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: 1057 - 1007

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 1054. ScottLincoln:

Jim, I thought one of the mods mentioned on Dr. Masters' blog thread recently that 10 is the magic number. If a post is flagged by 10 different people, it is automatically hidden or removed (can't remember which) without moderator interaction.
I thnk there is still some moderator discretion (something was said about not letting a group of people gang up on one commenter), but I agree that the - and ! Buttons are worth a try. Everyone needs to participate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1055. JohnLonergan:
From Rabbet Run:


Krugman part 2: you can get pretty far just by regulating coal

This is a follow up on Eli's previous post on Paul Kruman's review of Nordhaus that I posted previously.




Link to Rabbet Run
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
From Rabbet Run:


Krugman part 2: you can get pretty far just by regulating coal

This is a follow up on Eli's previous post on Paul Kruman's review of Nordhaus that I posted previously.

The author of this post emphasizes a couple of points I'd like to highlight:

And yet there is a slightly odd dissonance in this book’s emphasis on carbon pricing. As I’ve just suggested, the standard economic argument for emissions pricing comes from the observation that there are many margins on which we should operate. Yet as Nordhaus himself points out, studies attempting to analyze how we might most efficiently reduce carbon emissions strongly suggest that just one of these margins should account for the bulk of any improvement—namely, we have to sharply reduce emissions from coal-fired electricity generation. Certainly it would be good to operate on other margins, especially because these studies might be wrong—maybe, for example, it would be easier than we think for consumers to shift to a radically lower-energy lifestyle, or there might be radical new ideas for scrubbing carbon from the atmosphere. Nonetheless, the message I took from this book was that direct action to regulate emissions from electricity generation would be a surprisingly good substitute for carbon pricing—not as good, but not bad.

Regulating coal would be a good beginning and the regulations are in place, use them.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Quoting 1052. Neapolitan:
But that's the thing, IRG: much as I wish it did, the method you've outlined doesn't work.

...Conversely, we can flag those same posts, but as there are no explicit rules here against repeatedly spouting inanities, the mods won't/can't do anything about them....

Jim, I thought one of the mods mentioned on Dr. Masters' blog thread recently that 10 is the magic number. If a post is flagged by 10 different people, it is automatically hidden or removed (can't remember which) without moderator interaction.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Quoting 1051. ScottLincoln:

If there is someone among us who has more experienced with web coding and would like to take a stab at turning this into a real web application, let me know. Google docs will make it dynamic and it works, but it's clunky and kinda awkward to use. Ideally it should be a plot on the same page as the parameters and it should update in realtime.
Well, I develop sophisticated web apps for a living; let me have a look...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting 1049. indianrivguy:
The problem on this blog is not the spam by the deniers.. it is the fact that you all insist on giving them value by responding. If everyone one of us minused and flagged the bullcrap, YOU could do what the blog owner refuses to do, clean this place up.. I think Dr. Rood is more concerned with how many posts he gets, rather than the quality and truthfulness of its content. So, really, quite complaining about the same crap, posted by the same people day after day.. it is YOUR fault it keeps appearing.
But that's the thing, IRG: much as I wish it did, the method you've outlined doesn't work.

Your standard workaday trolls can definitely be dealt with in this manner; since the mod system kicked in, we've seen that happen any number of times. But this is a different type of beast. Allow me to explain:

We can certainly minus the BS posts all we wish, but that merely drives down the commenter's karma; it does nothing to actually rid the forum of their idiocy. Conversely, we can flag those same posts, but as there are no explicit rules here against repeatedly spouting inanities, the mods won't/can't do anything about them. And as has been amply demonstrated time after time, if we just ignore those comments and commenters and pretend they don't exist, they'll simply fill the forum with stupidity. So unless we wish to see the community of which we're voluntarily a part given over to those with whom we'd rather not be associated--the low-information types, the ideologues, the mouth-breathers, the Know-Nothings--I don't see any alternative except for us to confront them head-on. (Either that, or abandon the ship entirely to the rats, and that doesn't seem like such a great option.)

No, there's a faction on this forum--and in Dr. Masters' forum, and elsewhere outside WU--that doesn't want climate change to be real. That may be for political, ideological, religious, financial, or fear-based purposes, but ultimately, it doesn't matter: they don't want it to be true, so they'll go to any lengths--and stoop to any depths--they can to deny and obfuscate and confuse and distract. And I, for one, will go to my grave to prevent those types from hogging the conversation, from being the lone side that's heard...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting 1041. ScottLincoln:

The Foster and Rahmstorf analysis is what I used to point me in the direction of the right source datasets for that page. The original idea came from looking at this site: https://sites.google.com/site/refsdefred/warming- actors

I didn't come up with the idea by any means, just tried to find a way to make a "tool" for the concept. Feel free to play around with it, just don't break it or you'll throw the entire planetary alignment out of whack.

Quoting 1042. Birthmark:

Wouldn't be the first time. :)

If there is someone among us who has more experienced with web coding and would like to take a stab at turning this into a real web application, let me know. Google docs will make it dynamic and it works, but it's clunky and kinda awkward to use. Ideally it should be a plot on the same page as the parameters and it should update in realtime.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Quoting 1028. cyclonebuster:





Do GHG's effect natural climate variability by altering atmospheric pressure??

Hard to say or quantify, at least for me. Someone else might be better-suited for that question.

If I had to take a guess, I would say that probably so, to some extent. The atmosphere we live in today is not the same as 30 years ago. The energy balance is not the same, and different parts of the world are gaining heat at different rates. It would be hard to imagine how this would not change regional interactions and/or known internal variability.

The main point still remains, however, it's the change in greenhouse gas concentrations that is adding heat to the climate system. Internal variability cannot do that.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
The problem on this blog is not the spam by the deniers.. it is the fact that you all insist on giving them value by responding. If everyone one of us minused and flagged the bullcrap, YOU could do what the blog owner refuses to do, clean this place up.. I think Dr. Rood is more concerned with how many posts he gets, rather than the quality and truthfulness of its content. So, really, quite complaining about the same crap, posted by the same people day after day.. it is YOUR fault it keeps appearing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Quoting 1001. iceagecoming:


[...]


Quoting 1029. iceagecoming:


[...]


Quoting 1043. iceagecoming:


[...]


"It is extraordinarily arrogant to have (independent) opinions on complex questions without being willing to pay your dues first – that is, without studying the question for years, reading the scholarly literature, mastering the relevant techniques and mathematics, and so on. Thinking you are entitled to an opinion without paying your dues is the very epitome of intellectual arrogance. And it is especially arrogant – mind-bogglingly so – for a non-expert to have opinions that contradict the consensus of the tens of thousands of intelligent, diligent and dedicated people who have spent decades studying, debating, doing research on and thinking deeply about their respective disciplines. The bottom line: be an expert, defer, or suspend judgment."

Credit: Michael Meadon at Ionian Enchantment.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group

The American Council on Science and Health defends fracking, BPA, and pesticides. Guess who their funders are.

The American Council on Science and Health bills itself as an independent research and advocacy organization devoted to debunking "junk science." It's a controversial outfit—a "group of scientists…concerned that many important public policies related to health and the environment did not have a sound scientific basis," it says—that often does battle with environmentalists and consumer safety advocates, wading into public health debates to defend fracking, to fight New York City's attempt to ban big sugary sodas, and to dismiss concerns about the potential harms of the chemical bisphenol-A (better known at BPA) and the pesticide atrazine. The group insists that its conclusions are driven purely by science. It acknowledges that it receives some financial support from corporations and industry groups, but ACSH, which reportedly stopped disclosing its corporate donors two decades ago, maintains that these contributions don't influence its work and agenda.


According to the ACSH documents, from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012, 58 percent of donations to the council came from corporations and large private foundations. ACSH's donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who's-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations. ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald's ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.

MotherJones.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948



"Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum." - Kurt Vonnegut
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Quoting 1026. ScottLincoln:

No. It is part of natural climate variability, and as such, cannot create nor destroy heat energy.



Do GHG's effect natural climate variability by altering atmospheric pressure??
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Global Warming 'Is Delaying The Next Ice Age'
Ice Sheets

First Posted: 09/01/12 16:28 Updated: 11/01/12 15:58

The next Ice Age could be delayed because of high levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere.

The “big freeze”, which is due to start within 1,500 years, could be put off because levels of CO2 may insulate the planet from the growth of ice sheets and glaciers.

Writing in a paper published in Nature Geoscience, Cambridge University Scientists claim that even if carbon emissions stopped today, levels of the gases, which reached record heights in 2012, could linger for at least 1,000 years.

Dr Luke Skinner said: “At current levels of C02, even if emissions stopped now we’d probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever long-term processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] C02 down.

“It’s an interesting philosophical discussion. Would we be better off in a warm world rather than a glaciation? Probably we would.”


An Ice Age is a period of long-term reduction in the earth’s atmospheric and surface temperature, leading to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers.

The gap between the end of an Ice Age and the beginning of the next one tends to be around 11,000 years due to a cycle related to the Earth’s orbit, the Telegraph reported.

Being that the last Ice Age ended 11,600 years ago, it would appear we are already overdue our next big freeze.




Link

Well, there you have it, saved from the 5000 ft wall of ice, good luck with that!






In the bleak midwinter
By Christina Rossetti

In the bleak midwinter, frosty wind made moan,
Earth stood hard as iron, water like a stone;
Snow had fallen, snow on snow, snow on snow,
In the bleak midwinter, long ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1041. ScottLincoln:

The Foster and Rahmstorf analysis is what I used to point me in the direction of the right source datasets for that page. The original idea came from looking at this site: https://sites.google.com/site/refsdefred/warming- actors

I didn't come up with the idea by any means, just tried to find a way to make a "tool" for the concept. Feel free to play around with it, just don't break it or you'll throw the entire planetary alignment out of whack.


Wouldn't be the first time. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1034. Birthmark:

Have you read F&R2011? (I'm assuming you have.)

What is your take on it, Scott?

ETA link.

The Foster and Rahmstorf analysis is what I used to point me in the direction of the right source datasets for that page. The original idea came from looking at this site: https://sites.google.com/site/refsdefred/warming- actors

I didn't come up with the idea by any means, just tried to find a way to make a "tool" for the concept. Feel free to play around with it, just don't break it or you'll throw the entire planetary alignment out of whack.

Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Word for the evening;

GOTTERDUMBERUNG

What Wagner would call all that "Dumb Und Strang" from the deniers.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Quoting 1037. JohnLonergan:
Where's that cooling, deniers?

Facts? You want to use facts?? How dare you???

I probably should add this for the humor-impaired amongst us:
/snark

Sigh.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hand it back

The Sydney Morning Herald interviewed 35 economists and found 30 of them favored carbon price (tax, ETS or some mixture) over Direct Action. It quotes Chris Caton as saying “Any economist who didn’t opt for emissions trading “should hand his degree back”, says Chris Caton.

I’d take that a step further.

Anyone with a natural science degree in any field will find plenty of examples of denialist lies on everything from basic physics to bushfires. More generally, denialists have attacked the entire scientific enterprise with absurd conspiracy theories. No-one who endorses these attacks, explicitly or tacitly, deserves to call themselves a scientist.

Similarly, anyone with a degree that includes even minimal exposure to statistics should understand that denialists were misusing the concept of statistical significance when they claimed, a few years back there had been no significant warming since 1995. Subsequent hacks have had to move the goalposts forward to 1997. And that’s just one example of the cherrypicking dishonesty rife on the denialist side of the debate. So, anyone who claims to be a sceptic and hasn’t distanced themselves from claims like these should send back their math/stat degree.

Readmore >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Where's that cooling, deniers?

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Quoting 1031. beell:


If you wish. A long-standing relationship (albeit less healthy) all the same.

No lecture here. Just an observer adding unecessary comments that serve no real purpose. Dr. Rood writes great essays. I don't see that changing either!
Oh, no, I was not referring to you. The lectures come from the fans of a certain commenter-that-shall-not-be-named. You, on the other hand, appreciate irony, so you have a place here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1033. ScottLincoln:

One could call it "temperature influence not explained by natural forcings."

Whatever it is, it's being going up up up, enough to overwhelm natural cooling factors. Hmmmm....


Very nice, too bad I don't have a couple dozen sock puppets to give it the pluses it deserves.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Quoting 1033. ScottLincoln:

One could call it "temperature influence not explained by natural forcings."

Whatever it is, it's being going up up up, enough to overwhelm natural cooling factors. Hmmmm....

Have you read F&R2011? (I'm assuming you have.)

What is your take on it, Scott?

ETA link.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1032. Birthmark:

And yet global temperature is extremely high compared to the 20th century. It's almost as though something other factor is warming the Earth. LOL

One could call it "temperature influence not explained by natural forcings."

Whatever it is, it's being going up up up, enough to overwhelm natural cooling factors. Hmmmm....
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Quoting 1029. iceagecoming:



The quietest, longest solar minimum in over a century coincided with the record -NAO and -AO patterns of the 09-10 winter (our record snowiest). We could be moving into the next big minimum in the second half of the current decade. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predi ...

And yet global temperature is extremely high compared to the 20th century. It's almost as though something other factor is warming the Earth. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1031. beell
Quoting 1024. FLwolverine:
I suggest a certain refinement - Link - obviously he needs the blog more than the blog needs him.

Anyone want to start a pool on how long until we get a lecture on not being mean?


If you wish. A long-standing relationship (albeit less healthy) all the same.

No lecture here. Just an observer adding unecessary comments that serve no real purpose. Dr. Rood writes great essays. I don't see that changing either!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1024. FLwolverine:
I suggest a certain refinement - Link - obviously he needs the blog more than the blog needs him.

Anyone want to start a pool on how long until we get a lecture on not being mean?


Mean here?, If you want mean, go PZ Meyers' Thunderdome and say evolution is bunk, then you'll see mean.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280



The quietest, longest solar minimum in over a century coincided with the record -NAO and -AO patterns of the 09-10 winter (our record snowiest). We could be moving into the next big minimum in the second half of the current decade. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predi ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:



Quoting 1026. ScottLincoln:

No. It is part of natural climate variability, and as such, cannot create nor destroy heat energy.


Do GHG's effect natural climate variability by altering atmospheric pressure??
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 1022. beell:


See: symbiosis
:)

Doesn't apply, sorry. We post plenty in his absence.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1007. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Could the NAO alter Global Warming?

No. It is part of natural climate variability, and as such, cannot create nor destroy heat energy.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Quoting 1023. BaltimoreBrian:


Too bad we're not sockpuppets. We could flag all his posts 10 times and be rid of him. However we are free thinkers and hard to herd--like cats.
Oh, but remember, it's important to see the big picture!

/snark

Edited to remove "Zohar". Yoboi's hacker must have snuck that in.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1022. beell:


See: symbiosis
:)
I suggest a certain refinement - Link - obviously he needs the blog more than the blog needs him.

Anyone want to start a pool on how long until we get a lecture on not being mean?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1020. JohnLonergan:


Shunning works for me.


Too bad we're not sockpuppets. We could flag all his posts 10 times and be rid of him. However we are free thinkers and hard to herd--like cats.

Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8605
1022. beell
Quoting 1015. Birthmark:

No, it's yoboi posts dishonest propaganda that might fool those unfamiliar with the topic, and those familiar correct the statement.

That second part is rather important.


See: symbiosis
:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1020. JohnLonergan:


Shunning works for me.
Same here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1019. FLwolverine:
Oh, Pat, he's just lonely because we all stopped posting on his blog. Even the ladies who often plus his posts deserted him. Poor little denialist.

Not.


Shunning works for me.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Quoting 1008. Patrap:
Please, for the sake of sanity, don't mention the offending post name,it only re-enforces his resolve.
Oh, Pat, he's just lonely because we all stopped posting on his blog. Even the ladies who often plus his posts deserted him. Poor little denialist.

Not.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1018. Patrap
If one is looking for climate news, issues, data, I'm sure they will come here to Dr. Roods wundergound entry for the validation of it.

Yeah,..OK

I have some nice farmland to sell South of Venice, La.


They are posting BS jargon Mumbo Jumbo just to obfuscate here.


Nothing more.


Spsssst'

Fresca ?
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128259
Quoting 1005. yoboi:

More dishonest and pointless propaganda.

Dude, physics. There's no getting around it! LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1004. BaltimoreBrian:
2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record.

Yoboi you seriously need to stop lying here. I and others have posted official reports on global temperature which show that there has been no pause and you have seen them. Yet you keep lying repeatedly.

Why do you lie day after day, yoboi?

I suppose we should be thankful that yoboi is not posting links to the anti-semite or racist sites that he follows.


Because the deniers(I refuse to call the skeptics because they are not truly skeptic of anything.) have no true science' so they have to invent it.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Quoting 1013. beell:
Aww, sweet. One big happy family again. yobi pitches, the blog swings. A curious relationship but it works!

No, it's yoboi posts dishonest propaganda that might fool those unfamiliar with the topic, and those familiar correct the statement.

That second part is rather important.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1003. yoboi:
Well we have some more good news....2 months 11 days and we will have 17 yrs and no warming...

Or so you believe by ignoring all the evidence.

In the real world the warming has continued despite a preponderance of La Ninas and extremely low solar minimum and maximum.

But enjoy your fantasy! lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1013. beell
Aww, sweet. One big happy family again. yobi pitches, the blog swings. A curious relationship but it works!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1002. pintada:


AGW is not the only problem, and may not even be the worst.

Per Guy:
"Malcolm Light in 2012 concluded, based on data from NOAA and NASA, that methane release had gone exponential and was leading to the demise of all life on Earth, not just human extinction, by the middle of the century.

So 3.5 C to 4 C is almost certainly a death sentence for all human beings on the planet, not because it'll be a warmer planet, but because the warming of the planet will remove all habitat for human beings. Ultimately we're human animals like other animals, we need habitat to survive."

Add in the other issues, with which i have bored you before, and shaazzzam.

Very low probability.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1001. iceagecoming:

Have you ever considered an honest, fact-supported post, you know, just for the novelty?

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
The Stoat has this to say about Lockwood, Hudson, Beeb, Maunder. Sigh



Sigh. Paul Hudson (remember him?) says Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist, and the person he purports to rely in is Mike Lockwood, who is sane. However, if you look closely there is no direct quotation of ML in the article, so I think I’d be very cautious in interpreting it.



But if you want to know what ML actually thinks on the subject of future solar variations and their probable effects on climate, then reading a recent paper of his, Jones, G. S., Lockwood, M. and Stott, P. A. (2012) What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes? And the abstract is (my bold):

During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming. However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher-emissions scenarios.


The sentence in bold indicates a common denialist trick, deliberate misinterpretation and misattribution, in other words, lies, it's all they've go
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3280
Quoting 998. yoboi:
Looks like with solar 25 we are heading into global cooling....

Evidence?

LOL! Why am I even asking? We both know that you don't have a shred of credible evidence to back that up.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1008. Patrap
Please, for the sake of sanity, don't mention the offending post name,it only re-enforces his resolve.





Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128259
Could the NAO alter Global Warming?

The winter cold blast: blame the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
Why has the winter been so cold over Eastern North America and northern Europe? Well, don't blame El Nio. El Nio winters are rarely this cold. Instead, blame the the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO is a climate pattern in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of sea-level pressure between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. It is one of oldest known climate oscillations--seafaring Scandinavians described the pattern several centuries ago. Through east-west oscillation motions of the Icelandic Low and the Azores High,the NAO controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks across the North Atlantic. A large difference in the pressure between Iceland and the Azores (positive NAO) leads to increased westerly winds and mild and wet winters in Europe. Positive NAO conditions also cause the Icelandic Low to draw a stronger south-westerly flow of air over eastern North America, preventing Arctic air from plunging southward. In contrast, if the difference in sea-level pressure between Iceland and the Azores is small (negative NAO), westerly winds are suppressed, allowing Arctic air to spill southwards into eastern North America more readily. Negative NAO winters tend to bring cold winters to Europe, and the prevailing storm track moves south towards the Mediterranean Sea. This brings increased storm activity and rainfall to southern Europe and North Africa.

The winter of 2009 - 2010 has seen a very strong negative NAO, causing much of our cold weather over Eastern North America and Europe. The NAO index for the month of December 2009 was -1.93, which is the third lowest NAO index since 1950 for a winter month (December, January, or February). The only winter months with a lower NAO index were February 1978 (-2.20) and January 1963 (-2.12). January 1963 was one of the coldest months on record in the UK and the Eastern U.S.. February 1978 was the coldest February on record for five U.S. states, and featured the historic blizzards in both the U.S. and UK. The NAO so far for January 2010 has continued to stay strongly negative, ranging between -1.5 and -2.1.

Link



Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 1057 - 1007

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

Partly Cloudy
61 °F
Partly Cloudy