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: 1357 - 1307

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

Quoting 1354. tramp96:

Lol

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

D'oh!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Earth needs health care...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
It's funny that some will posts literally dozens of comments here and in Dr. Masters' forum insinuating that the two men are liars, that people who side with them are socialist idiots, that this website is some kind of commie plot, that a whole branch of science is brainwashing a lot of "sheeple". But when someone compares drive-by contrarian comments to things thrown by agitated chimps, suddenly there's a spate of righteously indignant pearl clutching, and calls for permabans. "Jeeves, my fainting couch! Quickly! Someone used a simian-based analogy, and now I do believe I'm feeling light-headed!"

Okay, I reckon it's not so funny... :-)

Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
Quoting 1335. tramp96:

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. I bet you won't let me have
the last word either.

You're right! LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1349. Neapolitan:
See comment #1342. Thanks!


Spin it whatever way you want.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OMG! nea called someone a 'troll'! referring to someone you disagree with as an ugly nasty creature that lives under a bridge? that's reprehensible! BAN HIM FOREVER!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1346. luvtogolf:


Flagged, reported and should be permanently banned. Suggesting that someone does not agree with you is a monkey is a reprehensible offense.
See comment #1342. Thanks!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
Quoting 1346. luvtogolf:


Flagged, reported and should be permanently banned. Suggesting that someone does not agree with you is a monkey is a reprehensible offense.


LOL. i know you guys have had a fatwa down against nea for a long time, but this is hilarious. 'BAN HIM! FOREVER!!!'

if that's what gets you permabanned none of us would be here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1344. tramp96:

The perfect example of why people like messing with
radical left wingers.
You mean to say, "The perfect example of why I enjoy trolling."

Got it.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
Quoting 1339. tramp96:

Link

http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/activitie s/atmos1/WhyDoesWarmAirHoldMoreWater.pdf
Thanks. Not sure whether you know, but your link corroborates perfectly with what Scott wrote. That is, it's not exactly true that "warmer air holds more water vapor", though that is a perfectly serviceable and easily understood metaphor. More correctly, though, warmer temperatures in either the water or the environment or both cause more water to evaporate and drift about.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
Someone should do a trend analysis on trolling posts. My perception is that they are increasing.... especially in the last week or so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1323. tramp96:

And I got banned for my post. Pathetic hypocrites.
The only way someone could possibly take offense to my monkey analogy statement in #1320 is if they're admitting that they are indeed a denialist--and if they're that, they've got problems much more profound than being likened to a different species of hominid.

(And even then, I didn't say "denialists are monkeys"; I said, "denialists remind me of monkeys". The difference is as obvious as, well, as obvious as global warming.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
Quoting 1315. ScottLincoln:

More basic physics wrong. You'll hear it spoken (unfortunately rather widely) that "warmer air holds more moisture." It's perhaps easier to explain it that way, but it's not exactly true. Most meteorologists and physicists know that, even if they use the simple explanation for instructing early students and laypersons. The fact that this article took that saying as factual and used it in some attempt at logical reasoning... well that basically tells you all that you need to know about this "independent voices" piece.

Oh, and for those that are confused or need refreshing, it isn't exactly correct to say that "warmer air holds more moisture." Water vapor has an equilibrium with liquid water droplets that is tied to temperature (see equilibrium vapor pressure). This is determined by the temperature that the vapor and water have, which just happens to be well-approximated by the air temperature. The specific humidity, or mass of water vapor in the air, would be the same at a given temperature even if there was no "air."



97dogs:3 fleas
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting 1335. tramp96:

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. I bet you won't let me have
the last word either.


That's fine and all, but everyone here is just pointing out areas in your education that may need improvement is all. Basics in Geography, Climate, Weather, & especially Statistics would go miles for your ability to understand the subject.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Subterranean War on Science

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


..."How should the scientific community respond to the events just reviewed? As in most cases of intimidation and bullying, we believe that daylight is the best disinfectant. This article is a first step in this effort towards transparency. Knowledge of the common techniques by which scientists are attacked, irrespective of their discipline and research area, is essential so that institutions can support their academics against attempts to thwart their academic freedom. This information is also essential to enable lawmakers to improve the balance between academic freedom and confidentiality of peer review on the one hand, and the public’s right to access information on the other. Finally, this knowledge is particularly important for journal editors and professional organizations to muster the required resilience against illegitimate insertions into the scientific process."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3188
Warming temperatures contribute to sea level rise by: expanding ocean water; melting mountain glaciers and ice caps; and causing portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to melt or flow into the ocean. [7]


Meltwater flowing from the Greenland Ice Sheets.

Since 1870, global sea level has risen by about 8 inches. [5] Estimates of future sea level rise vary for different regions, but global sea level for the next century is expected to rise at a greater rate than during the past 50 years. [8]

The contribution of thermal expansion, ice caps, and small glaciers to sea level rise is relatively well-studied, but the impacts of climate change on ice sheets are less understood and represent an active area of research. Thus it is more difficult to predict how much changes in ice sheets will contribute to sea level rise. [7]

Line graph that shows sea level change from 1950 to 2100. Data from 1950 to 2000 shows moderate sea level rise from approximately negative four inches to approximately two inches. For the 21st century, sea level change is projected by four scenarios: AR4, B1, A2, and A1F1. Under the AR4 scenario, sea level change would increase by approximately sixteen inches by the end of the century. Under the B1 scenario the projected rise is approximately 40 inches; under the A2 scenario, approximately 48 inches; and under A1F1, approximately 56 inches by 2100. Sea level change is projected to increase under all the scenarios. View enlarged image
Projection of sea level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on three different emissions scenarios. Also shown: observations of annual global sea level rise over the past half century (red line), relative to 1990.
Source: NRC 2010
Ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could contribute an additional 1 foot of sea level rise, depending on how the ice sheets respond. [7]

Regional and local factors will influence future relative sea level rise for specific coastlines around the world. For example, relative sea level rise depends on land elevation changes that occur as a result of subsidence (sinking) or uplift (rising). Assuming that these historical geological forces continue, a 2-foot rise in global sea level by 2100 would result in the following relative sea level rise: [1]

2.3 feet at New York City
2.9 feet at Hampton Roads, Virginia
3.5 feet at Galveston, Texas
1 foot at Neah Bay in Washington state

Relative sea level rise also depends on local changes in currents, winds, salinity, and water temperatures, as well as proximity to thinning ice sheets.


Line graph that shows sea level change from 1950 to 2100. Data from 1950 to 2000 shows moderate sea level rise from approximately negative four inches to approximately two inches. For the 21st century, sea level change is projected by four scenarios: AR4, B1, A2, and A1F1. Under the AR4 scenario, sea level change would increase by approximately sixteen inches by the end of the century. Under the B1 scenario the projected rise is approximately 40 inches; under the A2 scenario, approximately 48 inches; and under A1F1, approximately 56 inches by 2100. Sea level change is projected to increase under all the scenarios.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"For Immediate Release
November 01, 2013
Executive Order -- Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PREPARING THE UNITED STATES FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

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

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

It's quite lengthy and I haven't read it all. Just posting it for now.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1326. tramp96:

Apparently you do

Nope. I've commented, but never once complained. I'm pretty easy to get along with and have a hide like a monitor lizard.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1255. Daisyworld:



I'm sorry if you were offended, but I'm not the one being rude. You're the one who is perpetuating the false notion that there's a scientific debate about whether or not global warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. That debate is long over, and it's been proven that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 over the past 150 years, doubling the amount since the end of the last ice age.

I'm also sorry if you took umbrage because I'm not totally convinced that you took PHYS 142 (like you said it is just my opinion), but I said that because I know the course developer for that class, and I'm aware of what material is taught in the course. The course explains many times the difference between fossil fuels and biomass-based fuels, and that would have answered your original question (something about donkey carts being part of the transportation system?). As it stands, you apparently do not understand that concept, so either you did not absorb the information during that portion of the course, or you simply did not take the course. I chose the latter opinion because I did not think it proper nor polite to call into question your study habits.

Keep in mind that forming an opinion-based conclusion about a scientific topic without having sufficient background to evaluate that topic is within everyones' personal liberties. However, perpetuating that opinion by passing it off as fact is intellectually dishonest. A simple "it is my opinion that..." as a precondition to stating your conclusion would have softened any criticism here. However, walking into a forum and acting as if you know more than the experts on the subject is rude, and fosters the perception of arrogance. Congruent to that, walking into a forum and stating that you are here to voice "both sides" of a factually one-sided topic will be perceived as trolling, and you will likely be treated as such.
First off, I don't know what your problem is, I never once claimed I know more than the experts, so that statement is false, and I seriously hope everyone who sees that comment sees that including Dr. Rood himself. You should be banned from here for calling people troll and I did not take environmental science at Embry-Riddle I took it back home at a local community college, so quit trying to assume you know me because you don't and that is the cold hard truth. And no you do not know the course developer of that environmental science class. I'm so glad you do not know me personally and I know for sure you would not being saying the things you said to my face.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1325. tramp96:

I don't squeal

If you perceive a problem and don't want to fix it then the problem will continue in all likelihood. You also can't complain further about the problem since it is at least partially your own doing.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
hmmm ... 1320 & 1323 - does this mean tramp and Cochise are the same person? Where are the sock puppet experts when we need them?!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2336
Quoting 1323. tramp96:

And I got banned for my post. Pathetic hypocrites.

You can go here to complain.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1318. Cochise111:
Extreme heat events in the US have decreased since the 1930s. Hmmm, doesn't bode well for the warmists:

Link

From your link: "The results indicated the trends for different EHE characteristics were coherent (e.g. temporally correlated, similar spatial pattern of trends). Maps indicated negative trends in the interior of the CONUS and positive trends in coastal and southern areas. Continental scale increases between 1970 and 2010 were mostly offset by the decreases between 1930 and 1970. Several daily maximum (minimum) EHEs near the 1930’s (2000’s) led to 1930-2010 trends of daily maximum (minimum) EHEs decreasing (increasing). Lastly, the results suggest linear trends depend on which daily temperature extreme is required to exceed the threshold."

As usual, it doesn't say what you think it says. Additionally, the study is confined to CONUS. (Hint: The "G" in "AGW" doesn't stand for "CONUS".)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Extreme heat events in the US have decreased since the 1930s. Hmmm, doesn't bode well for the warmists:

Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 328
Quoting 1316. tramp96:

One question for you. What is the difference between right
wing and radical right wing. I'm guessing you would answer
" nothing".
Not the right forum for that, but in a nutshell: "right wing" is run-of-the-mill conservativism, while the "radical right wing" is groups like the thankfully-on-the-fade tea party. That is, a faction so illogically anti-government, anti-science, anti-minority, anti-tax, anti-education, and anti-intellectual that turning the country over to their control would be tantamount to national suicide...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
Quoting 1307. tramp96:
Flea wags the dog
Link

More basic physics wrong. You'll hear it spoken (unfortunately rather widely) that "warmer air holds more moisture." It's perhaps easier to explain it that way, but it's not exactly true. Most meteorologists and physicists know that, even if they use the simple explanation for instructing early students and laypersons. The fact that this article took that saying as factual and used it in some attempt at logical reasoning... well that basically tells you all that you need to know about this "independent voices" piece.

Oh, and for those that are confused or need refreshing, it isn't exactly correct to say that "warmer air holds more moisture." Water vapor has an equilibrium with liquid water droplets that is tied to temperature (see equilibrium vapor pressure). This is determined by the temperature that the vapor and water have, which just happens to be well-approximated by the air temperature. The specific humidity, or mass of water vapor in the air, would be the same at a given temperature even if there was no "air."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1278. MisterPerfect:
This blog is for AGW believers only. If you do not believe, you are not welcome here.

Here we go, confusing science and "believing in" something again. Not being able to see the difference between those two very different philosophical concepts makes it hard to have the types of conversations you say that this forum lacks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1254. JohnLonergan:
Apparently, the folks at HockeySchtick are just as dumb as the folks at WTFUWT.

Wotts Up With That Blog takes a look at a recent Hockeyschstick post here:


One other thing I was going to comment on was a recent post on The Hockey Schtick. The post is called a new paper demonstrates climates models don’t even have ‘basic physics’ of the greenhouse effect right. It refers to a paper by Russell et al. (2013) called Fast Atmosphere–ocean Model Runs with Large Changes in CO2. The paper’s abstract ends with

With CO2 at or below 1/8 of the 1950 value, runaway sea ice does occur as the planet cascades to a snowball Earth climate with fully ice covered oceans and global mean surface temperatures near –30oC.


The Hockey Schtick post comments that

However, -30oC is much colder than the -18oC calculated for an Earth with no atmosphere or oceans or greenhouse effect at all! Further, -30oC is much, much colder [i.e. 35oC colder] than the +5°C global mean temperature calculated using the IPCC formula for CO2 forcing using a CO2 level of 39 ppm.


To be honest, I was slightly confused about this myself until I realised: it’s a snowball earth so, presumably, the albedo would higher than it is today. It’s fairly straightforward to estimate the non-greenhouse temperature of a planet. The basic equations are

Most of the terms are fairly self-explanatory (if you’re uncertain about these equations and terms, feel free to ask and I’ll explain further), but A is the albedo, and a is the distance of the planet from the Sun. Currently A is about 0.3. If you solve for Tpl in the above equation usong A = 0.3, you do indeed get Tpl = 255 K = -18oC. However, if the Earth has fully ice-covered oceans A would be considerably greater than 0.3. Using A = 0.5 gives Tpl = 235 K = -37oC. So, it’s not that surprising that the models with CO2 concentrations of 39 ppm had surface temperatures of about -30oC. One of the reasons I was wanting to write about this is that one of the paper’s authors, Chris Colose, posted a comment at the Hockey Schtick to point out that

You didn’t read our paper. The albedo in a Snowball is much higher than present-day, so temps can go go well below the modern effective temperature of 255 K. This is an elementary point.


So, does the author of the Hockey Schtick post quickly respond with what might be regarded as the obvious response : “Of course, how silly of me. I should have realised that. Thank you for commenting”? To find out, you could either read the HS comments, or you could simply take an educated guess. In this case, if you were to select what might – to many – be the obvious answer, you’d most likely be correct.

This is basically what I was referring to when I stated that their "critique" was lacking in, well, basic physics and arithmetic skills.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1288. Patrap:
Its the Scientists vs the heretic's.

Science 24


Heretic's 0


More like 97:3
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting 1305. tramp96:
[snip]
Quoting 1307. tramp96:
[snip]
Radical Right-wing opinion pages and anti-science book spam don't belong within a mile of this place. Scientific sources only, please. Thanks!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
Quoting 1304. Cochise111:
Another paper...
Ah, geez, too bad you again didn't bother reading that paper before citing it here; if you had done that instead of rushing here pell-mell from whatever sad corner of the denialosphere you've been inhabiting, you might have noticed that the salient point of the paper is that the Pacific has warmed 16 times faster over the past 60 years than it has at any time over the past 10,000. (Pssst...the very first sentence of the paper's abstract might have provided you a helpful clue: "Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades.")

Ouch...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13474
1308. Patrap
Really, on a Friday?

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702

Viewing: 1357 - 1307

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.