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: 343 - 293

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

Quoting 342. Patrap:
Seems the college money may have been better spent for someone.



"we all have a responsibility for our own words"-Patrap

nice Patrap..real nice..isn't it funny we forget what we type..maybe you should have written today "hypocritical thinkers"

GT, dont pay no mind..keep on having a mind of your own and you will have that degree and credentials behind your name
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Seems the college money may have been better spent for someone.


: )




I offer a free tutorial for easy learning.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 338. PensacolaDoug:
. Once you burn it, it's gone. No getting it back


Exactly. Like ya'lls credibility.

Yeah, posting all that science...what were we thinking? LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 2. PensacolaDoug:
Those guys are so full of themselves.


Anyone else find this old, tiresome, and offensive?

Going to someone's else blog doesn't make it any better Doug. One of the things I learned in elementary school, "Insulting is not nice. If you don't have a good thing to say about someone, then don't say anything."

Quoting 327. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Seems you can never win in this blog when you try to show people your rational and yes I do believe the planet is warming and that people are causing it, but that there is other factors to, it all just gets debunked by you extremist Global Warming supporters as it is just human involved, whatever. Some of you guys need to go back to school and learn some good debate skills. Yes, the world is warming, but it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom, and guarantee you I will be here 50 years from now and nothing drastic will have changed with the atmosphere between now and then.


Caleb, trust us. The scientists who do research on this issue have already ruled out other possible causes. Sure, they have effects, but the human card is clearly the dominant factor here currently.

No, it doesn't have to be doom and gloom, but it will be if the human race collectively decides to be "lazy Americans".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 328. overwash12:
Why wouldn't they show trends? If the temps are on the rise ,the avg. would go up at least a little,would they not?

My point anyways,was I do not see any temps. in the gulf stream during the summer that ever hit 87F. 86.4 was the highest,I believe. Don't you think they would hit that if the ocean temps are on the increase,just askin'. This is off the coast of N.C. by the way.

You should probably research the topic. Several excellent links have been posted in this thread that would be helpful to you.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
. Once you burn it, it's gone. No getting it back


Exactly. Like ya'lls credibility.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 591
Quoting 333. overwash12:
There is no proof,that would blow a big hole in the "warmists" agenda! LOL

What agenda would that be?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 319. GTstormChaserCaleb:
That is a false statement you and I both know there are oil reserves right here in the US that have not even been tapped yet and plenty of other places on this planet as well. And underneath the surface of this Earth is the very influx that creates the oil, so run out? Pssh not in my lifetime.


Caleb, you're scaring me. What is this "influx" of oil?

Oil is a non-renewable resource. Once you burn it, it's gone. No getting it back.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 327. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Seems you can never win in this blog when you try to show people your rational and yes I do believe the planet is warming and that people are causing it, but that there is other factors to, it all just gets debunked by you extremist Global Warming supporters as it is just human involved, whatever. Some of you guys need to go back to school and learn some good debate skills. Yes, the world is warming, but it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom, and guarantee you I will be here 50 years from now and nothing drastic will have changed with the atmosphere between now and then.

Let's see...I have your guarantee based on...what, exactly?...or the publications of trained scientists who have studied the problems for years and decades.

I'm gonna go with the science and the scientists on this one.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 328. overwash12:
Why wouldn't they show trends? If the temps are on the rise ,the avg. would go up at least a little,would they not?

My point anyways,was I do not see any temps. in the gulf stream during the summer that ever hit 87F. 86.4 was the highest,I believe. Don't you think they would hit that if the ocean temps are on the increase,just askin'. This is off the coast of N.C. by the way.


None of the buoys are located in the Gulf Stream (off Florida) although Molasses Reef and Fowley Rocks are the closest. There are no direct measurements of the temperature of the Gulf Stream - unless done by ship (or satellite).

To show trends you would have to compare averages of at at least two or more temps over time. That is what the paper I linked to does.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 297. goosegirl1:


Umm, no. Not proof. You specifically mentioned the Gulf Stream. You have to provide temp charts for the Gulf Stream and show the temps are dropping, or you have no proof. Make sure they are taken in the same way, with the same equipment, at the same time of year and in the same place. See how hard science is?
There is no proof,that would blow a big hole in the "warmists" agenda! LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 330. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Skeptical Science? I thought you debunked that website the other day.

You thought wrong.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 315. PensacolaDoug:
Humans are animals..last we checked



Some more so than others.

Yeah, we get it. People who think differently than you are animals. It's hardly an original or even germane thought.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 329. Birthmark:

Um, no.
Skeptical Science? I thought you debunked that website the other day.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 317. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Thanks for finally realizing that, everytime I bring up animal causes to Global Warming all I read on here is no how it is human causes. So at least we have an understanding. So we along with cows and other living things on this planet including plants are therefore contributing to Global Warming.

Um, no.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 324. daddyjames:


Overwash, I don't understand how that link illustrates your point. The average temperatures are just that, the average temperature measured over a number of years. They don't show trends.

From the "same" buoy and station data that you linked to, the sea surface temperature off the East coast of Florida has changed little, or has even slightly declined.

Whereas, the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic have shown long-term increases.

Long-Term Sea Surface Temperature Variability along the U.S. East Coast (pdf file)
Why wouldn't they show trends? If the temps are on the rise ,the avg. would go up at least a little,would they not?

My point anyways,was I do not see any temps. in the gulf stream during the summer that ever hit 87F. 86.4 was the highest,I believe. Don't you think they would hit that if the ocean temps are on the increase,just askin'. This is off the coast of N.C. by the way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Seems you can never win in this blog when you try to show people your rational and yes I do believe the planet is warming and that people are causing it, but that there is other factors to, it all just gets debunked by you extremist Global Warming supporters as it is just human involved, whatever. Some of you guys need to go back to school and learn some good debate skills. Yes, the world is warming, but it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom, and guarantee you I will be here 50 years from now and nothing drastic will have changed with the atmosphere between now and then.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 321. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Then you probably haven't been to other countries. Ask your teacher if he or she has been to other countries.


He has. He was arrested in Russia for refusing to take a bribe.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 317. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Thanks for finally realizing that, everytime I bring up animal causes to Global Warming all I read on here is no how it is human causes. So at least we have an understanding. So we along with cows and other living things on this planet including plants are therefore contributing to Global Warming.


Well, technically speaking, the cows are not producing the methane in their intestinal system - but the microbial community is. Same as in humans.

In fact, the production of methane from the decomposition any organic matter, is from microbial degredation.

so, lets not falsely accuse the poor cows of creating that which we have done.

Blame it on the bugs (bacterial mainly).

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 292. overwash12:
Link Water temps. average chart. If they were going up then we would see this as evidence on the NOAA charts. Not Happening.


Overwash, I don't understand how that link illustrates your point. The average temperatures are just that, the average temperature measured over a number of years. They don't show trends.

From the "same" buoy and station data that you linked to, the sea surface temperature off the East coast of Florida has changed little, or has even slightly declined.

Whereas, the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic have shown long-term increases.

Long-Term Sea Surface Temperature Variability along the U.S. East Coast (pdf file)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 320. Patrap:






I'm highly confident your understanding is no where near my 54 years.



Animal Causes ?

Your terribly misinformed seems.

So I will discontinue Logic with you.



Whatever your continuous snide remarks is why people don't come here to discuss Global Warming with you. Continue on with your ignorance. Logic I have that. You seem to lack the rational in good debate though. I see why ncstorm and a couple of others get so frustrated with you. So have a nice day sir.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 311. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Interesting Methane (CH4) is more higher up on this graph than Carbon Dioxide (C02). One has to think a combination of humans and animals. Well technically humans are animals as our origins stem from the mammals. :D

Check your y-axis labels -- CO2 is shown as ppm and methane as ppb. Concentration wise, they're not even close. You also might want to consider that without people, there'd be no cows.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 318. Astrometeor:


1. It's cost effective in terms of hard cash, forgetting the environmental costs. However, oil and coal won't be this cheap forever Caleb. My engineering teacher showed us some statistics on oil. It used to be the profit margins for oil were for every $1 spent on extracting, the profit would be $100. Even with new technology, the margins have decreased to less than $1:$10. Besides, current technological competitions are creating systems that rely on other methods other than gasoline to power cars. It's only a matter of time, effort, and investment.

2. As history will tell you Caleb, "that will put companies put of business" isn't an excuse to stop innovative progress. You don't see millions of horse-drawn carriages everyday do you? Times change, some items will no longer be required, and people will have to adjust to the new labor demands. Such is the human economic cycle.
Then you probably haven't been to other countries. Ask your teacher if he or she has been to other countries.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 317. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Thanks for finally realizing that, everytime I bring up animal causes to Global Warming all I read on here is no how it is human causes. So at least we have an understanding. So we along with cows and other living things on this planet including plants are therefore contributing to Global Warming.






I'm highly confident your understanding is no where near my 54 years.

see #319.



That and Animal Causes ?

Your terribly misinformed seems.

So I will discontinue Logic with you.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 316. Patrap:
The oil and coal will run out..its not er, a renewable Commodity ya know.


Then WTH?




That is a false statement you and I both know there are oil reserves right here in the US that have not even been tapped yet and plenty of other places on this planet as well. And underneath the surface of this Earth is the very influx that creates the oil, so run out? Pssh not in my lifetime.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 312. GTstormChaserCaleb:
I disagree with getting rid of fossil fuels completely, one because that is the cost effective way to power homes and vehicles, if the whole world instantly and even transitioned to just renewable energy resources not everyone would be able to afford it, and two that will put people out of jobs and companies out of business.


1. It's cost effective in terms of hard cash, forgetting the environmental costs. However, oil and coal won't be this cheap forever Caleb. My engineering teacher showed us some statistics on oil. It used to be the profit margins for oil were for every $1 spent on extracting, the profit would be $100. Even with new technology, the margins have decreased to less than $1:$10. Besides, current technological competitions are creating systems that rely on other methods other than gasoline to power cars. It's only a matter of time, effort, and investment.

2. As history will tell you Caleb, "that will put companies put of business" isn't an excuse to stop innovative progress. You don't see millions of horse-drawn carriages everyday do you? Times change, some items will no longer be required, and people will have to adjust to the new labor demands. Such is the human economic cycle.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 314. Patrap:
311.

We all know that.

Methane is locked in permafrost.

And hydrates below the sea.

The Observed warming is melting permafrost.

See "Drunken tree's'.

When the methane does enter the system now run amuck by CO2, well..the forcing and temps will rise faster..



Your animal thing is irrelevant..and obfuscating to the hilt.

Humans are animals,Bi-pedal Hominid Mammals...last we checked.

We bear our Young Live, have Hair, and well a Vertebrate too.

Well, some of us seems.

Have you ever been to Washington,D.C. ?




Thanks for finally realizing that, everytime I bring up animal causes to Global Warming all I read on here is no how it is human causes. So at least we have an understanding. So we along with cows and other living things on this planet including plants are therefore contributing to Global Warming.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
The oil and coal will run out..its not er, a renewable Commodity ya know.


Then WTH?




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Humans are animals..last we checked



Some more so than others.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 591
311.

We all know that.

Methane is locked in permafrost.

And hydrates below the sea.

The Observed warming is melting permafrost.

See "Drunken tree's'.

When the methane does enter the system now run amuck by CO2, well..the forcing and temps will rise faster..



Your animal thing is irrelevant..and obfuscating to the hilt.

Humans are animals,Bi-pedal Hominid Mammals...last we checked.

We bear our Young Live, have Hair, and well a Vertebrate too.

Well, some of us seems.

Have you ever been to Washington,D.C. ?




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 307. GTstormChaserCaleb:
The last paragraph is a guess of what the future is going to be like, we can't predict if there is going to be a big eruption from a volcano 50 years from now. Did we see Mt. Pinatubo erupting 50 years before it actually erupted?

Yeah, see...that's not a bug, it's a feature. It goes to the very heart of science. Scientists aren't trying to predict the future absolutely. They are making projections or predictions based on certain criteria. Should one or more of those criteria turn out to be different in the future, then obviously the projection/prediction will have to be adjusted. But a volcanic eruption won't do much, barring a Huckleberry Ridge type event, of course. That type of "solution" is...less than optimal. However, it still wouldn't falsify AGW theory since it would represent a drastic change from the conditions under which AGW predictions were made.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 310. Astrometeor:


Call it what it is. Anthropogenic global warming. The blame game is never an adequate solution. The leaders of this world need to turn their brains on (switch is next to right ear for most of us), and begin crafting international solutions, while convincing their peoples that this is a worth-while task.



But they will be. Africa is projected to grow very quickly in population, and they will need some source of energy as they do so. Might as well supply them with renewable energy. The entire world needs to get rid of the fossil fuels and begin the switch to more green technologies. Of course, this won't happen overnight, but we should begin making an urgent attempt to replace.

As for that light pollution map, it is slightly misleading. Yes, you can see the major industrial centers of America, Europe, and Japan; but what about China?
I disagree with getting rid of fossil fuels completely, one because that is the cost effective way to power homes and vehicles, if the whole world instantly and even transitioned to just renewable energy resources not everyone would be able to afford it, and two that will put people out of jobs and companies out of business.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Interesting Methane (CH4) is more higher up on this graph than Carbon Dioxide (C02). One has to think a combination of humans and animals. Well technically humans are animals as our origins stem from the mammals. :D

Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 303. GTstormChaserCaleb:
As you can see not much coverage in Africa, South America, and Australia. Most of the light pollution is confined to the northern hemisphere over larger metropolitan areas and industrial cities. So maybe perhaps let's not blame all humans on this planet and blame some? Or call it Regional Warming as opposed to Global Warming? Thoughts if you agree or disagree? And please keep it civil.


Call it what it is. Anthropogenic global warming. The blame game is never an adequate solution. The leaders of this world need to turn their brains on (switch is next to right ear for most of us), and begin crafting international solutions, while convincing their peoples that this is a worth-while task.

Quoting 303. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Some countries have more electricity, a more stable power grid, and burn more fossil fuels than other countries, while other countries in the world don't have that luxury and rely primarily on generators or a poor power grid. Leave those countries alone as they are not contributing as much to the so called "Global Warming" and worry about the countries that seem to be escalating it.


But they will be. Africa is projected to grow very quickly in population, and they will need some source of energy as they do so. Might as well supply them with renewable energy. The entire world needs to get rid of the fossil fuels and begin the switch to more green technologies. Of course, this won't happen overnight, but we should begin making an urgent attempt to replace.

As for that light pollution map, it is slightly misleading. Yes, you can see the major industrial centers of America, Europe, and Japan; but what about China?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
When in a hole, stop digging.

And maybe toss the shovel to someone with a clue.

NOAA is always a good,er "start"

How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.

Global Climate Change Indicators


Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 306. Birthmark:

You should have seen it in the 1950s and 60s! Are you aware of the Great Smog?
No, but I saw a video yesterday on the Haboob that went over parts of Australia.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes
Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.

The last paragraph is a guess of what the future is going to be like, we can't predict if there is going to be a big eruption from a volcano 50 years from now. Did we see Mt. Pinatubo erupting 50 years before it actually erupted?
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 305. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Human activities such as surface mining and industrial processes have increased dust in the atmosphere. Most of that stuff takes place in the northern hemisphere though, there is not much industries in the southern hemisphere as there are in the northern hemisphere.

You should have seen it in the 1950s and 60s! Are you aware of the Great Smog?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 304. Birthmark:

I mean this as gently as possible. I really think you need to better acquaint yourself with the whole topic. There are people trained and employed to look at the issues you raise. My experience is that those not trained in a field who promote thinking outside the box usually don't have a very good idea of what is already in the box and how it got there.
Human activities such as surface mining and industrial processes have increased dust in the atmosphere. Most of that stuff takes place in the northern hemisphere though, there is not much industries in the southern hemisphere as there are in the northern hemisphere.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 303. GTstormChaserCaleb:

I mean this as gently as possible. I really think you need to better acquaint yourself with the whole topic. There are people trained and employed to look at the issues you raise. My experience is that those not trained in a field who promote thinking outside the box usually don't have a very good idea of what is already in the box and how it got there.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming

Introduction

Solar radiation reaching the ground is a key determinant
of surface temperature. Various studies suggest that
solar energy at the surface has not been stable over time but
showed significant changes on decadal timescales (‘global
dimming / brightening’) [Ohmura and Lang, 1989; Dutton
et al., 1991; Gilgen et al., 1998; Stanhill and Cohen 2001;
Liepert, 2002; Wild et al., 2004, 2005; Pinker et al., 2005].
Atmospheric aerosols from anthropogenic air pollution are
considered important contributors to these changes [Streets
et al., 2006]. Such changes are likely to have an effect on
surface temperature [Ramanathan et al., 2001; Wild et al.,
2005]. In addition, increasing anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases are expected to induce an increasing flux
of thermal (longwave/terrestrial) radiation from the atmosphere
to the surface, thereby reducing thermal cooling of
the Earth surface and enhancing surface temperature according
to greenhouse theory. Concerns have been raised that
increases in aerosol from anthropogenic air pollution and
associated dimming of surface solar radiation could have
masked to a large extent the temperature rise induced by
increasing greenhouse gases, so that the observed temperature
records would not reflect the entire dimension of
greenhouse warming [Andreae et al., 2005]. This would
imply that we underestimate the sensitivity of the climate
system to increased levels of greenhouse gases, which has
potentially major implications for predictions of future
climate. On the other hand, the emerging evidence for a
widespread decline of solar dimming during the 1980s and
reversal to a brightening thereafter [Wild et al., 2005; Pinker
et al., 2005] may give raise to speculations that recent
global warming could be due to surface solar brightening
rather than the greenhouse effect. We intend to disentangle
the effects of changes in surface solar and thermal (greenhouse)
radiation on global warming in the following.
2. Observational Data
[3] We investigate this issue by using, in addition to the
surface radiation data at the authors’ institute from the
Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA) [Gilgen and
Ohmura, 1999] and the Baseline Surface Radiation Network
(BSRN) [Ohmura et al., 1998], a gridded surface
temperature dataset. This dataset is provided by the Climate
Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia and contains
information on observed surface air temperatures over
land on a 0.5 grid [Mitchell and Jones, 2005]. It includes
mean, daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures on
a monthly basis from 1900 to 2002. Annual values of global
and hemispheric temperature estimates are approximately
accurate to ±0.05C (two standard errors) for the period
since 1951 [Brohan et al., 2006]. Surface radiation measurements
from BSRN reach an absolute accuracy of 5 Wm2 in
both surface downward solar and thermal radiation, with a
2 Wm2 relative accuracy (changing sensor sensitivity)
[Ohmura et al., 1998]. Historic radiation data from GEBA
are of variable accuracy depending on the individual station
[Gilgen et al., 1998; Wild et al., 1995]. We focus on land
surfaces, where our knowledge of the common variation in
surface radiation and temperature is best. We confine our
analysis to the period from 1958, when widespread measurements
of surface radiation were initiated during the
International Geophysical Year (IGY), up to 2002, where
data are available.

Link
------------------------------------------------- ----
It seems to have started out as Global Dimming. Solar influence > human influence? Think outside of the box for once, can solar activity from the sun put us out or can we put out solar activity? I say we continue doing what we have been doing live our life the way we have been living it. Changes will be made whether we like it or not and we must adapt to those changes. But for some of us it is a cultural thing and depends on what part of the world you live in. Some countries have more electricity, a more stable power grid, and burn more fossil fuels than other countries, while other countries in the world don't have that luxury and rely primarily on generators or a poor power grid. Leave those countries alone as they are not contributing as much to the so called "Global Warming" and worry about the countries that seem to be escalating it. North America, Europe, and Asia. I know Asia is bad because they hardly have any trees and the pollution is bad there. In these 3 continents it really depends on where you are located, if you are in an industrial area you are likely putting out more CO2 emissions than if you are in a rural farmland area. Then it goes back to whole thing about what livestock you raise, if you have cows it has already been determined that cow manure releases methane CH4 into the atmosphere which traps more solar radiation than CO2, which is a natural thing.

Here is a light pollution map.



As you can see not much coverage in Africa, South America, and Australia. Most of the light pollution is confined to the northern hemisphere over larger metropolitan areas and industrial cities. So maybe perhaps let's not blame all humans on this planet and blame some? Or call it Regional Warming as opposed to Global Warming? Thoughts if you agree or disagree? And please keep it civil.
Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 12 Comments: 8677
Quoting 300. Birthmark:

In addition to the very good posts above, it should probably be noted that the oceans are very deep, around 12000 ft deep on average. So taking the surface temperature of the water tells you little. Looking at the total ocean heat content, though, we find that the 0-2000m heat content has been rising rapidly since 1992.


We also know that total ocean heat content has increased by around 170 Zettajoules since 1970, and about 255 Zettajoules since 1955. This increased heat energy has caused the oceans (0-2,000 meters) to warm about 0.09 C over this period. As the UK%u2019s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F) warming! The oceans are by far the largest heat sink for the Earth, absorbing the vast majority of extra heat trapped in the system by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Quoting 299. JohnLonergan:


We need a Trollhammeren!



That's actually not a bad little movie. There are worse ways to kill 103 minutes.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 292. overwash12:
Link Water temps. average chart. If they were going up then we would see this as evidence on the NOAA charts. Not Happening.

In addition to the very good posts above, it should probably be noted that the oceans are very deep, around 12000 ft deep on average. So taking the surface temperature of the water tells you little. Looking at the total ocean heat content, though, we find that the 0-2000m heat content has been rising rapidly since 1992.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 288. bappit:
Gosh, looking through the previous posts ...

"We be trollllllllliiiiiiiinnnnnnnnggggggggggg!!!!!!!!!!! "


We need a Trollhammeren!
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Quoting 297. goosegirl1:


Umm, no. Not proof. You specifically mentioned the Gulf Stream. You have to provide temp charts for the Gulf Stream and show the temps are dropping, or you have no proof. Make sure they are taken in the same way, with the same equipment, at the same time of year and in the same place. See how hard science is?


Second this. He/she showed only ONE YEAR of measurements, when human-induced climate change is clearly a long-term, multi-year (and multi-decadal) trend. The easiest way to lie about climate change is to lie with numbers that only support one opinion. A very common misinformation tactic.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
Quoting 292. overwash12:
Link Water temps. average chart. If they were going up then we would see this as evidence on the NOAA charts. Not Happening.


Umm, no. Not proof. You specifically mentioned the Gulf Stream. You have to provide temp charts for the Gulf Stream and show the temps are dropping, or you have no proof. Make sure they are taken in the same way, with the same equipment, at the same time of year and in the same place. See how hard science is?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 286. Birthmark:

The Sun doesn't have enough mass to become a supernova.


Lordy indeed.

I mean, as a Yellow Main Sequence Dwarf, we all can find that out easily.

It will end with a whimper, not a bang.

If your in College and didn't know that already...or couldn't think to maybe check it before posting in a Phd's entry,

Maybe Join the Marine Corps.

The End Of The Sun




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There is comfort and Glee among fools, when the Gold is Fool's Gold Shiny..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sea-level rise: What the experts expect


In the long run, sea-level rise will be one of the most serious consequences of global warming. But how fast will sea levels rise? Model simulations are still associated with considerable uncertainty – too complex and varied are the processes that contribute to the increase. A just-published survey of 90 sea-level experts from 18 countries now reveals what amount of sea-level rise the wider expert community expects. With successful, strong mitigation measures, the experts expect a likely rise of 40-60 cm in this century and 60-100 cm by the year 2300. With unmitigated warming, however, the likely range is 70-120 cm by 2100 and two to three meters by the year 2300.

More »
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Quoting 290. daddyjames:


Isn't that the very antithesis of faith?


A couple of thoughts on faith:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Mark Twain

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

Friedrich Nietzsche


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452

Viewing: 343 - 293

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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
48 °F
Mostly Cloudy