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: 1407 - 1357

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

1407. Patrap
In the big scheme of things, for us with Families and a endearing Love of the Earth, the reason we strive to communicate the message of Climate Change is the aforementioned.

Quips, low brow mind games and images are fine and all, but when the meat of the matter comes to discussion,we will always side with the known.

For the tipping point is not a vague concept, come 450-490ppm CO2, well..I'll be surely dead and buried, but this archive, will hopefully survive.


Then the last laugh/word will be softly heard chuckled from a Tomb in NOLA

Fresca,..?







Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128874
how about a wobble in new blog oscillation
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
don't forget to log on picatso to hit those pluses!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1400. :


Hitchens' razor

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Cite for your claim, in peer reviewed literature.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
1402. Xulonn
Quoting 1400. yoboi:



Dr Spencer worked for NOAA, NASA and the DOE.....I see many here praise the work from NOAA, NASA and the DOE....Dr Spencer clearly says that humans impact the climate about 10%.....
An argument is considered cogent if it satisfies 3 conditions.

1) It is valid.
2) It has true or acceptable premises.
3) All relevant information has been examined.

Step #3 invalidates your argument. Deductive reasoning fails here - Spencer may have worked for these organizations, but he rejects the science that they publish as true and valid. And his rejection is not based on science, but rather religion - he now rejects the science behind such things as AGW/CC and evolution.

Roy Spencer, Like Jeff Masters, is a Ph.D. Meteorologist. However, unlike Dr. Masters, Dr. Spencer has forsaken science in favor of his religious beliefs, and is therefore, like you, he is considered an AGW/CC denialist, and not a true skeptic.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1400. yoboi:



Dr Spencer worked for NOAA, NASA and the DOE.....I see many here praise the work from NOAA, NASA and the DOE....Dr Spencer clearly says that humans impact the climate about 10%.....
Your comment #1400 had absolutely nothing at all to do with my own comment #1367, which you quoted in its entirety. That quote enumerated a list of the reasons anti-science types post in science fora, followed by a direct question to the OP asking her why she posts here. You responded to that question by outlining Roy Spencer's employment history. Now, I'm going to assume that you inadvertently hit the "Quote" button on the wrong comment. But if that was intentional, you have utterly and completely lost me...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
1400. yoboi
Quoting 1367. Neapolitan:
That's actually a good question: why do contrarians post in here? But why do they post in any science forum? Why do people go into medical forums and start spouting nonsense about how safe cigarettes really are? Why do anti-vaxxers hang around those same medical forums constantly interjecting untruths? Why do Birthers insist on commenting on progressive forums?

There are different reasons, of course. Some people are delusional and arrogant, convinced that they alone have figured out the truths that have escaped tens of thousands of actual experts. Some are ideologically motivated to spread a party line. Some have allowed themselves to be brainwashed through consuming data from only those sources that fit their preconceived and incorrect notions. Some are actually paid to spread disinformation. Some, desperately wanting to fit in, do the bidding of semi-celebrities like Watts and 'McIntyre. And some, starved for attention, have found that repeatedly stirring the pot can give them that attention, negative though it may be.

Why do you post here?



Dr Spencer worked for NOAA, NASA and the DOE.....I see many here praise the work from NOAA, NASA and the DOE....Dr Spencer clearly says that humans impact the climate about 10%.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2374
A couple of posters mentioned energy efficient homes and home heating recently(sorry, but I forgot who it was) and I thought they might find this article in The Guardian interesting:


The Passivhaus's fabric-first approach to energy efficiency
The building does the work, from super-high insulation to absolute air-tightness and harvesting the sun's energy through windows

It may sound – and sometimes look – like a facility for pacifying particularly violent criminals, but Passivhaus is in fact the gold standard for ultra-low energy homes, which is enjoying increasing popularity as heating bills continue to rise at astronomical rates. Developed in Germany in the early 90s by Bo Adamson and Wolfgang Feist, the Passivhaus Standard is based on a set of principles that mean homes should be able to remain at a comfortable ambient temperature of around 20C with a minimal amount of heating or cooling.

It is a "fabric-first" approach to energy efficiency, meaning the building does the work, rather than relying on bolt-on renewable energy devices, like solar panels and ground-source heat-pumps. Based on the tenets of super-high insulation, absolute air-tightness, and harvesting the sun's energy through south-facing windows, passive houses aim to keep as much heat inside the home as possible.

They also rely on a box, usually kept in the loft: the MVHR, or mechanical ventilation heat recovery unit, a heat-exchange system that uses air from warmer rooms in the house to heat fresh air coming in.

"There are a lot of myths around Passivhaus, like you can't open the windows and people will suffocate if the MVHR breaks down," says Kym Mead, director of Passivhaus at the Building Research Establishment. "It's all nonsense – you can live in it like a normal house. It's based on the idea of harvesting the heat that comes from occupants and their devices, like TVs, computers, cookers and showers."



The first Passivhaus homes, built in a suburb of Darmstadt in 1991, look a little like a portable classroom block, a clunky aesthetic which these ultra-low energy houses have struggled to shake off since. But standards are improving as more architects take up the challenge, and some housing associations are taking the lead, with the incentive of keeping bills down.

There are around 40,000 passive homes worldwide, with 150 in the UK, and the standard is also being applied to schools and offices – as well as an Antarctic research station.

But many remain sceptical that Passivhaus certification, which requires it to be tested by a registered inspector, is a distracting box-ticking exercise.

"Everyone wants a low-energy home, but people focus on accreditation criteria and lose sight of the bigger picture," says architect Piers Taylor said: "It's a one-size-fits-all approach, which can make you blind to the specifics of making each home appropriate to its context. A house should be simple, and allowed to breathe naturally."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
1398. Patrap
When one runs into a debate,discussion, argument with emotions instead of logic, you lose walking in.



Try the Fish,...its weelly, weelly, good.

; )

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128874
Quoting 1388. PensacolaDoug:
Are all skeptics trolls now?
Not necessarily. Here are a few examples to help you discern the difference.

The true skeptic says, "There seem to be some questions surrounding the conclusions of the new paper by Dr. Jones. In particular, I'm concerned about the methodology he used in Section III..."
The skeptic troll says, "Looks yiou alarmist was wrong agin! lol!!!".

The true skeptic says, "I'm not convinced the models being used to suggest overall mid-century temperature rise have fully taken into account the...".
The skeptic troll says, "Another paper, another failure for the warmists. Link".

The true skeptic says, "A brand new paper out of the University of Berlin suggests that overall climate sensitivity may be slightly less than previously thought. If so, will that corroborate...".
The skeptic troll says, "It snowed last night in upsaate New york so much for climat chang maybe al gore can shoevl my drivway lol!!!!!"

The true skeptic says, "If it's true as the new research suggests that outgoing longwave radiation really is..."
The skeptic troll says, "The climate has changed in the past and it's probably solar variations and besides it's better to be too warm than too cold and there really is no 97% of 'scientists' who believe in global warming and we're probably headed into an ice age and models can't even predict next week's weather so how can they predict next decade's and the earth has been here hundreds of billions of years and the temperature record is only 100 years old and all the thermometers are wrong anyway and we'll just have to adapt as we have always done and it hasn't warmed since 1998 and the South Pole is gaining ice and why don't you guys ever talk about that and Time said there'd be an ice age back in the 1970s and now we sposed to believe it getting hotter and the ocean isn't going to turn into battery acid and Mann's hockey shtick is fake and climategate showed that scientists are socialist thieves and hurricanes aren't getting worse and it's been 8 years since a hurricane hit and glaciers are growing and it's probably cosmic rays and 1934 was the hottest year ever and the seas aren't rising and it's the urban heat island effect is all and the Medieval warm period was way hotter and Mars is warming is that because of CO2 lol and the Arctic ice melts every few thousand years and there isn't enough CO2 to make a difference and water vapor is way more dangerous than co2 should we tax it too lmfao and polar bears aren't dying and greenland used to be green hello and co2 is good for plants and it has warmed in the past was it cavemen farting lol and it's all natural cycles and doing anything will hurt the poor and send us all bakc to the stone age and volcanoes are way more co2 than my truck and the Oregon petition was signed by a hundred jillion scientists who aren't part of the plot to take our moneys and it used to be global warming now its climate chang and there's a lot more to worry aboiuyt than gas and even if its us there's nothing we can do."

See what I mean?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
Noam Chomsky slams Canada's shale gas energy plans


Exploitation of Canada's tar sands and shale gas will have dire consequences for the environment, says Chomsky

In an interview with the Guardian, the linguist and author criticised the energy policies of the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

He said: "It means taking every drop of hydrocarbon out of the ground, whether it's shale gas in New Brunswick or tar sands in Alberta and trying to destroy the environment as fast as possible, with barely a question raised about what the world will look like as a result."

But indigenous peoples in Canada blocking fossil fuel developments are taking the lead in combatting climate change, he said. Chomsky highlighted indigenous opposition to the Alberta tar sands, the oil deposit that is Canada's fastest growing source of carbon emissions and is slated for massive expansion despite attracting international criticism and protest.

"It is pretty ironic that the so-called 'least advanced' people are the ones taking the lead in trying to protect all of us, while the richest and most powerful among us are the ones who are trying to drive the society to destruction," said Chomsky.

Chomsky expressed concern about an indigenous community in New Brunswick whose encampment blockading shale gas exploration was raided by a heavily armed Canadian police force two weeks ago.

Those protests come on the heels of the indigenous-led Idle No More movement that sprang up in late 2012 in response to the Harper government's repeal of numerous environmental protections and aggressive promotion of resource projects, often on indigenous lands.

Chomsky was in Montreal last weekend to give a lecture and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the magazine Canadian Dimension.

He told the Guardian that progressives "should work climate change into their efforts to organise", but in a way that emphasises how addressing climate change can improve rather than worsen peoples' lives.

"If it's a prophecy of doom, it will act as a dampener, and people's reaction will be ok, I'll enjoy myself for a couple of years while there's still a chance. But as a call to action, it can be energising. Like, do you want your children, and grandchildren, to have a decent life?"

While supporting the principles of the "degrowth" movement that aims to reign in over-production and over-consumption, Chomsky cited mass transportation, localised agriculture, and energy efficiency improvements as useful forms of growth that could mitigate climate change and improve quality of living.

"If you could take a subway from the suburbs in Boston, where I live, to downtown in 10 minutes, that improves your life over sitting in a traffic jam. People should see that."

Chomsky said that a "major issue" behind climate change is the deficiencies of the market system.

"Markets are lethal, if only because of ignoring externalities, the impacts of their transactions on the environment," he said.

"When you turn to energy production, in market exchanges each participant is asking what can I gain from it? You don't ask what are the costs to others. In this case the cost to others is the destruction of the environment. So the externalities are not trivial."


Chomsky said during the 2008 financial crisis, the big banks could "forget the fact that they're supposed to believe in markets, run cap in hand to the government and say bail us out".

"In the case of the environment there's no one to bail it out."


It all comes down to the externalities, there can be no solution until externalities are properly accounted for, even Hayek* admitted that.


*That's Frederic, not Salma.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
Quoting 1390. pcola57:


Good Morning bappit..
I was un-aware there was a course available at the University of Chicago and you can enroll for free..
I tried googleing it but can't locate it..
If you have the link for it please share as I for one am interested..
TIA..:)

I would highly recommend it if you'd like to be involved in the discussion. And I'd recommend it to others, as well. There really is no reason why some of the less-than-educated persons spouting on about climate science cannot get educated on the topic now that the material is so readily available.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3216
Quoting 1388. PensacolaDoug:



Are all skeptics trolls now?

No, not necessarily.

Contribute reasoned, sourced arguments. Have discussions with critical thinking. Be humble of your educational limitations. That's how you can be skeptical and stand out from the ones we know are fake skeptic trolls.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3216
Quoting 1385. bappit:

But there comes a time when enough is enough. The nihilistic types can always post whatever they like in some other blog on this web site or even some other forum on the internet. Meanwhile, I would like to hear from people who want to learn more about the science. That will not happen as long as the trolls have free rein on this forum.

Adopt a personal policy like mine... flag and minus all troll posts. As stated by a moderator, after 10 flags, a post is hidden.
I've unfortunately been doing a lot more of that in recent weeks just to keep the blog thread readable.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3216
Quoting 1390. pcola57:


Good Morning bappit..
I was un-aware there was a course available at the University of Chicago and you can enroll for free..
I tried googleing it but can't locate it..
If you have the link for it please share as I for one am interested..
TIA..:)


Link to Coursera:Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change

Hope it helps.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
From the Alfred Wegner Institute:

Long-term data reveal: The deep Greenland Sea is warming faster than the World Ocean

Recent warming of the Greenland Sea Deep Water is about ten times higher than warming rates estimated for the global ocean. Scientists from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research recently published these findings in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. For their study, they analysed temperature data from 1950 to 2010 in the abyssal Greenland Sea, which is an ocean area located just to the south of the Arctic Ocean.

Since 1993, oceanographers from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have carried out regularly expeditions to the Greenland Sea on board the research ice breaker Polarstern to investigate the changes in this region. The programme has always included extensive temperature and salinity measurements. For the present study, the AWI scientists have combined these long term data set with historical observations dating back to the year 1950. The result of their analysis: In the last thirty years, the water temperature between 2000 metres depth and the sea floor has risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade.
‘This sounds like a small number, but we need to see this in relation to the large mass of water that has been warmed’ says the AWI scientist and lead author of the study, Dr. Raquel Somavilla Cabrillo. ‘The amount of heat accumulated within the lowest 1.5 kilometres in the abyssal Greenland Sea would warm the atmosphere above Europe by 4 degrees centigrade. The Greenland Sea is just a small part of the global ocean. However, the observed increase of 0.3 degrees in the deep Greenland Sea is ten times higher than the temperature increase in the global ocean on average. For this reason, this area and the remaining less studied polar oceans need to be taken into consideration’.

Read more >>

The study was published in Geophysical Research Letters under the following original title:
R. Somavilla, U. Schauer and G. Budéus: Increasing amount of Arctic Ocean deep waters in the Greenland Sea, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 4361–4366, doi:10.1002/grl.50775, 2013
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
1390. pcola57
Quoting 1381. bappit:
There really is no excuse for anyone to be ignorant of the science of climate change if they have an actual interest in the subject. There are multiple courses on Coursera. (You can still register for free for the University of Chicago one and watch the videos. You don't have to do the assignments.) There also are numerous resources on the internet that people on this blog link to frequently. For instance:
The Discovery of Global Warming
the RealClimste website, or
the latest IPCC report for the brave.
I'm sure others can add many worthwhile resources to this brief list.

Anyone posting obvious bunk on this blog, must not have any interest in the actual science. They must only be interested in creating doubt, confusion and uproar. They can be legitimately referred to as trolls. The site owner should respond accordingly.



Good Morning bappit..
I was un-aware there was a course available at the University of Chicago and you can enroll for free..
I tried googleing it but can't locate it..
If you have the link for it please share as I for one am interested..
TIA..:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New article in the Association for Psclogical Science Observer by Lewandowsi, Mann et. al.

The Subterranean War on Science

"Science denial kills. More than 300,000 South Africans died needlessly in the early 2000s because the government of President Mbeki preferred to treat AIDS with garlic and beetroot rather than antiretroviral drugs (Chigwedere, Seage, Gruskin, Lee, & Essex,2008). The premature death toll from tobacco is staggering and historians have shown how it was needlessly inflated by industry-sponsored denial of robust medical evidence (Proctor, 2011). The US now faces the largest outbreak of whooping cough in decades, in part because of widespread denial of the benefits of vaccinations (Rosenau, 2012). According to the World Health Organization, climate change is already claiming more than 150,000 lives annually (Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, 2005), and estimates of future migrations triggered by unmitigated global warming run as high as 187 million refugees (Nicholls et al., 2011). A common current attribute of denial is that it side-steps the peer-reviewed literature and relies on platforms such as internet blogs or tabloid newspapers to disseminate its dissent from the scientific mainstream. In contrast, the publication of dissenting views in the peer-reviewed literature does not constitute denial....



..."How should the scientific community respond to the events just reviewed? As in most cases of intimidation and bullying, we believe that daylight is the best disinfectant. This article is a first step in this effort towards transparency. Knowledge of the common techniques by which scientists are attacked, irrespective of their discipline and research area, is essential so that institutions can support their academics against attempts to thwart their academic freedom. This information is also essential to enable lawmakers to improve the balance between academic freedom and confidentiality of peer review on the one hand, and the public’s right to access information on the other. Finally, this knowledge is particularly important for journal editors and professional organizations to muster the required resilience against illegitimate insertions into the scientific process."

Predictably Willard the Rat and his minions at WTFUWT are irate at being portrayed as a bunch of malevolent conspiracy ideated buffoons.

At HotWhopper, Sou has posted an entry discussing this article:

Denier weirdness: Mock outrage and conspiracy ideation by Anthony Watts at WUWT

...The article that Anthony basis his "psychotic" accusation upon has the title:

The Subterranean War on Science

It was written by Stephan Lewandowsky, Michael E. Mann, Linda Bauld, Gerard Hastings, and Elizabeth F. Loftus and published in the Association for Psychological Science's Observer. The paper is short and strong. It's well worth reading."...




The Mann et al paper lists several tactics used by deniers to harass and bully scientists:

Conspiratorial thinking

Attacks on science and scientists in a variety of disciplines

Cyber-bullying and public abuse

Harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests, complaints, and legal threats or actions

Intimidation of journal editors


Sou documents the use of each of these techniques by Watts and other prominent deniers.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
Quoting 1385. bappit:

And they have no reason to stop ... ever.

I admire all of you for all the good faith responses you have given over the past months (is it years now?). Your patience far surpasses mine, and you may have influenced people reading the blog and not participating.

But there comes a time when enough is enough. The nihilistic types can always post whatever they like in some other blog on this web site or even some other forum on the internet. Meanwhile, I would like to hear from people who want to learn more about the science. That will not happen as long as the trolls have free rein on this forum.



Are all skeptics trolls now?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1387. bappit
I would never expect Rood to spend time policing this blog though he should have a say over how it is managed by the site owners. I am dismayed by the inaction of the site owners.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
Quoting 1385. bappit:

And they have no reason to stop ... ever.

I admire all of you for all the good faith responses you have given over the past months (is it years now?). Your patience far surpasses mine, and you may have influenced people reading the blog and not participating.

But there comes a time when enough is enough. The nihilistic types can always post whatever they like in some other blog on this web site or even some other forum on the internet. Meanwhile, I would like to hear from people who want to learn more about the science. That will not happen as long as the trolls have free reign on this forum.


And I agree wholeheartedly. But regardless whether or not we ignore them, the climate trolls remain, and the mods are bound by the community rules and their directives from the WU admin. Dr. Rood has no time nor inclination to do anything about them (I'd actually prefer that he be lecturing as an invited speaker at AGU than trouble himself mopping up the messes here anyway), but the climate trolls continue to hijack the comments section. They're allowed to post blatant lies about the science in what's supposed to be a science-based communication forum, and the casual viewer gets to read all the lies along with Dr. Roods blog entry, perpetuating the myth that there's a debate about the science. I don't know, maybe the trolls have succeeded by turning some of us into nihilists, but I'd like to think that Weather Underground has the intelligence and courage to do what the L.A. Times and Popular Science has done: Start policing the climate trolls and begin denying the deniers access to public communication forums.

Hmmm... I think we have the makings of a tagline for a social movement here: Deny the deniers!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1385. bappit
Quoting 1383. Daisyworld:


I've tried the "do not engage" behavior. It doesn't stop the the deniers. They still continue to lie through their teeth ....

And they have no reason to stop ... ever.

I admire all of you for all the good faith responses you have given over the past months (is it years now?). Your patience far surpasses mine, and you may have influenced people reading the blog and not participating.

But there comes a time when enough is enough. The nihilistic types can always post whatever they like in some other blog on this web site or even some other forum on the internet. Meanwhile, I would like to hear from people who want to learn more about the science. That will not happen as long as the trolls have free rein on this forum.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
1384. bappit
Quoting 1374. JohnLonergan:

Some interesting discussion on the merits of constructive, proactive blog moderation. I think Wotts gives a good perspective on the problem--though he still seems to be too lenient on what passes for debate.

"I’ve been doing this long enough to have a good idea of who understands the science and is able to make constructive comments, and who doesn’t. I also understand the science quite well. It is much more settled than many would like us to think. So if you’re going to take the standard “skeptical” line, expect me to be harder on you than on others. You might think that lacks balance. I disagree. Being allowed to present scientific ideas for which you have no real evidence is not balance."
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
Quoting 1382. bappit:

Actually, I have flagged a few of your posts along with a bunch of others. Sorry for the news.

If you don't like the trolls, do not engage them. Your complaint really should be with those who maintain the web site.


I've tried the "do not engage" behavior. It doesn't stop the the deniers. They still continue to lie through their teeth, altering the course of the entire comments section, and they get to stay because they do not technically violate the community rules. So, why should I be quiet about their lying?

And yes, I realize that some of my comments as of late may have not been entirely congenial. Feel free to flag them. I'm the one risking a ban, so I take full responsibility. I'm simply tired of the climate deniers and their unchallenged lies, and I've already lodged my complaints to WU admin about them. At least I chose to do something about it and not hide and pretend they aren't harming this website or communication of climate science as a whole.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1382. bappit
Quoting 1379. Daisyworld:


The mods are here. They just haven't found any blatant violations. Give them some credit.

Actually, I have flagged a few of your posts along with a bunch of others. Sorry for the news.

If you don't like the trolls, do not engage them. Your complaint really should be with those who maintain the web site.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
1381. bappit
There really is no excuse for anyone to be ignorant of the science of climate change if they have an actual interest in the subject. There are multiple courses on Coursera. (You can still register for free for the University of Chicago one and watch the videos. You don't have to do the assignments.) There also are numerous resources on the internet that people on this blog link to frequently. For instance:
The Discovery of Global Warming
the RealClimste website, or
the latest IPCC report for the brave.
I'm sure others can add many worthwhile resources to this brief list.

Anyone posting obvious bunk on this blog, must not have any interest in the actual science. They must only be interested in creating doubt, confusion and uproar. They can be legitimately referred to as trolls. The site owner should respond accordingly.

Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
In Heated Arizona Solar Battle, Top Regulators Tied To ALEC

In the ongoing fight over whether Arizona will continue its remarkable expansion of solar energy, a ThinkProgress analysis reveals four of five members of the state’s energy regulator are tied to the conservative anti-clean energy group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The fight centers on Arizona Public Service Co. (APS), the state’s largest utility, versus solar energy companies over how much customers should be compensated for the energy produced by solar panels installed on their homes and businesses. APS believes customers receive too much credit for the excess energy produced by their panels while the industry maintains changing the policy, known as net-metering, would devastate their promising and rapidly expanding industry.

The state’s energy regulator, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), is expected to begin hearings on the net-metering proposal in November. Four of the five commissioners are members of ALEC, the group backed by fossil fuel interests, major corporations and the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. In 2012, ALEC dedicated its efforts to dismantling renewable energy laws around the country and though they failed completely in that effort, leaked documents from their recent annual meeting indicates they have no intention of backing down from the fight against clean energy.

A new report released Friday by Progress Now reveals ALEC’s involvement in attacking efforts to address climate change goes beyond clean energy laws — it has actively worked to help drilling companies hide fracking fluids, fight greenhouse gas emissions accords, and advance the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, among other initiatives.


ThinkProgress.org


ProgressNow.org (pdf-report)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 1378. bappit:
Way too much bickering, and not a mod in sight.


The mods are here. They just haven't found any blatant violations. Give them some credit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1378. bappit
Way too much bickering, and not a mod in sight.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
Quoting 1369. Xulonn:
Hey NC, I think I figured out you and your denialist buddies...you actually cannot accept the overwhelming scientific evidence and truth of AGW/CC science because your personal psychology won't allow it!!! (This is not an attack - simply an observation based on reading denialist comments here.)



Or more succinctly
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
Can't we all just get along?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1372 will prolly get minused into oblivion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Collin Maessen at Real Sceptic:

The Perfect Example For Why I Moderate My Comment Sections

For both my website and YouTube channel I have some very strict moderation rules. For both the rules say you need to stay civil, you answer questions when asked, provide citations (or give them when asked), don’t make claims that are demonstrably wrong, don’t spam, and the comment has to be on-topic. If the comment you place doesn’t abide by those rules you will either get a warning from me or if it crosses the line too much I’ll just remove it.

Repeated violations will lead to me banning you on my YouTube channel or my website. With the intermediate step on my website that all comments from you will go into my moderation queue before they appear. These rules are quite strict compared to what is the norm on most websites, but I’ve found them to be necessary.

When I just had started writing for this website and creating my videos I was very lenient towards commenters. Everyone could say anything in whichever way they wanted. This almost always resulted in very unpleasant and unproductive exchanges. My frustration with people not engaging me in an honest and civil way was what lead to me creating the rules that I now have.
Of course I still get the odd commenter that doesn’t want to play within those rules, and it’s they that complain almost exclusively about my moderation. But most commenters like the environment that I create with this strict policy. It’s common that they defend my policies because in my comment sections you can discuss freely without all the vitriol that’s so common.
I’m bringing all this up because of what happened after Wotts said the following in his blog post ‘Why it must be frustrating‘:

...The point is, some things are just wrong and should be acknowledged as wrong. [...] I think engaging in discussions about climate science and global waraming is fascinating. There is much we can all learn. However, I do find it incredibly frustrating engaging with those who seem willing to consider ideas that are trivially shown to be incorrect. If I’m frustrated imagine how actual climate scientists feel. Maybe we should give more credence to those willing to engage without letting their frustrations show. On the other hand, maybe showing a little more frustration may help some people to realise that some of what they think has merit really doesn’t. ...

(My emphasis)

The italicised paragraph is particularly relevent to what went on here earlier. Most(all?) of the points raised by the deniers here have all been repeatedly debunked or are fractally wrong.

Collin's post is fairly long and documents a recent post(linked above) at Wotts Up With That Blog where a recent thread was derailed by 2 responders. I think it is worth reading.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3403
Quoting 1329. GTstormChaserCaleb:
First off, I don't know what your problem is, I never once claimed I know more than the experts, so that statement is false, and I seriously hope everyone who sees that comment sees that including Dr. Rood himself. You should be banned from here for calling people troll and I did not take environmental science at Embry-Riddle I took it back home at a local community college, so quit trying to assume you know me because you don't and that is the cold hard truth. And no you do not know the course developer of that environmental science class. I'm so glad you do not know me personally and I know for sure you would not being saying the things you said to my face.


Let me get this straight, you want me banned for having the opinion that you did not take the PHYS 142 course? An opinion that has now turned out to be correct? I'm glad you admitted to not taking the class, but I'm confused as to why you didn't just say so when I suggested you take it.

Or are you wanting me banned because I suggested that certain behaviors you were exhibiting could be viewed as trolling? We get lots of trolling traffic here, so it's not an uncommon subject to discuss. If the notion strikes a nerve with you, I apologize, but as you can see by the comments here of others who refute the existence of human-induced climate change, items you brought up showed similarities with these other trolls: You attempted to "show both sides of the argument" on climate change in comment #1194, then focus on the uncertainties in the climate models by bringing up volcanoes in comment #1231. These are very common climate denialist tactics. I will admit that I may have been over-zealous in taking issue with these items, and due to that mistake I will extend I another apology.

Also, please note that I did not write that you claimed to know more than the experts, I simply wrote that you acted as if you knew more than them. That's a very big difference, as we can all portray ourselves in manners that we're completely unaware of, and are interpreted by others as something completely different (especially comments in a blog). However, since you're interested in gaining better blogging skills, I offer some advice: If your going to take issue about written words in blog comments, you'd better be sure you are interpreting them correctly, and try not to react out of emotion or disdain -- It leads to miscommunication, as it did with us.

Finally, you are correct. I do not know you, other than you have some sort of connection to ERAU. Because I taught courses there in the past, I was making assumptions that you were an alumni too. I again apologize for making that assumption, and I will not trouble you further with it. Though, your notion that I do not know who the course developer for PHYS 142 is incorrect. His name is Dr. Thomas Sieland, a professor of arts and sciences in the Department of Mathematics at ERAU. Have a nice day.

P.S. Thank you for posting climate-change relevant articles. It's a refreshing change here, as we often get anti-science political opinion articles.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1368. MisterPerfect:
I post here because I am a member of the planet. I am the cause of and solution to all of the world's problems...we all are collectively. Science does not need name calling, negative reflections and a thug-mentality to be informative and worthwhile. Everyone knows the best way to solve a scientific crisis is to post on a blog and argue and fight like it's a sports venue.

Relax. The world will still be here when this medium goes the way of the carrier pigeon.

I wonder whether solving the problem involves making dozens and dozens of posts denigrating a particular politician who was last elected to public office 17 years ago, you know, scouring the web for lame Photoshopped images of Al Gore with devil horns and such to post here. Think that will help us out of this mess?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
I post here because I am a member of the planet. I am the cause of and solution to all of the world's problems...we all are collectively. Science does not need name calling, negative reflections and a thug-mentality to be informative and worthwhile. Everyone knows the best way to solve a scientific crisis is to post on a blog and argue and fight like it's a sports venue.

Relax. The world will still be here when this medium goes the way of the carrier pigeon.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1366. ncstorm:
tramp, doug, cochise, and yoboi..why do you post in here..I guarantee you if you give them what they "claim" they want which is an all GW blog and none of the "denialist" claims, you will see them come to Dr. Masters and post over there about GW..they only want someone to argue with and you giving them that..let them be and tend to their rood blog..they may have to pull out those AGW sockpuppets and make pretend posts to argue with themselves but that will be on them..

it aint worth your blood pressure to be over here and constantly called names..

misery loves company..
That's actually a good question: why do contrarians post in here? But why do they post in any science forum? Why do people go into medical forums and start spouting nonsense about how safe cigarettes really are? Why do anti-vaxxers hang around those same medical forums constantly interjecting untruths? Why do Birthers insist on commenting on progressive forums?

There are different reasons, of course. Some people are delusional and arrogant, convinced that they alone have figured out the truths that have escaped tens of thousands of actual experts. Some are ideologically motivated to spread a party line. Some have allowed themselves to be brainwashed through consuming data from only those sources that fit their preconceived and incorrect notions. Some are actually paid to spread disinformation. Some, desperately wanting to fit in, do the bidding of semi-celebrities like Watts and 'McIntyre. And some, starved for attention, have found that repeatedly stirring the pot can give them that attention, negative though it may be.

Why do you post here?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
1366. ncstorm
tramp, doug, cochise, and yoboi..why do you post in here..I guarantee you if you give them what they "claim" they want which is an all GW blog and none of the "denialist" claims, you will see them come to Dr. Masters and post over there about GW..they only want someone to argue with and you giving them that..let them be and tend to their rood blog..they may have to pull out those AGW sockpuppets and make pretend posts to argue with themselves but that will be on them..

it aint worth your blood pressure to be over here and constantly called names..

misery loves company..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1365. Xandra
From UCAR:

Geoengineering the climate could reduce vital rains

October 31, 2013

BOULDER—Although a significant build-up in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would alter worldwide precipitation patterns, a widely discussed technological approach to reduce future global warming would also interfere with rainfall and snowfall, new research shows.


Rain rolls in on agricultural land during the monsoon season in Lijang, Yunnan, China. (Creative Commons photo by Aidan Whiteley.)

The international study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), finds that global warming caused by a massive increase in greenhouse gases would spur a nearly 7 percent average increase in precipitation compared to preindustrial conditions.

But trying to resolve the problem through "geoengineering" could result in monsoonal rains in North America, East Asia, and other regions dropping by 5-7 percent compared to preindustrial conditions. Globally, average precipitation could decrease by about 4.5 percent.

"Geoengineering the planet doesn’t cure the problem," says NCAR scientist Simone Tilmes, lead author of the new study. "Even if one of these techniques could keep global temperatures approximately balanced, precipitation would not return to preindustrial conditions."

As concerns have mounted about climate change, scientists have studied geoengineering approaches to reduce future warming. Some of these would capture carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere. Others would attempt to essentially shade the atmosphere by injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere or launching mirrors into orbit with the goal of reducing global surface temperatures.

The new study focuses on the second set of approaches, those that would shade the planet. The authors warn, however, that Earth’s climate would not return to its preindustrial state even if the warming itself were successfully mitigated.

"It’s very much a pick-your-poison type of problem," says NCAR scientist John Fasullo, a co-author. "If you don’t like warming, you can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface and cool the climate. But if you do that, large reductions in rainfall are unavoidable. There’s no win-win option here."

The study appears in an online issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, published this week by the American Geophysical Union. An international team of scientists from NCAR and 14 other organizations wrote the study, which was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR’s sponsor. The team used, among other tools, the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model, which is funded by NSF and the Department of Energy.

Read more >>

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
1364. bappit
Quoting 1334. JohnLonergan:
The Subterranean War on Science

"Science denial kills. More than 300,000 South Africans died needlessly in the early 2000s because the government of President Mbeki preferred to treat AIDS with garlic and beetroot rather than antiretroviral drugs (Chigwedere, Seage, Gruskin, Lee, & Essex,2008). The premature death toll from tobacco is staggering and historians have shown how it was needlessly inflated by industry-sponsored denial of robust medical evidence (Proctor, 2011). The US now faces the largest outbreak of whooping cough in decades, in part because of widespread denial of the benefits of vaccinations (Rosenau, 2012). According to the World Health Organization, climate change is already claiming more than 150,000 lives annually (Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, 2005), and estimates of future migrations triggered by unmitigated global warming run as high as 187 million refugees (Nicholls et al., 2011). A common current attribute of denial is that it side-steps the peer-reviewed literature and relies on platforms such as internet blogs or tabloid newspapers to disseminate its dissent from the scientific mainstream. In contrast, the publication of dissenting views in the peer-reviewed literature does not constitute denial."...


..."How should the scientific community respond to the events just reviewed? As in most cases of intimidation and bullying, we believe that daylight is the best disinfectant. This article is a first step in this effort towards transparency. Knowledge of the common techniques by which scientists are attacked, irrespective of their discipline and research area, is essential so that institutions can support their academics against attempts to thwart their academic freedom. This information is also essential to enable lawmakers to improve the balance between academic freedom and confidentiality of peer review on the one hand, and the public’s right to access information on the other. Finally, this knowledge is particularly important for journal editors and professional organizations to muster the required resilience against illegitimate insertions into the scientific process."

I think at least this is on topic.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
1362. Patrap
After the math was done, and a Fresca..


I determined that only .0372 percent of my total comments, were bannable.


The IDF, Mossad, and Interpol all have us on a list.

The NSA boys however, are still trying to figure us out.


Magine dat?
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128874
Obama Orders Federal Agencies To Take Proactive Approach To Climate Change

The Obama administration quietly unveiled a new executive order on Friday laying out plans to deal with the impacts of climate change and directing federal agencies to revise programs and policies that might serve as barriers to climate adaptation.

The order builds out the Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that President Obama called for in his June climate change speech. The task force will bring together local, state and tribal officials to collaborate on approaches for dealing with climate impacts and advise the federal government. Those impacts include heat waves, extreme storm events, droughts, ocean acidification, sea-level rise and the melting of the permafrost.

The executive order also creates a second group –- the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience –- made up of senior officials from all of the federal agencies and led by the head of the Council on Environmental Quality, Obama's top national security adviser and the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The council will replace the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force that Obama created in 2009.

The order also calls on federal agencies to identify ways to remove barriers in laws or programs that might make it difficult to address climate-related issues, and to "reform policies and Federal funding programs that may, perhaps unintentionally, increase the vulnerability of natural or built systems, economic sectors, natural resources, or communities to climate change related risks." The directive pushes agencies to think proactively about how climate change could affect federal programs -- from the construction and maintenance of dams and levees to the flood insurance program.

It directs the heads of the departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to take an inventory of their land and water policies and deliver a list of proposed changes to the White House in the next nine months, along with a proposed timeline for making those changes.


HuffingtonPost.com


WhiteHouse.gov (Climate Change Resilience)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
1359. yoboi
Quoting 1332. Birthmark:
"For Immediate Release
November 01, 2013
Executive Order -- Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PREPARING THE UNITED STATES FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to prepare the Nation for the impacts of climate change by undertaking actions to enhance climate preparedness and resilience, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The impacts of climate change -- including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise -- are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, to facilitate Federal, State, local, tribal, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity of executive department and agency (agency) operations, services, and programs. "
Source: WhiteHouse.gov

It's quite lengthy and I haven't read it all. Just posting it for now.



I wonder if they will build a carbon tax website?????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2374
Quoting 1354. tramp96:

Lol

See? I'll give you the last word on that.

D'oh!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 1407 - 1357

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.