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: 543 - 493

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

543. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
6:27 AM GMT on November 28, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
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.

Link


Featured winning proposals

Reimagine prosperity; reframe sustainability; reshape consumerism
Shape & 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 economies
How can renewable technologies be rapidly deployed in the major emerging economies?



Link




I guess we'll see if this is more productive than the Warsaw debacle.


What a joke...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20400
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: 20400
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 Extinction



Methane 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
539. Birthmark
4:30 AM GMT on November 28, 2013
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
538. Xulonn
3:32 AM GMT on November 28, 2013
Quoting 537. tramp96:

Happy Thanksgiving buddy and to all
And 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: 1442
537. tramp96
2:47 AM GMT on November 28, 2013
Quoting 526. Xulonn:
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.}

Happy Thanksgiving buddy and to all
Member Since: August 15, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1554
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: 100 Comments: 10217
535. Xandra
11:35 PM GMT on November 27, 2013

(Click for larger image)
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
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 Spill



Tesoro 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: 1281
532. barbamz
9:49 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
Lakes discovered beneath Greenland ice sheet
PhysOrg, 3 hours ago
The 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: 53 Comments: 5909
531. JohnLonergan
8:36 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
Global Warming: Man or Myth?

COP-19 Warsaw: Arguing Over Who Leaves House Fire First


On 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: 3260
530. JohnLonergan
6:02 PM GMT on November 27, 2013


Graphic from the World Resources Institute
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3260
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: 23 Comments: 1061
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 role

A 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 atmosphere

I'm sure this study has been referenced before.
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: 1442
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 man


Nah, 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
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: 13506
523. tramp96
4:28 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
Quoting 520. Birthmark:

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.

Ok maybe I should have said some posters like the ice cream man
Member Since: August 15, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1554
522. JohnLonergan
4:15 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
Stressed emus?

Relax – wind farms aren’t stressing out your emus



What links the phenomena of allegedly stressed emus, dancing cattle and disoriented echidnas? Nothing but the ill-founded trend to blame anything and everything on wind farms, writes Simon Chapman.

Last week in Nova Scotia, the Canadian Atlantic province where midwinter temperatures fall to -20 degrees celsius, a small emu farm closed down. There’s nothing unusual about this. Investment in emu farming was an ill-fated get-rich-quick bubble that burst in Canada over a decade ago. It has been described as a “failed industry“.

But what made this sad story even sadder was that the husband and wife team behind it blamed the closure on wind turbines, saying they had seen many of their birds lose weight and die of “stress”. Tellingly, no necropsies were performed, prompting one person to comment, “So they didn’t have necropsies performed on any of the animals? That is extremely irresponsible farming. The department of Agriculture should be called in to inspect for animal cruelty.”

As the picture illustrating this story shows, in Australia, where emus don’t tend to be kept in pens and fed on pellets, the birds roam freely around turbines, among sheep and cattle.

Read more ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3260
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
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: 5469
519. tramp96
3:40 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.

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.
Member Since: August 15, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1554
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
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: 3260
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: 5469
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: 3260
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
513. iceagecoming
2:52 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
Global cooling: When the climate changed astonishingly fast
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
updated 11:23 AM EST, Tue November 19, 2013


Snippet:

When we talk about climate change, we are talking about two issues that are too often treated as one:

Is climate change occurring?

If so, is it changing because of human activity?

The strong passions aroused by question 2 - and the huge economic interests at stake - can lead people to prejudge question 1. And within question 1 are two further subquestions: How harmful is climate change? How rapidly is the change coming?

Greenhouse gases near record 39.6 million tons in 2013

Some wisdom on these questions may be found in an important new work of history, "Global Crisis." It's Geoffrey Parker's examination of the last great climate shock experienced by human beings: the Little Ice Age.

After a half millennium of very benign temperatures, the Northern Hemisphere began gradually to cool after about 1550. Slow cooling plunged into deep freeze in about 1620. Over the next half-century, the peoples of the Northern Hemisphere suffered climate catastrophe after climate catastrophe:

• Over the winter of 1620-21, the Bosporus dividing Europe from Asia (in modern-day Turkey) froze for the one and only time in recorded history.

• The summer of 1627 was the wettest recorded in Europe for 500 years, followed in 1628 by one of the coldest summers recorded.

• In 1641, the Great Canal that connected Beijing -- the planet's greatest city -- to its food supply in southern China dried up for lack of rain, again for the only time in recorded history. China suffered repeated crop failures through the 1640s because of patterns of drought and excessive rain.
In the 17th century, the catastrophe arrived astonishingly fast -- in one human lifetime -- and human beings adapted by dying in droves.
David Frum

• 1641 saw the third-coldest summer recorded in the Northern Hemisphere; 1642, the 28th coldest; 1643, the 10th coldest. Crops failed across the British Isles and central Europe three harvests in a row.

• The winter of 1649 was the coldest recorded in China.

• In 1657, Massachusetts Bay froze solid, and farther south, people could walk across the ice of the Delaware River.

• The next year, 1658, the Danish Sound froze so hard that a Swedish army and all its artillery could march over what is usually ocean water the 20 miles from Jutland to Copenhagen.

• Poland recorded 109 days of frost in 1666-67, compared to an average of 63 days in recent years.

• England's Thames River froze so hard that thousands of people could use it as a walkway for six weeks during the winter of 1683-84.

These extreme events are just a few of the hundreds of individual examples cited in Parker's deeply learned history of the period. "Global Crisis" was published this spring by Yale University Press.

Parker is best known as a military historian specializing in the Thirty Years War, the conflict that ripped apart Germany between 1618 and 1648, killing maybe one-third of the population by violence, hunger and disease.

Climate change: Why nations, not global talks, are leading the fight

Now in a hugely ambitious, late-career work spanning the entire globe, he synthesizes the horrifying violence that erupted across Eurasia during the coldest and hungriest years of the Little Ice Age: the overthrow of China's Ming Dynasty and conquest of the world's most populous country by invaders from Manchuria; civil wars in Iran and northern India; the collapse of Ottoman power; pogroms against the Jews of Ukraine, the worst mass killing of Jews between the Crusades and the Holocaust; New England's merciless war upon the Pequot Indians; the destruction of Poland, till then Europe's largest state; the Fronde rebellion in France; the English civil war; Oliver Cromwell's rampage through Ireland; the successful Portuguese and doomed Catalonian rebellion against the Spanish Empire -- all of it accompanied by pestilence and famines, culminating in the last great bubonic plague epidemic in European history in the 1660s.

Europe enjoyed only three years of complete peace between 1600 and 1700.

Historians are familiar with the statistic that one-third of Germans died during the Thirty Years War. Parker suggests that this figure could be extended across almost the whole landmass from Lisbon to the Pacific, with China suffering most and worst.

The Little Ice Age was obviously not man-made. The sun emitted a little less energy in the 17th century than we are used to,? and more volcanoes erupted than usual. ?
For tens of millions of human beings, the consequences of these unexpected events was miserable and fatal: death by violence, death by disease, death by hunger.

Parker hammers home the lesson again and again: What matters most about climate change is not how it is caused, but how fast it takes place.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/opinion/frum-global -cooling-impact/index.html







1. Evidence of Little Ice Age

Modern Scientific data

Temperature records
Ice cores
Ice delivered debris on ocean floor

Tree rings
Wide rings show warm summers
Narrow rings cold summers

Historical observations

Glacial action
Movement of glaciers in Alps and Scandinavia
Mer de Glace at Chamonix at foot of Mont Blanc
Exorcism of glacier

Reports of harsh winters
Europe and North American colonies
Thames River and New York Harbor frozen during winters
Orange groves in China killed

Eskimos kayaking as far south as Scotland
Sea Ice in North Atlantic
Snow on Ethiopian's mountains
Investigations of newspapers and journals
Investigation of clouds in paintings of time

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.


http://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/projec t2/group4.htm
Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
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: 13506
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.

Link


Featured winning proposals

Reimagine prosperity; reframe sustainability; reshape consumerism
Shape & 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 economies
How can renewable technologies be rapidly deployed in the major emerging economies?



Link




I guess we'll see if this is more productive than the Warsaw debacle.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
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, again

Andy 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: 3260
509. tramp96
1:38 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
Quoting 490. daddyjames:


It's good to see such pronouncements . . . and did not expect anything less from a Jesuit.

It's nice when religion is on your side.
So who hear believes in creationism??
Member Since: August 15, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1554
508. JohnLonergan
1:16 PM GMT on November 27, 2013
Sea level for dummies - a video by MinutePhysics

Next 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: 3260
507. RevElvis
5:12 AM GMT on November 27, 2013
Iconic insects are disappearing

The 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
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: 5469
505. JohnLonergan
1:58 AM GMT on November 27, 2013
Nationnal Academy of Sciences releases:

Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Tax_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.

<strong>Link to Report
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3260
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: 5995
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."

Link



So 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: 1228
502. JohnLonergan
11:01 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
El Nino, La Nina and Global Warming
by 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: 3260
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: 5995
500. Neapolitan
10:03 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
Quoting 499. iceagecoming:
http://www.wunderground.com/US/AL/066.html


Alabama and Florida freeze alerts, Yikes.
Much as I hate to intrude into your little denialist bubble--I'm sure it's cozy there in your science-free environment--but while temperatures will be cold in the South, they're not at all unusual. For instance, did you know that Tallahassee has seen temperatures in the low teens during the last week of November? That both Central Alabama and Southern Georgia have seen single digits temps as early as November 25? That central Alabama has seen freezing temperatures as early as mid-October, and southern Alabama all the way to the Gulf has experienced freezing temps before Halloween?

IOW, no big deal. But even if it were:

hot

Note that, with the exception of the Southern US, a spot in Central Asia, and another spot in eastern Canada, the Northern Hemisphere is--again--anomalously toasty.

Global warming. Think hard: why do you suppose they call it that?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13506
499. iceagecoming
8:47 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
http://www.wunderground.com/US/AL/066.html


Alabama and Florida freeze alerts, Yikes.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
498. ScottLincoln
8:12 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
Quoting 495. ILwthrfan:


Scott, and everyone else

Probably a very true statement with regards to Tisdale, I was trying to refer specifically to this article versus how other non-AGW supports attack the theory, not a good idea on my part as you were quick to dissect it. ;)



article.

Though again I do not agree with the majority of Tisdales conclusions, I just thought the way in which he tried to attack theory, he tried to stay within the confines of the data and does not not use specific date ranges to justify that the warming isn't occurring. I thought he was just trying to define the accuracy at gathering the data. Measuring Ocean temperatures at great depths is difficult in my mind, not being able to use coral, since it does not sustain at that depth, and to be able to have knowledge of specific currents and it's corresponding location and temperature in the past is difficult for me to grasp. That was the overall generalization I took from Tisdales article. In hindsight probably should have done much better analysis on my post than to half a$$ throw something together.

Also I certainly jumped the gun on the response, not taking into consideration of the follies in some of his other basic ideas, though I did not specifically remember them. This is where you, being a major in Atmospheric Sciences and just having a much better memory of specific flaws in this particular person's analysis vs. an average Joe such as myself results in.

Sometimes I feel the politics on the blog dictate everything; whatever side be you support, it is just as flawed IMO. The extremist on both sides do this for their own benefits. They care for only money and power, not the truth and cause. You may also agree with me on this too Scott: When it comes to the problem of communicating to the public about Climate Change, I feel it's because of the complexity of the situation. There are just so many different variable, not everyone is disciplined on them, even highly educated people at that. Geography, Chemistry, Biology, the local environment, Meteorology, Climatology, Paleoclimatology, the Milankovitch cycles, even Helioseismology, and the most important possible is Statistics are all major factors that are a variable within this theory, so it becomes easier to disinform a person and can at times create a domino effect to the validity of the theory itself.

Politics use these variables to control the outcome for the power they sometimes abuse, then a domino affect can ensue where one supporter of a party is being felt like it's having something jammed down their throats against their will, and it can sometimes stem from the one area of study in which they do not comprehend fully. I do think at times we(pro AGW crowd) get a bit subconsciously overzealous when someone has doubt or does not conform to the debate at hand. We are abundant and quick to ridicule.

I can certainly see where some people just do not understand some of the basic sciences or refuse to , but that's not the crowd I am referring to, but rather some of our better critical critiques, whom have put up with a great deal of onslaught from us for not conforming to our views 100%. Sometimes they side on the other side of the fence politically and when this onslaught progresses they only stray further away from the viewpoint we support.

To me you have to want to know the truth, there isn't going to be some random peer reviewed, or not, article that is going to convince you one way or the other about the credibility of Climate Change. You have to dig in this stuff for years to get a decent handle on a lot of these variables that not only tie in together but also influence one another. This is the mindset I wish for everyone, but with the way politics and this board goes sometimes I feel we are failing in that respect.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not calling out anyone, and specifically not you Scott, God knows there are many that provide great information on here, but the key is keep digging after you are presented with that piece of information. People will have to figure this stuff out for themselves they are not going to believe from the mouth. Just my 2 cents.

Best regards,
Jared

Thanks for the long response, Jared.

Mostly I was just trying to understand what you meant by a few things; some were vague, and to discuss them properly, I needed something more specific and succinct. Similar to the very thing you mention... to not try and jump on someone right away but instead try and understand. Tisdale has a reputation - a poor one - on climate science. People in such a category deserve extra skepticism and scrutiny, even when they do appear to say things that are reasonable. It's just something we have to do as scientists as part of our critical thinking.

When I have some more time I might try and provide some further comments.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3190
497. Cochise111
7:37 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
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."

Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 328
496. JohnLonergan
7:20 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
On Thursday, the Premier of Canada’s most populous and second-largest province announced the upcoming closure of its last coal-fired electricity plant. When that happens, there will be no more coal in Ontario.

Over the next year, Ontario’s Thunder Bay Generating Station will be converted to a so-called “advanced” biomass plant, which is not plainly described in Premier Kathleen Wynne’s announcement but seems to describe new ways of breaking down natural material, or biomass, into useable materials for biofuels. While biofuel is generally created using steam explosion — a process in which biomass is treated with hot steam under pressure — advanced biomass uses chemicals like liquid salts or glycerol to pre-treat the natural materials.
The union representing Ontario’s hydro-power workers lauded the announcement, saying advanced biofuels are renewable, carbon-neutral and domestically sourced, therefore good for the economy.
“Europe’s electricity sector has been benefiting from the use of carbon-neutral biomass, much of it imported from Canada, for decades,” Power Workers Union President Don MacKinnon said in a statement.
“Ontario’s vast farm and forest sourced biomass — wood wastes, agricultural residues and purpose grown crops — provides our province with a unique energy advantage.”

Premier Wynne’s announcement is part of sweeping climate change regulations proposed in 2009 for Canada’s electricity sector. Under those rules, coal plants would only be able to continue to operate if they produced near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The rules also set a target of having a 90 percent emission-free electricity sector by 2025.

Read more at Think Progress ...



I searched and found this Overview of Ontario Electric Production



Note wind already is supplying more than coal.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3260
495. ILwthrfan
7:05 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
Quoting 224. ScottLincoln:

Jared: I'm not sure that calling Bob Tisdale "neutral" would be an accurate statement.


Scott, and everyone else

Probably a very true statement with regards to Tisdale, I was trying to refer specifically to this article versus how other non-AGW supports attack the theory, not a good idea on my part as you were quick to dissect it. ;)

Quoting 224. ScottLincoln:

Jared: I'm not sure that calling Bob Tisdale "neutral" would be an accurate statement.
Hide things? To what are you referring?



article.

Though again I do not agree with the majority of Tisdales conclusions, I just thought the way in which he tried to attack theory, he tried to stay within the confines of the data and does not not use specific date ranges to justify that the warming isn't occurring. I thought he was just trying to define the accuracy at gathering the data. Measuring Ocean temperatures at great depths is difficult in my mind, not being able to use coral, since it does not sustain at that depth, and to be able to have knowledge of specific currents and it's corresponding location and temperature in the past is difficult for me to grasp. That was the overall generalization I took from Tisdales article. In hindsight probably should have done much better analysis on my post than to half a$$ throw something together.

Also I certainly jumped the gun on the response, not taking into consideration of the follies in some of his other basic ideas, though I did not specifically remember them. This is where you, being a major in Atmospheric Sciences and just having a much better memory of specific flaws in this particular person's analysis vs. an average Joe such as myself results in.

Sometimes I feel the politics on the blog dictate everything; whatever side be you support, it is just as flawed IMO. The extremist on both sides do this for their own benefits. They care for only money and power, not the truth and cause. You may also agree with me on this too Scott: When it comes to the problem of communicating to the public about Climate Change, I feel it's because of the complexity of the situation. There are just so many different variable, not everyone is disciplined on them, even highly educated people at that. Geography, Chemistry, Biology, the local environment, Meteorology, Climatology, Paleoclimatology, the Milankovitch cycles, even Helioseismology, and the most important possible is Statistics are all major factors that are a variable within this theory, so it becomes easier to disinform a person and can at times create a domino effect to the validity of the theory itself.

Politics use these variables to control the outcome for the power they sometimes abuse, then a domino affect can ensue where one supporter of a party is being felt like it's having something jammed down their throats against their will, and it can sometimes stem from the one area of study in which they do not comprehend fully. I do think at times we(pro AGW crowd) get a bit subconsciously overzealous when someone has doubt or does not conform to the debate at hand. We are abundant and quick to ridicule.

I can certainly see where some people just do not understand some of the basic sciences or refuse to , but that's not the crowd I am referring to, but rather some of our better critical critiques, whom have put up with a great deal of onslaught from us for not conforming to our views 100%. Sometimes they side on the other side of the fence politically and when this onslaught progresses they only stray further away from the viewpoint we support.

To me you have to want to know the truth, there isn't going to be some random peer reviewed, or not, article that is going to convince you one way or the other about the credibility of Climate Change. You have to dig in this stuff for years to get a decent handle on a lot of these variables that not only tie in together but also influence one another. This is the mindset I wish for everyone, but with the way politics and this board goes sometimes I feel we are failing in that respect.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not calling out anyone, and specifically not you Scott, God knows there are many that provide great information on here, but the key is keep digging after you are presented with that piece of information. People will have to figure this stuff out for themselves they are not going to believe from the mouth. Just my 2 cents.

Best regards,
Jared
Member Since: February 2, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1487
494. Patrap
5:38 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
If we do not stop the Increasing CO2.

It is all for naught.


..pass the pea's,please.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127803
493. calkevin77
5:34 PM GMT on November 26, 2013
Quoting 477. georgevandenberghe:


I too am replacing CFL with LED as the former fail. There is only one catch, reported by a MN friend. His LED lights emit RF frequency that interferes with his garage door opener. I've not observed this personally but my garage door opens the old fashioned way, by hand.


At the time I did research on LED lighting, I read similar accounts. I believe it is not the actual LED causing the interference, but rather there is modulation drive electronics at the power management component of the bulb. This can cause interference at the 30-300MHz, coincidentally the operating range of some of the older garage door openers. With that said, many of the newer LED bulbs have addressed this problem through better shielding of the electronics components. To be honest, if I were in the situation where RF interference were affecting my garage door opener I would be concerned about a bigger security issue. I would either most likely upgrade the opener or its computer board to a multi-band frequency or investigate a shielding system for my existing opener. If I recall, when I was a kid there were a few houses where our RC cars would open up the garages. We thought that was pretty cool at the time. :)
Member Since: June 9, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 838

Viewing: 543 - 493

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.