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: 557 - 507

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

Global Analysis - September 2013

The globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces combined was 0.64°C (1.15°F) higher than the 20th century average, tying with 2003 as the fourth warmest September since records began in 1880. The six warmest Septembers on record have all occurred since 2003 (2005 is currently record warmest). September 2013 also marks the fifth consecutive month (since May 2013) with monthly-average global temperatures ranking among the six highest for their respective months.

More here.


(Click for larger image)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 545. iceagecoming:
Why thank you IAC - it's so nice to see lies and misinformation in a graphic format. Very colorful!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1540
Quoting 552. Neapolitan:
Lemme see...should I accuse you of lying, or of just being an unwitting pawn for others who are? Here's the supposed citation from Nature which you placed in quotation marks, implying a verbatim recitation:

"Scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. Despite decades of research funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, we are no more certain about the impact of man-made greenhouse gases than we were in 1990, or even in 1979 when the National Academy of Sciences estimated the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide to be "near 3 degrees C with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5 degrees C."

While here is the actual paragraph from the Nature article:

"Unfortunately, one thing that has not changed is that scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs."

That's it. The rest of the nonensical denialist blather you added--from "Despite decades of research..." on--is from elsewhere. And since I don't care to dig into the filthy, oil-slickened, coal-dusted hog trough that is the online denialosphere, I'll instead present a few others snippets from the same Nature article:

--"...[T]he [IPCC] has increased its confidence in the underlying message %u2014 that greenhouse gases are altering Earth%u2019s climate. No serious politician on the planet can now dispute that."

--"The IPCC process remains a human endeavour and, as such, is subject to human error; the silly mistake in the previous report that Himalayan glaciers would melt completely by 2035 demonstrates this. But the rarity of such errors shows what a solid job the organization has done. Critics went through the rest of the more-than-900-page report with a fine-tooth comb but found little else of significance to crow about."

--"...[I]t is abundantly clear that the IPCC has done its job and is delivering what international policy-makers need to do theirs. Yes, greenhouse gases are changing the climate. Yes, we are already seeing substantial impacts, and more are on the way. And yes, this adds up to a problem for society that is significant and warrants immediate attention."

...and so on. Hardly a "scathing comment", it wasn't even about the IPCC report per-se, but rather the probably ineffectiveness of the body producing a report only every six years that a) is outdate by the time it's presented, and b) has so much input by invested types that it is forced to water down its findings.

So, again, are you a liar? Or just given to ignorantly and blindly pasting what your masters have told you to?


The two choices are not mutually exclusive.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
Quoting 541. iceagecoming:
What heat?

[snip]
Lemme see...should I accuse you of lying, or of just being an unwitting pawn for others who are? Here's the supposed citation from Nature which you placed in quotation marks, implying a verbatim recitation:

"Scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. Despite decades of research funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, we are no more certain about the impact of man-made greenhouse gases than we were in 1990, or even in 1979 when the National Academy of Sciences estimated the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide to be "near 3 degrees C with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5 degrees C."

While here is the actual paragraph from the Nature article:

"Unfortunately, one thing that has not changed is that scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs."

That's it. The rest of the nonensical denialist blather you added--from "Despite decades of research..." onward--is from elsewhere. And since I don't care to dig into the filthy, oil-slickened, coal-dusted hog trough that is the online denialosphere to find the source, I'll instead present a few others snippets from the same Nature article:

--"...[T]he [IPCC] has increased its confidence in the underlying message -- that greenhouse gases are altering Earth's climate. No serious politician on the planet can now dispute that."

--"The IPCC process remains a human endeavour and, as such, is subject to human error; the silly mistake in the previous report that Himalayan glaciers would melt completely by 2035 demonstrates this. But the rarity of such errors shows what a solid job the organization has done. Critics went through the rest of the more-than-900-page report with a fine-tooth comb but found little else of significance to crow about."

--"...[I]t is abundantly clear that the IPCC has done its job and is delivering what international policy-makers need to do theirs. Yes, greenhouse gases are changing the climate. Yes, we are already seeing substantial impacts, and more are on the way. And yes, this adds up to a problem for society that is significant and warrants immediate attention."

...and so on. Hardly a "scathing comment", the article wasn't even about the IPCC report per-se, but rather the probable ineffectiveness of the body producing a report only every six years that a) is outdated by the time it's presented, and b) has so much input by invested types that it is forced to water down its findings.

So, again, are you a liar? Or just given to ignorantly and blindly pasting what your masters have told you to without bothering to perform a little due diligence to see whether it's true?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Hey, hey anyone, you know what day it is, Huh?

Come on, somebody, I'm dying here.




CONSENSUS
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree



Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129780
Quoting 549. georgevandenberghe:
Wonder how many (more) deniers will come out of the woodwork
if we have a Mt Pinatubo scale eruption which would create a dramatic sharp
cold shock for a couple of years,( followed by a quick reversion to
the slow warming trend of recent decades.)

All of them, george. Every single one. :)

I'll be waiting for them.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Wonder how many (more) deniers will come out of the woodwork
if we have a Mt Pinatubo scale eruption which would create a dramatic sharp
cold shock for a couple of years,( followed by a quick reversion to
the slow warming trend of recent decades.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 520. iceagecoming:
Nuclear power station to bridge energy gap


So they switched from one low carbon energy source to another. Proving that a low carbon economy is just a commie lib plot to something, something. In other news the always forward looking Chinese aren't giving in to the greenies 'War on Coal'

Air Pollution Has Shut Down a Major Chinese City

It's getting colder in China, which means firing up the coal plants and turning the atmosphere into a toxic sauna.

It's not surprising that China%u2019s first major "airpocalypse" of this winter season was in Harbin, the capital of Heilongjiang province, in China%u2019' far northeast. Visibility in Harbin hit 33 feet yesterday, as the city's air quality index, which measures fine particulate matter (PM2.5) per cubic meter, exceeded 500%u2014at least 20 times greater than levels the World Health Organization deems safe. And that was just in the "good" neighborhoods.

In some areas, PM2.5 soared to 1,000. (For comparison, PM2.5 exceeded 900 during Beijing%u2019s notorious airpocalypse last winter.) "You can't see your own fingers in front of you," Harbin%u2019s official news site noted, reports Sinosphere, the New York Times%u2019 new China blog.


Just think had the UK 'big government greenies' simply not put into place any pollution regulations this could very easily be an officer in London.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 533. iceagecoming:
What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?

Enough to know that Svensmark is egregiously, even comically, wrong.

But kudos for posting something approximated science, at least!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Boston Globe ran a front page Sunday magazine article about Geoengineering last weekend, featuring David Keith, a Calgary native who is currently at Harvard. Keith estimates 2020 as the year the world needs to start deploying geoengineering, but says that in order to be prepared, we should have started a decade ago. I heard him speak last year about spraying particulates above the Arctic, giving the ice time to rebuild. It made sense, but of course it wouldn't help reduce emissions or stop oceans from acidifying.

I believe we are running out of time to change the course of climate history. The world's leaders are ignoring the problem and BFF (Big Fossil Fuel) has no desire to switch to clean energy. Is geoengineering our last and only hope? Sort of like living in a Twilight Zone episode!




Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
543. VR46L
Quoting 532. BaltimoreBrian:


Saw all these handles plus one of the denier troll comments in the entry #198 that Neapolitan linked to. Wow what a crazy person to make up all those handles! Those are the handles that plussed comment #376


Whoa ... At least one of those handles is not a sockpuppet . Its one of the most intelligent people who ever blogged on WU ! But No longer does ... Wow

And I also know that the poster in 376 is not a troll and yet again is a remarkably intelligent man who posts little here anymore ... seriously LMAO. Good Grief !
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
542. VR46L
Quoting 513. goosegirl1:
There seems to be a ridiculous trend happening today. Some are upset over name-calling and racism, some are just as fast to defend someone who has come under censure for racism and trollish behavior, others are picking away at technicalities and still others are clinging to a "belief". In the midst of all this human chatter, they are losing sight of facts: what you believe and how you feel matter not at all, except to you and yours.

Want to know what I am going to "do" about climate change? I'm going to go to climate change blogs and spread common sense. How can I make a change? I can ignore those who mix up "belief" and "fact". Will this change anything? Of course not... but I don't have to read about your feelings unless I choose to do so.


And why should I have to put up with an implied slur on my character inferring I was a nazi ... but it was not me who reported it ... I am surprised at you Gal that you would think that is ok !
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What heat?


As has been noted by publications across the world, the new IPCC AR5 report confirms that the past catastrophic global warming alarmism, relentlessly pushed by the IPCC community, is essentially without scientific merit.

From the editors of the Nature journal comes this scathing comment about the new report:

"Scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. Despite decades of research funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, we are no more certain about the impact of man-made greenhouse gases than we were in 1990, or even in 1979 when the National Academy of Sciences estimated the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide to be "near 3 degrees C with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5 degrees C."


Pat was always fond of this site!


Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Week beginning on October 13, 2013: 393.69 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 390.76 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 372.70 ppm


Link


This no surprise either!


Down Under blunder: David Suzuki unmasked as a know-nothing huckster on Australian TV
Ezra Levant
Saturday, September 28, 2013, 7:00 PM


Last week in Australia, David Suzuki did something he hasn’t done before: He allowed himself to be interviewed in a situation he did not control.

It was a disaster.

Usually, Suzuki speaks through his TV show on the CBC. When he appears at celebrity events, questions have been pre-screened.

Suzuki refuses to be interviewed by media he does not control, especially the Sun News Network.

His Australian visit shows the wisdom of this standard procedure.

Because when the Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) put even the simplest questions to him, he fell apart. But unlike his Canadian events, Suzuki couldn’t turn off the cameras.

The first question put to Suzuki by a critic in the audience was about the 15-year hiatus in global warming. There just hasn’t been any observed climate change since 1998, and it’s a major problem for the climate change industry, whose computer models all warned that we’d see significant warming by now.

Thermometers — including hyper-accurate satellite readings — say it just hasn’t happened. Here is a transcript of Suzuki’s response:

“Yeah, well, I don’t know why you’re saying that … In fact, the warming continues …. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.”

Normally, that’s the worst Suzuki would face — one tough question that slips past his handlers. But he had no handlers that day. And ABC let
the questioner come again, citing his sources that the world hasn’t warmed: “Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory?”

Now, that’s scientific jargon that a layman wouldn’t understand. But Suzuki claims he’s a scientist, and he has opined on global warming for years. But he had no clue what the questioner was even saying. Suzuki asked for an explanation: “Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t ...”

He actually said that.

The questioner had a third go at it, speaking very slowly: “Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the CO2.”

Suzuki still had no clue. “No, well, there may be a climate skeptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion … You know, we can cherry pick all kinds of stuff. Cherry pick, in fact, the scientists that we want to listen to, but let’s listen to the IPCC.”

That’s classic Suzuki — impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with him. He heard “Alabama” and thought “hick” and called them a “skeptic.” He said we ought to listen to the IPCC – the one acronym Suzuki did know. That stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate bureaucracy.

But all of those places the questioner mentioned — including Alabama — were IPCC research stations. They’re the places that crunch the temperature data for the UN.

Suzuki had no clue.


Link


This document looks at the IPCC projections as well as others. It contains the following sections (year of projection in parentheses):



IPCC – CO2 based models, compares TAR (2001) and AR4 (2007)
James Hansen – CO2 based models (1988)
Nicola Scafetta – based on astronomical harmonic model (2011)
Don Easterbrook – based on multi-decadal oscillations (2001)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu – based on multi-decadal oscillations (2008)
Patrick Michaels – straight-line regression on last 30 years (2008)
Joe the Actuary – sine-wave regression on HadCRUT data (2009)
Alan Cheetham – based on visual recurrent cycles from HadCRUT data (2009)
Roger the Tallbloke – based on regression on AMO, SOI, CO2, SSN (2012)



The CO2 based models appear to be overestimating the amount of warming.



Theodore Landscheidt predicted in 2003 that the current cooling would continue until 2030 [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/20 03/00000014/F0020002/art00010]: “Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove 'skilful' as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.”


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 539. RevElvis:
'Rising Seas,' Radio doc on climate change by Alex Chadwick



The Rising Seas project grew out of an encounter at an MIT energy seminar almost a year ago. I met an Americanized Brit, Dr. Len Berry, from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. He's been speaking forcefully and clearly about the threat that rising seas present. At the end of his talk, I asked if Miami is a viable city. He smiled and answered, 'well, it is right now'.

And then I asked about the end of the century. He smiled again, but said nothing.

I've been talking to him ever since, and through him I met two other FAU scientists -- both much younger -- early to later 30's, both moms, both troubled that hardly anyone in south Florida seems aware of what they are facing.



BoingBoing.net

BurnanEnergyJournal.com/


They have to rename Miami Miami Keys...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
'Rising Seas,' Radio doc on climate change by Alex Chadwick



The Rising Seas project grew out of an encounter at an MIT energy seminar almost a year ago. I met an Americanized Brit, Dr. Len Berry, from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. He's been speaking forcefully and clearly about the threat that rising seas present. At the end of his talk, I asked if Miami is a viable city. He smiled and answered, 'well, it is right now'.

And then I asked about the end of the century. He smiled again, but said nothing.

I've been talking to him ever since, and through him I met two other FAU scientists -- both much younger -- early to later 30's, both moms, both troubled that hardly anyone in south Florida seems aware of what they are facing.



BoingBoing.net

BurnanEnergyJournal.com/
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 957
Quoting 520. iceagecoming:
Nuclear power station to bridge energy gap

21 October 2013 Last updated at 22:58 BST

The first nuclear power station to be built in the UK for 20 years will be at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

The coalition has said Hinkley C, and others, are needed to help fill the energy gap created by declining supplies of North Sea gas, the decommissioning of older power stations and rapidly escalating costs.

But how far will the announcement go to bridge that gap?


Looks like the windmills ain't spinnin fast enough.






plan B.





Your plan B adds more heat...Not good...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 535. Daisyworld:


Oops. Sorry about that. It seems you already posted that one on US carbon emissions. My bad!


Hey it's all good! Besides it's important, since I gave it a !!! rating, worth repeating :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
That was first on my daily list, Daisyworld :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 527. BaltimoreBrian:
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.

[...]


Oops. Sorry about that. It seems you already posted that one on US carbon emissions. My bad!
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 875
U.S. carbon emissions hit 18-year low

U.S. energy-related carbon emissions dropped to an 18-year low in 2012.

A U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) report released Oct. 21 showed that they dropped 12 percent below the 2007 peak, to 5,290 million metric tons. The numbers have declined in 5 of the last 7 years.

The decline is being credited to electric power stations using natural gas rather than burning carbon-intensive coal. The cheaper natural gas burns with about half the carbon emissions. The general public also played a role, reducing residential energy usage across the country by 2.4 percent. A warmer winter helped lower the demand for home heating.

The study meets the goals of an earlier legislative effort to lower energy-related carbon emissions, even though the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have forced the issue, was killed in 2010.

The Waxman-Markey bill aimed to cut emissions to 3 percent below the 2005 levels. The Oct. 21 report shows that the levels are now 11.8 percent below those 2005 figures.

U.S. emissions dropped 3.8 percent in 2012. The only year to see a larger drop was in the depths of the recession, in 2009, when emissions declined 7.1 percent. 2012 saw the largest drop in a year with positive GDP, as the economy grew 2.8 percent. It is the only time carbon emissions have declined when GDP growth was more than 2 percent.

The report notes an increased use of wind turbines to generate energy, but at the same time, hydropower generation dropped by an even greater amount. Overall, reliance on renewable energy declined.

The EIA cautioned against drawing substantial conclusions from this report because it only covers one year of data.

But the report offered a look ahead at ways to continue on this path, writing, "Other factors, such as improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and increased use of renewable generation, however, could play a continuing role in subsequent years."

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 875
What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?

Eigil Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark

Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division, Danish Meteorological Institute, lyngbyvej 100, DK-2100 Copenhagen , Denmark, E-mail: Eigil.Friis@dmi.dk

ABSTRACT

The Earth's climate has always been changing. This is documented in historical as well as in geological records. The reasons for these changes, however, have always been subject to discussions and are still not well understood. In addition to natural climate changes the risk of human influence on climate has recently been seriously considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Any factor that alters the radiation received from the Sun or lost to Space will affect climate. The Sun%u2019s output of energy is known to change over an 11-year cycle, and variations over longer periods occur as well. A number of correlations between solar activity variations and climate changes, some more significant than others, have been reported but they have traditionally been accompanied by a considerable skepticism among scientists because a plausible physical mechanism to account for these correlations has not yet been found. The most immediate cause of climate changes would be changes in the total irradiance of the Sun. This, however, would either imply unrealistically large variations in total solar irradiance or a higher climate sensitivity to radiative forcing than normally accepted. Therefore other mechanisms have to be invoked. The most promising candidate is a change in cloud formation because clouds have a very strong impact on the radiation balance and because only little energy is needed to change the cloud formation process. One of the ways to influence cloud formation might be through the cosmic ray flux that is strongly modulated by the varying solar activity.


Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary

by Jonathan Adams (1.), Mark Maslin (2.) & Ellen Thomas (3.)

(1.) MS 6335, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA

(2.) Environmental Change Research Centre, Department of Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK

(3.) Center for the Study of Global Change, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, PO Box 208109, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109, USA and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, 265 Church Street, Middletown CT 06459-0139, USA.

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im g/eemian2.gif
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
GiovannaDatoli
SCConiferousForest
MississippiWx75
ARMudWeather
BullShoalsAR
Greenberg
ITCZmike
atmoaggie
BackWoodsTN
capelookout
GerlineEspinosa
CarolinaJim
GeorgiaWx65
Nekeopbarren
Coldwellrnd
IvanJackinogh
AlabamaWx85

Saw all these handles plus one of the denier troll comments in the entry #198 that Neapolitan linked to. Wow what a crazy person to make up all those handles! Those are the handles that plussed comment #376
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
By Nigel Lawson

7:05PM BST 28 Sep 2013



On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with “95 per cent” certainty that global warming is man-made.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, compiled by 259 leading scientists, warned that without “substantial and sustained reductions” of greenhouse gas emissions, the world will experience more extreme weather.

However, critics have questioned the scientists’ use of computer forecasting, which, they say, has produced fatalistic scenarios that fail to take into account fully that atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.

Here, former chancellor Lord Lawson, now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank, gives his verdict on the report.



img src="http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2 008/04/temp.jpg"


Addendum: Reading through the NY Times article linked above I came across this bit of revisionist history:

The global climate will continue to be influenced in any particular decade by a mix of natural variability and the building greenhouse effect, said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. He said efforts to build forecasts by mixing modeling and measurements were vital in a world with rising populations in places where poverty leads to vulnerability from climate-related threats like flooding and famine.

It should also help the public and policy makers understand that a cool phase does not mean the overall theory of human-driven warming is flawed, Dr. Trenberth said.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some rare good news on human-induced climate change...

Climate change boosts wine production in Vermont



While no one wants to promote climate change, a group of Vermont winemakers can thank the state's rising temperatures for an economic boost. They have been able to add warmer-weather varieties, like pinot noir, to their selection.

Thirty years ago, winemaker Patrick Berrelet says, the grapes would not have survived Vermont's cold winters. "We definitely have seen bigger crops in I'd say the last 10 years," he told CBS News, adding that he thinks it is because of climate change.

"They're very cold sensitive and if you don't have a warmer winter, you don't have a crop," he continued.

The National Weather Service says temperatures in the area have warmed by two and a half degrees since 1970. Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it is "extremely likely" that climate change is man-made.

The temperature increase may not feel like much to humans, but to plants, a couple of degrees is a huge change, said meteorologist Andy Nash.

The warmer weather also comes at a price for the local wine industry: Vermont is one of the only states where winemakers produce ice wine, a dessert wine crafted from frozen grapes. Without a freeze, the trademark could become a thing of the past.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 875
Let the nation judge the facts about wind power
Instead of squabbling among themselves, ministers should publish the Department of Energy's report on the impact of wind farms on the countryside


By Telegraph View

8:14PM BST 20 Aug 2013


As has been all too apparent in recent days at Balcombe, few issues excite greater passions than energy policy. Yet curiously, the ragtag band of eco-warriors who have descended on West Sussex in an effort to thwart the exploitation of shale gas are quite happy to see the landscape covered in wind farms. Many rural communities feel their countryside is being despoilt by these turbines; yet they never resort to “direct action”, even though the planning laws are heavily weighted against them. So, too, are the generous subsidies that encourage the expansion of wind power and pit landowners against other residents.

Opponents of the rapid expansion of wind farms maintain that the damage they inflict is out of proportion to the benefits they bring, because their energy output cannot match that of the carbon-based power stations they are supposed to replace. Proponents insist that wind must be part of a judicious mix of renewables, nuclear and carbon. They add, moreover, that the country is committed to meeting EU targets for non-carbon energy generation – and these cannot be filled by nuclear power, because of the last government’s failure to give the go-ahead to new reactors, or to any other alternative for that matter.

Against this background, the fact that there is an internal argument within the Government – unearthed by this newspaper – over whether to publish an official report on wind farms’ impact on the countryside becomes even more extraordinary. Apparently, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, run by the Liberal Democrat Ed Davey, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, headed by the Tory Owen Paterson, are at loggerheads over what it should say. Mr Paterson, who is sceptical about the efficacy of onshore wind power, has commissioned the report, which Mr Davey’s team apparently regard as too negative.

We have some advice for the two ministers: publish the report, and let the country be the judge. Even if it contains evidence that wind farms are harmful, it will hardly be a revelation to people who don’t like them. Equally, supporters must argue their case by acknowledging the concerns and explaining why they are either misplaced or worth overriding.

The suggestion that further negotiations are to take place to produce an “acceptable” report suggests this is another area where the Pushmi-pullyu politics of coalition government are doing the country a disservice. Given the sensitivities involved, all the information should be available so people can reach their own conclusions, rather than being left with the suspicion that facts are being supplanted by ideology.


Wind farm being torn down for scrap
A wind farm that has been in the Yorkshire Dales for two decades is being torn down, and is believed to be the first to be scrapped in the UK.




By Claire Carter, and agencies

11:51PM BST 15 Oct 2013


The four wind turbines, measuring 45 metres high, were put up in the 1990s but haven’t worked for years.

Campaigners said the turbines “turned the area into an industrial graveyard” as they celebrated news of the removal of the rusty machines, which will be used as scrap metal.

Locals said they had blighted the landscape and hadn’t worked for three quarters of the time they had been at the site in the Yorkshire Dales.

Peter Rigby, who helped set up the Parishoners Against the Chelker Turbines, said: "It's been a hell of a fight but we have proved it is possible to stop wind farms


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Desperation Drives Some Scientists to Consider Climate Hacking

In the summer of 2012, a small group of the Haida people, a native community in Canada, had a problem. The salmon they rely on were disappearing. So the Haida took matters into their own hands.

They partnered with an American businessman, drew up plans and then took a boat full of iron dust into the waters off their home island and put the dust in the ocean.

When they spread the iron dust, it created a big algae bloom. They hoped the algae would soak up carbon dioxide and bring back the fish.

The reaction to the experiment was immediate and negative, and as the "world's first rogue geoengineering project."

While it scared a lot of people and angered a lot of scientists, this event could be a sign of what's to come. Some very mainstream scientists are saying the climate change situation is so bad that saving life as we know it might require something radical: like shooting chemicals into the stratosphere to protect Earth from the sun. In essence, these scientists are talking about hacking the climate.


npr.org (All Things Consider 10/21/13)

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 957
Underground water heat will aid bid to hit renewable targets

Solar and wind power rightly receive a lot of attention as we struggle to ramp up renewable electricity and move away from fossil fuels. But in a damp, blustery island such as ours, generating heat is as much a priority as electricity. This is especially the case in fuel poor homes where affordable warmth (as opposed to fewer carbon emissions) is the pressing priority. In this case, district heating systems can play an important role in making heat cheaper, while also reducing carbon emissions.

The importance of renewable heat has been recognised in the Climate Change Act (Scotland), which requires 11% of Scotland’s heat to come from renewable sources by 2020. However, as of last year it’s estimated that less than 3% of demand for heat not being supplied by electricity is from renewables.

There is an exciting renewable resource right under our feet that lends itself well to district-level heating solutions, however: warm water lying in abandoned mine workings, which varies between 11°C and 14°C. There is a vast network of abandoned pits in the former mining areas across Britain where coal and ironstone were extracted. Many of these seams are found very close to the surface, extending down to a few hundred metres, which makes the water now occupying these voids relatively accessible.

Read more at The Conservation(UK)
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
How much warming does new IPCC report see in our future?
Understanding how the report's projections are generated and what they tell us.


Perhaps the most publicly visible products from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are the projections of future climate change. Aside from the evidence that humans are responsible for recent global warming, the projections are what make the nightly news. Maybe that’s why those projections are also the target of so much argument and, all too often, misrepresentation. When it comes to climate change, the globe isn’t the only thing that gets heated.

With a final draft of the physical science portion of the next IPCC report released a couple weeks ago, it’s worth taking a little time to examine what, exactly, the new projections entail.

Projections 101

What the heck is a projection anyway? A psychic might claim to predict the future, your local TV meteorologist forecasts the weekend weather. But climate model projections are different things entirely. First, since future climate change depends on many types of human-caused emissions and landscape changes, several projections are generated based on a range of potential changes. The relevance of a projection depends on how closely the emissions scenario it relies on matches what actually takes place.

Second, the climate modelers recognize that there are no crystal balls that would allow them to foresee things like major volcanic eruptions (which cause short-term cooling), changes in the behavior of the Sun, or the status of El Niño in 2028. Global average surface temperature varies a bit from year to year because of interactions within the climate system. The IPCC report states, “For projections, no attempt is made to predict the evolution of the internal variability. Instead, the statistics of this variability are included as a component of the uncertainty associated with a projection.”

That is, the projections represent the longer-term trends that can be obscured by “noise.” This isn’t because climate models somehow omit natural variability. The IPCC projections are created by averaging simulations from many different climate models. Each simulation exhibits year-to-year wiggles due to variability, so no two simulations will be identical. But when many simulations are averaged together, those ups and downs of the variability cancel out.

The purpose of these projections is to illustrate the impact of our actions. They show what the climate will look like if no action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions, or if we instead pursue aggressive reductions. These different potential futures are termed scenarios.

The scenarios used in the last IPCC report have been replaced by a simpler set of four, which are known as “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs). They’re named based on how much more energy is trapped by greenhouse gases in 2100—2.6 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface, or 4.5, 6.0, or 8.5. While RCP8.5 is basically a “business-as-usual” scenario where emissions continue to grow at the present rate, the other scenarios include varying degrees of emissions reductions. In the two middle scenarios, greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized—before the end of the century in one case, after in the other.

In the lowest scenario (RCP2.6), very aggressive changes result in concentrations not only stabilizing very soon but decreasing afterward. This assumes that we develop and deploy technology to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere—an option that is not currently feasible. Previous IPCC reports did not include a scenario where that takes place.

Let’s talk numbers

It takes a while before the differences between these scenarios become significant. There is natural variability as well. As a result, the projections of average global surface temperature don’t diverge until around 2050. So to understand how things are likely to progress for the next few decades, we don’t need to choose a scenario.

The report says that global temperature averaged over the time period from 2016 to 2035 is likely to be 0.3-0.7°C (that’s about 0.5-1.0 °F) warmer than the average from 1986 to 2005. Comparing 20-year averages may be an unwieldy way to think about it, but it’s important when you're dealing with a combination of long-term trends and short-term variability. (An equivalent comparison for the past several decades yields about 0.47°C warming.) The projection equates to 0.12-0.42°C of warming per decade through 2035.

The chart below, taken from the report, shows the climate model simulations underlying this determination. The spaghetti noodle mess gives you a sense of the range of variability exhibited by the models. By 2050, the highest and lowest emissions scenarios (red and blue lines) begin to separate from the jumble, but there is still some overlap.



IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 Figure 25a
In the latter part of the 21st century, the effect of the differences between emissions scenarios becomes clear. Looking again at 20-year averages, we can compare the last two decades of the century with the 1986 to 2005 baseline. The low-end scenario, where CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, results in a world that is 0.3–1.7°C warmer. The two middle scenarios produce 1.1–3.1°C of warming. The business-as-usual scenario, however, warms the planet by 2.6–4.8°C (about 4.7–8.6°F).

Link

Projections for two emissions scenarios are shown in this graph, with the shaded areas above and below each line indicating 90 percent of the variation between individual simulations.
IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers Figure 7
While we tend to focus on atmospheric temperatures, around 90 percent of the heat being trapped by increasing greenhouse gases goes into the oceans. Because of the size of the oceans and the fact that water requires lots of energy to change temperature, ocean temperature changes are smaller than those in the atmosphere. That change is greatest at the water surface, and shrinks the deeper you go.

Depending on which of the four scenarios you look at, the report projects about 1–3°C of ocean surface warming by 2100. At a depth of one kilometer (0.6 of a mile), the warming ends up being 0.5–1.5°C.

Warning: uneven road ahead

It’s important to remember that climate scientists don’t expect the world to steadily warm a little each year without any deviation from the trend. This is at least somewhat apparent from the spaghetti noodle chart showing model simulations. But just how variable is global temperature in those simulations?

In a commentary on surface atmosphere temperatures in the last decade, Indian Institute of Science climate scientist Govindswamy Bala provides a clear visualization for an answer. For the chart below, he calculated moving 10-year averages (shifting one year at a time) for simulations that used one of the middle emissions scenarios.

Unsurprisingly, some 10-year periods have trends higher or lower than the average (shown in kelvins per decade, which is equivalent to °C per decade). If you look carefully, you’ll notice that periods where the trend is near zero (or even cooling) aren’t uncommon. That’s the natural variability the models produce for a scenario that results in about 2°C warming by the end of the century.



While the scenarios have changed from the last IPCC report, the projected warming is basically the same. This is what our knowledge of Earth’s climate tells us will happen because of human activity. That’s the direction the ship is headed. Though it’s slow to turn, that ship does have a rudder.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 519. Birthmark:

They sure do, just as I pointed out in post 503.
Oh,I was being lazy and did not read the back posts! It's all good!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nuclear power station to bridge energy gap

21 October 2013 Last updated at 22:58 BST

The first nuclear power station to be built in the UK for 20 years will be at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

The coalition has said Hinkley C, and others, are needed to help fill the energy gap created by declining supplies of North Sea gas, the decommissioning of older power stations and rapidly escalating costs.

But how far will the announcement go to bridge that gap?


Looks like the windmills ain't spinnin fast enough.






plan B.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 518. overwash12:
It's just nature,been going on for thousands of years! Sunspots,Volcanoes,play a role in our climate still to this day,no matter what anybody says!

They sure do, just as I pointed out in post 503.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 514. iceagecoming:
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.



Link
It's just nature,been going on for thousands of years! Sunspots,Volcanoes,play a role in our climate still to this day,no matter what anybody says!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
At SkepticalScience, commenter doug_bostrom writes:
...it strikes me that this year's early and large fire situation in Australia is roughly akin to what hurricane Sandy was to the US, except perhaps more so. We have:

-- Historically hottest September on record for Australia, following...

-- Australia's warmest winter on record, which came after...

-- Australia's hottest summer on record, as part of...

-- Australia's warmest 12 months on record, which contained...

-- Australia's warmest day, week and month on record, appearing likely to lead to...

-- Australia's warmest calendar year on record.


Yet when I look at comments attached to the Figueres article above, I see familiar, confidently expressed opinions that this year's fire situation in Australia is quite normal, nothing out of the ordinary, to be expected, and most of all definitely not connected with climate.

Really not climate, for sure? But the climate -has- changed:
Link

So how can people say with such certainty that this year's unusually large, early and dynamic fires have no relationship with climate? Last year's fires occurred in the context of warm and dry conditions, something everybody agrees encourages fires. This year's fires are happening in similar context. If we see year-on-year increases in fire activity and those years are accompanied by atmospheric changes that are larger than weather and these changes tend to encourage fires, then what's a reasonable, consistent explanation for how these fires are unconnected with climate?


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
Quoting 514. iceagecoming:
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

Any scientist who claims that is incompetent, lazy, or dishonest.

See post 503 above.

And



Sorry, but that's what you get for linking to a mass media rag instead of science.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
UN climate chief Christiana Figueres calls for global action amid NSW bushfires

The United Nations says the New South Wales bushfires are an example of "the doom and gloom" the world may be facing without vigorous action on climate change.

The United Nations says the New South Wales bushfires are an example of "the doom and gloom" the world may be facing without vigorous action on climate change.

The executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, says the fires prove the world is "already paying the price of carbon".

"The World Meteorological Organisation has not established the direct link between this wildfire and climate change yet, but what is absolutely clear is that the science is telling us there are increasing heatwaves in Asia, Europe and Australia," she told CNN.

Key points

UN Climate chief Christiana Figueres says bushfires will be more frequent if no climate action is taken

She says the fires are evidence that 'we are already paying the price of carbon'

Greens MP Adam Bandt was accused of politicising the fires after linking them to climate change

Other climate scientists have backed Mr Bandt's position

Ms Figueres has criticised the Coalition's plan to repeal the carbon price

Read More >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.



Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There seems to be a ridiculous trend happening today. Some are upset over name-calling and racism, some are just as fast to defend someone who has come under censure for racism and trollish behavior, others are picking away at technicalities and still others are clinging to a "belief". In the midst of all this human chatter, they are losing sight of facts: what you believe and how you feel matter not at all, except to you and yours.

Want to know what I am going to "do" about climate change? I'm going to go to climate change blogs and spread common sense. How can I make a change? I can ignore those who mix up "belief" and "fact". Will this change anything? Of course not... but I don't have to read about your feelings unless I choose to do so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sen. Bernie Sanders:

You have the entire scientific community saying we have to be very aggressive in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Yet you’re seeing the heads of coal companies and oil companies willing to sacrifice the well-being of the entire planet for their short-term profits. And these folks are funding phony organizations to try to create doubt about the reality of global warming.

[...]

Big business is willing to destroy the planet for short-term profits. I regard that as just incomprehensible. Incomprehensible.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks ScottLincoln, for explaining to me the situation (your post #501).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 509. Neapolitan:
(snip...)
(So the forum isn't disturbed by many being taken in by this guy either here or on Dr. Masters' blog forum, just have a look at Dr. Rood's blog entry #198 from 2011. Look at many of the comments in the high 300s and low 400s, and you'll soon notice that most anti-science comments, even the most mundane and trvial ones, were voted up by the same dozen or more handles in pretty much the same order. And you'll also notice many of those same handles have been chiming in on various blogs here the past few days after a period of dormancy. Just a heads up...)


Good god! Before my time, but that helps explain some of the "attitude" you have been accused of. You have more persistence and patience than I do.

Edited: (raises Fresca in toast)
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2437
Quoting 501. ScottLincoln:

Some people seem to have a habit of creating accounts merely to annoy Neapolitan. Some are easy to spot (they will have direct allusions to his place of work, his hometown, his name, etc) but others are not as easy to recognize. Apparently some of these people act like they are all pro-science at first, agreeing with many of the climate science posts on Dr. Rood's comment threads, then over time they will change their tune to mess with people. I've only seen this personally once or twice, but supposedly others here have seen it more.
Well, it's not just me; there are other targets of this guy's obsession. But, yeah, people who create sockpuppet accounts annoy me. I mean, they really annoy me. So you're correct on the rest of your comment. ;-)

(So the forum isn't disturbed by many being taken in by this guy either here or on Dr. Masters' blog forum, just have a look at Dr. Rood's blog entry #198 from 2011. Look at many of the comments in the high 300s and low 400s, and you'll soon notice that most anti-science comments, even the most mundane and trvial ones, were voted up by the same dozen or more handles in pretty much the same order. And you'll also notice many of those same handles have been chiming in on various blogs here the past few days after a period of dormancy. Just a heads up...)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Quoting 504. Birthmark:

There's a first time for everything, I guess. }:)
That should be reassuring to guys like Monckton, Watts, and Bastardi; they've all been waiting their turns for a really long time...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Quoting 495. Neapolitan:
I mean, don't you have a job? A family? A hobby? Anything?

I think by this part of his quote he is talking about a Fresca freak.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 557 - 507

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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

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