some sort of anonymity (although I chose mine back when I had others with a full name), so it's not always straight-forward to prove who is who.
I don't agree with Doug on much - it shouldn't come as a surprise - as I think he sometimes comes in here with vague accusations and doesn't get specific. Katrina was directly caused by climate change, anyone?
But what I will say is that a situation like this could, at least to some, beg the question. Even though we disagree with him often, I'm not sure that it warrants people piling on the insults. This particular post was probably one of the least-nice ways to convey disagreement. Contrary to many other times, he did actually provide the "proof" he was referring to specifically. How many actually double-checked to see if they were real? I did, and they were right there.

I'm not in a place to explain it one way or the other, but maybe we can try to play nicer.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210

Viewing: 757 - 707

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.