Change in the Weather: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (7)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:14 AM GMT on November 19, 2013

Share this Blog
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.”


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: 443 - 393

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

Quoting 442. tramp96:


Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 439. tramp96:


Oooh, look! Tramp has bestowed a helping of derp upon us.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Hello Dr. Ricky Rood, I absolutely agree with your weather blog, it does contain facts about the carbon in the atmosphere making us warmer since 1960, and the melting of the sea ice and icebergs have a huge impact on climate change. You have provided excellent information including the graph, on this very important topic. I just hope that we can put an end to global warming (climate change) before we lose all of the planet's sea ice and icebergs.Sincerely,Dave Five
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 437. yoboi:




Yet again, you link to non-evidence. Science is not what any single scientist says. That is opinion. It is not evidence.

Science is what appears in reputably published, peer-reviewed journals and survived the scrutiny of experts.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
437. yoboi
Quoting 435. Birthmark:

Again, you repeat nonsense that has already been refuted. In the case of temperature, you are flat-out lying.




German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or “very close to zero.” “That hasn't happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero.”


Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
Quoting 434. JohnLonergan:


The next claim he backs up will be the first.

And that is why he should be banned.

I would hope that all people of good will, who respect reasoned, evidenced-based discussion will minus and "!" on all of yoboi's unsubstantiated and refuted claims. My understanding is we only need ten people to have the substance-free posts removed.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 432. yoboi:




Again, you repeat nonsense that has already been refuted. In the case of temperature, you are flat-out lying.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 423. Birthmark:

=BS

Okay, so you can't support your claim substantively. I wish I was surprised.


The next claim he backs up will be the first.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
Quoting 431. JohnLonergan:


I would point out thtT with no CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature would be about 255 K.

For those playing at home that is -0.67ºF.



Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
432. yoboi
Quoting 430. Birthmark:

You provided zero science. You linked to a blog.

I have thoroughly refuted your baseless claim with both the above graph and a link to Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010), the full paper no less.

It is time for you to quit trolling.



Yes you have provided a graph and it clearly shows that the temps are near static for almost 17 yrs....Are you going to disagree with NASA predictions about solar 25?????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
Quoting 420. Daisyworld:


That's complete supposition on your part, yoboi. And also completely wrong. You're using the fallacy of extension to make your argument, that being that because a tiny fraction of the atmosphere is so small, that it couldn't possibly have an impact on the rest of the planet.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Do you think a tiny drop of mercury (<1 mL) could have an impact on the warmth and comfort of your 2000 square foot, 2-story home on a cold winter's night? If you said "no", then you would be wrong. In fact, many older homes use a drop of mercury in their old-style thermostats, and a tiny shift of the liquid metal to one side is all it takes to lower the temperature of the house by 10 to 20 degrees.

The same is true with carbon dioxide. While the process is different, the concept is the same. Tiny shifts in concentration of this comparatively small amount of greenhouse gas can cause large swings in the average temperature of the entire planet.

Please stop planting misinformation, and go and do some research on Earth's biogeochemical cycles before you post another misleading comment.


I would point out that with no CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature would be about 255 K.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
Quoting 429. yoboi:

You provided zero science. You linked to a blog.

I have thoroughly refuted your baseless claim with both the above graph and a link to Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010), the full paper no less.

It is time for you to quit trolling.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
429. yoboi
Quoting 427. Birthmark:

And repetition. He has made this claim before and it has been refuted. He has yet to answer the refutation or provide anything else in the way of evidence to bolster his claim.

He doesn't. He merely repeats the same bogus claim.

He should be banned.


You have CO2 repetition and I have solar repetition....so I provide science and I should be banned????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
Quoting 412. Birthmark:

Certainty is the province of philosophy, not science.
Quoting 412. Birthmark:

Certainty is the province of philosophy, not science.


Some people seem to be completely unaware of the definitions of term "likely"

From AR5:

"In this IPCC assessment report, specific terms are used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an
outcome or a result. For those terms used above: virtually certain means 99–100% probability,
extremely likely: 95–100%, very likely: 90–100%, likely: 66–100%."




Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
Quoting 424. Daisyworld:


And everyone should note how he/she doesn't even address the premise of the original argument... A perfect example the propaganda technique known as "deflection".

And repetition. He has made this claim before and it has been refuted. He has yet to answer the refutation or provide anything else in the way of evidence to bolster his claim.

He doesn't. He merely repeats the same bogus claim.

He should be banned.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 421. yoboi:

Another unsubstantiated claim. Post the numbers. I'll even help get you started with a spiffy graph.



According to that graph and your claim, we should have been cooling for quite some time, yet it has been warming.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
425. yoboi
Solar Cycle 25 (SC25) will be most remarkable in that the Earth will experience a switch to a much cooler climate then we have become accustomed to in the last 50-60 years thus proving beyond any doubt that CO2 is NOT a significant driver of our climate. So, get ready to embrace Solar Cycle 25, it’s coming whether you like it or not.



Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
Quoting 421. yoboi:



And with Solar 25 coming the mercury is going to tilt to the cooling.....


And everyone should note how he/she doesn't even address the premise of the original argument... A perfect example the propaganda technique known as "deflection".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 419. yoboi:
ITF2, therefore as BTF2.

=BS

Okay, so you can't support your claim substantively. I wish I was surprised.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 413. tramp96:

Look young man every time yoboi comes on here he is refuted with science science science so might,maybe, could be, not certain, probably don't have a place in their argument ever and that is certain.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

- Charles Darwin
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
421. yoboi
Quoting 420. Daisyworld:


That's complete supposition on your part, yoboi. And also completely wrong. You're using the fallacy of extension to make your argument, that being that because a tiny fraction of the atmosphere is so small, that it couldn't possibly have an impact on the rest of the planet.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Do you think a tiny drop of mercury (<1 mL) could have an impact on the warmth and comfort of your 2000+ square foot, 2-story home on a cold winter's night? If you said "no", then you would be wrong. In fact, many older homes use a drop of mercury in their old-style thermostats, and a tiny shift of the liquid metal to one side is all it takes to lower the temperature of the house by 10 to 20 degrees.

The same is true with carbon dioxide. While the process is different, the concept is the same. Tiny shifts in concentration of this comparatively small amount of greenhouse gas can cause large swings in the average temperature of the entire planet.

Please stop planting misinformation, and go and do some research on Earth's biogeochemical cycles before you post another misleading comment.



And with Solar 25 coming the mercury is going to tilt to the cooling.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
Quoting 410. yoboi:


Well with CO2 at at 0.0387% Humans can not impact climate greather than 10% Anything beyond that and the numbers just don't add up......


That's complete supposition on your part, yoboi. And also completely wrong. You're using the fallacy of extension to make your argument, that being that because a tiny fraction of the atmosphere is so small, that it couldn't possibly have an impact on the rest of the planet.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Do you think a tiny drop of mercury (<1 mL) could have an impact on the warmth and comfort of your 2000+ square foot, 2-story home on a cold winter's night? If you said "no", then you would be wrong. In fact, many older homes use a drop of mercury in their old-style thermostats, and a tiny shift of the liquid metal to one side is all it takes to lower the temperature of the house by 10 to 20 degrees.

The same is true with carbon dioxide. While the process is different, the concept is the same. Tiny shifts in concentration of this comparatively small amount of greenhouse gas can cause large swings in the average temperature of the entire planet.

Please stop planting misinformation, and go and do some research on Earth's biogeochemical cycles before you post another misleading comment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
419. yoboi
ITF2, therefore as BTF2.
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
Quoting 413. tramp96:


Let me repeat. Certainty is the province of philosophy, not science.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 410. yoboi:

That, sir, is meaningless babble at odds with the published science.

So, if you want anyone to take your pronouncement for anything more than babble, you must show in detail how you arrived at your erroneous figure.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Musical History of CO2
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
Quoting 406. JohnLonergan:
From Hotwhopper:

Climate video from the IPCC - We Have a Choice

That is a good overview. I do like how often it noted "multiple, independent lines of evidence."
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 407. yoboi:

Certainty is the province of philosophy, not science.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
410. yoboi
Quoting 408. Astrometeor:


Nothing is laid in stone, all climate and weather predictions are just that...predictions. Not the law of the land.

And yet you seem so certain about yourself on some of these issues. Why is that?


Well with CO2 at at 0.0387% Humans can not impact climate greather than 10% Anything beyond that and the numbers just don't add up......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
The Guardian
Interview :
Guest : Rachel Kyte, incoming head of climate change at the World Bank, on political leadership, carbon pricing, the psychology of communicating and rising anger at climate change inaction


World Bank warrior spearheading the fight against climate change For complete interview click HERE

Excerpt:

How far has the World Bank come in recognising the need to act on climate change?

"The institution has moved so far, so fast that you have to step back sometimes to appreciate it. I can remember a period when we were instructed not to talk about climate change, and then we went through a period under new leadership of asking why is a development organisation talking about climate change?

We've come to a situation where we fully realise that development is taking place in the context of a quickly changing world. Climate change isn't something that our clients, whether they be public or private, have to think about as a future risk; it's actually pummelling them now if they are a country with a coastline in the tropics or an arid country with an agricultural economy."
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6854
Quoting 407. yoboi:
I have noticed some keys words with AGW science....Might, maybe, could be, not certain, probably......


Nothing is laid in stone, all climate and weather predictions are just that...predictions. Not the law of the land.

And yet you seem so certain about yourself on some of these issues. Why is that?
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10364
407. yoboi
I have noticed some keys words with AGW science....Might, maybe, could be, not certain, probably......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2369
From Hotwhopper:

Climate video from the IPCC - We Have a Choice

This video is very good, particularly for explaining to non-scientists just what we are doing to our Earth (h/t Victor Venema). It's got some great pictures in remote locations and shows scientists working in the field.

Pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

Link to video:

Climate 2013
Working Group1: The Physical Science Basis


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
DeSmogBlog
Guest Post



Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart ..for complete post click HERE


This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.*

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles.





The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6854
Deep oceans may be storing heat

By Tim Radford

More evidence has emerged that the apparent slowdown in the rate of atmospheric warming may be explained by heat absorption in the deep ocean.

LONDON, 24 November – Far below the surface, the waters of south-east Asia are heating up. A region of the Pacific is now warming at least 15 times faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years. If this finding – so far limited to the depths where the Pacific and Indian Oceans wash into each other – is true for the blue planet as a whole, then the questions of climate change take on a new urgency.

Yair Rosenthal of Rutgers University in New Brunswick and colleagues from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, and at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, report in the journal Science that deep ocean warming could right now be taking much of the heat that meteorologists had expected to find in the atmosphere.

In the last few years, even though greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have gone up, the rate of increase in global average temperatures has slowed and there is evidence that much of the expected heat is being absorbed by the oceans and carried beneath the surface.

More at Climate News Network ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
What's Up With That Watts?
Stephen Schneider - Science and Distortion… the video



... "I decided to transcribe some highlights of a talk given by Stephen Schneider PhD not too long before his tragic untimely death in 2010. In this talk Dr. Schneider does a masterful job of describing the dysfunctional public dialogue. He reviews the scientific process and systems science, and speaks to the issues of educating the public, risk assessment and value judgements.

I'm posting it because Dr. Stephen Schneider's words are a beautifully concise distillation of over four decades worth of world class scientific experience and all around learning. If you are engaged in the struggle to communicate science and dialogue with faith-based denialist types, you're sure to find these personal reflections beneficial for your own process."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Link to Video

The Truth About Global Warming -
Science & Distortion -
Stephen Schneider


Transcription available here ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3398
Quoting 401. tramp96:

And yet you all play along. Why is that?


Because there are certain people in this world, myself included, that do not like to see misinformed people spread lies and Manufactured Doubt to the detriment of human civilization.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 397. tramp96:

You can blame who you want the truth is there are a lot of posters here that can't handle civil dialogue.


There's a difference between civil dialogue, and posting factually inaccurate information while insisting your logic is airtight and that anyone who disagrees is too fanatical to follow along. That latter process is known as confusing the argument in order to deliberately plant disinformation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
With respect to my recent response to Baltimore Brian and Caleb - not all Republicans and conservatives are climate denialists - especially the young ones.

Quoting The Guardian:
Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views "ignorant, out of touch or crazy".

The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80% support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama's climate change plan – and majority support even among those who oppose the president.

On the flip side the poll found three-quarters of voters, or 73%, would oppose members of Congress who stood in the way of Obama's climate action plan.

The findings could prove awkward for Republicans in Congress who have adopted climate contrarianism as a defining feature.

Some 55% of Republicans in the House of Representatives and 65% of those in the Senate reject the science behind climate change or oppose action on climate change, according to an analysis by the Centre for American Progress.

The house speaker, John Boehner, dismissed Obama's plan to reduce carbon emissions as "absolutely crazy". If the poll is right that would hurt Boehner even among members of his own party, with the poll finding 52% of young Republicans less inclined to support a candidate who opposed Obama on climate change.

The implications were even more harsh for those Republicans who block Obama on climate action and dispute the entire body of science behind climate change. "For voters under 35, denying climate change signals a much broader failure of values and leadership," the polling memo said. Many young voters would write such candidates off completely, with 37% describing climate change deniers as "ignorant", 29% as "out of touch" and 7% simply as "crazy".

The climate cranks were unlikely to pick up many points with their base either; just under half of young Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for a climate change denier.

The poll, a joint effort by the Democratic firm Benenson Strategy Group and the Republican firm GS Strategy Group, could provide further evidence to a small group of moderate Republicans – mainly retired from politics – who have been trying to nudge the party to engage with the issue of climate change.

"As a Republican party strategist I believe that Republican candidates, Republican elected officials, need to find ways to demonstrate tolerance and understanding of what a young generation of voters need to see occurring," said Greg Strimple of GS Strategy.

A few former Republican members of Congress – and an anonymous congressional aide – have publicly warned the party will lose voters, especially among the young, if it is seen as anti-science.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1474
Quoting 393. BaltimoreBrian:
Not happy with how Caleb was treated here. I'm taking a long break from this place.
This is a very difficult post for me to make, and I fee quite awkward in trying to present my thoughts and feelings. These issues are much more difficult for me - and probably others here - to deal with than discussing science.

Brian, rather than cut and run, why not work with the community to help your friend Caleb learn about climate science? I believe that the "regulars" here would like nothing more than to help Caleb learn about climate science and help him figure out how to separate the myths, pseudo and bad science that he so often supports. Why do you think Caleb clings so dearly to easily refuted denialist misinformation? How can we better work with him and others like him?

I understand that Caleb is a university meteorology student, and whom I've tried to work with in the past just doesn't seem to want to look at hard and real climate science.

Caleb, I know that you will read this, and I would be very pleased if your friend and supporter Brian would help us figure out what the barrier is that makes you unable to evaluate the quality of science reporting and papers.

I can imagine Caleb being a fellow student and friend who is flunking a climate science class, and being frustrated by what seems to be a barrier to his ability or motivation to learn climate science - a barrier that he seems to be unable to overcome.

So tell us Brian, how can we work with people like Caleb, who are university students in science and technology, but seem to refuse to recognize and read actual science outside their course requirements. I think others here have been patient, but Caleb is as persistent in his support of climate myths as a regular denialist. I joined in today by rebutting Caleb's veiled reference to abiotic oil, but I did not disparage him - I simply rebutted the myth with hard scientific reasoning and evidence.

And Caleb, can you tell us why you won't rigorously study the basics of climate science, even by reading the WU climate changes - which takes no more than a couple of hours?

Why do you repeatedly post climate myths which are clearly rebutted with strong evidence at skepticalscience.com?

Do you even go to the Skeptical Science website and see what they say about the validity of your "thoughts" and beliefs" Or do you - a university meteorology student - believe that "thoughts" and "beliefs" trump science?

And why do you "think" that scientist have overlooked all kinds of factors - like natural variation, including solar flux and cosmic rays - when such factors are most certainly and very clearly accounted for in AGW/CC science?

You cannot join your fellow young people (including a significant and growing cohort of young Republicans and Conservatives, and Evangelical Christians) who will need make the necessary changes to deal with AGW/CC - until you understand what is happening and accept the truth of it. We need people like you to push for the necessary changes, and when you do, I and many other senior citizens will be there to support you.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1474
Quoting 393. BaltimoreBrian:
Not happy with how Caleb was treated here. I'm taking a long break from this place.


Actually, I agree with Brian here. Caleb (GT) has indicated that he is still learning about climate change and global warming, and was willing to capitulate that he was not an expert in the field. To me, that mitigates any perceived past transgressions he might have made on the facts. I applaud GT for going to college and working hard in his classes, and he should NOT be chastised for perceived discrepancies in his opinions. Others should simply point out any errors and move on (I actually made the mistake of plussing a derogatory statement about him in here instead of minusing it like I had intended -- unfortunately WU won't let you take back a plus).

In truth, I blame the climate change denialists who wander these comment forums, and who indirectly lulled GT into submitting opinions about human-induced climate change that he may not have made in a purely scientific forum (note that the denialists only supported the opinions of GT that they agreed with).

GT is still in the college learning process and deserves some room to question certain aspects of established science. That's how learning works. As long as he remains open to learning more, keeps the rhetoric toned down, and approaches the subject with an inquisitive mind with unassuming questions/statements, he should be welcomed here and not chastised.

(And yes, this comes from someone who incorrectly considered him a troll at one point before apologizing.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 389. pcola57:


Thanks for posting that Xulonn.. :)
You have put forth much towards resolving that issue..
I , speaking for myself as a single soul out here in internet land and on planet Earth, have seen nothing but great posts on your part..
Your credibility always is and has been among the tops with me..
Thanks again.. :)
Thanks pcola.

I feel best about my participation here when I am able to stick to the science and avoid the taunts of the ill-informed ignorati with their AGW/CC denialist blather and claptrap.

Many of the regulars, including you, contribute good stuff regularly, and I want to thank Birthmark and FlWolverine in particular for rebutting nearly every post of our regular resident denialists. One of these rabble-rousers could be a poster boy for the denialist industry - he employs every trick in the book that is taught to professional and amateur disrupters and doubt-planters who are encouraged - or in some cases, even paid - to go out into cyberspace and disrupt AGW/CC forums and blogs. They cut and paste huge quotes with one-line, usually irrelevant comments, don't answer questions, and whine loudly when called out. They post the same misinformation and lies over and over and over and over after repeated rebuttals and corrections. But by doing that, they accomplish certain goals - disrupt the conversations, bloat the comments with blather, making it harder to read and learn, drive curious lurkers away, and make it difficult to have a focus on the science of AGW/CC.

The kind of evidence supporting AGW/CC that the average person can relate to is popping up more and more often, and drives the denialist community into a tizzy with each event. The effects of AGW/CC are becoming more and more obvious to the average person, and I have noticed the denialists getting really worked up every time there's a weather disaster or new scientific evidence published in a paper.

When Ph.D. scientists like Dr. Judith Curry say things that are so blatantly erroneous that even people like me with only a science bachelor's degree can see through them, it shows that the denialists are getting desperate and making fools of themselves.

I sense a bit of progress in having "the masses" understand the reality and coming disastrous consequences. At the same time some denialists like another one of our regulars constantly bleat about how the "alarmists" are dwindling to a handful and being made irrelevant, which is a process psychologists call "projection" because the opposite is actually true. I see a sense of desperation in the denialist community's support of their lost cause that is palpable these days. They are redoubling their efforts as they sink inexorably into the quicksand.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1474
Not happy with how Caleb was treated here. I'm taking a long break from this place.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8631

Viewing: 443 - 393

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