# Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Share
Change in the Weather: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (7)
 By: Dr. Ricky Rood, 5:14 AM GMT on November 19, 2013 +22
Change in the Weather: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (7)

This is the end-for-a-while of my series on the Arctic Oscillation / North Atlantic Oscillation. Links to background material and previous entries are below.

At the end of the previous blog I showed the following figure. The top panel shows the observed Arctic Oscillation Index from 1864 to 1960. The middle panel shows the observed Arctic Oscillation Index from 1864 to about 2000. The little number “r” in the panel is a measure of how well one year’s Arctic Oscillation Index is linked to or correlated with the previous year’s. A number close to zero is a measure of being unrelated. Prior to 1960, the observations were almost unrelated from year to year (r=-0.03). After 1960 there is a much stronger relation (r=0.4). Just looking at the graph after 1960, you can convince yourself that the Arctic Oscillation stays stuck in one mode or another for several years.

Figure 1: The top two plots in the figure show the observed Arctic Oscillation Index. The bottom plot shows a model simulation of the Arctic Oscillation Index. See text for more description. Thanks to Jim Hurrell

The bottom panel of Figure 1 shows a model simulation with the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model. In this model simulation the model’s carbon dioxide is held constant at levels prior to the industrial revolution, when man-made carbon dioxide was quite small. This simulation does not represent any particular year; it is 200 years which when taken together might look, statistically, like the atmosphere. An interesting feature of this simulation is that the Arctic Oscillation does look like the observations before 1960, but not after 1960. One possible suggestion of the reason why the model loses its ability represent the behavior of the Arctic oscillation is that carbon dioxide has increased enough to change the Arctic Oscillation.

I will come back to this below, but first a reminder of the other ideas I introduced in the middle part of the series. Most importantly, there is a stream of air that wants to flow around the North Pole. Likely in a world that has no mountains, no land and water sitting next to each other, then that air would actually circulate with the pole in the center. We live in a world with mountains and oceans and continents, which distort this stream of air. It’s a little like boulders in a creek, and water going around the boulders. The stream becomes wavy. There are other factors that also cause the air to be wavy, but I have introduced enough to make my points, and you can go back to the earlier blogs linked at the bottom for words and pictures. What causes the air to spin around the North Pole? The first thing to consider is the rotation of the Earth. The Earth’s atmosphere wants to line up with the rotation. Another important factor in determining the details of the air circulating around the North Pole is heating and cooling. The patterns of heating and cooling contribute to setting up high-pressure and low-pressure systems. Air flows from high to low pressure and as it flows towards low pressure it does its best to line up with the rotation of the Earth. This relation between high and low pressure and the Earth’s rotation is one of the most important features of the motion of the air in the atmosphere and the water in the ocean.

The way carbon dioxide changes the Earth’s climate is by changing the heating and cooling. A common comparison is to compare additional carbon dioxide to a a blanket which holds the Sun’s heat closer to the Earth’s surface. This blanket causes the Earth to heat up more at the pole than at the Equator. The poles are also special because the Sun goes down for the winter and it cools off. In fact, it gets very cold, and as discussed in the previous blogs, the stream of air that gets spun up isolates the pole enough to let the cooling really get going. With these changes to heating and cooling, if we add a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then it is reasonable to expect that the Arctic Oscillation might change.

The studies prior to, say, 2008, suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere would be to cause the Arctic Oscillation Index to become more positive. This would be the pattern of the Arctic Oscillation where the cold air is confined to the pole; that is, the less wavy pattern (scientific references: for example, Kuzmina et al. 2005 and the 2007 IPCC AR-4). The studies prior to 2008 support the idea that the additional carbon dioxide is a leading suspect in the changes after 1960 noted in Figure 1. That is, without carbon dioxide increasing in the simulation, the models cannot reproduce the statistical characteristics of the observations and with it increasing, they can.

Those pre-2008 studies, effectively, only considered increasing carbon dioxide. They did not represent the huge changes in the surface of the Arctic that have been observed. Notably, sea ice and snow cover have declined. These surface changes also cause changes in heating and cooling. The decline of sea-ice, for example, changes the surface of the Arctic Ocean from white to dark. This changes the surface from a reflector of energy to an absorber of energy. Sea ice is also a temperature insulator; hence, without the ice the ocean and atmosphere exchange heat more easily. There are many other changes as well, but all I want to do here is establish the plausibility that large changes at the surface are also likely to change the behavior of the Arctic Oscillation. Why? Changes in the patterns of heating and cooling, leading to changes in high and low pressure systems, which then with the influence of the Earth’s rotation, change the waviness of the stream of air around the Arctic.

There have been a series of papers in the past couple of years that suggest that the changes in sea ice and snow cover are having large effects on the weather in the U.S. If you look across these papers, then there is growing evidence that the meanders (or waviness) of the Arctic Oscillation are getting larger and that storms over the U.S. are moving more slowly. Here is a list of quotes from these papers.

From a paper I have previously discussed:

Francis and Vavrus (2012): Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes - “Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”

Liu et al. (2012): Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall – “ … some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation.”

Greene et al. (2012): Superstorm Sandy: A series of unfortunate events? - “However, there is increasing evidence that the loss of summertime Arctic sea ice due to greenhouse warming stacks the deck in favor of (1) larger amplitude meanders in the jet stream, (2) more frequent invasions of Arctic air masses into the middle latitudes, and (3) more frequent blocking events of the kind that steered Sandy to the west.”

There is some controversy about the work connecting the changes in the sea ice and snow cover to changes in the Arctic Oscillation and to changes in extreme weather in the U.S. (Barnes (2013): Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes, Francis response, and Freedman @ Climate Central ).

I think there is significant merit in the work that connects changes in the Arctic Oscillation to increases in carbon dioxide and related changes to the surface of the Earth. Part of my intuition comes from a career of working with atmosphere models. If a model is radiatively dominated, then the vortex over the pole is very strong. In this case, there is little waviness in the jet stream. This is analogous to the case of increasing carbon dioxide and the Arctic Oscillation becoming more common in its positive phase. If a model is less driven by radiative forcing, then it is easier for the waves that are initiated by the flow over the mountains to grow and distort the edge of the jet stream – more waviness. This is like the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. Though in the end it will require a careful calculation of the energy budget, the removal of sea ice from the surface of the Arctic Ocean allows more heat into the polar atmosphere, which means the radiative cooling will be less intense. Hence, the vortex will be weaker or the Arctic Oscillation will more commonly be in its negative phase. If there are changes in the Arctic Oscillation, which are realized as changes in the waviness and speed of the jet stream around the Arctic, then there will certainly be consequences to the weather in the U.S.

Potential changes in the character of the Arctic Oscillation are an important issue for those thinking about how to respond to climate change. The loss of sea ice is a large change, which will undoubtedly have important impacts in the Arctic. It is reasonable to expect large impacts on weather at lower latitudes, in the U.S., Europe and Asia. The change in the Arctic sea ice has happened very rapidly. This challenges the assumption often made in planning that climate change is a slow, incremental process. The weather of the here and now and/or the next fifty years, a common length of time for planning, is likely to be quite different from the past fifty years. Since we rely on our past experience to plan for the future, this is a direct challenge to our innate planning strategies. If we are cognizant of the possibility of significant changes to weather patterns on decadal lengths of time, then we can develop new planning strategies that will improve our resilience and make our adaptation decisions more effective.

r

Previous entries:

Climate Change and the Arctic Oscillation

Wobbles in the Barriers

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.”

 Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted
Viewing: 501 - 543

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 — Blog Index

 501. bappit 10:49 PM GMT on November 26, 2013 Quoting 495. ILwthrfan:Any issue that affects so many people will become political when we discuss ways to deal with the problem, but I don't see that happening. Instead, discussion only arises when people deny the science that has identified the problem. I don't see how the science itself could be political except as treated by people who want to suppress it.I have not seen "better critical critiques" on Dr. Rood's blog or Dr. Masters. The science has been critiqued for decades, long before becoming a target of certain politically minded people. Some people on the blogs have tried to drag up old issues as if they were new ones or tried to use subsidiary issues to distract from the main issue, but I have not seen any genuine critiques on the Wunderground blogs ... anywhere. Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5503
 502. JohnLonergan 11:01 PM GMT on November 26, 2013 El Nino, La Nina and Global Warmingby Bill Chameides "Is there a connection? And if so, how does it work? Does a warming world lead to more El Ninos? More La Ninas? Or more intense El Ninos and La Ninas?Lots of processes affect the climate. Certainly greenhouse gases have an effect and it%u2019s clear that rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing a long-term rise in global temperatures. Another process that affects the climate is the El Nino-Southern Oscillation." ...Read More >>The best part is Tisdale gets pwnd in the comments. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 503. goosegirl1 11:09 PM GMT on November 26, 2013 Quoting 497. Cochise111:It's always been known that warmists don't like anything in climate history that disproves their preconceived notions, but check this out. I've written about this before, but in 2001 the IPCC disappeared the Medieval Warming Period. I'd love for someone to explain how that is considered "science." LinkSo you get your science from someone who hides behind a pseudonym and is too far-out weird for Anthony Watts? That explains a lot. Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1152
 504. bappit 11:33 PM GMT on November 26, 2013 Quoting 501. bappit:Any issue that affects so many people will become political when we discuss ways to deal with the problem, but I don't see that happening. Instead, discussion only arises when people deny the science that has identified the problem. I don't see how the science itself could be political except as treated by people who want to suppress it.I have not seen "better critical critiques" on Dr. Rood's blog or Dr. Masters. The science has been critiqued for decades, long before becoming a target of certain politically minded people. Some people on the blogs have tried to drag up old issues as if they were new ones or tried to use subsidiary issues to distract from the main issue, but I have not seen any genuine critiques on the Wunderground blogs ... anywhere.Any "better critique" must supply a rationale for why the CO2 people have added to the atmosphere will NOT have a warming effect. Saying that some other process is operating (for the sake of example, "natural cycles") does not automatically negate the effects of anthropogenic CO2. Pointing at some other process without following up with an explanation of why AGW is not happening is just hand waving. It amounts only to a distraction. A vital point to remember is that CO2 concentrations decrease slowly through natural processes. We will be seeing the effects of the CO2 we have already added to the air for hundreds of years in the future--and the way things are going we will be adding more for the forseeable future.You might check out a long series of lectures by David Archer, University of Chicago, found here. Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5503
 505. JohnLonergan 1:58 AM GMT on November 27, 2013 Nationnal Academy of Sciences releases:Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas EmissionsTax_PolicyCurrent federal tax provisions have minimal net effect on greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report from the National Research Council. The report found that several existing tax subsidies have unexpected effects, and others yield little reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of revenue loss.At the request of Congress, a National Research Council committee evaluated the most important tax provisions that affect carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of the effects. The report considers both energy-related provisions — such as transportation fuel taxes, oil and gas depletion allowances, subsidies for ethanol, and tax credits for renewable energy — as well as broad-based provisions that may have indirect effects on emissions, such as those for employer-provided health insurance, owner-occupied housing, and incentives for investment in machinery.Using energy economic models based on the 2011 U.S. tax code, the committee found that the combined effect of energy-related tax subsidies on greenhouse gas emissions is minimal and could be negative or positive. It noted that estimating the precise impact of the provisions is difficult because of the complexities of the tax code and regulatory environment. However, it found that these provisions achieve very little greenhouse gas reductions at substantial cost; the U.S. Department of the Treasury estimates that the combined federal revenue losses from energy-sector tax subsidies in 2011 and 2012 totaled \$48 billion. While few of these provisions were created solely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are a poor tool for doing so, the report says.Link to Report Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 506. Birthmark 3:17 AM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 502. JohnLonergan:The best part is Tisdale gets pwnd in the comments.I easily can imagine Tisdale reading Chameides' short, succinct answer and saying, "D'oh!" I easily can imagine Tisdale rampaging off in search of some other piece of trivia that he can use to defend his rejected assertion. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 4869
 507. RevElvis 5:12 AM GMT on November 27, 2013 Iconic insects are disappearingThe monarchs are late. Usually by the 1st of November, the forests of central Mexico are swarming with them. Last year, they came in record low numbers, only 60 million. This year? A week late and only 3 million. And this happening to insects across the spectrum. A big part of it is the way the United States farms. As the price of corn has soared in recent years, driven by federal subsidies for biofuels, farmers have expanded their fields. That has meant plowing every scrap of earth that can grow a corn plant, including millions of acres of land once reserved in a federal program for conservation purposes. Another major cause is farming with Roundup, a herbicide that kills virtually all plants except crops that are genetically modified to survive it. As a result, millions of acres of native plants, especially milkweed, an important source of nectar for many species, and vital for monarch butterfly larvae, have been wiped out. One study showed that Iowa has lost almost 60 percent of its milkweed, and another found 90 percent was gone. "The agricultural landscape has been sterilized," said Dr. Brower.Kottke.org Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 508. JohnLonergan 1:16 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Sea level for dummies - a video by MinutePhysicsNext time you come across someone who wonders how seas can be rising at different paces at different times in different places, this explains it rather nicely and more besides. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 510. JohnLonergan 1:46 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Myles Allen recently wrote an article in The Guardian advocating carbon capture and sequestration(CCS), William Conolley ha a response here:Weasels ripped my flesh, againAndy Skuce has an SKS article (with which I largely agree) disagreeing with a previous article that Myles Allen wrote for the Mail in May 2013. And now MA has an article in the Graun saying similar things. At Wotts, Rachel has an article approving of MA’s piece; Wotts himself seems rather more dubious, and I’m with him.MA does say some things with which I agree (e.g. if you suppose that the annual UN climate talks will save us, forget it. I met a delegate at the last talks in Doha in December who told me he had just watched a two-hour debate that culminated in placing square brackets around a semi-colon). But in his frustration with that process, he flails about and settles on something that won’t work. Its almost as though he is using a (non-applicable) process of elimination: we carefully examine X, Y and Z: none of those solve our problem, so lets do W, which we’ll carefully avoid examining.Read more at Stoat >> Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 511. iceagecoming 1:54 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 MIT CoLab Conference seeks ‘bottom-up’ approach to climate change Other than serving as a way to foster new ideas about climate change, Fisher said the organization also serves as an incubator for ideas to be developed and even implemented by the crowd. The contests are especially effective at shifting public attitude and behaviors that are needed to respond to climate change.“This is one of the most critical missing pieces in achieving effective climate action, both political and market-driven, and there’s a huge potential for IT-enabled crowds to have a strong impact here,” Fisher said.Next year, the Climate CoLab will be exploring a new model for intelligent online collaboration and the ability for proposals to be taken offline and implemented by community members themselves.To watch a video of the conference, visit climatecolab.org/conference2013/virtually.To learn more about the Climate CoLab, visit climatecolab.org.LinkFeatured winning proposals Reimagine prosperity; reframe sustainability; reshape consumerismShape & activate a more attractive aspirational lifestyle that is innately sustainable for the emergent middle class in China.Whose Home is wasting more energy, yours or your neighbours?FREE personalized HEAT Scores, HEAT Maps, Hot Spots, GHG estimates and waste-heat comparisons/competitions for homes, communities & cities Scaling renewables in major emerging economiesHow can renewable technologies be rapidly deployed in the major emerging economies?LinkI guess we'll see if this is more productive than the Warsaw debacle. Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 22 Comments: 977
 512. Neapolitan 2:00 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 509. tramp96:It's nice when religion is on your side. So who hear believes in creationism??My belief in creationism is roughly equal to my belief in Santa Claus, insofar as neither has so much a shred of scientific evidence in support of their existence. Though to be fair, at least with Santa Claus, you get gifts. So there's that... Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13105
 514. daddyjames 3:03 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 509. tramp96:It's nice when religion is on your side. So who hear believes in creationism??Religion and science don't conflict with one another.The majority of scientists recognize that science and religion are completely independent of one another. The majority of religions, and adherents to those religions, recognize this also.It is those of certain "faith" that attack science as being antagonistic to their beliefs.Creationism is interesting as a false "science".The movement, at least in the United States, is rooted in the Judaism/Christian/Muslim fundamental beliefs of how the universe, the earth, and man came into being.Imagine if creationism was embraced, but instead Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Indigenous Native American (both North and South American) beliefs were taught instead. Why not? These are just as valid as any other creationist argument given the ability to scientifically test their validity.My comment regarding "not expecting anything less from a Jesuit" reflects that Jesuits recognize the distinction between science and religion, and recognize that they are not in conflict with one another, but complimentary. Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
 515. JohnLonergan 3:10 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 512. Neapolitan:My belief in creationism is roughly equal to my belief in Santa Claus, insofar as neither has so much a shred of scientific evidence in support of their existence. Though to be fair, at least with Santa Claus, you get gifts. So there's that...The Catholic view on creationism:... Fr. Skehan penned a strong letter prominently featured in the October edition of the American Geological Institute's newsletter, Geotimes. The letter was headlined: "Creation Science: Bad Science, Bad Religion!"More succinctly, the Church accepts science. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 516. Birthmark 3:11 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 513. iceagecoming:Funny, I don't see the volcanic contribution in the scientific or historical observations. Should be fairly easy to lock in dates for volcanic activity by particle dispersion and sedimentary depth.And you never will see...unless you look. Here, for instance. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 4869
 517. JohnLonergan 3:24 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 514. daddyjames:Religion and science don't conflict with one another.The majority of scientists recognize that science and religion are completely independent of one another.It is those of certain "faith" that attack science as being antagonistic to their beliefs.Creationism is interesting as a false "science".The movement, at least in the United States, is rooted in the Judaism/Christian/Muslim fundamental beliefs of how the universe, the earth, and man came into being.Imagine if creationism was embraced, but instead Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Indigenous Native American (both North and South American) beliefs were taught instead. Why not? These are just as valid as any other creationist argument given the ability to scientifically test their validity.My comment regarding "not expecting anything less from a Jesuit" reflects that Jesuits recognize the distinction between science and religion, and recognize that they are not in conflict with one another, but complimentary.Darn, that expresses my thoughts exactly. I wish I could write that well. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 518. daddyjames 3:35 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 517. JohnLonergan:Darn, that expresses my thoughts exactly. I wish I could write that well.We all have our moments - I think i just used all of mine up for the year :) Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
 520. Birthmark 3:57 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 519. tramp96:I'm not sure about that the way i see things creationism and evaluation are in eachothers face. The reason I asked the question is because most of the posters here reject religion unless it's convenient for them.I'm not sure how you know the religious beliefs of most posters here. I've been here two years and I don't know what "most" believe. Nor do I care.Evolution and creationism need not conflict if the act of creation is what started life. Evolution theory doesn't apply until life already exists. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 4869
 521. daddyjames 4:00 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 519. tramp96:I'm not sure about that the way i see things creationism and evaluation are in eachothers face. The reason I asked the question is because most of the posters here reject religion unless it's convenient for them.What they may reject, and may be misinterpreted as a complete rejection of religion, is the push by those of certain levels of faith to reject science and its conclusions - especially by those that falsely inflate creationism as a "science". Religion and science are complimentary to one another, and not in conflict. The only time, in history, they have been in conflict is when science has described something contradictory to religious beliefs. And the attack is generally launched by those whose existential beliefs are being challenged.This was something I tried pointing out previously (post 385). The discussion regarding climate change, and what to do about it, existentially challenges each individual's core beliefs about man's relationship with Nature. Consciously or unconsciously, these existential core beliefs strongly influence how the information is perceived and interpreted, whether there is acceptance of an impact, and influences the debate about whether or not any actions should be taken to mitigate any impacts.I hope my comments in post 385 were not misinterpreted by the individual, or others, as disrespectful of their beliefs. It certainly was not intended that way. It was intended to illustrate the existential challenge this issue poses to each individual's core beliefs, which helps explain how and why people respond the way that they do.Edit: Edited to clarify my statement (at least I hope). See, the moment had passed . . . :) Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
 524. Neapolitan 4:32 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 519. tramp96:I'm not sure about that the way i see things creationism and evaluation are in eachothers face. The reason I asked the question is because most of the posters here reject religion unless it's convenient for them.Well, speaking just for myself, I always reject religion, convenient or not--though, frankly, I've found it to be exclusively the latter. But on a larger note, isn't it a bit arrogant of and presumptuous for anyone to assume they somehow know the spiritual and religious leanings of others?At any rate, the one point I'll make is this: rejection of scientific evidence that runs counter to their preconceptions is a hallmark of the climate change denialist crowd, just as it is for those who'd claim that Darwinian evolution and capital 'C' Creationism are equal and competing "theories". They're not.The former has decades of scientific research behind it, research consisting of tens of millions of observations and hundreds of thousands of experiments performed by tens of thousands of qualified life scientists and distilled into half a million peer-reviewed publications. The latter has wishful thinking, a handful of misappropriated and out-of-context quotes from actual scientists, and a contorted mixture of misinterpretations and extrapolations of ancient texts written by cave- and tent-dwelling people who lived many centuries before modern science was invented.Sounds depressingly familiar, doesn't it? Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13105
 525. daddyjames 4:34 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 523. tramp96:Ok maybe I should have said some posters like the ice cream manNah, the ice cream man is evil. Then again, I am LI - so my fundamental belief is biased ;) Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
 526. Xulonn 4:44 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 509. tramp96:It's nice when religion is on your side. So who hear believes in creationism??I do - all of the species now living on the earth were "created" by evolution!![Actually, the Jesuits apparently believe in science, so it's not about religion. Many intelligent, educated and aware religious people believe in science - excluding the religious luddites.} Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1039
 527. daddyjames 5:04 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 513. iceagecoming:Funny, I don't see the volcanic contribution in the scientific or historical observations. Should be fairly easy to lock in dates for volcanic activity by particle dispersion and sedimentary depth.You do see it. Especially in measurements of temperature at different levels of the atmosphere.And you see it in the models too. Not just one, but a number of the different models (I do not know if all possible models were tested, but the significant one's were) to one degree or another - no pun intended. BTW, both the observed and modeled temperature changes in the different levels of the atmosphere are contradictory to those that would occur if the observations were due to the "solar cycle" as some have postulated here.Not to say that the solar cycle does not contribute, it does. But the observed (measured) and modeled temperatures in the different levels of the atmosphere are primarily the result of the "grand experiment" we are conducting.Enhanced fingerprinting strengthens evidence for human warming roleA link to the science. It is Open Access, and readily available for anyone to download.Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphereI'm sure this study has been referenced before. Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
 529. iceagecoming 5:58 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Quoting 516. Birthmark:And you never will see...unless you look. Here, for instance.The abstract your link provided does not seem to contain the the specific period 1600- 1700 with details on specific eruptions and the volcanoes responsible.Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial. Unlike research done on the Younger_Dryas where nano diamond particulate was found over a very large area of North America leading to the theory of a possible comet or other such celestial body strike on the glacial ice. Link Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 22 Comments: 977
 530. JohnLonergan 6:02 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Graphic from the World Resources Institute Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 531. JohnLonergan 8:36 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Global Warming: Man or Myth?COP-19 Warsaw: Arguing Over Who Leaves House Fire FirstOn reading The US and China Play Chicken Over Climate Change in The Diplomat, I could not help to think of the following analogy:Mr. Sam and Mr. Wong are two competing businessmen trapped in a house fire along with all of their widgets. Keeping the price of their widgets low is the key to their economic success. It is vital that they, along with their widgets, get out of this fire as soon as possible. This should be obvious to all.So why are they not rushing out of this house fire? Well, there is a catch. The only exit available requires a fee. The first person to exit pays a little more than the second person to exit.Sam and Wong continue to argue about who exits first because each wishes to pay the lower second exit fee. Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2565
 532. barbamz 9:49 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 Lakes discovered beneath Greenland ice sheetPhysOrg, 3 hours agoThe study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, discovered two subglacial lakes 800 metres below the Greenland Ice Sheet. The two lakes are each roughly 8-10 km2, and at one point may have been up to three times larger than their current size.Subglacial lakes are likely to influence the flow of the ice sheet, impacting global sea level change. The discovery of the lakes in Greenland will also help researchers to understand how the ice will respond to changing environmental conditions.The study, conducted at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge, used airborne radar measurements to reveal the lakes underneath the ice sheet. ...Whole article see link above. Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 42 Comments: 4866
 533. Xandra 10:58 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 From DeSmogBlog:Firm with History of Spill Cover-Ups Hired to Clean Up North Dakota Oil SpillTesoro Logistics — the company whose pipeline spilled more than 800,000 gallons of fracked Bakken Shale oil in rural North Dakota in September — has hired infamous contractor Witt O'Brien's to oversee its clean-up of the biggest oil spill in U.S. history.The oil was obtained via hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in the Bakken Shale basin.As revealed after ExxonMobil hired the same firm in the aftermath of a 210,000-gallon tar sands oil spill in April 2013, Witt O'Brien's — formerly known as OOPS, Inc. — is a firm with a history of oil spill cover-ups dating back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It also oversaw the spraying of toxic oil dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico during BP's summer 2010 mega-spill and a literal cover-up of Enbridge's massive "dilbit disaster" tar sands pipeline spill in Michigan. Witt O'Brien's also won a \$300,000 contract to develop an emergency response plan for TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline in August 2008.The same firm is now maintaining Tesoro's website dedicated to offering updates — also known as crisis communications management — for the massive spill's recovery efforts at TesoroAlert.com. Buried at the bottom of the website is a mention that the site is "powered by the PIER System." PIER — short for "Public Information Emergency Response" — is owned by Witt O'Brien's.Read more: Firm with History of Spill Cover-Ups Hired to Clean Up North Dakota Oil Spill Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1143
 534. VR46L 11:07 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
 535. Xandra 11:35 PM GMT on November 27, 2013 (Click for larger image) Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1143
 536. Astrometeor 2:29 AM GMT on November 28, 2013 In case you guys/girls missed it:Quoting 292. Grothar:Happy Thanksgiving, you twits!*tear* Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 76 Comments: 7683
 538. Xulonn 3:32 AM GMT on November 28, 2013 Quoting 537. tramp96:Happy Thanksgiving buddy and to allAnd the same to you. I love my retirement life in Panama, but Thanksgiving is an American holiday that still holds a lot of wonderful memories of gatherings with friends and family for me.I'm going to a big, old-fashioned American style Thanksgiving dinner at someone's house where there will be 16 of us gorging ourselves on a traditional turkey dinner. Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow American WU'pers. Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1039
 539. Birthmark 4:30 AM GMT on November 28, 2013 Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 4869
 540. RevElvis 4:43 AM GMT on November 28, 2013 The 'Ticking Time Bomb' That Could Cause Such Rapid Global Warming We'd Be Unable to Prevent ExtinctionMethane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and there are trillions of tons of it embedded in a sort of ice slurry called methane hydrate or methane clathrate crystals in the Arctic and in the seas around continental shelves from North America to Antarctica.If enough of this methane is released quickly enough, it won't just produce "Global warming." It could produce an extinction of species on a wide scale - an extinction that could even include the human race.If there is a "ticking time bomb" in our biosphere that could lead to a global warming so rapid and sudden that we would have no way of dealing with it, it's methane.Our planet has experienced five major extinctions over the past billion or so years, times when more than half of all life has died in a geologically brief period of time, and the common denominator of each one has been a sudden pulse of global warming. Increasingly, it appears that a rapid release of methane played a primary role in each one. Back in 2002, the BBC documented how, just in the previous decade, geologists had by-and-large come to the conclusion that a sudden release of methane led to the death of over 95% of everything on Earth during the Permian Mass Extinction. That methane is back, probably in even larger quantities, as life has been so active since the last mass extinction.We laid out the scenario and its possible doomsday implications in a short video titled "Last Hours" a few months ago. Since the world has been recently sensitized about methane, we're now discovering more and more of it leaking from oil wells, fracking operations, melting permafrost, and even stirred up by Arctic storms. Just this week, the EPA reported they may have been underestimating by half the amount of methane being produced by human activity. Meanwhile, the National Science Foundation just released a report that methane releases from the Arctic have also been underestimated. The caption accompanying their graphic says it all too clearly: "Methane is leaking from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf into the atmosphere at an alarming rate."While methane does eventually degrade into carbon dioxide, when large amounts are released over a short time period, their effect on global warming can be dramatic, since methane is such a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. AlterNet.org"Last Hours" (video)I was taught that the human brain was the crowning glory of evolution so far, but I think it%u2019s a very poor scheme for survival. - Kurt Vonnegut Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
 541. cyclonebuster 5:05 AM GMT on November 28, 2013 Using these two forces combined are the solution to fossil fuel GHG warming.. Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 542. cyclonebuster 6:21 AM GMT on November 28, 2013 Quoting 511. iceagecoming:MIT CoLab Conference seeks ‘bottom-up’ approach to climate change Other than serving as a way to foster new ideas about climate change, Fisher said the organization also serves as an incubator for ideas to be developed and even implemented by the crowd. The contests are especially effective at shifting public attitude and behaviors that are needed to respond to climate change.“This is one of the most critical missing pieces in achieving effective climate action, both political and market-driven, and there’s a huge potential for IT-enabled crowds to have a strong impact here,” Fisher said.Next year, the Climate CoLab will be exploring a new model for intelligent online collaboration and the ability for proposals to be taken offline and implemented by community members themselves.To watch a video of the conference, visit climatecolab.org/conference2013/virtually.To learn more about the Climate CoLab, visit climatecolab.org.LinkFeatured winning proposals Reimagine prosperity; reframe sustainability; reshape consumerismShape & activate a more attractive aspirational lifestyle that is innately sustainable for the emergent middle class in China.Whose Home is wasting more energy, yours or your neighbours?FREE personalized HEAT Scores, HEAT Maps, Hot Spots, GHG estimates and waste-heat comparisons/competitions for homes, communities & cities Scaling renewables in major emerging economiesHow can renewable technologies be rapidly deployed in the major emerging economies?LinkI guess we'll see if this is more productive than the Warsaw debacle.What a joke... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
 543. WunderAlertBot (Admin) 6:27 AM GMT on November 28, 2013 RickyRood has created a new entry.

Viewing: 501 - 543

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 — Blog Index

New Comment
Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.