Cold Weather in Denver: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (8)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:25 AM GMT on December 08, 2013

Share this Blog
20
+

Cold Weather in Denver: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (8)

I’ve been living with this cold weather in Colorado this week. If you look around at the Wunderground personal weather station sites, we’ve seen a lot of about -10 F at nights. It’s been causing a lot of grief for homeless people, animals and pipes. There have been a few record lows set. The whole Arctic air mass is starting to move east, which means it will get a lot more press. According to Jeff Master’s blog 80% of the country will be below average.

I thought I had finished my series of blogs on the Arctic Oscillation a couple of weeks ago, but this cold air out break takes me back. It that series I wrote about cold air in the Arctic that is isolated because of barriers caused by streams of rapidly moving air that flows around polar latitudes. I described wobbles in the streams that caused cold air to move south and warm air to move north. Here is one of the figures that I used.



Figure 1: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). This represents a weak, wavy, wobbly vortex displaced from the pole. The vortex encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex. (definition of vortex)

Figure 1 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the weak vortex case, when there is a large wobble. In this case, the point X is cold and the point Y is warm. In a case of a stronger, more circular vortex, then the case would be reversed, with point X warm and point Y cold.

Here is a figure from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), that I have marked up a bit. The colors are the temperatures at the 850 hecto-Pascal surface, which is about 1.5 kilometers above the surface. The 850 hecto-Pascal temperatures are a good indicator of where it is hot and cold at the surface.


Figure 2: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). The contour lines on the figure are the height of the 500 hecto-Pascal surface, which is between 5 and 6 kilometers above the surface of the Earth. The colors are the temperatures at the 850 hecto-Pascal surface, which is about 1.5 kilometers above the surface. The 850 hecto-Pascal temperatures are a good indicator of where it is hot and cold at the surface. Figure from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)

I drew a blue arrow showing that the cold air at the pole has wobbled off of the pole and it is pushed towards Colorado. To the west there is warm air, red arrow, pushing up towards Alaska. So while it has been cold in Colorado, it has been quite warm in much of Alaska. Though a less prominent signal, there has also been warm air moving up the East Coast of the U.S. The Alaska – Colorado contrast is a nice real-world example of what I showed in Figure 1. For completeness with my example, the big, black dashed line is the jet stream of air flowing around the pole.

There were several points in my series on the Arctic Oscillation. The first important point is that even in a world that is getting warmer, the polar latitudes become isolated as the Sun goes down for the winter and jet stream intensifies. In this isolation it gets cold, because there is no heating from the Sun and the polar latitudes have a barrier between themselves and the warmer lower latitudes. The second important point is this wobble, the pushing of air off of the pole in some direction. In this case the coldest air is over Greenland, Canada and the U.S. If there is sufficient wobble to push the air far to the south or if it gets pushed to some place it did not get pushed before, then it is even likely to have record cold. These points are all work together and are not correctly viewed as independent events. (I was recently annoyed by the parenthetical dismissal of global warming in this otherwise nice prediction of early strong lake effect snow in Michigan. The statement was essentially pockets of cold Arctic air should not exist.)

I will finish with the Arctic Oscillation. The Arctic Oscillation Index from the Climate Prediction Center is shown in Figure 3. The discussion in my Arctic Oscillation series focused on the positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation Index. Much of the attention was on the eastern U.S. The negative phase was when it is likely to be very cold in the eastern U.S.



Figure 3: Arctic Oscillation Index for early August 2013 until December 7, 2013 from the Climate Prediction Center

In this measure of the Arctic Oscillation Index, the most recent times have been weakly positive, tending towards negative. (Perhaps suggesting movement of the cold air towards the U.S. east coast?) Perhaps more important Figures 2 and 3 together show that large undulations with warm air pushing far northward and cold air displaced off the pole can occur in other parts of the world when the index is weak. As pointed out many other times over the years of this blog, what goes on in the U.S. is not good instantaneous editorial content for climate change.

r

Previous entries:

Climate Change and the Arctic Oscillation 2

Climate Change and the Arctic Oscillation 1

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: 532 - 482

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Quoting 530. yoboi:



17 of the 30 yrs have been near static......
17 years of static science? Maybe your science filter is not the only thing that needs readjustment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 527. Daisyworld:


I have. Your conversation is a long-running one between multiple blog posts in Dr. Rood's blog, where you cyclically concede a little on human-induced climate change, only before pulling back and insulting those who explain the science to you, and insinuating that climate science is some part of a vast liberal conspiracy. Eventually, you come back to the "I could be wrong" camp, before starting it all over again.

No sir. I'm not jumping through your hoops, and I see no reason why anyone else should either. Stick to the ground rules in the scientific discussion, and quit with the misinformation tactics. Only then you can be taken seriously. Until then, you have no basis to ask anyone for concessions on anything.

Thanks for the lecture. What do you realistically think can be done about GW if in fact it does exist? Time after time I come to this blog and all I see is people putting themselves on a liberal pedestal screaming GW GW but they are like the rest of us living with all of the modern conveniences. Tell me were would you be without your fridge or your local grocery store,hospital,pharmacy ect.? How many lives would be lost without our current infrastructure and how many have been saved because of it? So the next time you want to get on your soap box ask yourself these questions.
There is nothing wrong with fighting the good fight but don't put yourself above anybody else when you turn the ignition on the same as I do.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
530. yoboi
Quoting 522. Daisyworld:


Why should Rookie concede the possibility that AGW isn't happening or that it's not really bad, or that it's not human caused? None of those concessions make logical sense. They go against over 30 years of established science. Since you and those who believe as you do have not even conceded that the climate science and the procedures to which that science adheres (i.e., the scientific process) are valid, it makes no sense for you to ask for those concessions. Until you have agreed to obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions, and to accept principles of logic, a meaningful discourse is impossible.



17 of the 30 yrs have been near static......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Last month saw the hottest global November surface temperature on record, according to the latest data from NASA.





Link




...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Don't worry all radiation levels are safe.... You can live at least five more years with those radiation levels...


51 Sailors from USS Ronald Reagan Suffering Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, Brain Tumors After Participating in Fukushima Nuclear Rescue Efforts Print
Thursday, 12 December 2013 20:00

December 12, 2013 -- (TRN http://www.TurnerRadioNetwork.com ) -- Crew members in their mid-20's from the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan are coming down with all sorts of radiation-related illnesses after being deployed less than 3 years ago to assist with earthquake rescue operations off the coast of Japan in 2011. It looks as though the on board desalinization systems that take salt out of seawater to make it drinkable, were taking-in radioactive water from the ocean for the crew to drink, cook with and bath-in, before anyone realized there was a massive radiation spill into the ocean.Charles Bonner, attorney representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan said "the crew members were not only going to the rescue by jumping into the water and rescuing people out of the water, but they were drinking desalinated sea water, bathing in it, until finally the captain of the USS Ronald Reagan alarmed people that they were encountering high levels of radiation."



Bonner says that as a result of this exposure, the 51 sailors have come down with a host of medical problems, "They have testicular cancer, they have thyroid cancers, they have leukemias, they have rectal and gynecological bleeding, a host of problems that they did not have before ... people are going blind, pilots who had perfect eyesight but now have tumors on the brain. And it%u2019s only been 3 years since they went in." Bonner pointed out that these service men and women are young people, ages 21, 22, 23 years old and no one in their family had ever suffered any of these kinds of illnesses before.



At present, 51 sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan are named as Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and Bonner says he anticipates adding twenty additional Sailors soon, bringing the total to 70 to 75 because "The Japanese government is in a major conspiracy with TEPCO to hide and conceal the true facts."



In an utterly shocking admission at a meeting of the Japan Press Club on December 12, 2013, the former Prime Minister of Japan, Naoto Kan, who was in-office when the Fukushima disaster took place, told assembled journalists "[People think it was March 12th but] the first meltdown occurred 5 hours after the earthquake." This means that the government of Japan KNEW there was horrific radiation being released, but did not tell the U.S. Navy which had deployed the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan to assist with rescue efforts. Our story covering this new aspect of the Fukushima incident is available HERE.



According to "Stars and Stripes" one Plaintiff in the lawsuit is Petty Officer 3rd Class Daniel Hair. When the earthquake struck, Hair and his Reagan shipmates were en route to Korea. They immediately turned around and steamed to the affected area. %u201CThere were people in distress,%u201D he said. %u201CThis is what we signed up for.%u201D



The Reagan passed through debris as far as the eye could see: wood, refrigerators, car tires, roofs of houses with people riding on them. Hair was told they were five to 10 miles off the coast from Fukushima, which had been damaged by a massive tsunami spawned by the quake.



Sailors were drinking desalinated seawater and bathing in it until the ship%u2019s leadership came over the public address system and told them to stop because it was contaminated, Hair said. They were told the ventilation system was contaminated, and he claims he was pressured into signing a form that said he had been given an iodine pill even though none had been provided. As a low-ranking sailor, he believed he had no choice.



The Navy has acknowledged that the Reagan passed through a plume of radiation but declined to comment on the details in Hair%u2019s story.



Shortly after the disaster, Senior Chief Mike Sebourn was sent from his home base, Naval Air Facility Atsugi, to Misawa Air Base, 200 miles from the faltering power plant. As a designated radiation decontamination officer, he dealt with aircraft and personnel that had flown into the area.



Sebourn, with only two days of training, was tasked with testing seven points on an aircraft%u2019s skin for radiation. He and others crawled all over the crafts for months, he said, with only gloves for protection. At one point, he said, they took the radiator out of one aircraft and tested it. The radiation was four times greater than what should have required them to wear a suit and respirator, he said.



The level of radiation %u201Cwas incredibly dangerous,%u201D Sebourn said. %u201CNavy aviation had never dealt with radiation before. Nobody knew what to do. Nobody knew what was safe. It was a nightmare.%u201D



Sebourn said he suffered nose bleeds, headaches and nausea in the immediate aftermath %u2014 symptoms consistent with radiation poisoning. Months later, he felt weak in his right arm; excruciating pain followed. He said the command fitness leader in charge of physical training at Atsugi watched as his arm atrophied to about half its size.



%u201CI have issues that can%u2019t be explained,%u201D Sebourn said. %u201CIt just seems like I am deteriorating.%u201D



Sebourn said he went to doctors more than a dozen times, but no one knew what had caused the former personal trainer to lose 70 percent of the strength in the right side of his body. He retired after 17 years in Japan.



Sebourn is alarmed that the word %u201Cradiation%u201D doesn%u2019t appear anywhere in his service record, even though that was his job and he was exposed to it. He believed troops exposed would be red-flagged in their service records and be tracked for medical problems.



According to "The Huffington Post" another Plaintiff in the lawsuit is former Navy Quartermaster Maurice Enis.



Enis says it was more than a month after arriving off the coast of Japan -- and circling at distances of one to 10 miles from the crippled reactors -- when sailors aboard the carrier got word that a nuclear plant had been affected. "Even then, it was rumors," he said. And it wasn't until the USS Ronald Reagan had left Japan and sailors were scrubbing down the ship that they were offered radiation protection. Enis said the enlisted sailors were never offered any iodine. He said he later learned the "higher ups" -- officers and pilots -- had received the tablets to protect their thyroids from radiation damage.



"They had us sign off that we were medically fine, had no sickness, and that we couldn't sue the U.S. government," Enis told The Huffington Post, recalling widespread anger among the sailors who saw it as "B.S." but who also felt they had little choice.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Despite the facts above, the mass-media in the U.S. has said nothing about this story. One more example of how the Turner Radio Network "provides facts the mass-media won't.")


Link






....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 524. tramp96:

Perhaps you should review the conversation before you give your
opinion


I have. Your conversation is a long-running one between multiple blog posts in Dr. Rood's blog, where you cyclically concede a little on human-induced climate change, only before pulling back and insulting those who explain the science to you, and insinuating that climate science is some part of a vast liberal conspiracy. Eventually, you come back to the "I could be wrong" camp, before starting it all over again.

No sir. I'm not jumping through your hoops, and I see no reason why anyone else should either. Stick to the ground rules in the scientific discussion, and quit with the misinformation tactics. Only then you can be taken seriously. Until then, you have no basis to ask anyone for concessions on anything.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 523. Daisyworld:


And why that is a deliberate distortion of the science:

From Weather Underground's Climate Change section:

Science says: Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, and environment far outweigh any positives.

Agriculture

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes—Siberia, for example—may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail—in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.

Health

Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heat waves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn't been seen before.

Polar Melting

While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.

Ocean Acidification


A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilizing effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.

Melting Glaciers

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world's population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies—drinking water, agriculture—may fail.

Sea Level Rise

Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise.

Environmental

Positive effects of climate change may include greener rain forests and enhanced plant growth in the Amazon, increased vegetation in northern latitudes and possible increases in plankton biomass in some parts of the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water, increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global photo-plankton, changes in migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chains and species loss.

Economic

The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.

Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically.


Tramp's link leads to an 18 year old essay by Thomas Gale Moore, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who specializes in international trade, deregulation, and privatization..

MrMoore has no educational background in any kind of science, therefore his opinions have no scientific validity. His association with the Hoover Institution and Cato Institute make his economic and policy opinions questionable to say the least.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3283
A fiscally-conservative libertarian speaks out about human-induced climate change:

Why We Should Choose Science over Beliefs

By Michael Shermer | Scientific American | September 24, 2013

Excerpt (emphasis mine):

"Ever since college I have been a libertarian—socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility. I also believe in science as the greatest instrument ever devised for understanding the world. So what happens when these two principles are in conflict? My libertarian beliefs have not always served me well. Like most people who hold strong ideological convictions, I find that, too often, my beliefs trump the scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brain reasons our way to supporting what we want to be true. Knowing about the existence of motivated reasoning, however, can help us overcome it when it is at odds with evidence.

[...]

"My libertarianism also once clouded my analysis of climate change. I was a longtime skeptic, mainly because it seemed to me that liberals were exaggerating the case for global warming as a kind of secular millenarianism—an environmental apocalypse requiring drastic government action to save us from doomsday through countless regulations that would handcuff the economy and restrain capitalism, which I hold to be the greatest enemy of poverty. Then I went to the primary scientific literature on climate and discovered that there is convergent evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that global warming is real and human-caused: temperatures increasing, glaciers melting, Arctic ice vanishing, Antarctic ice cap shrinking, sea-level rise corresponding with the amount of melting ice and thermal expansion, carbon dioxide touching the level of 400 parts per million (the highest in at least 800,000 years and the fastest increase ever), and the confirmed prediction that if anthropogenic global warming is real the stratosphere and upper troposphere should cool while the lower troposphere should warm, which is the case.

"The clash between scientific facts and ideologies was on display at the 2013 FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas—the largest gathering of libertarians in the world—where I participated in two debates, one on gun control and the other on climate change... In the climate debate, when I showed that between 90 and 98 percent of climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming, someone shouted, 'LIAR!' and stormed out of the room.

"Liberals and conservatives are motivated reasoners, too, of course, and not all libertarians deny science, but all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 522. Daisyworld:


Why should Rookie concede the possibility that AGW isn't happening or that it's not really bad, or that it's not human caused? None of those concessions make logical sense. They go against over 30 years of established science. Since you and those who believe as you do have not even conceded that the climate science and the procedures to which that science adheres (i.e., the scientific process) are valid, it makes no sense for you to ask for those concessions. Until you have agreed to obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions, and to accept principles of logic, a meaningful discourse is impossible.

Perhaps you should review the conversation before you give your
opinion
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 519. tramp96:
Why Global Warming Would be Good for You.
It's all good GWers
Link


And why that is a deliberate distortion of the science:

From Weather Underground's Climate Change section:

Science says: Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, and environment far outweigh any positives.

Agriculture

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes—Siberia, for example—may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail—in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.

Health

Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heat waves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn't been seen before.

Polar Melting

While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.

Ocean Acidification


A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilizing effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.

Melting Glaciers

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world's population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies—drinking water, agriculture—may fail.

Sea Level Rise

Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise.

Environmental

Positive effects of climate change may include greener rain forests and enhanced plant growth in the Amazon, increased vegetation in northern latitudes and possible increases in plankton biomass in some parts of the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water, increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global photo-plankton, changes in migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chains and species loss.

Economic

The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.

Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 517. tramp96:

Before we do that do you concede that you may be wrong?


Why should Rookie concede the possibility that AGW isn't happening or that it's not really bad, or that it's not human caused? None of those concessions make logical sense. They go against over 30 years of established science. Since you and those who believe as you do have not even conceded that the climate science and the procedures to which that science adheres (i.e., the scientific process) are valid, it makes no sense for you to ask for those concessions. Until you have agreed to obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions, and to accept principles of logic, a meaningful discourse is impossible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 520. Astrometeor:


E-waste — defined as anything with a battery or a cord

I needed that definition. At first I was confused at the article, I was astounded that the stuff tramp and yoboi write had any weight, then I noticed the definition there. Now I know better.

I suggest that you o longer buy any of those products.
Be part of the solution and not the problem.
Honestly you should unplug everything right now get on your bike with your fridge and find a suitable recycling facility.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 518. BaltimoreBrian:
Sunday readingUN says 'e-waste' problem growing fast


E-waste — defined as anything with a battery or a cord

I needed that definition. At first I was confused at the article, I was astounded that the stuff tramp and yoboi write had any weight, then I noticed the definition there. Now I know better.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Why Global Warming Would be Good for You.
It's all good GWers
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 477. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Nice. Since you concede that you may be wrong about GW, what do you think the consequences for us will be if you are wrong about GW?

Before we do that do you concede that you may be wrong?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Prophetic Warning from the late Carl Sagan (his last interview 17 years ago)

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 514. yonzabam:
Warmest November on record, globally, according to NASA, at 0.77C above the 1951-80 average.

Link


but...but...it's cold at yoboi's house!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Warmest November on record, globally, according to NASA, at 0.77C above the 1951-80 average.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 510. JohnLonergan:
Report from AGU by David Appell

AGU13: "Facing Legal Attack: Scientists Tell Their Stories"


The article is here.


I omitted this link to the article at the YALE forum on
CLIMATE CHANGE & THE MEDIA
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3283
Quoting 500. yoboi:



Have not been above 50 since thanksgiving running 20 degrees below norm...
Meanwhile, the entire state of FL. has been running above normal since Thanksgiving. I'm ready for a arctic cool down, it just doesn't feel like the holidays when it's hot.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We’re Still Losing Ice at the Poles

One of the key indicators and consequences of global warming is ice loss at the Earth’s poles. As the planet warms, on average and over time, every summer more ice melts. It refreezes in the winter, but again as temperatures rise, in general we’ll see less ice at any given time as compared to the year before.

The situation for the two poles is different. In the north the Arctic ice floats on the ocean, and on the south the Antarctic ice is over land and sea. This means that they way they melt — how quickly, how much, even where specifically in those regions — are different. Still, the fact is the ice at both poles is melting. We’ve known this for quite some time (see Related Posts below for more).

And some new data show it’s even worse than we thought.

Bad News, Australis Edition


Ice loss in Antarctica; blue shows where ice is thinning, red where it's growing. Note the imbalance.
Photo by CPOM / ESA



Measurements of Antarctic ice made by the European Space Agency’s CryoSat satellite show that it’s losing about 150 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice on average every year just from the West Antarctica ice sheet alone. This is notably more than what had been previously estimated, and is likely to be more accurate due to the satellite’s better coverage and use of radar to measure ice thickness.

The bulk of this loss is from melting glaciers, with their runoff flowing into the sea. This in turn is raising the sea level by about 0.3 millimeters per year (again, just from the West Antarctic ice sheet alone). It’s unclear if this increase in ice loss is due to faster thinning of the ice, or due to better coverage of the satellite in regions otherwise difficult to access. Either way, the ice is melting more rapidly than previously thought.

This amount of loss is staggering; it’s equivalent to about a hundred billion tons. That’s equivalent in volume to a mountain about four kilometers (2.5 miles) high, roughly the size of a medium-size mountain in the Rockies.

I’ll note that some people who deny global warming like to talk about ice in Antarctica increasing, not decreasing. This is at best misleading; the sea ice fluctuates every year, and has grown marginally recently, but this is tiny compared to the loss of land ice. Overall, Antarctica is losing ice, rapidly, with more melting every year.

Bad News, Borealis Edition

Maps of ice loss in the Arctic show it dwindling over time. A fair question to ask is, when will we see an ice-free summer there?

Read more at Bad Astronomy...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3283
Report from AGU by David Appell

AGU13: "Facing Legal Attack: Scientists Tell Their Stories"

I have one last piece up at the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, covering the Thursday panel "Facing Legal Attack: Scientists Tell Their Stories" featuring Naomi Oreskes, Jeff Ruch, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Andrew Dessler, and Ben Santer.

An excerpt:

Young scientists should expect such travails, several of them said, and realize that help is available and that there is strength in numbers. And that one’s laboratory or academic management is not always of much help.

“The most important thing you can do is talk to people who have been in the same situation,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science now at Harvard University. Science magazine was threatened with a lawsuit in 2004 after publishing an article by Oreskes, and, she said, she felt threatened by extension.

“It wasn’t about me and my work personally, but it was political,” she said. “It’s about a much bigger political issue that you’re caught in the crosshairs of.”

The threat never did materialize as a lawsuit, and in the long run her career was actually strengthened, she said. She became friends with Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy, wrote a book that sold well, and got invitations to publish elsewhere.

“But I wouldn’t wish it on anyone,” she said of the experience.

The article is here.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3283
509. yoboi
Quoting 508. Birthmark:




60 > 50

Just thought I'd point that out.






yes we have been 20 degrees below normal Brrrrrrrrrrrrr it's cold might have to burn tallow wood to keep me warm...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 500. yoboi:



Have not been above 50 since thanksgiving running 20 degrees below norm...


Quoting 503. yoboi:


I would take the warmth down here In Louisiana it got about 60 for 2 hrs then front blew thru in the 30's


60 > 50

Just thought I'd point that out.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 498. yoboi:

Solar cycle 25 will have little effect on the trend. This has been pointed out to you on several occasions. You have yet to produce a scientifically valid rebuttal.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 497. Creideiki:


To what extent do you think the problem is a lack of understanding of statistics methods and trends?

That's probably a major issue with the general public. However, the denialists posting here have been acquainted with the information on numerous times. Any problems on their part is (hopefully) feigned.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
505. yoboi
Quoting 504. Creideiki:


Take this as some constructive criticism, but to what extent might you be wishcasting?



The facts look it up.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 498. yoboi:



We have I figured out with Solar 25.......


Take this as some constructive criticism, but to what extent might you be wishcasting?
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 163
503. yoboi
Quoting 502. Creideiki:


We've been running about 10 degrees over, although before the last cold snap and before the next storm system, we're expecting to run about 20 degrees over normal.

The bigger problem is that we're way under average for snowfall. Ordinarily, the Front Range gets at least one big snowfall by now. Instead, we've gotten a couple light dustings and 2-4 inches off of the last storm. It's not enough to keep our soil moisture where we need it to be. Fortunately, the mountains are getting enough, but it's going to be difficult for us come April unless there's a big pattern shift. These low-moisture winters really put stress on the trees, so they seem to put leaves out later.

I'd give you some of our warmth if I could.


I would take the warmth down here In Louisiana it got about 60 for 2 hrs then front blew thru in the 30's
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 500. yoboi:



Have not been above 50 since thanksgiving running 20 degrees below norm...


We've been running about 10 degrees over, although before the last cold snap and before the next storm system, we're expecting to run about 20 degrees over normal.

The bigger problem is that we're way under average for snowfall. Ordinarily, the Front Range gets at least one big snowfall by now. Instead, we've gotten a couple light dustings and 2-4 inches off of the last storm. It's not enough to keep our soil moisture where we need it to be. Fortunately, the mountains are getting enough, but it's going to be difficult for us come April unless there's a big pattern shift. These low-moisture winters really put stress on the trees, so they seem to put leaves out later.

I'd give you some of our warmth if I could.
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 163
Quoting 495. Creideiki:


Yes. You and many great scientists disagree with each other. I concur wholeheartedly with this post.


Yes you and many of the 3%ers but not all of them...LOL...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
500. yoboi
Quoting 499. Creideiki:


Let me check weather.com for you...

Looks like steady highs in the mid 50s and lows in the low to mid 40s.

However, I live in Denver, where it's been well above average again since the cold snap ended. We're expecting another short cold snap toward the end of next week, but it should be typically short.

How is the weather in your neck of the woods?



Have not been above 50 since thanksgiving running 20 degrees below norm...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 496. yoboi:



How is the weather in naples?


Let me check weather.com for you...

Looks like steady highs in the mid 50s and lows in the low to mid 40s.

However, I live in Denver, where it's been well above average again since the cold snap ended. We're expecting another short cold snap toward the end of next week, but it should be typically short.

How is the weather in your neck of the woods?
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 163
498. yoboi
Quoting 497. Creideiki:


To what extent do you think the problem is a lack of understanding of statistics methods and trends?



We have I figured out with Solar 25.......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 493. Birthmark:

Now you're running away from the data. Spencer's data above clearly demonstrates warming, particularly from the middle of 2007.5.



Looks like warming, no? In fact, that's well over a tenth of a degree in less than six-and-a-half years.


To what extent do you think the problem is a lack of understanding of statistics methods and trends?
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 163
496. yoboi
Quoting 495. Creideiki:


Yes. You and many great scientists disagree with each other. I concur wholeheartedly with this post.



How is the weather in naples?
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 460. yoboi:


I read it and me and many great scientist disagree.....


Yes. You and many great scientists disagree with each other. I concur wholeheartedly with this post.
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 163
Quoting 493. Birthmark:

Now you're running away from the data. Spencer's data above clearly demonstrates warming, particularly from the middle of 2007.5.



Looks like warming, no? In fact, that's well over a tenth of a degree in less than six-and-a-half years.


Yes Spencer can't even read his own graphic..Neither can Yobi..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 492. yoboi:

Now you're running away from the data. Spencer's data above clearly demonstrates warming, particularly from the middle of 2007.5.



Looks like warming, no? In fact, that's well over a tenth of a degree in less than six-and-a-half years.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
492. yoboi
Quoting 491. Birthmark:

Nah, it's "hidden" in 1997 and 1999. ;)



You know it's not but it does make for a good story......The predictions are failing.....but hey it was a fun scam............
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 490. yoboi:


I know I know it's hidden in the deep depths of the ocean lol................

Nah, it's "hidden" in 1997 and 1999. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
490. yoboi
Quoting 486. Birthmark:

That is the entire time series for UAH. Your cherry picking claim is therefore nonsense.

Cherry picking would be using only part of the data, like say beginning in 1998. ;)


I know I know it's hidden in the deep depths of the ocean lol................
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
From an article at The Yale Forum on Gavin Schmidt's talk at AGU13:


During a Q&A session after his talk, Schmidt offered a few more words of wisdom for researchers thinking about becoming more vocal about their science and their personal views. Among his more memorable remarks were:

“It’s important for people who know things not to give up the public sphere to people who don’t know things.”

Link

Sort of a raison d' blog
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Solar 25 LOL...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 485. yoboi:



Yeah he talks about solar 25 and the cooling we will be custom to......invest in a snow great snow blower from Miami north ya will need it..........
Reference? link?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 481. yoboi:

That is the entire time series for UAH. Your cherry picking claim is therefore nonsense.

Cherry picking would be using only part of the data, like say beginning in 1998. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
485. yoboi
Quoting 482. FLwolverine:
Besides the drought study, do you have other examples of Hoerling's position on climate change?



Yeah he talks about solar 25 and the cooling we will be custom to......invest in a snow great snow blower from Miami north ya will need it..........
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
484. yoboi
Quoting 480. FLwolverine:
Hoerling led the NOAA study that did not link th 2012 drought to climate change. The conclusion was much criticized, and the denalists decided Hoerling was on their side. AFAIK other (real) climate scientists criticized the report as too conservative but didn't put Hoerling in the denier camp.

"A new report by Martin Hoerling and his team of NOAA researchers investigated the underlying causes of the devastating (and still ongoing) drought of 2012 using computer modeling. The report provides a valuable contribution to understanding the immediate factors driving the occurrence of droughts but misses the underlying ways in which global warming makes drought conditions more likely and more severe. It also ignores two new key science developments. The NOAA report "is quite incomplete in many respects, and it asks the wrong questions. Then it does not provide very useful answers to the questions that are asked," says Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research."

Climate Science Watch



Trenberth only wished he could walk in their shoes..........
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 479. yoboi:




Yeah cherry pick if ya like.....he tells it like it is like Dr Roy Spencer.....


Oh so it's less than 3% now...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 479. yoboi:




Yeah cherry pick if ya like.....he tells it like it is like Dr Roy Spencer.....
Besides the drought study, do you have other examples of Hoerling's position on climate change?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 532 - 482

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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.