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: 307 - 257

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

Never, bring a hacksaw to a logging match.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129903
the statistics are from .gov sources
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 301. MisterPerfect:

[...] By: Marc Morano - Climate Depot [...]

Climate Denial Playbook: Marc Morano's History of Bullying Scientists



(Click for larger image)
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
I gotta admit,the church scene is a riot! Funny stuff!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
Mister aint perfect. ClimateDepot is a well known hack site that only denier sheep takes seriously.

You have to be a complete crackpot to believe that Newton and Einstein are wrong about gravity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
@301

Do you only read propaganda or do you ever delve into science? And what's up with your Al Gore obsession?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Contrary to claims by critics of wind power, Spanish researchers say, the turbines do reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly even though the wind does not blow constantly.
LONDON, 18 October – One of the most often repeated arguments of the anti-wind lobby is that the turbines produce electricity only intermittently, when there is enough wind to turn them.

This, the critics argue, means that so much gas has to be burnt to provide a reliable supply of electricity that there is no overall benefit to the environment.

But extensive research in Spain means this claim can now definitively be declared a myth. Wind, the researchers found, is a very efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

A study of 87 of the country’s coal and gas plants and how they were run alongside Spain’s very large wind industry found that adjustments made to the fossil fuel plants to compensate for variable wind strengths made little difference to their C02 emissions.

The anti-wind campaigners claim that fossil fuel plants have to be kept running at a slow speed, all the time producing CO2, just in case the wind fails. At slow speeds these plants are less efficient and so produce so much CO2 – the opponents of wind say – that they wipe out any gains from having wind power.

But a report published in the journal Energy by researchers at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid says this is simply not true. There are some small losses, the researchers say, but even if wind produced as much as 50% of Spain’s electricity the CO2 savings would still be 80% of the emissions that would have been produced by the displaced thermal power stations.

At lower penetrations, particularly when the number of wind turbines was small, each megawatt hour produced by wind replaced 100% of the CO2 that would have been produced by each displaced thermal megawatt.

Read More ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Storm track shifts under climate change: what can be learned from large-scale dry dynamics

Abstract
Earth’s storm tracks are instrumental for transporting heat, momentum, and moisture and thus strongly influence the surface climate. Climate models, supported by a growing body of observational data, have demonstrated that storm tracks shift poleward as the climate warms. But the dynamical mechanisms responsible for this shift remain unclear.

To isolate what portion of the storm track shift may be accounted for by large-scale dry dynamics alone, disregarding the latent heat released in phase changes of water, this study investigates the storm track shift under various kinds of climate change in an idealized dry general circulation model (GCM) with an adjustable but constant convective stability. It is found that increasing the mean surface temperature or the convective stability leads to poleward shifts of storm tracks, even if the convective stability is increased only in a narrow band around the equator. Under warming and convective stability changes roughly corresponding to a doubling of CO2 concentrations from a present-day Earth-like climate, storm tracks shift about 0.8° poleward, somewhat less than but in qualitative agreement with studies using moist GCMs. Five eighths of the poleward shift is shown to be caused by tropical convective stability variations.

This demonstrates that tropical processes alone (the increased dry static stability of a warmer moist adiabat) can account for part of the poleward shift of storm tracks under global warming. This poleward shift generally occurs in tandem with a poleward expansion of the Hadley circulation; however, the Hadley circulation expansion does not always parallel the storm track shift.

* Corresponding author address: Cheikh Mbengue, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich–Geological Institute, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: cmbengue@caltech.edu
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Quoting 289. tramp96:

Sometimes you can really be a not-so-friendly person. So eager to lash out at everyone else.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#213 - Daisyworld, I've been meaning to thank you for that video. It's a good explanation. I'll bet Alley is a very interesting teacher.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
**hint: mind your own business**

Since I am a well known butt-in-ski, I was just wondering- why would you have a conversation on a public forum if you didn't want everyone to read it? Why not use wumail?

Just to make this on topic ;))) I was just reading the following: Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 282. DonnieBwkGA:
Tramp96 your article says this

"Not a single one of those winters with above normal snowfall in October featured above normal temperatures and below normal snowfall in the eastern half of the country,

Not one. ZERO."

But October 1989 had record snows in the Ohio valley. November and December were very cold and snowy but January and February 1990 were very mild and the winter turned out slightly warmer than normal in the eastern USA. The article is wrong.

I think the methodology he is speaking of refers to snowcover in a particular part of Siberia.

The thing that is lacking is the sample size of this correlation. A physical mechanism for the causation part would be nice, also.
Quoting 287. DonnieBwkGA:
But the article talks about the eastern USA and that's where the examples I give are coming from.

It's about a teleconnection, which actually are known to occur. This one isnt well-established yet, however. So early season fall snowcover in Siberia correlates through a teleconnection to a cold AO, which favors higher snowfall and cooler temperatures in the eastern US.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 281. tramp96:

So it will be a warmer cold.
Yes,It would. Does that make sense? It would be colder if we did not have AWG!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
Quoting 289. tramp96:
hint: mind your own business

P-shaw! That doesn't even sound like me. lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
I'm too hungry to continue this discussion. Gotta eat! Want to let tramp96 know so he doesn't think I am rude not answering him.

Everyone is welcome to visit my blog and give their opinion about the news story and video there.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate Context on Continuing Australia Fires



True-color and false-color satellite views of a massive blaze in Australia’s Blue Mountains just west of Sydney alternate in this animation. (Images: NASA)
More than two thousand firefighters continue to battle blazes across New South Wales in Australia, with more than 20 fires still uncontained despite easing weather conditions, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports.

The animation above shows true- and false-color satellite images of one of those fires, in the Blue Mountains just west of Sydney on the coast. The false color frame, based on data from NASA’s Terra satellite, emphasizes the scar from the fire, which has so far torched a little more than 100 square miles — an area slightly larger than the city of Sacramento, California.

The fires have erupted following some of the hottest climate conditions on record in Australia.



The darker orange color in the map above shows the portion of Australia that experienced record high mean temperatures for the 12 month period between Oct. 1, 2012 and Sept. 30, 2013. That’s 39 percent of the country.

In fact, the number of climatic records that have been broken over the past 12 months is truly astonishing. Here’s a summary from a report by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology:

In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013


Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:

Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)


Australia’s new Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who took office in September, has dismissed evidence of climate change as “absolute crap.” He recently abolished the nation’s Climate Change Commission. But it has now been resurrected as an independent, privately funded organization called the Climate Council, which is dedicated to providing independent information to the Australian public.

On its new web site, the Council has weighed in on the links between climate change and bushfires in Australia. Here’s an excerpt:

Climate change can affect bushfire conditions by increasing the probability of extreme fire weather days. Many parts of Australia, including southern New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and parts of South Australia have seen an increase in extreme fire weather over the last 30 years. The projections for the future indicate a significant increase in dangerous fire weather for southeast Australia.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Quoting 286. tramp96:

IMHO he is really trying to correlate the snowfall in Eurasia and our winter

"There has been a ton of research over the past 10 years which shows that the buildup of early season snow cover in October -and to a lesser degree in November-- over the northern hemisphere but specifically over Siberia and Central Asia... plays a very strong connection to the development of a colder than normal winter over the central and eastern half of North America/ conus"

Maybe. But I'd cut out the middle man and attribute it to the negative NAO. That does the job just as well.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
But the article talks about the eastern USA and that's where the examples I give are coming from.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 277. tramp96:

HINT: Never bring weather to a climate discussion.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 276. yoboi:



Dr Spencer debunked that.....

No, he didn't. Spencer has never debunked a single aspect of AGW theory. In fact, his very own temperature data support AGW.

What he claims in blogs is nonsense based on his religious and economic beliefs rather than science.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Here's example #2.

New York had the 'snowtober' in October 2011. Then it had one of the warmest and least snowy winters on record.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tramp96 your article says this

"Not a single one of those winters with above normal snowfall in October featured above normal temperatures and below normal snowfall in the eastern half of the country,

Not one. ZERO."

But October 1989 had record snows in the Ohio valley. November and December were very cold and snowy but January and February 1990 were very mild and the winter turned out slightly warmer than normal in the eastern USA. The article is wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It still does not mean anything that we have a colder than normal winter this year. The trend is for the Earth to continue it's record warmth with all the co2,it has to.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
I can give a counterexample right away. Oct 1989 saw record snows across the Ohio Valley. Then Thanksgiving brought record snows from VA to New England. Then there was the white Christmas here in south Georgia. After that Jan and Feb 1990 were near record warm in the east and the winter as a whole had temperatures averaging slightly above normal in the eastern USA.

Link.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
276. yoboi
Quoting 213. Daisyworld:


The fingerprint of humans on the rising CO2 is very clear, and it's 50-100 times that of natural volcanic origin. The evidence is:

(1) Measurements of the CO2 output from both volcanoes and fossil fuel burning show that fossil fuel burning far exceeds that of present-day volcanoes. (Link)

(2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to a decrease in atmospheric O2, which shows that the CO2 is being created from combustion. (Link)

(3) The carbon isotope signature of the CO2 shows an increase in 12C, which comes from living organisms. There's NO relevant increase in 13C, which comes from melting rocks (volcanoes), and NO increase in 14C, which comes from recently dead living organisms. Therefore, the carbon in CO2 is coming from once living organisms that have been dead for a very long time… aka fossil fuels. (Link)

I've posted it before, and I'll post it again. Dr. Richard Alley says it best:




Dr Spencer debunked that.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
275. yoboi
Quoting 264. ScottLincoln:
I seem to recall at some point in the last few days someone dropping a quick link and note into the thread claiming that the "hockey-stick" keeps getting less and less notice by the IPCC. The suggestion was that it was becoming less and less correct, and the IPCC was adding back in the Medieval Warm Period. Didn't have a chance to address it at the time.



Looks like the same conclusion in the AR5 Technical Summary as we had from the infamous reconstruction of Mann.



false not a true graph........
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
What Is Climate Change and What To Do About It? from Dr. John Baez at Azimuth

Soon I’m going to a workshop on Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Climate Change at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, or BSIA, in Waterloo, Canada. It’s organized by Simon Dalby, who has a chair in the political economy of climate change at this school.

The plan is to gather people from many different disciplines to provide views on two questions: what is climate change, and what to do about it?

We’re giving really short talks, leaving time for discussion. But before I get there I need to write a 2000-word paper on my view of climate change—’as a mathematician’, supposedly. That’s where I want your help. I think I know roughly what I want to say, and I’ll post some drafts here as soon as I write them. But I’d like get your ideas, too. ...


Read more ...



Here are the drafts of two talks Dr. Baez will be giving:

WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?

WHAT TO DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?


The discussion thread, where Dr. Baez and the commenters discuss and critique the drafts, is worth a read.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Or if you have a short attention span, You can watch these in a minute or two...

"Coastal flooding getting worse with sea-level rise".

Link

Link



My shop in Sugarloaf Key had water 3" from coming in my door this morning!



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 262. Patrap:
When was the last time the Atmosphere had 400ppm of CO2?


Back when Northern Canada was as warm as Panama. Yeah, right about then...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Well I learned something basic (no pun intended) from post 266. I didn't know ocean PH was over 8.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 261. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


You and Anthony Watts need to discover the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. The AGWT is a scientific theory. Thus the AGWT and not the AGWH. ... Oh, wait! That was just an attempt by you to distort and to confuse. ... Sorry. Carry on!



And I was going to say that the "hypothesis is dead" It's morphed to a much more solid and well supported by evidence THEORY and on its way to be verified by events as
validated FACT.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ya'll let me know if you want to get to 8.14 oceanic PH again.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Ya'll let me know if you want to get to 300oppm Co2 in the atmosphere again...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
EPA Sued to Stop PacNW Ocean Acidification

The Center for Biological Diversity is suing the EPA -- again -- for failing to halt ocean acidification in the Pacific Northwest.

CBD is a private, membership environmental organization (625,000 members) based in Tucson. They sued the EPA for the same thing back in 2009, and the EPA agreed with them and said it could address ocean acidification under the Clean Water Act.

But the EPA hasn't done much since, so CBD is going in again.



Read more at Quark Soup >>>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675

Two teams of scientists at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii have been measuring carbon dioxide concentration there for decades, and have watched the level inch toward a new milestone.

Photograph by Jonathan Kingston, National Geographic

Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm
Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.



Robert Kunzig

National Geographic News
Published May 9, 2013

An instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii has recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.

The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.


The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. This time, 400 ppm is a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future.

Two independent teams of scientists measure CO2 on Mauna Loa: one from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the other from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The NOAA team posted word on its web site this morning before dawn Hawaii time: The daily average for May 9 was 400.03 ppm. The Scripps team later confirmed the milestone had been crossed.

The Scripps team is led by Ralph Keeling, son of the late Charles David Keeling, who started the Mauna Loa measurements in 1958. Since then the "Keeling curve," showing the steady climb in CO2 levels caused primarily by burning fossil fuels, has become an icon of climate change.

When the elder Keeling started at Mauna Loa, the CO2 level was at 315 ppm. When he died in June 2005, it was at 382. Why did he keep at it for 47 years, fighting off periodic efforts to cut his funding? His father, he once wrote, had passed onto him a "faith that the world could be made better by devotion to just causes." Now his son and the NOAA team have taken over a measurement that captures, more than any other single number, the extent to which we are changing the world—for better or worse.

Setting the Record Straight

Since late April that number had been hovering above 399 ppm. The Scripps lab opened the vigil to the public by sending out daily tweets (under the handle @Keeling_curve) almost as soon as the data could be downloaded from Mauna Loa, at 5 a.m. Hawaii time. NOAA took to updating its website daily. The two labs' measurements typically agree within .2 ppm. Both measure the amount of CO2 in an air sample by measuring how much infrared radiation it absorbs—the same process by which CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and warms the whole planet.


...much more.


800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations


Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. The 2008 observed value is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and projections are based upon future emission scenarios. More information on the data can be found in the Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. report.

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices.

In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129903
I seem to recall at some point in the last few days someone dropping a quick link and note into the thread claiming that the "hockey-stick" keeps getting less and less notice by the IPCC. The suggestion was that it was becoming less and less correct, and the IPCC was adding back in the Medieval Warm Period. Didn't have a chance to address it at the time.



Looks like the same conclusion in the AR5 Technical Summary as we had from the infamous reconstruction of Mann.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
263. yoboi
Quoting 262. Patrap:
When was the last time the Atmosphere had 400ppm of CO2?





IDK.....This is what I get when I look....


Updates are not available due to U.S. Federal Government Shutdown


Atmospheric CO2
Mauna Loa Observatory (Scripps / NOAA / ESRL)
Monthly Mean CO2 Concentrations (ppm)
Since March 1958


Link

Guess they did not get the message that it's time to open.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
When was the last time the Atmosphere had 400ppm of CO2?


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129903
Quoting 241. Cochise111:
More evidence that the AGW hypothesis is dead:

Link


You and Anthony Watts need to discover the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. The AGWT is a scientific theory. Thus the AGWT and not the AGWH. ... Oh, wait! That was just an attempt by you to distort and to confuse. ... Sorry. Carry on!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 208. ncstorm:
This is my second time posting in Rood's blog so please be kind..

Questions??

So If I refute a claim in here with a graph and you then in turn refute my claim with another graph, who would be right?

Are there any opposing website to GW consider legit to your thinking because I dont want to even post something that will immediately get called a lie even though it will have truth to it?

Statement:
I also want to state that I do believe in climate change but that its earth natural cycles and we have seen these events before..



There will almost always be some truth involved with a presentation given. This has always been the secret to the success that the denial industry has had when it comes to convincing people that all else that is given with the presentation must also be true.

An example may be, "It's the sun!". Well, yes. Our sun is, by far, the heat engine for our solar system and therefore it is easy to believe that our sun has warmed the planet to the degree it has warmed over the past 150 years. This logic does not hold up when you examine the evidence, even though it seems logical that this would be the case. Should our sun be the driver for Earth's current global warming trends then we would see evidence of this throughout our entire solar system. No such evidence exists for this. While it is true that other planets in our solar system have warmed along with Earth's warming it is due to the seasonal and orbital changes of those planets in the solar system. Earth still has seasonal changes, but the long term trend is that even our seasons are becoming warming across the planet.

When we are shown graphics/charts we must first decide as to what these graphics/charts actually represent. What was the methodology used? What data sets were used? Were the methodology and data sets peer reviewed? What time frame is being represented? Is what is being represented regional only or can it be supported by other examples across the planet and just how much support is given across the planet? - Examples can be shown that some glaciers are growing in mass, but is this truly representative of what is happening across the planet?

Basics:
1. Weather is not climate
2. Weather does not drive the climate.
3. A changing climate will alter weather patterns.
4. Regional is not global.
5. Global includes air, land and water.
6. Climate trends are based on 20-30 contiguous years of data. Anything less than this may be just noise within the long term trend.
7. Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, Earth would be subject to a sudden rise and fall in temperatures as the sun rises and sets. Temperature of the Moon
8. Continuing to add to the percentage of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere adds to the potential of the planet to retain more of the sun's heat energy - The Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics and Chemistry. Trying to circumvent these Laws is like trying to get two objects to occupy the same space at the same time.
9. The fossil fuel industries have trillions of dollars to lose in as yet unearthed fossil fuels deposits. It is well worth their spending of billions of dollars to deter any efforts that thwart the removal and marketing of these yet unearthed fossil fuels.
10. There is no ultimate winner to a continuing warming climate. In the end, nearly every species loses. Where is the money to be made by this?
11. (Very important!) The AGWT does not violate any of The Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics or Chemistry. As a matter of fact, should our continuously adding greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and it does not warm the planet beyond its natural variations, then this would violate The Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics and Chemistry.
12. (Equally important) There are no competing theories to the AGWT that better explains the observations being made than does the AGWT itself. NONE! They do not even come close!

Present whatever you wish to present, ncstorm. You need to be prepared to support anything you provide with peer reviewed evidence and accept the reality when such supporting evidence is not evidence at all. At best, it would be an opinion.

One more item to add to the Basics:
13. I cannot think of a single person that would not show some rejoice should the AGWT be shown to be severely flawed. That we could continue to add tons/day of greenhouse gases into atmosphere and for it to not have any impact on our global climate.

Should you, or anyone, want to better understand the implications of our adding tons/day of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere would be, then this is an excellent blog to so. BaltimoreBrian has shown to be tireless in his efforts to provide us with links of interests that help provide us further knowledge on the subject of agw. There is a long list of people here, my praise to each of you, that bring their own knowledge and skill sets to this blog that help us all to understand better what we may now struggle to understand. Dr. Rood has been very kind to us by providing this blog to us to discuss climate change and to challenge the AGWT itself, and our own understanding of it. We should all commend him for his efforts in doing so and use this space provided to us wisely.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Perhaps we don't need as many if we combine them with OTEC Ammonia/ R-134a Rankine cycle low pressure turbines... We can get more energy from the Gulstream this way which should lower the amount of units needed to do the job of removing 1 yottajoule of heat energy thus allowing the excess heat to escape to space......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting 257. cyclonebuster:


Depends on the area of the crossection as to how many we need....They need to span the width of the Gulfstream once added up.....

Well, then. I'm going to have to rely on donations!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 256. Birthmark:

I'm not sure. The diagram is only two-dimensional. Little help, cyclonebuster? ;)


Depends on the area of the crossection as to how many we need....They need to span the width of the Gulfstream once added up.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470

Viewing: 307 - 257

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

Scattered Clouds
43 °F
Scattered Clouds

RickyRood's Recent Photos

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