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: 457 - 407

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

One thing I've enjoyed about the site Hot Whopper is the way that silly comments to a silly post are also highlighted, almost to shame people for saying things that they shouldn't say.

In today's edition of Are You Gullible or Being Deliberately Dishonest, we have this article about climate change in my home state of Iowa, "Scientists see climate change in Iowa."

"Big Rebuttal" provides a generally decent comment:
Weather isn't predictable, but climate is as it is combination of average temperatures and average precipitation made over many years. The entire Earths average temperature is increasing daily at the moment, and the change in climate will soon follow.

Which is followed by this interesting take by "Louie Arbs:"
the current climate forecasting models cant even predict cloud coverage. what makes you think these models are remotely accurate if they cant even handle cloud coverage?
actually, weve been cooling for the past 10 years but dont let things like facts get in the way of your agenda. the weather weve had in iowa this year has hardly been unusual. we actually had a rather cool summer and the last few winters have hardly been extreme.

Of course Mr. Arbs had to be reminded that no, we are not cooling. According to none of the major storages of the climate system (atmosphere/ice/oceans) are we "cooling." It seems that non-expert silliness just won't die:
the climate trends, on all fronts, show the earth has been in a cooling phase for at least a decade. sea levels are not rising any more now than they have for the last 10,000 years. just like the ice your worried about has been melting for at least 10,000 years and is not doing so at an accelerated pace. other parts of the ice shelf are growing. to focus on the smaller section that is melting without mentioning the larger region that is growing is the epitome of cherry picking.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
Trust me, those 250K Volt High Tension Wires are actually therapeutic, don't worry bout it'..

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128344
Quoting 454. MisterPerfect:
'Wind Turbine Syndrome' Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms in Cape Cod Town
Oct. 21, 2013
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Digital Reporter via Good Morning America



Sue Hobart, a bridal florist from Massachusetts, couldn't understand why she suddenly developed headaches, ringing in her ears, insomnia and dizziness to the point of falling "flat on my face" in the driveway.

"I thought I was just getting older and tired," said the 57-year-old from Falmouth.

Months earlier, in the summer of 2010, three wind turbines had been erected in her town, one of which runs around the clock, 1,600 feet from her home.

"I didn't put anything to the turbines -- we heard it and didn't like the thump, thump, thump and didn't like seeing them, but we didn't put it together," she told ABCNews.com. ...

I find these claims rather interesting. Not saying it's impossible, but I also agree with the concerns over the science on this issue.
We've had wind turbines in Iowa for a number of years. One town in central Iowa has had them since as long as I can remember, at least 20 years. And these werent out in a field, they were right in town. That said, I don't ever recall hearing of any issues with them. And I've been on numerous field trips to some of the wind farms... I don't recall hearing much of anything. I'm still skeptical.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
'Wind Turbine Syndrome' Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms in Cape Cod Town
Oct. 21, 2013
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Digital Reporter via Good Morning America



Sue Hobart, a bridal florist from Massachusetts, couldn't understand why she suddenly developed headaches, ringing in her ears, insomnia and dizziness to the point of falling "flat on my face" in the driveway.

"I thought I was just getting older and tired," said the 57-year-old from Falmouth.

Months earlier, in the summer of 2010, three wind turbines had been erected in her town, one of which runs around the clock, 1,600 feet from her home.

"I didn't put anything to the turbines -- we heard it and didn't like the thump, thump, thump and didn't like seeing them, but we didn't put it together," she told ABCNews.com.

Hobart said her headaches only got worse, but at Christmas, when she went to San Diego, they disappeared. And she said the same thing happened on an overnight trip to Keene, N.H.

"Sometimes at night, especially in the winter, I wake up with a fluttering in the chest and think, 'What the hell is that,' and the only place it happens is at my house," she said. "That's how you know. When you go away, it doesn't happen."

Hobart and dozens of others in this small Cape Cod town have filed lawsuits, claiming that three 400 feet tall, 1.63 megawatt turbines (two owned by the town and one owned by Notus Clean Energy) were responsible for an array of symptoms. A fourth, much smaller turbine, is owned by Woods Hole Research Center, but it receives fewer complaints.

The wind turbines have blown up a political storm in Falmouth that has resonated throughout the wind energy industry. Are these plaintiffs just "whiners," or do they have a legitimate illness?

"It goes all day and night. My initial take was that she was being a hypochondriac, but I went to their house two years ago with a little skepticism and within 10 minutes of being in the house, I could feel it and hear it." -- Brian Mannal, lawyer for Sue Hobart


In 2011, a doctor at Harvard Medical School diagnosed Hobart with wind turbine syndrome, which is not recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The name was coined by Nina Pierpont, a John Hopkins University-trained pediatrician, whose husband is an anti-wind activist, criticizing the economics and physics of wind power. Pierpont, who lives in upstate New York, calls wind turbine syndrome the green energy industry's "dirty little secret." She self-published "Wind Turbine Syndrome" in 2009, including case studies of people who lived within 1.25 miles of these "spinning giants" who reportedly got sick.

But her wind-turbine research has been criticized for improper peer review (Pierpont reportedly chose her reviewers), and for its methodology -- small sample size, no control group and the fact that she did not examine her subjects or their medical records but interviewed them by phone.

Neither Pierpont nor her husband, Calvin Luther Martin, responded to ABCNews.com's request for comment.

Hobart and her husband, Edward, filed a nuisance claim last Feb. 5 in Barnstable Superior Court against Notus Clean Energy and its owner, Dan Webb. According to the Hobarts' lawyer, Democratic State Rep. Brian Mannal, they are seeking between $150,000 and $300,000 in damages for loss of value of their home, and for medical bills.

They filed an earlier nuisance complaint against the town in July 2012, but the judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on Dec. 3, 2012.

"The heart of the issue is that they have been pushed off their land," said Mannal. "They have erected these enormous industrial-scale turbines -- larger than a 747 -- in close proximity to residences. They have had to leave their house because they couldn't live there anymore."

continued..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My first attempt at my Cousera exercises:


Math ain't easy.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
Quoting 437. 1911maker:

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

Maybe it is bargaining.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 448. Xulonn:
Oh, joy and gladness - we have a place to joust with denialists and not clutter up actual science at this blog.

I took Yoboi off ignore just so I could play in his sandbox...I mean blog!

He truly is a gentleman for letting people take the gloves off and duke it out - and unlike Mr. Watts, he doesn't censor the opposition to denialism.

So far it's been rough and tumble, but no serious nasties. And no one's posted ad homs against Nea or me yet, which I find surprising!! But that won't last long.

I am surprised at how many rational reality regulars went there to join the fun and games.

Thanks Yoboi. You're my favorite hardcore denialist!


Here are a few thoughts on dealing with "skeptics" excerpted from Wottsupwiththatblog:

"There are many aspects of the climate change/global warming debate that are clearly frustrating for many of those involved, but one might think that fundamentally everyone is interested in the same thing: understanding the science associated with climate change. It may not be true, but it%u2019s possible. Given this, maybe one should expect climate scientists to hide their frustrations and try and engage openly and decently with %u201Cskeptics%u201D.

The problem I have with the possibility that deep down everyone is interested in the same thing, is that I regularly encounter things that make me seriously doubt that some really have any actual interest in understanding the science."...


..." The point is, some things are just wrong and should be acknowledged as wrong....

..."I think engaging in discussions about climate science and global warming 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%u2019m 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%u2019t."

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
SCOTUS Turns Deaf Ear To Climate Change Attack

Industry falls short in challenges over health and car/truck emissions

This week the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed industry by refusing to hear challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that carbon dioxide and other climate change pollutants endanger our health. The court also rejected attacks on carbon pollution limits for cars and trucks – limits that respond to the court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, and are important parts of the agency’s efforts to curb such pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The court’s action also provides a solid footing for future EPA action to set standards for other major sources of climate change pollution like power plants, refineries, and oil and gas operations. A 2011 Supreme Court ruling confirmed EPA's authority to set such standards.

"Power plants are the nation's largest emitters of carbon pollution, and EPA must act promptly to limit those harmful emissions," said Howard Fox of Earthjustice, co-counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

The high court did accept review of one industry challenge.

At issue is EPA's determination that permits are required prior to construction of new major power plants and industrial facilities that will emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. The permits will include plant-specific requirements to limit climate change pollution using available technologies.

Industry claims the permit requirement lacks legal basis, but the lower court decisively rejected that argument. Earthjustice will vigorously oppose the industry position before the Supreme Court.


earthjustice.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
0.3% of GPD Would Protect East Asia from Climate Change

Oct. 21, 2013 — About 12 million people in 23 East Asian cities are at risk from rising sea levels, severe storms, and more intense drought caused by climate change that could jeopardize $864 billion in assets, a new report from the Asian Development Bank (ADB)


Economics of Climate Change in East Asia notes that while climate adaptation investments can be large, the aggregate cost to protect the most vulnerable sectors -- infrastructure, coastal protection, and agriculture -- would be less than 0.3% of East Asia's gross domestic product every year between 2010 and 2050.
"This report shows that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of climate change adaptation if countries act now," said Ayumi Konishi, Director General of ADB's East Asia Department. "Climate change not only brings challenges to East Asia, but also opportunities for stronger regional cooperation."

More at ScienceDaily >>

Read the Report:
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
Oh, joy and gladness - we have a place to joust with denialists and not clutter up actual science at this blog.

I took Yoboi off ignore just so I could play in his sandbox...I mean blog!

He truly is a gentleman for letting people take the gloves off and duke it out - and unlike Mr. Watts, he doesn't censor the opposition to denialism.

So far it's been rough and tumble, but no serious nasties. And no one's posted ad homs against Nea or me yet, which I find surprising!! But that won't last long.

I am surprised at how many rational reality regulars went there to join the fun and games.

Thanks Yoboi. You're my favorite hardcore denialist!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 446. Birthmark:

That's the guy! He bit me once!! I still haven't gotten him back for it...but I will.


He is biting us in many many ways.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 445. cyclonebuster:


All caused by fossil fuel Ready Kilowatt...


That's the guy! He bit me once!! I still haven't gotten him back for it...but I will.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 443. JohnLonergan:


It's called "dead cat bounce"



All caused by fossil fuel Ready Kilowatt...

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
From Oil Change International:

Ship, Baby, Ship! The push for U.S. crude oil exports has started. Here’s why it’s a terrible idea

October 16, 2013

Our latest report released today exposes U.S. oil producers that want to export crude oil despite the fact that they still only produce barely more than 50% of U.S. oil demand. 40 years on from the Arab oil embargo and America’s oil producers have only one thing on their minds; profits.

Lifting crude export restrictions would bring U.S. oil prices in line with international prices and enable oil producers to charge U.S. refiners more. This is the focus of increasing calls from the industry and its investors for an end to crude oil export restrictions.

The U.S. oil boom is based on hydraulic fracturing (fracking), an intensive and expensive drilling method that has unlocked billions of barrels of formerly inaccessible oil in North Dakota, Texas and elsewhere. But increasing production depends on drilling thousands of wells as well productivity typically declines over 60% in the first year. Drillers need higher prices to keep drilling in ever more marginal locations and without exports U.S. crude oil prices may not support this.

The price increase that exports would enable will allow drillers to open up new reserves and herein lays the problem. We can’t afford to burn the reserves we already have, so any policy that enables the oil industry to exploit more reserves is a recipe for disaster.

Read more here.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 441. Xulonn:
Very likely not what you think it does!


It's called "dead cat bounce"

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
Quoting 433. martinitony:
What's it mean?



Nothing really!








.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 433. martinitony:
What's it mean?
Very likely not what you think it does!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Published on Oct 21, 2013

China: record smog levels shut down city of Harbin

Choking smog all but shut down one of northeastern China's largest cities on Monday, forcing schools to suspended classes, snarling traffic and closing the airport, in the country's first major air pollution crisis of the winter.

An index measuring PM2.5, or particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), reached a reading of 1,000 in some parts of Harbin, the gritty capital of northeastern Heilongjiang province and home to some 11 million people.

A level above 300 is considered hazardous, while the World Health Organisation recommends a daily level of no more than 20.

The smog not only forced all primary and middle schools to suspend classes, but shut the airport and some public bus routes, the official Xinhua news agency reported, blaming the emergency on the first day of the heating being turned on in the city for winter. Visibility was reportedly reduced to 10 meters.

The smog is expected to continue for the next 24 hours.

Air quality in Chinese cities is of increasing concern to China's stability-obsessed leadership because it plays into popular resentment over political privilege and rising inequality in the world's second-largest economy.

Domestic media have run stories describing the expensive air purifiers government officials enjoy in their homes and offices, alongside reports of special organic farms so cadres need not risk suffering from recurring food safety scandals.

The government has announced plans over the years to tackle the pollution problem but has made little apparent progress.

Users of China's popular Twitter-like Sina Weibo microblogging site reacted with both anger and bitter sarcasm over Harbin's air pollution.

"After years of effort, the wise and hard-working people of Harbin have finally managed to skip both the middle-class society and the communist society stages, and have now entered a fairyland society!" wrote on user.

Other parts of northeastern China also experienced severe smog, including Tangshan, two hours east of Beijing, and Changchun, the capital of Jilin province which borders Heilongjiang.

Last week, Beijing city released a color-coded alert system for handling air pollution emergencies, to include the temporary halt of construction, factory production, outdoor barbeques and the setting off of fireworks.

Beijing suffered its own smog emergency last winter when the PM2.5 surpassed 900 on one particularly bad day in January.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128344
From Nature Climate Change:

Attributing mortality from extreme temperatures to climate change in Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract
Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate2022

A changing climate is increasing the frequency, intensity, duration and spatial extent of heat waves. These changes are associated with increased human mortality during heat extremes. At the other end of the temperature scale, it has been widely speculated that cold-related mortality could decrease in a warmer world. We aim to answer a key question; the extent to which mortality due to temperature extremes in Stockholm, Sweden during 1980–2009 can be attributed to climate change that has occurred since our reference period (1900–1929). Mortality from heat extremes in 1980–2009 was double what would have occurred without climate change. Although temperature shifted towards warmer temperatures in the winter season, cold extremes occurred more frequently, contributing to a small increase of mortality during the winter months. No evidence was found for adaptation over 1980–2009.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
415. Daisyworld Ah, good summary. (quote seems to not work for me, nor is the plus working)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I read this guy to keep up a bit with how knot heads think. He most offten rambles on about the fiction of money. He is a denier but does seem to agree that climate change is real, not man made and nothing to worry about. This is in contrast with the other kind of denier (the normal trolls on here) that claims there is no such thing. From following his ramblings now and then, he tends to be a religious nut, and not scientifically inclined.

Note what he claims/acknowledges as the "worst case" (bold below) and then is dismissive of what he says is worst case.

Do we now have to come up with a different name then Denier for him? I propose a new term would be helpful in further discussion. Nothing complimentary required, but denier no longer seems to fit his variation of world view.

Have at it..................Most of what I can think of would probably get me banned.

2.2 C of rise and 2 ft of sea level rise, not even worth considering as a problem..................(am shaking my head as I now go back to mostly protesting posting here)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON -01-091013.htmlLink


THE BEAR'S LAIR
More to fear than warming
By Martin Hutchinson

On September 30, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its new report on global warming, which was duly played up by the world's media.

Actually, if you read it carefully, it represented a considerable backing off from the previous report, released in 2007. It has now become clear that, not only has global warming receded as a significant threat in the next century, but there are also several other threats that are well within the bounds of possibility and would have far more serious consequences.
....................................

.........................
Thus you can round the estimates down rather than up as in the case of financial risk, and assume that 2.2 degrees by 2100, together with a rise of 0.5 meters - slightly under 2 feet - in the world's oceans is the worst we can expect. ..................................
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 435. Birthmark:

That Arctic sea ice is in very bad shape.



Yep, still 300,000 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
Quoting 433. martinitony:
What's it mean?

That Arctic sea ice is in very bad shape.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Some good news from Down Under on the Media front:

The Sydney Morning Herald


Climate change: a note from our Letters editors

Letters editors rarely make the news. This month the Los Angeles Times letters editor, Paul Thornton, did just that with a story on letters from climate-change deniers. He said he would not print letters that asserted "there is no sign humans have caused climate change" because "it was not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy". This attracted headlines declaring "Los Angeles Times riles climate-change sceptics by banning letters". Unsurprisingly, we've been asked how we treat letters from climate change deniers.
Herald editor-in-chief Darren Goodsir recently reiterated the paper's stance on global warming. "The Herald believes unequivocally in human-induced climate change," he told an audience at David Suzuki's City Talk. "It is an established fact. What we are much more interested in is not the sideshow over whether this phenomenon exists or not, but on how it should be tackled."
We do not ban writers whose views suggest they are climate change deniers or sceptics. We consider their letters and arguments. But we believe the argument over whether climate change is happening and whether it is man-made has been thrashed out extensively by leading scientists and on our pages and that the main debate now is about its effects, severity, and what society does about it.
Climate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts. This applies to all our contributors on any subject. On that basis, a letter that says, "there is no sign humans have caused climate change" would not make the grade for our page.


Read more: at The Sydney Morning Herald

Emphasis added
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
What's it mean?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 430. Neapolitan:
Yeah, but I know this guy who knows a doctor whose personal trainer's sister was part of a team of scientists that received a $50,000 grant to research some thing or other, so I guess money and influence is everywhere you look. Also, Al Gore. :-\

I read this article on the internet that said that Al Gore used tupperware to save his leftover dinner last week. Doesn't he know that plastic is made from oil? Why doesn't he grow organic food and eat exactly what he cooks? Why doesn't his house have a fusion reactor that produces free energy at no cost to utilities and no use of carbon? Doesn't he realize that people are not going to believe in science until he lives like a caveman?
Quoting 419. Neapolitan:
I just threw it in the wastebucket myself; I tend to do that when I see links to idiocy manufacturers like the SPPI. Sticking with science saves a lot of time and confusion; you should really try it sometime...

The really confusing thing is... I just looked at the NCDC data on the time series tool, and although yes, July 2012 average temperature is now ~76.9F, they list 1936 as ~76.7F, not 77.4F. I'm not sure where the 77.4F number came from, perhaps and older dataset from NCDC?

Also odd... they are trying to compare the climate reference network (short period of record) directly to the regular stations used by NCDC (much longer period of record), yet they also claim that they won't be comparable because of all the "urban heat island" effects (which have been discounted over and over). Somehow they are directly comparable, but then they aren't?

So much distraction over a number for just July 2012, one that they probably are incorrect on, all to ignore the annual number for 2012 which is much much higher than 1936. And all this distraction about the US, which is just 2% of the globe.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
Quoting 415. Daisyworld:

If you really wanted to know whether the website you posted contained any factual information, you would do the work yourself and cross-reference the information they provided with the information provided in the Weather Underground Climate Change section. Then, you can answer the question yourself instead of asking everyone here to do the work for you. Otherwise, I suspect you are posting it just to spread misinformation, and I will not participate in such activity.

Or someone who is confused about a claim could look for the authoritative data sources on the issue (for this one, it is apparently NOAA/NCDC).

1. Type "NCDC time series" into google.
2. One of the top results is the NCDC climate time series tool.
3. One can look at US temperatures or Global. One can also set the dates they wish to look at. Although 20 years is still near the fringes of what is relevant to climate, let alone climate change, doing one could pick that range and will find a warming trend.
4. Data is also available for download so that you can play with the data more in your favorite spreadsheet program... some of which are free.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
Quoting 429. Xandra:
From DeSmogBlog:

Study: Koch Brothers Could Make $100 Billion if Keystone XL Pipeline Approved

A new study released today concludes that Koch Industries and its subsidiaries stand to make as much as $100 billion in profits if the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is granted a presidential permit from U.S. President Barack Obama.

The report, titled Billionaires' Carbon Bomb, produced by the think tank International Forum on Globalization (IFG), finds that David and Charles Koch and their privately owned company, Koch Industries, own more than 2 million acres of land in Northern Alberta, the source of the tar sands bitumen that would be pumped to the United States via the Keystone XL pipeline.


(Click to expand or see original source)

IFG also finds that more than 1,000 reports and statements in support of the Keystone XL pipeline project have been made by policy groups and think tanks that receive funding from the Koch brothers and their philanthropic foundations.
"The Kochs have repeatedly claimed that they have no interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline, this report shows that is false," said Nathalie Lowenthal-Savy, a researcher with IFG.

"We noticed Koch Funded Tea Party members and think tanks pushing for the pipeline. We dug deeper and found $100 billion in potential profit, $50 million sent to organizations supporting the pipeline, and perhaps 2 million acres of land. That sounds like an interest to me."

Nathalie continued, %u201CWe all know they will use that money to fund and expand their influence network, subvert democracy, crush unions like in Wisconsin, and get more extremists elected to congress."

Download a PDF copy of the study here: Billionaires' Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline
Yeah, but I know this guy who knows a doctor whose personal trainer's sister was part of a team of scientists that received a $50,000 grant to research some thing or other, and that's really no different, so I guess money and influence is everywhere you look; I don't know who to believe any more. Also, Al Gore. :-\
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From DeSmogBlog:

Study: Koch Brothers Could Make $100 Billion if Keystone XL Pipeline Approved

A new study released today concludes that Koch Industries and its subsidiaries stand to make as much as $100 billion in profits if the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is granted a presidential permit from U.S. President Barack Obama.

The report, titled Billionaires' Carbon Bomb, produced by the think tank International Forum on Globalization (IFG), finds that David and Charles Koch and their privately owned company, Koch Industries, own more than 2 million acres of land in Northern Alberta, the source of the tar sands bitumen that would be pumped to the United States via the Keystone XL pipeline.


(Click to expand or see original source)

IFG also finds that more than 1,000 reports and statements in support of the Keystone XL pipeline project have been made by policy groups and think tanks that receive funding from the Koch brothers and their philanthropic foundations.
"The Kochs have repeatedly claimed that they have no interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline, this report shows that is false," said Nathalie Lowenthal-Savy, a researcher with IFG.

"We noticed Koch Funded Tea Party members and think tanks pushing for the pipeline. We dug deeper and found $100 billion in potential profit, $50 million sent to organizations supporting the pipeline, and perhaps 2 million acres of land. That sounds like an interest to me."

Nathalie continued, “We all know they will use that money to fund and expand their influence network, subvert democracy, crush unions like in Wisconsin, and get more extremists elected to congress."

Download a PDF copy of the study here: Billionaires' Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'

Author of 2006 review speaks out on danger to economies as planet absorbs less carbon and is 'on track' for 4C rise

Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more "blunt" about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: "Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then."

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are "on track for something like four ". Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, "I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise."

He said some countries, including China, had now started to grasp the seriousness of the risks, but governments should now act forcefully to shift their economies towards less energy-intensive, more environmentally sustainable technologies.

"This is potentially so dangerous that we have to act strongly. Do we want to play Russian roulette with two bullets or one? These risks for many people are existential."

Stern said he backed the UK's Climate Change Act, which commits the government to ambitious carbon reduction targets. But he called for increased investment in greening the economy, saying: "It's a very exciting growth story."

David Cameron made much of his environmental credentials before the 2010 election, travelling to the Arctic to highlight his commitment to tackling global warming. But the coalition's commitment to green policies has recently been questioned, amid scepticism among Tory backbenchers about the benefits of wind power, and the chancellor's enthusiasm for exploiting Britain's shale gas reserves.

Stern's comments came as Jim Yong Kim, the new president of the World Bank, also at Davos, gave a grave warning about the risk of conflicts over natural resources should the forecast of a four-degree global increase above the historical average prove accurate.

"There will be water and food fights everywhere," Kim said as he pledged to make tackling climate change a priority of his five-year term.

Kim said action was needed to create a carbon market, eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies and "green" the world's 100 megacities, which are responsible for 60 to 70% of global emissions.

He added that the 2012 droughts in the US, which pushed up the price of wheat and maize, had led to the world's poor eating less. For the first time, the bank president said, extreme weather had been attributed to man-made climate change. "People are starting to connect the dots. If they start to forget, I am there to remind them.

"We have to find climate-friendly ways of encouraging economic growth. The good news is we think they exist".

Kim said there would be no solution to climate change without private sector involvement and urged companies to seize the opportunity to make profits: "There is a lot of money to be made in building the technologies and bending the arc of climate change."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
Quoting 420. ncstorm:


[...]

Daisywood..I havent had time to look at your video..I have only been able to blog for a short time this weekend..if you can provide me the link again, I will watch it tonight objectively as I have some downtime..



The clip was about a two-minute video explaining the science behind how we know the CO2 increases are due to human activity and not natural causes:



However, if you have the time, I strongly recommend the full 53-minute episode 1 of Earth: The Operator's Manual, narrated by Dr. Richard Alley:



Dr. Alley is a geologist and professor at Pennsylvania State University, and has over 150 refereed publications, many of which published in the journals Nature, Science, and Scientific American. In addition to teaching and mentoring post-doctoral, graduate students, and undergraduates, he has served or is serving on a multitude of panels and advisory bodies to improve national and international research as well as serving on the editorial boards of the journals Quaternary Research and Geology.

He is also a registered Republican, for those keeping a political scorecard.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Quoting 410. tramp96:

Hmmmmmmm I wonder how they made the fiberglass boat or the sails ect.

You should wonder instead why you think that that is relevant.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 420. ncstorm:


so both you and Nea dont care for JB?..

shame on JB..

Daisywood..I havent had time to look at your video..I have only been able to blog for a short time this weekend..if you can provide me the link again, I will watch it tonight objectively as I have some downtime..




Bastardi is an ignoramus when it comes to climate. He can't even get the basics right. Giving Bastardi a climate forum is akin to giving Kim Kardashian a philosophy forum.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 412. overwash12:
They apparently got their data from NOAA. At least that's what they claim. Did you read the article or just throw it in the waste bucket because you already have your mind made up?

What data? The article just spouts random numbers.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 409. overwash12:
Is this claim also false,what is going on here?Link

Don't know...and to some extent don't care. US temperature is *not* global temperature.

Global temperature has certainly gone up in the last two decades. The intent of the article appears to be to confuse unwary readers. The Potty "Peer" seems to delight in that.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Published on May 2, 2013

(Visit: http://www.uctv.tv/) Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, a world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.

Series: "Perspectives on Ocean Science"

[5/2013] [Science] [Show ID: 24910]

I recommend the 29:15 mark.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128344
Quoting 414. JohnLonergan:
According to Dave Appell at Quark Soup, Joe Bastardi
has been given a forum on her blog by Judith Curry:

Like a bad penny, Joe Bastardi keeps turning up, begging for attention.

This time it's on Judith Curry's blog, where Bastardi is reduced to ridiculing others because they aren't...wait for it...weather forecasters!
...

Dave asks:
Seriously though, how dispiriting is it that someone like this is taken seriously by our media -- any media?



so both you and Nea dont care for JB?..

shame on JB..

Daisywood..I havent had time to look at your video..I have only been able to blog for a short time this weekend..if you can provide me the link again, I will watch it tonight objectively as I have some downtime..



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 412. overwash12:
They apparently got their data from NOAA. At least that's what they claim. Did you read the article or just throw it in the waste bucket because you already have your mind made up?
I just threw it in the wastebucket myself; I tend to do that when I see links to idiocy manufacturers like the SPPI. Sticking with science saves a lot of time and confusion; you should really try it sometime...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 409. overwash12:
Is this claim also false,what is going on here?Link
Oh, I see the problem; your internet browser seems to have been infected by some type of malware, for it seems to be incapable of visiting any actual science-based websites. If you need the number of a good computer technician, let me know...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
@ 401. Xulonn
Quoting Dr. Kirsten Peters:
I believe that once we come to grips with the fact that climate is bound to evolve, we will see it is past time to start new conversations not predicated on the framework of somehow holding climate static through the sacrifices of carbon taxes or caps. We can adopt what carbon policies we choose, but we also surely had better invest in tools for climate adaptation and mitigation. It’s time we begin to think about how we will try to cope with sharp changes in weather patterns, those that could be either in the direction of warmer or colder conditions. The simple truth is that if we think of climate change as our enemy, we will always be defeated. For change is coming, and it will reshape our world. Our goal cannot be to hold climate static, but to understand its menacing and manic moods – and adapt as nimbly as we can to changes in whatever directions and at whatever rates they arrive.

I'm hard-pressed to see this quote from Dr. Peters as either denialist, or out-of-line with at least some of the current thinking on climate change. It is, perhaps, better characterized as pragmatist or adaptationist than denialist.

According to the Providence Journal article, Dr. Peters' book, "The Whole Story of Climate: What Science Reveals About the Nature of Endless Change" is being published by Prometheus Books, a well-respected publisher of scientific and skeptical literature. They are associated with The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer, which is a highly-respected journal of skeptical thinking on a variety of subjects. Much of what these folks publish can be construed as minority positions on controversial issues, but these contrarian views are necessary, too, if science and society are to make any real progress on dealing with climate change.

If all you have is a hammer, then the whole world looks like nail. If we focus entirely on carbon to the exclusion of everything else, then even if we fix that, we could still be sandbagged by future untoward climate changes resulting from unexpected triggering events such as a huge volcanic eruption, an asteroid hit, or a sudden change in the Sun's output. Better to prepare for all eventualities, and figure out how to deal with an unpredictable and possibly unstable climate.

That's the take-away message I get from reading the above quote. So I'm not willing to write off Dr. Peters quite so quickly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century

NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record

That's why we know the "no global warming since 1998" line is false.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8605
412. overwash12:


They apparently got their data from NOAA. At least that's what they claim. Did you read the article or just throw it in the waste bucket because you already have your mind made up?


If it comes down to that, then rest assured, I've already made up my mind; at least about clicking on any links to websites that include the terms "no-global-warming-for-almost-two-decades" or the name "Lord-Monckton" in the URL. Words such as those have told me everything I need to know about the website you want everyone to look at.

As a rule, and after carefully reading replies and taking stock of the anti-climate-science commenters in this blog, I do not click on any links to anything they post. It adds the "ad clicks" of the sites they are promoting, thus perpetuating the lie that human-induced global warming is hoax. If the commenters choose to be lazy and do nothing but link to climate denialist websites, then I have no time nor desire to engage them in conversation about climate change, save that to debunk any lies they choose to post directly themselves. Such conversation would be pointless and self-defeating, for it only perpetuates lies, confuses the science, and hampers communication.

If you really wanted to know whether the website you posted contained any factual information, you would do the work yourself and cross-reference the information they provided with the information provided in the Weather Underground Climate Change section. Then, you can answer the question yourself instead of asking everyone here to do the work for you. Otherwise, I suspect you are posting it just to spread misinformation, and I will not participate in such activity.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
According to Dave Appell at Quark Soup, Joe Bastardi
has been given a forum on her blog by Judith Curry:

Like a bad penny, Joe Bastardi keeps turning up, begging for attention.

This time it's on Judith Curry's blog, where Bastardi is reduced to ridiculing others because they aren't...wait for it...weather forecasters!
...

Dave asks:
Seriously though, how dispiriting is it that someone like this is taken seriously by our media -- any media?

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299
409 - Oh No! Not Lord Monckton again !

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 411. Daisyworld:


What's going on here is that you're linking to opinion blogs that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts behind human-induced climate change.

Why do you keep posting them here? Are you really seeking everybody's opinion? Or are you posting them because you want to saturate the comments with links to websites run by the Manufactured Doubt industry and their sycophants?
They apparently got their data from NOAA. At least that's what they claim. Did you read the article or just throw it in the waste bucket because you already have your mind made up?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
409. overwash12:

Is this claim also false,what is going on here?Link


What's going on here is that you're linking to opinion blogs that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts behind human-induced climate change.

Why do you keep posting them here? Are you really seeking everybody's opinion? Or are you posting them because you want to saturate the comments with links to websites run by the Manufactured Doubt industry and their sycophants?
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Quoting 408. RevElvis:
The ocean is broken

IT was the silence that made this voyage different from all of those before it.
See your ad here

Not the absence of sound, exactly.

The wind still whipped the sails and whistled in the rigging. The waves still sloshed against the fibreglass hull.

And there were plenty of other noises: muffled thuds and bumps and scrapes as the boat knocked against pieces of debris.

What was missing was the cries of the seabirds which, on all previous similar voyages, had surrounded the boat.

The birds were missing because the fish were missing.

Exactly 10 years before, when Newcastle yachtsman Ivan Macfadyen had sailed exactly the same course from Melbourne to Osaka, all he'd had to do to catch a fish from the ocean between Brisbane and Japan was throw out a baited line.

"There was not one of the 28 days on that portion of the trip when we didn't catch a good-sized fish to cook up and eat with some rice," Macfadyen recalled.

But this time, on that whole long leg of sea journey, the total catch was two.

No fish. No birds. Hardly a sign of life at all.

"In years gone by I'd gotten used to all the birds and their noises," he said.

"They'd be following the boat, sometimes resting on the mast before taking off again. You'd see flocks of them wheeling over the surface of the sea in the distance, feeding on pilchards."

But in March and April this year, only silence and desolation surrounded his boat, Funnel Web, as it sped across the surface of a haunted ocean.

theherald.com.au

Hmmmmmmm I wonder how they made the fiberglass boat or the sails ect.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is this claim also false,what is going on here?Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The ocean is broken

IT was the silence that made this voyage different from all of those before it.
See your ad here

Not the absence of sound, exactly.

The wind still whipped the sails and whistled in the rigging. The waves still sloshed against the fibreglass hull.

And there were plenty of other noises: muffled thuds and bumps and scrapes as the boat knocked against pieces of debris.

What was missing was the cries of the seabirds which, on all previous similar voyages, had surrounded the boat.

The birds were missing because the fish were missing.

Exactly 10 years before, when Newcastle yachtsman Ivan Macfadyen had sailed exactly the same course from Melbourne to Osaka, all he'd had to do to catch a fish from the ocean between Brisbane and Japan was throw out a baited line.

"There was not one of the 28 days on that portion of the trip when we didn't catch a good-sized fish to cook up and eat with some rice," Macfadyen recalled.

But this time, on that whole long leg of sea journey, the total catch was two.

No fish. No birds. Hardly a sign of life at all.

"In years gone by I'd gotten used to all the birds and their noises," he said.

"They'd be following the boat, sometimes resting on the mast before taking off again. You'd see flocks of them wheeling over the surface of the sea in the distance, feeding on pilchards."

But in March and April this year, only silence and desolation surrounded his boat, Funnel Web, as it sped across the surface of a haunted ocean.

theherald.com.au
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Horatio Algeranon says:

October 18, 2013 at 6:13 am


“Rambler Waves of Brain”
– by Horatio Algeranon


Denial is a stadium wave
Passing through a crowd
An undulating rant and rave
Where reason ain’t allowed

Back and forth and in and out
Like wheat-fields in the breeze
Rambler waves without a doubt
Brain raves if you please

Warning: “stadium waves” may be hazardous to your health. Take precautions: Always wear a braincoat and avoid the urge to stand/sit (or kneel, like they do in church) just because everyone around you is doing it.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3299

Viewing: 457 - 407

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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
57 °F
Mostly Cloudy