# Wobbles in the Barriers: Arctic Oscillation (4)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:22 PM GMT on October 14, 2013

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.”

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

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: 1257 - 1207

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

##### 1257. Daisyworld
 Quoting 1256. yoboi:DR Spencer worked for NOAA & NASA......And Snowden worked for the NSA. What's your point?
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 943
##### 1256. yoboi
 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 that caused 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.DR Spencer worked for NOAA & NASA......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 3415
##### 1255. Daisyworld
 Quoting 1204. GTstormChaserCaleb:That's your business whether you believe I took the class or not as I know what I took, so don't tell me I didn't take this class. Besides like I said I took the class 5 years ago. Next thing you know you're probably going to call me a liar. And you repeated what I said in comment post 1199 about the burning of fossil fuels being the main contributor to CO2, so if you're done being rude, we can continue on with this conversation. Thanks and have a nice day.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.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 943
##### 1254. JohnLonergan
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4517
##### 1253. Birthmark
 Quoting 1242. yoboi:we are almost in 2014.....so approx 6 yr old data...Would you approve of showing a 2008 hurricane data today and issue hurricane warnings from it????Here ya go. TSI plotted against GISS. I included the linear trend line for both to make it pretty clear that it isn't the Sun causing the current warming.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
##### 1252. JohnLonergan
 Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology"Doug Keenan has written a long essay on the “Statistical Analyses of Surface Temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report” that Anthony Watts has seen fit to link to from WUWT.The essay claims to evaluate the IPCC claim that the temperature increase in the instrumental record is statistically significant. The reader is advised that “No background in statistics is required.”, which is sort of true as there are no statistical analyses in the essay and no equations, but mainly false, because the reader cannot evaluate the veracity of Keenan’s claims, and is instead forced to rely on his authority. The essay is however stuffed will irrelevant digressions, for example into radiocarbon dating (which I will look at later), and irrelevant details of Parliamentary questions asked by a Lord.Keenan’s basic claim is that the model the IPCC use to test if the temperature trend is significant is not appropriate. The IPCC use a linear model that allows the residuals to be autocorrelated. Keenan argues that a driftless ARIMA (3,1,0) model is more appropriate and a better fit to the data. This is exactly the same argument that I showed to be specious earlier this year. Keenan ignores this post and the follow-up posts."......"Keenan is savaging a straw man. Nobody believes that a linear trend is a full description of climate change over the instrumental period. Climate forcings do not increase linearly with time, so it would be absurd to expect global temperature to. The linear trend model is simply a quick test of whether temperature is increasing. Replacing an oversimplified but informative model with a physically meaningless model is not progress."My bold
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4517
##### 1251. ScottLincoln
 Quoting 1231. GTstormChaserCaleb:Still seems to be uncertainties in the models response to solar activity and aerosols. Also note there is mentions of cooling effects from aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and solar radiation. The CO2 levels is what is being held responsible for raising Global Temperatures, but can just as easily be offset from a volcanic eruption like the one we saw in 1992 with Mt. Pinotubo or even worst another eruption like the one from Krakatoa in 1883 that cooled the Earth's temperature by about 2 degrees fahrenheit for 5 years before things returned back to normal. Remember that the gases released by volcanoes contain SO2 when released into the atmosphere blocks out incoming solar radiation and as a result cools the planet.There may still be those uncertainties, but do not forget, it's not just the climate models that are used for climate science. There are numerous studies that have estimated the climate sensitivity, and some of them are from global climate models.Yes, unpredictable things like a massive volcanic eruption or meteor impact could mix things up. But they are unpredictable. In the case of volcanic activity, after a few years, the shortwave-energy-blocking particles settle out, and the earth's energy balance goes back to what it would have been without the eruption. We'd get a few year reprieve from temperature increases, but then they would rapidly rise back to where they would have warmed.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3507
##### 1250. cyclonebuster
 Our planet needs triage.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1249. misanthrope
 Quoting 1244. ncstorm:trick or treat--Carry on with your censorship and have some fun tonight with friends and family..Happy Halloween!Can you say passive-aggresive?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1248. Neapolitan
 Quoting 1231. GTstormChaserCaleb:9.4.1.4 The Influence of Greenhouse Gas and Total Anthropogenic Forcing on Global Surface TemperatureInteresting..."Fingerprint studies that use climate change signals estimated from an array of climate models indicate that detection of an anthropogenic contribution to the observed warming is a result that is robust to a wide range of model uncertainty, forcing uncertainties and analysis techniques (Hegerl et al., 2001; Gillett et al., 2002c; Tett et al., 2002; Zwiers and Zhang, 2003; IDAG, 2005; Stone and Allen, 2005b; Stone et al., 2007a,b; Stott et al., 2006b,c; Zhang et al., 2006). These studies account for the possibility that the agreement between simulated and observed global mean temperature changes could be fortuitous as a result of, for example, balancing too great (or too small) a model sensitivity with a too large (or too small) negative aerosol forcing (Schwartz, 2004; Hansen et al., 2005) or a too small (or too large) warming due to solar changes. Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses do not rely on such agreement because they seek to explain the observed temperature changes in terms of the responses to individual forcings, using model-derived patterns of response and a noise-reducing metric (Appendix 9.A) but determining their amplitudes from observations. As discussed in Section 9.2.2.1, these approaches make use of differences in the temporal and spatial responses to forcings to separate their effect in observations.""Since the TAR, there has also been an increased emphasis on quantifying the greenhouse gas contribution to observed warming, and distinguishing this contribution from other factors, both anthropogenic, such as the cooling effects of aerosols, and natural, such as from volcanic eruptions and changes in solar radiation."LinkStill seems to be uncertainties in the models response to solar activity and aerosols. Also note there is mentions of cooling effects from aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and solar radiation. The CO2 levels is what is being held responsible for raising Global Temperatures, but can just as easily be offset from a volcanic eruption like the one we saw in 1992 with Mt. Pinotubo or even worst another eruption like the one from Krakatoa in 1883 that cooled the Earth's temperature by about 2 degrees fahrenheit for 5 years before things returned back to normal. Remember that the gases released by volcanoes contain SO2 when released into the atmosphere blocks out incoming solar radiation and as a result cools the planet.I think if you'll link to the 2013 report--IPCC V--you'll find much more of interest than you will for the 2007 report to which you linked. IN the six intervening years since, the IPCC has become even more certain that climate change is man-made...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14846
##### 1247. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1242. yoboi:we are almost in 2014.....so approx 6 yr old data...Would you approve of showing a 2008 hurricane data today and issue hurricane warnings from it????I'll rephrase the question...So do you think the energy output from the sun has changed very much since 2008?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1246. GTstormChaserCaleb
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1245. Xulonn
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1244. ncstorm
 trick or treat--Carry on with your censorship and have some fun tonight with friends and family..Happy Halloween!
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 17915
##### 1243. JohnLonergan
 Quoting 1165. Birthmark:Yeah, ain't that something? Imagine! The Arctic gets cold in winter? And look! Just one more standard deviation and the ice will have "recovered" to the disastrous long-term trend! Some of you folks... LOLI don't know how anyone can comment on increasing volume since the PIOMAS website says:Arctic Sea Ice Volume AnomalySeptember Update Delayed: Required data not available due to US Government shutdown. as of 1 minute ago.(My bold)
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4517
##### 1242. yoboi
 Quoting 1241. cyclonebuster:So do think the energy from the sun has very much since 2008?we are almost in 2014.....so approx 6 yr old data...Would you approve of showing a 2008 hurricane data today and issue hurricane warnings from it????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 3415
##### 1241. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1234. yoboi:Pat do you have a chart past 2008????So do think the energy from the sun has very much since 2008?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1240. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1236. GTstormChaserCaleb:Nice relevant article, cyclonebuster. I really like the sampling being done on sediment cores. It not only give us an idea of the current conditions going on in the oceans, but it also gives us insights into what those oceans were like in the past.That is correct!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1239. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1235. Patrap:800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ConcentrationsOver 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.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. reportThat is correct!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1238. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1233. Patrap:Climate Model Indications and the Observed ClimateGlobal climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.That is correct!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1237. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1232. Patrap:Energy from the Sun Has Not IncreasedThe amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.That is correct!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1236. GTstormChaserCaleb
 Nice relevant article, cyclonebuster. I really like the sampling being done on sediment cores. It not only give us an idea of the current conditions going on in the oceans, but it also gives us insights into what those oceans were like in the past.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1235. Patrap
 800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ConcentrationsOver 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.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
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137203
##### 1234. yoboi
 Quoting 1232. Patrap:Energy from the Sun Has Not IncreasedThe amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.Pat do you have a chart past 2008????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 3415
##### 1233. Patrap
 Climate Model Indications and the Observed ClimateGlobal climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137203
##### 1232. Patrap
 Energy from the Sun Has Not IncreasedThe amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137203
##### 1231. GTstormChaserCaleb
 9.4.1.4 The Influence of Greenhouse Gas and Total Anthropogenic Forcing on Global Surface TemperatureInteresting..."Fingerprint studies that use climate change signals estimated from an array of climate models indicate that detection of an anthropogenic contribution to the observed warming is a result that is robust to a wide range of model uncertainty, forcing uncertainties and analysis techniques (Hegerl et al., 2001; Gillett et al., 2002c; Tett et al., 2002; Zwiers and Zhang, 2003; IDAG, 2005; Stone and Allen, 2005b; Stone et al., 2007a,b; Stott et al., 2006b,c; Zhang et al., 2006). These studies account for the possibility that the agreement between simulated and observed global mean temperature changes could be fortuitous as a result of, for example, balancing too great (or too small) a model sensitivity with a too large (or too small) negative aerosol forcing (Schwartz, 2004; Hansen et al., 2005) or a too small (or too large) warming due to solar changes. Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses do not rely on such agreement because they seek to explain the observed temperature changes in terms of the responses to individual forcings, using model-derived patterns of response and a noise-reducing metric (Appendix 9.A) but determining their amplitudes from observations. As discussed in Section 9.2.2.1, these approaches make use of differences in the temporal and spatial responses to forcings to separate their effect in observations.""Since the TAR, there has also been an increased emphasis on quantifying the greenhouse gas contribution to observed warming, and distinguishing this contribution from other factors, both anthropogenic, such as the cooling effects of aerosols, and natural, such as from volcanic eruptions and changes in solar radiation."LinkStill seems to be uncertainties in the models response to solar activity and aerosols. Also note there is mentions of cooling effects from aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and solar radiation. The CO2 levels is what is being held responsible for raising Global Temperatures, but can just as easily be offset from a volcanic eruption like the one we saw in 1992 with Mt. Pinotubo or even worst another eruption like the one from Krakatoa in 1883 that cooled the Earth's temperature by about 2 degrees fahrenheit for 5 years before things returned back to normal. Remember that the gases released by volcanoes contain SO2 when released into the atmosphere blocks out incoming solar radiation and as a result cools the planet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1230. cyclonebuster
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1229. Patrap
 Is This the New Normal?By: Christopher C. Burt, 1:47 PM CDT on October 31, 2013Alaska and California seem to be stuck in a pattern since last May. A high pressure aloft over the eastern Pacific has brought abnormally warm weather to Alaska since May and dry weather to California since January. It is hard to make a case that this persistent ridge will remain in place indefinitely but, should it persist through this winter, it will have a significant impact on the California water supply. The 500 mb pressure anomaly for the period of January 1-October 26 over North America. This stubborn pattern has resulted in the driest such period in California records. NCEP/NCAR reanalysis.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137203
##### 1228. yoboi
 Quoting 1226. Birthmark:I sincerely hope that everyone who recognizes science and reads this blog hits the alert and minus buttons on denialist nonsense.I hope no one quotes them, either.WOW I agree with you...that's two times in 24 hrs.....When do you think the trapped door will open up in the ocean??????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 3415
##### 1227. Xulonn
 Quoting 1170. overwash12: More moisture in the air with a warming Earth,or was it more droughts. I get confused from reading all the propaganda these days!Duh!!Stop reading propaganda and start reading science! It's quite consistent in it's analysis and conclusions, and full of hard-core evidence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1226. Birthmark
 I sincerely hope that everyone who recognizes science and reads this blog hits the alert and minus buttons on denialist nonsense.I hope no one quotes them, either.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
##### 1225. Birthmark
 Quoting 1220. Cochise111:LOL! Do you even read your own links before posting them? I doubt it. If you had you would have read the following in that article, ""We think temperatures in South Siberia stopped climbing in 2010-2011 and a decline is about to start," Daryin told reporters on Monday." -bold addedA. "They" thinkB. South SiberiaC. ROFLD. Guess what the "G" in "AGW" stands for. (Hint: It's not South SiberiaE. ROFLMAOTry again.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
##### 1224. yoboi
 Quoting 1222. Neapolitan:That's awesome! Of course, Mr. Daryin and friends have completely failed to take into account the 3-and-a-half million metric tons of heat-trapping CO2 we humans are currently pumping into atmosphere every hour of every day, but aside from that little factoid, he may be onto something.(I suppose such omissions are whats's made Daryin a low-level darling of the denialosphere.--and why Watt's obedient minions would be so quick to do their master's bidding by pasting the link on various science sites.)I think you misread that article...based on your response....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 3415
##### 1223. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1222. Neapolitan:That's awesome! Of course, Mr. Daryin and friends have completely failed to take into account the 3-and-a-half million metric tons of heat-trapping CO2 we humans are currently pumping into atmosphere every hour of every day, but aside from that little factoid, he may be onto something.(I suppose such omissions are whats's made Daryin a low-level darling of the denialosphere.--and why Watt's obedient minions would be so quick to do their master's bidding by pasting the link on various science sites.)Correct.Here's an example just for New York City.. Imagine what the global output would look like.......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1222. Neapolitan
 Quoting 1220. Cochise111:Russian Academy of Sciences has a new report that shows the cooling has begun:LinkThat's awesome! Of course, Mr. Daryin and friends have completely failed to take into account the 3-and-a-half million metric tons of heat-trapping CO2 we humans are currently pumping into atmosphere every hour of every day, but aside from that little factoid, he may be onto something.(I suppose such omissions are whats's made Daryin a low-level darling of the denialosphere.--and why Watt's obedient minions would be so quick to do their master's bidding by pasting the link on various science sites.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14846
##### 1221. Xandra
 Quoting 1194. GTstormChaserCaleb:[...] I will continue to show both sides of the argument on here.[...] Click on the image below for information about the "other side".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1220. Cochise111
 Russian Academy of Sciences has a new report that shows the cooling has begun:Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 393
##### 1219. goosegirl1
 Quoting 1194. GTstormChaserCaleb:Didn't know I was turning in an analytical report? I would reference the page, but I forgot my log in. So here is a a href="Link" target="_blank">Link, I guess if it doesn't support your cause it automatically goes into the recycle bin. That's ok because I will continue to show both sides of the argument on here. And science as that video I posted in 1176 shows that the Arctic Ice Melt may alter the thermohaline conveyor belt replacing more fresh water over top of ocean water stopping the water pump known as the Gulf Stream from bring warmer waters to places like the UK and the Northeast US thus causing colder winters like we saw back in the 80s.There it is- that place where you are turned around. There are not "both sides" to climate change, only to public policy discussions. The science is settled, we have only to decide what to do about it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1218. cyclonebuster
 Quoting 1216. ScottLincoln:Caleb... It is overwhelmingly due to the burning of fossil fuels which produces greenhouse gases. There are other factors, however, but they do not all have the same net effect. Some have a net effect of cooling instead of warming. The other human climate factors include deforestation and urbanization, as well as the production of black carbon and aerosols.The forcing graphic originally displayed above helps to illustrate our understanding of this:Never mind lung cancer,skin cancer,asthma,stroke,heart attack and heat stroke....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21012
##### 1217. pcola57
 A very touching and pertinent article fromMother Nature Network.."11-year-old leads march against climate changeIt's often said that children are the future, and this kid is certainly fighting for hers. She deserves our help."Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1216. ScottLincoln
 Quoting 1199. GTstormChaserCaleb:Is it every country in the world contributing to GW in some way or is it just the countries that have the resources to contribute to GW. Reason I ask this is because we seem to equip the rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to GW which are produced from burning of fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy resources. So I'm thinking countries that aren't that technologically advanced or still relying on donkey carts and wagons as a form of transportation do they play a part in this as well and it what ways?Caleb... It is overwhelmingly due to the burning of fossil fuels which produces greenhouse gases. There are other factors, however, but they do not all have the same net effect. Some have a net effect of cooling instead of warming. The other human climate factors include deforestation and urbanization, as well as the production of black carbon and aerosols.The forcing graphic originally displayed above helps to illustrate our understanding of this:
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3507
##### 1215. ScottLincoln
 Quoting 1214. Cochise111:[I found another paper that I interpreted as concluding "it's the sun"]You didn't read the paper very well. It specificlally mentions the correlation to solar activity breaking down after 1900, and temperature going in the opposite direction since around 2000.As scientists have already studied and concluded numerous times, solar activity cannot explain the warming of the last several decades. The warming is mostly due to human activities, and we know this with high confidence.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3507
##### 1214. Cochise111
 Another paper demonstrating that average global land temperatures correlate almost exactly with solar radiation. How long before the CO2 argument is realized to be a fraud? Wait, it is everywhere except among the brainwashed or those who stand to profit from the alarmism.Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 393
##### 1213. Patrap
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137203
##### 1212. JohnLonergan
 Quoting 1205. Patrap:Science has no time for emotions, as the Science on AGW is as strong as one will find in any field.The time to discuss "is it real", was past a decade ago.NOAA has all the relevant info as to causation and feedbacks occurring.Great points, Pat, The "debate" is just a delaying tactic by the denialsphere.The subjects that we should be discussing are what to do about climate change and how. These subjects are more political and economic than scientific.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4517
 Quoting 1180. Patrap:When you add all this C02 en masse to the closed Earth System, what did they think was going to happen?Now that were at 400ppm and rising, the feedbacks are starting to accelerate.Toss in a massive Methane release and bada boom' The Climate Change Pandora's Box is creaking open, and lil wiggly things will continue to fly out.Buckle up,...Smart guy, even if he raises peppers that hang down.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
 Quoting 1012. Birthmark:Very low probability.Lots of things in nature have low probability until they start to happen.Lots of things in nature have low probability until they start to happen.Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1209. Torito
 Quoting 1207. Patrap:Thanx for your knowledgeable input.Now you can go back to playing met in Jeff's entry.Ok :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
##### 1208. JohnLonergan
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4517
##### 1207. Patrap
 Thanx for your knowledgeable input.Now you can go back to playing met in Jeff's entry.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137203

Viewing: 1257 - 1207

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

### Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

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

 Ann Arbor, Michigan 7 °F Clear

### Previous Entries for 2016

###### Our Products

Copyright © 2016 The Weather Channel, LLC