Are the changes in the Arctic messing with our weather? Background

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:02 AM GMT on January 14, 2014

Share this Blog
29
+

Are the changes in the Arctic messing with our weather? Background

(20140115: Revision: This is a revision. In the comments on the original post rlk and ScottLincoln questioned the magnitude of the pressure change in the figure used in the paper. I wrote Kevin Trenberth, the author, and he confirms that the units should be pascals, not hectopascals. I thank rlk and ScottLincoln, and indeed, I should have flagged this as well, rather than noting how large it was and moving along in the original post. The conclusions in the blog are not altered.)

This entry continues with my listing of the big-ticket items in climate change since I last taught in April 2012. In the last entry I wrote about how the technology used to extract oil and natural gas, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), stood as a threat to climate change because it assured the availability of fuels that we preferred and, also, provided desirable jobs. Some would argue that fracking might diminish our use of coal, which is a good thing. This is likely true, but there are several issues that need to be analyzed in that conclusion: selling our coal to other countries, the complete accounting of greenhouse gases associated with fracking, the broader environmental consequences of fracking, the fact that there are no real disincentives for using fossil fuels, and the fact that all burnt fossil fuels have a long-term cumulative effect (My Michigan colleagues integrated assessment of fracking). I don’t want to diminish the importance that the carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. have, perhaps, been decreasing in recent years; however, it is not a fact that suggests we are on a path to addressing the problems of climate change. I assert we remain in a situation where economic growth, which we require for well-being, is still strongly linked to energy use and carbon emissions. If our economy grows so will our emissions as the preliminary 2013 emissions suggest.

The second big-ticket item that I want to highlight is the work investigating the changes in the Arctic and the possibility that these changes are already influencing the weather in the continental U.S. and, more broadly, in the Northern Hemisphere. I have written about this extensively in my series on the Arctic Oscillation and the hot and cold fluctuations in the U.S. (link to last in series, also see links below). I take some pleasure in noting that back in December I wrote, “The whole Arctic air mass is starting to move east, which means it will get a lot more press.” I did not imagine that it would lead to all of the anxiety about the rogue polar vortex (We the geeks).

I will leave the machinations of polar-vortex mania to my more able colleagues. I want to analyze why this work about the Arctic Oscillation, the polar vortex and wild fluctuations between warm and cold weather is important enough to be on my list of big-ticket items.

There is little controversy that there have been massive changes in the climate of the Arctic. These are most easily noted in the large changes in Arctic sea ice. There is also a whole set of coherent and convergent evidence that documents the changes in the Arctic. The most direct evidence is the increase in temperature, which is much greater in the Arctic than at lower latitudes and in the tropics (Polar or Arctic amplification). Coincident with this warming is a lengthening of the growing season and an increase in activity in the northern forests – the greening of the Arctic (200 blogs ago, Getting Ready for Spring 5). There is controversy about whether these changes in the Arctic are causing changes to the weather at lower latitudes. There is also controversy about if there is a change in the weather at lower latitudes, is it due to the local changes in the Arctic such as loss of sea ice.

I want to start the discussion with Figure 11 from a paper by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo entitled, An apparent hiatus in global warming? I will write more about this paper in a future blog. Trenberth and Fasullo provide a self-consistent global analysis that tracks the heating of the planet. Figure 11 of this paper shows the difference in average sea-level pressure between two time periods. An average is taken for 1999-2012 and another for 1979-1998. The difference between the two averages shows an increase in sea-level pressure. This increase is represented by the large red area stretching from the North Atlantic, east of Greenland, to the Arctic Ocean and centered over the North Pole. The maximum magnitude of this increase is about 150 Pa (pascal). To put this in perspective the surface pressure of the Earth is often cited as being 1000 hPa (hectopascal).



Figure 1: Mean annual sea-level pressure differences from ERA-Interim Reanalysis for 1999–2012 and 1979–1998 in Pa (pascal, colors) and for surface wind vectors (arrows) in meter per seconds with the key at top right. (a) Map projection centered on the Pacific and (b) polar stereographic projection of the Northern Hemisphere. (Note the magnitude of pressure is in Pa, not hPa, which is a typo in the original manuscript.)(Figure 11 from An apparent hiatus in global warming?)

This increase in the Arctic sea-level pressure can also be viewed in terms of the strength of the polar vortex, or in terms of wind, the strength of the rotation of the wind. Low pressure is associated with a strong vortex with strong rotation; high pressure is associated with a weak vortex with less rotation (earlier blog on strong and weak vortex). Hence, the observations show that there is a weaker polar vortex. As measured in terms of the Arctic Oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation is more negative. From our narrow U.S. perspective, this is associated with cold and snowy conditions over the eastern half of the U.S. leading to exaggerated political and press attention and excess purchase of toilet paper and bread in supermarkets from Atlanta northwards. It is quite easy to conclude that for the past decade and a half the Arctic Oscillation has been more prominently in its negative phase.

The analysis of Trenberth and Fasullo comes to the conclusion that this change in the Arctic is the consequence of changes in the global distribution of mass of the atmosphere. Specifically, Trenberth and Fasullo trace the changes in the Arctic back to changes in the tropics. Placing the Arctic changes as a part of a global circulation change stands in tension to the conclusions of Jennifer Francis and her collaborators, who are quoted extensively in my blogs. Francis and Vavrus (2012) in Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes correlate the changes in sea-level pressure to changes in the sea ice, the Arctic Oscillation and snow cover. This is a focus on a direct local effect in the Arctic causing changes in the global circulation.

The work that I cite above, in all cases, points to a time in the past 15 years where the Arctic Oscillation is often in its negative phase. There is a difference between the researchers in the determination of cause and effect. The difference in cause and effect leads, perhaps, to different conclusions about the future. The question: in the future will the Arctic Oscillation be more prone to its negative phase? With that question, I introduce another paper, by Elizabeth Barnes and co-authors Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes. Barnes et al. analyze the simulations used in the most recent Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP-5) and conclude that the models do not support the conclusion that the Arctic Oscillation will become more negative in the future.

In the next blog, I will discuss the arguments offered by these different researchers. Then I will provide my analysis of why I conclude that what is happening in the Arctic makes it to my list of the big-ticket items of the past year.

r


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

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: 1526 - 1476

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

1526. pcola57
12:57 AM GMT on January 28, 2014


Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6877
1525. JohnLonergan
1:57 AM GMT on January 27, 2014
Quoting 1390. JohnLonergan:


But haven't all the deniers been yelling "discovery", we'll get Mann's e-mails.? They forget that discovery works both ways.

Also, I saw a link to Dr. Mann's attorney, John B. Williams of Cozen O'Connor:

First Amendment Litigation — John has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in libel and slander cases. He represented G. Gordon Liddy in his 10-year lawsuit against John W. Dean and Ida Maxie Wells arising from Liddy’s endorsement of a revisionist theory of Watergate. During this litigation, John conducted the deposition of virtually every living Watergate figure, including John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, Howard Hunt, Jeb Stuart Magruder, and John Dean. The case was successfully tried to a defense verdict in 2002. On the plaintiffs' side, John represented Dr. Steven Levin in the "Dirty Doctor" case, in which Levin was unjustly accused by WJLA of sexually abusing his patients. The jury returned the largest defamation verdict ever affirmed on appeal in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In other First Amendment litigation, John represented Lt. Colonel Martha McSally in her successful challenge of the Department of Defense regulation that required American servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the Islamic abaya. He is presently representing the noted climatologist, Michael Mann, in a high-profile defamation case.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
1524. pcola57
9:29 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1516. yoboi:



So far today,concerning AGW..
What I see are opinions on already established facts..
Really,attacks on what man does best..
Think..

For me, the science behind AGW is solid..
The science is derived from Oceanographic data buoy's and vessels,satellites,concrete and established weather monitoring stations and many other sources..
All this data is collected by scientists and their associated equipment..

(PS..That' alot of data..)

With Essentially the best minds mankind has to offer sifting and understanding this data..
Achieving results that are chilling in their implications..
Also,It is Worth Noting that these minds have to reach a very high bar in standards..

What is consistently posted by those unwilling to "Think" is akin to shooting the messenger..
To err is human..
To err constantly is inane..
At some point one has to clear the rubble of these derived attempts to share their ignorance/lack of knowledge..
There must be a break-point..
Hence the impotent "-" and "!" signs..
They have no impact on the moderation necessary..
Moderation that has no ability is no moderation at all..

Moving on..
I,as a thinking sort, choose to examine the claims of "proof by the dissenting voices..
To try and determine if it can reach the same level of excellence set forward by current standards given the scientific community to adhere to..
Once again, at some point this becomes a exercise in futility..

When I first began to come here, I always learned something of value..
Be it a data set, critical thinking logic, understanding..
I was greeted with patience and guidance..
Being steadily encouraged and reached my personal "Eureka" moment..
From that point on , I was able to stand alone and enjoy my ability to seek and find information on my own..
I am/was/continue to be grateful to all involved with nurturing me..

Here lately tho..
I see few if any folks..
Trying to reach their "Eureka" moment..
It's sad in a way, as I was not alone at the time of my "seeking out"..
And to fumble and stumble along wasn't so dis-arming..

I know of certain schools here that actually link to/encourage WU as a source of info..
I hope we here don't loose our ability to keep these young people in mind..

I guess my point in all this is..
That as a community, good things can be done to advance efforts on AGW..
But I wonder..
Where have the ones gone that are seeker's like myself..
Makes me think..
Has the "disruption factor" and lack of moderation caused them go?
How high is our bar set here?
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6877
1523. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
9:20 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
1522. JohnLonergan
9:19 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1521. Birthmark:

See? Throwing anything out there in the hopes that someone will believe it.

For the record: Curry is a disingenuous hack at this point. Pass it on.


Which Curry is he talking about, the one that forms part of the consensus in her peer-reviewed works, or the Curry that contradicts Curry on her blog and in front of Congress?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
1521. Birthmark
9:04 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1516. yoboi:

See? Throwing anything out there in the hopes that someone will believe it.

For the record: Curry is a disingenuous hack at this point. Pass it on.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1520. Daisyworld
9:04 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1518. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


[...]

1. Methodological Standards
A) Inductive - the generalization from observations method
B) Deductive - the hypothetico-deductive method
C)Falsifiable - the science must be disprovable

[...]


I would add a note to "C" that science and hypothesis testing is not about falsification. Yes, you have to be able to reject either the null hypothesis or alternate hypothesis within the constraints of the test, but even when an alternate hypothesis is proven valid through mathematical testing, the null hypothesis does not automatically fall by the wayside.

There's a tendency for people to misconceive that just because some amount of validity is given to one alternate hypothesis (e.g. yes, cosmic rays have had some affect on changing the climate in the past), that somehow the null hypothesis is now false (e.g., climate change is no longer caused by human-produced greenhouse gas).

Science does not move radically overnight. Many researchers independent of one another must reproduce and confirm a finding over the course of months, years, and decades before an alternate hypothesis slowly replaces a null hypothesis (if it even occurs at all). So, when a headline shouts "Super-Fantastic New Theory Will Turn Science Community On It's Head!!!" or "Newly Released Data Will Completely Change Course Of Science!!!", it should immediately be suspect.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
1519. Creideiki
8:17 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1511. Cochise111:
Here are some new conditions for statistical studies published in Science Magazine, that if imposed on climate "scientists," might relegate most of the past climate science papers written by AGW proponents to the dustbin.

Link



Not that you're much more than a drive-by anti-science forum disrupting troll and probably won't be scheduled to make another appearance for another 12 hours or so by the terms of your science disrupting for pay contract, but let's pretend that you're not just a troll looking for a bridge: what would convince you?

If the answer is nothing, just say that nothing could ever convince you, and we can go back to "-" and "!". We could be living on a new Venus and you'd still deny that everything was just normal.

Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 166
1518. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:14 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1420. AGWSpecialist:
Just what I've been saying for all along here. It should be known that Climate "science" does not follow the "scientific method".

I mean, the IPCC does not even claim the ability to measure average global temperature. Most of our surface temperature readings have shown average temperature increases of less than one degree, which is impossible to determine with uncalibrated, inaccurate thermometers.

How can the temperature trend be calculable then?. In essence, it's all much ado about nothing:

Link


First, are you or Anthony Watts able to explain to us all what "the scientific method" is? Yes, I know, Anthony throws out a method for conducting science, but there is no "scientific method" as you and Anthony would imply that there is. There are methods used in science.

1. Methodological Standards
A) Inductive - the generalization from observations method
B) Deductive - the hypothetico-deductive method
C)Falsifiable - the science must be disprovable

2. Evidence through replication, witnessing and peer review and a convergence of evidence.

3. Performance standards - predictive testing, enduring and is applicable "in the real world".

4. Inference to the best evidence - is there anything else that will provide a better explanation?

5. Consensus - do your peers agree with your findings?

The IPCC does not do the science. The IPCC reviews the scientific evidence and along with world governments and business interests reports out what the science tells us.

When you speak of the uncalibrated and inaccurate thermometers, have you ever read the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study on this? Richard Muller was skeptical of the temperature data and for much of the same reasons as you highlight here and with the addition of the "heat island effect". Muller was given the lead of a team to investigate the temperature data. What the team concluded was that it really did not matter as to the temperature monitoring stations. All the stations, poorly sited or not, showed the same trend of warming as the well placed and well maintained sites showed.

Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change

Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Richard Muller Admits Global Warming Real & Humans the Cause

So, in essence, you are making much ado over what Anthony Watts already knows is debunked. "I think that I’ve found clear evidence of the error in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature data. I say “I think”, because as always, there certainly may be something I’ve overlooked." Imagine that! A hint of honesty? Unfortunately, not honest enough. Had Anthony really wished to be honest he would say that he cherry picks every data point and data set he can in order to induce doubt in those that are too intellectually lazy to look beyond his own misleading talking points.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
1517. Neapolitan
8:04 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1511:
Here are some new conditions for statistical studies published in Science Magazine, that if imposed on climate "scientists," might relegate most of the past climate science papers written by AGW proponents to the dustbin.
Not likely; due to the subject matter, most major climate science papers have been subjected to intense scrutiny and demands for transparency, and they've passed with flying colors. But I'll tell you this much: if the gullible would demand even a tenth--hell, a hundredth--as much veracity from the anti-science blogs to which they're addicted as they do from actual science papers, the denialosphere would collapse in upon itself in a matter of seconds.

Oh, what a wonderful day that would be, no?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
1516. yoboi
8:01 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Posted: Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:00 pm

By ED BERRY | 0 comments




Jerry Elwood (in a Jan. 4 Daily Inter Lake guest opinion) claims his case for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is based upon “unequivocal and easily accessible scientific evidence.” Let’s review his claim.

Elwood claims the scientific case for catastrophic man-caused global warming is closed and his side has won. He wants to close the debate because he has lost the debate and he wants government to force his belief on you.




Professor Judith Curry, a United Nations expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who knows more than Elwood about climate physics, just testified in the U.S. Senate, “the science of climate change is not settled.”

Which of the 73 climate models does Elwood believe represents his “settled” science?

All climate models disagree among themselves and all produce forecasts way outside reality. If climate science were settled, there would be only one model and it would agree with data.



Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
1515. Birthmark
7:55 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1511. Cochise111:

Might? Okay. I'll give that speculative magazine article the consideration it merits.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1514. Patrap
7:54 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
PIG is the Antarctic Canary in the Coal Mine.

No "Pun" interned for once.

Researchers based at the French National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble have now developed state-of-the-art models that, while still limited, provide the best estimates yet of the future behavior of Pine Island Glacier, they say. The team has found that the glacier's grounding line the point where glacier and its ice shelf meet is about to retreat over an oceanic trench that would increase the amount of water that seeps underneath and melts the glacier. Their models suggest that this would cause the glacier to uncontrollably retreat about 25 miles (40 kilometers) over the next several decades, potentially raising global sea levels by more than 0.4 inches (1 centimeter).
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1513. pcola57
7:52 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1499. Birthmark:

So Spencer plays some numbers game or other; expects models of surface temperature to apply to the mid-troposphere; uses less than reliable balloon data...and expects to be taken seriously?

And you fell for that?!

Question: Why doesn't Spencer write this up and submit it to a journal if he thinks he's onto something? I'll give you three guesses, though most of us can get it in one guess.;)


Agree..
I have seen many,many editorials and opinion pieces and they all prey on the science that is Climate oriented..
If they are soo convinced,why not sent up there own satellites and measurement stations and "Climate expeditions"??
They have deep pockets on there side..
Some of it would be Tax deductible..
Not even an reputable college that have/had attended will give them sway..
The reason in my opinion, is that they know what the results would be..
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6877
1512. Daisyworld
7:52 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1509. VAbeachhurricanes:


Thank you this is perfect.



From what I have read on the subject, I think they affect it about the same. Due to the fact that Antarctica ice sheet reaches higher levels of latitude so the sun angle it is reflecting is high. It will be interesting to see if antarctic ice continues to increase how the the earth reacts to having its northern heat budget increasing, but its southern decreasing.


I wouldn't count on it being a steady trend. As the NASA article indicated, it's highly variable. Plus, Antarctica is losing land ice, which is what will cause changes in sea level over time. I posted this back in #414, but I guess it warrants posting again:

Massive Antarctic Glacier Uncontrollably Retreating, Study Suggests

Laura Poppick | LiveScience | January 16, 2014

The glacier that contributes more to sea level rise than any other glacier on Antarctica has hit a tipping point of uncontrollable retreat, and could largely collapse within the span of decades, a new study suggests.

Pine Island Glacier accounts for about 20 percent of the total ice flow on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — an amalgam of glaciers that covers roughly 800,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) and makes up about 10 percent of the total ice on Antarctica. Many researchers think that, given the size of Pine Island Glacier, its demise could have a domino effect on surrounding glaciers and ultimately — over the course of many years — lead to the collapse of the entire ice sheet, which would raise average global sea level by between 10 and 16 feet (3 and 5 meters).

The glacier is not only massive, but also one of the least stable of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet ice flows. In the past 40 years, its melting rate has accelerated due to relatively warm ocean currents that have seeped underneath its base and lubricated its flow seaward. As it slips into the ocean, the glacier's ice shelf — the part that floats on water and extends beyond the glacier's base — disintegrates through a natural process called calving, exposing yet more of the glacier to warm waters. Last year, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off into the surrounding Amundsen Sea.

'We have passed the tipping point'

Many researchers have tried to predict the future behavior of this important glacier using mathematical models but, given the complicated nature of glacial dynamics, all of these attempts have been limited and prone to error. Precipitation, wind patterns, atmospheric temperatures, oceanic currents and the shape of bedrock underneath the glacier are only some of the numerous factors that control glacial growth and retreat. Models predicting glacial behavior are therefore very complicated and always prone to some degree of error.

Researchers based at the French National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble have now developed state-of-the-art models that, while still limited, provide the best estimates yet of the future behavior of Pine Island Glacier, they say. The team has found that the glacier's grounding line — the point where glacier and its ice shelf meet — is about to retreat over an oceanic trench that would increase the amount of water that seeps underneath and melts the glacier. Their models suggest that this would cause the glacier to uncontrollably retreat about 25 miles (40 kilometers) over the next several decades, potentially raising global sea levels by more than 0.4 inches (1 centimeter).

Retreat may slow once the glacier passes the trench, the researchers report, but it will not likely regain stability or enter a positive-growth phase.

"Whatever it will do, we are already engaged in a big change," study co-author Gael Durand told LiveScience. "We have passed the tipping point."

Uncertainties remain

Eric Steig, a glacial geologist at the University of Washington who also studies Pine Island Glacier but was not involved in this study, thinks the study provides the best models yet of this particular glacier's dynamics. Still, he points out that the models make the assumption that melting rates will increase in the near future and that, while this is likely, it is not necessarily a given.

Last month, Steig and colleagues published a paper in the journal Science reporting that Pine Island Glacier's retreat slowed significantly in 2012 due to oceanographic changes related to La Niña. While this seems to have been an anomalous event, Steig says that the 40 years of data gathered on the glacier may not be enough to make accurate predictions about its future behavior, and about what is normal or anomalous for its flow.

"I actually think it's a good assumption that the melt rate will stay high," Steig told LiveScience. "But my confidence that that is right is extremely low and the reason that it is low is that it depends strongly on what happens elsewhere."

For example, La Niña — a weather pattern related to El Niño that brings cold-water masses up the coast of South America, into the central equatorial Pacific, and eventually along the coast of Antarctica — originates as far away as the equatorial tropics, and has a significant impact on the behavior of the glacier. Future work will need to take these distant global factors into account in predicting the behavior of the glacier.

Still, despite these shortcomings, Durand is convinced the glacier has little chance of regaining stability.

"We showed that it will need a very large decrease of the melting condition below the ice shelf and that the oceanographic conditions would need to be much colder than it was before it started its retreat [to maintain stability]," Durand said. "What will come next is an open question, but to recover to its 1990s position is unlikely."

The study findings were detailed earlier this month in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
1511. Cochise111
7:50 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Here are some new conditions for statistical studies published in Science Magazine, that if imposed on climate "scientists," might relegate most of the past climate science papers written by AGW proponents to the dustbin.

Link

Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 352
1510. Birthmark
7:49 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1503. yoboi:

Really? He wrote a paper in 2010 that demonstrated model "failures" in 2012? Neat trick, if he could pull it off. He couldn't.

The paper that you cite was refuted soundly in the scientific literature.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1509. VAbeachhurricanes
7:46 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1501. Naga5000:


This should be what you are looking for. Or at least help.

Surface Albedo of the Antarctic Sea Ice Zone, Brandt et al 2005 (Link
)


Thank you this is perfect.

Quoting 1504. Neapolitan:
The minuscule (in terms of percentage) gain in Antarctic sea ice occurs during winter, when the sun is low in the northern sky. IN summer, that SH sea ice is pretty much gone every year. The disappearance of Arctic sea ice, on the other hand, is opening up larger and larger expanses of water to the summer sun. I've not seen the total insolation quantified, but off the top of my head, I'd guess any small increase in SH sea ice albedo is far more than offset by massive gains in NH insolation.


From what I have read on the subject, I think they affect it about the same. Due to the fact that Antarctica ice sheet reaches higher levels of latitude so the sun angle it is reflecting is high. It will be interesting to see if antarctic ice continues to increase how the the earth reacts to having its northern heat budget increasing, but its southern decreasing.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6669
1508. Birthmark
7:43 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1496. VAbeachhurricanes:
Do we know how much the increasing sea ice in the antarctic will affect albedo causing less of the suns energy to be absorbed?

Very little since that ice melts out to about the same level it has since satellite records began.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1506. Daisyworld
7:42 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1496. VAbeachhurricanes:
Do we know how much the increasing sea ice in the antarctic will affect albedo causing less of the suns energy to be absorbed?


1% per decade is not very much at all to change the albedo: Link:

"Since the start of the satellite record, total Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1 percent per decade. Whether the small increase in extent is a sign of meaningful change is uncertain because ice extents vary considerably from year to year around Antarctica. In September 2012, for instance, satellites observed a new record high for winter sea ice extent; it remained high (but not a record) at the summer peak in February 2012. These new highs occurred while the Arctic was seeing record lows.

"There is also variation from place to place around the continent. The Ross Sea sector has had a significant positive trend, while sea ice extent has actually decreased in the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas. In short, Antarctic sea ice shows a small positive trend, but large-scale variations make the trend very noisy."
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
1504. Neapolitan
7:41 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1496. VAbeachhurricanes:
Do we know how much the increasing sea ice in the antarctic will affect albedo causing less of the suns energy to be absorbed?
The minuscule (in terms of percentage) gain in Antarctic sea ice occurs during winter, when the sun is low in the northern sky. IN summer, that SH sea ice is pretty much gone every year. The disappearance of Arctic sea ice, on the other hand, is opening up larger and larger expanses of water to the summer sun. I've not seen the total insolation ratio quantified, but off the top of my head, I'd guess any minute increases in SH wintertime sea ice albedo is far more than offset by massive gains in NH summertime insolation.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
1503. yoboi
7:41 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1499. Birthmark:

So Spencer plays some numbers game or other; expects models of surface temperature to apply to the mid-troposphere; uses less than reliable balloon data...and expects to be taken seriously?

And you fell for that?!

Question: Why doesn't Spencer write this up and submit it to a journal if he thinks he's onto something? I'll give you three guesses, though most of us can get it in one guess.;)



He did...


Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
1501. Naga5000
7:39 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1496. VAbeachhurricanes:
Do we know how much the increasing sea ice in the antarctic will affect albedo causing less of the suns energy to be absorbed?


This should be what you are looking for. Or at least help.

Surface Albedo of the Antarctic Sea Ice Zone, Brandt et al 2005 (Link
)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3596
1500. Patrap
7:39 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1497. Daisyworld:


Well, at least I got lots of practice with the "!" and "-" buttons with AGWSpecialist. It took me a good 10 minutes today to click them all since yesterday evening. And I only made 1 mistake with a " "!

I have to admit, due to the comments becoming automatically hidden on my screen when "-" is clicked, the comments section here looks much cleaner.

I think there's a point where it's just not worth our typing anymore. AGWSpecialist was proven wrong many, many comments ago. There's nothing we can do against someone who refuses to budge on their opinion.

This is evolution in progress. Those who evolve and adapt (which includes recognizing the truth of human-induced global warming) will survive. Those who do not evolve will become extinct.

And of course, the extinction of some populations will be much louder than others...


Filter settings are one way, but I like exposing the "Obfuscator's" GIGO note fer note.

The Music and the Humor flow like water when ya in the Science reality Zone.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1499. Birthmark
7:39 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1494. yoboi:
STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means


Link



So Spencer plays some numbers game or other; expects models of surface temperature to apply to the mid-troposphere; uses less than reliable balloon data...and expects to be taken seriously?

And you fell for that?!

Question: Why doesn't Spencer write this up and submit it to a journal if he thinks he's onto something? I'll give you three guesses, though most of us can get it in one guess.;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1498. Patrap
7:38 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
The Science is easily found for any meme, subject du jour.

Search engines are a million or more times faster than any mind here.

[PDF]
Sea Ice–Albedo Feedback and Nonlinear Arctic Climate Change
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1497. Daisyworld
7:37 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1474. Naga5000:


I'm pretty sure the - ! is broken in this forum. The community never seems to be able to moderate anything out of existence.


Well, at least I got lots of practice with the "!" and "-" buttons with AGWSpecialist. It took me a good 10 minutes today to click them all since yesterday evening. And I only made 1 mistake with a "+"!

I have to admit, due to the comments becoming automatically hidden on my screen when "-" is clicked, the comments section here looks much cleaner.

I think there's a point where it's just not worth our typing anymore. AGWSpecialist was proven wrong many, many comments ago. There's nothing we can do against someone who refuses to budge on their opinion.

This is evolution in progress. Those who evolve and adapt (which includes recognizing the truth of human-induced global warming) will survive. Those who do not evolve will become extinct.

And of course, the extinction of some populations will be much louder than others...
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
1496. VAbeachhurricanes
7:35 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Do we know how much the increasing sea ice in the antarctic will affect albedo causing less of the suns energy to be absorbed?
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6669
1495. Birthmark
7:34 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1491. ScottLincoln:
Goddard has again been fooled by his own ignorance, at best, or is deliberately confusing people. These corrections are necessary to creating a global temperature dataset that accurately represents the global temperature. People have created tools where you can explore the bias correction process yourself.

The great thing is that NCDC shows *less* warming than UAH since 1998.

These guys are just throwing things out there now.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1494. yoboi
7:32 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means


Link


Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
1493. Patrap
7:32 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Imagine if the one, the one young now, the one to save the Planet from CO2 Pollution and warming, the one who inspires a Million to tackle and defeat this imminent threat head on, is discouraged from stepping up today, due to this obfuscation of our reality and situation.

That's why I/we do what we do.

It's that important, to me at least, and my family.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1492. Astrometeor
7:31 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1484. ScottLincoln:

Exactly my point for months now. The blog is going to have to make a choice about what it wants to be and who it wants to cater to. You can't "change even one mind" if all the good information is buried. I'm starting to think that there is an active, conscious effort underway to do just that.


That's why I appreciate BaltimoreBrian's blog so much. He posts all of those science links on his blog, from all disciplines of science, yet no disruptions are allowed. All trolls or political deniers are banned from his blog and it's nice and quiet.

That's what I would like to see Rood's blog become. Nice and quiet with actual discussion.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10417
1491. ScottLincoln
7:28 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1475. AGWSpecialist:
[Homogenization is a U.S. government conspiracy to introduce a fake warming trend]

What homogenization really is:

Coincidentally, [a number of factors] have introduced a cooling bias into the surface temperature record in recent decades, and NCDC removes this cool bias with its adjustment methodology. Certain individuals who want to deny that global warming is happening mischaracterize this removal of cool biases, claiming NCDC is introducing a false warming trend.

In reality the adjustments made by NCDC are based on sound science, and detailed in the peer-reviewed scientific literaure. Their version 2 temperature dataset and processing steps are described in detail in Menne et al. (2009) and on the NCDC website, and details regarding some recent and relatively small revisions for version 2.5 of their dataset are described in two technical reports (Williams et al. 2012a and 2012b) and on the same NCDC website.

The general effectiveness of these adjustments has been confirmed by Peterson et al. (2003), Menne et al. (2010), and Fall et al. (2011). Another paper currently in press, Hausfather et al. (2012), found that the NCDC adjustments are critical in removing the influence of artificial artificial heat sources on the thermometers (the urban heat island effect).

In short, the adjustments made by NCDC to the raw temperature data are scientifically justified, very important, supported in the scientific literature, and their effectiveness has been confirmed by a wide variety of different approaches.

- SkepticalScience

Goddard has again been fooled by his own ignorance, at best, or is deliberately confusing people. These corrections are necessary to creating a global temperature dataset that accurately represents the global temperature. People have created tools where you can explore the bias correction process yourself.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3233
1490. pcola57
7:27 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1487. Birthmark:

I don't know why anyone would read that mess. I gave a warning at the top of each page -in bold. The purpose of that warning was to allow the serious readers to skip over the twaddle. It's the best I could do under the circumstances.


I believe you did exceptionally well Birthmark..
You did give ample warning IMO..
Although I may have muddied the waters a bit with a post I had been working on..
Please forgive..
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6877
1489. Patrap
7:26 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Not only is Sea Life, Mammals suffering from the deepening of warm waters, imagine the TCHP Joules or latent heat available for what we coastal folks fear the most.



Its coming, jus when and where is the rib.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1488. pcola57
7:25 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1486. indianrivguy:


It did Marvin, thank you for asking. His Cousin is on my Board and both are experts on marine mammals. ANY conversation with them is extremely enjoyable and chock full on learning.


I see he's mentioned in connection to "Woods Hole"..
Soo glad all went well..
By the way..
Snow/winter precip forecasted for Tues/Wed here..
reminds me of the song "Slip-Sliding Away"..Lol.. :)
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6877
1487. Birthmark
7:23 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1484. ScottLincoln:

Exactly my point for months now. The blog is going to have to make a choice about what it wants to be and who it wants to cater to. You can't "change even one mind" if all the good information is buried. I'm starting to think that there is an active, conscious effort underway to do just that.

I don't know why anyone would read that mess. I gave a warning at the top of each page -in bold. The purpose of that warning was to allow the serious readers to skip over the twaddle. It's the best I could do under the circumstances.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1486. indianrivguy
7:17 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1482. pcola57:


Thanks for sharing Marty..
Interesting about the Narwhals..
I personally will be very interested in what you can bring from your meeting with him as well..
Did the fund raiser do well?


It did Marvin, thank you for asking. His Cousin is on my Board and both are experts on marine mammals. ANY conversation with them is extremely enjoyable and chock full on learning.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2585
1485. Patrap
7:17 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Ya think?

There's been one since the subject was established here with this author and Jeff Masters, years ago.

We got folks posting a Ice Age is imminent, to these Wack a moles here.

The right, or Heartland Institute pays People to give seminars on how to do jus what we witnessed here the last few days.

At an event hosted by The Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute CEO Joseph Bast and communications director Jim Lakely are pressed to answer questions over payments from Chicago billionaire Barre Seid for work denying climate change. Barre Seid funded about two-thirds of the $300,000 in Heartland's 2012 budget for their NIPCC "Climate Change Reconsidered" report, which was being promoted at this September 2013 event.







Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1484. ScottLincoln
7:15 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1472. schistkicker:
Well, time for Dr. Rood to update his blog with a new entry-- this comment section has been made entirely unreadable over the last 600 comments or so. What nuggets of actual information and data there are in the last several pages of comments are more than buried by a persistent troll who is more than content to fill space and 'filibuster', or "innocently" dump links to the climate-change versions of the Disco 'Tute or AiG webpages.

Does this place actually have active moderation? If so, shame on them; this place is suffering via inaction, and to the trolls it's just mission-accomplished.

Exactly my point for months now. The blog is going to have to make a choice about what it wants to be and who it wants to cater to. You can't "change even one mind" if all the good information is buried. I'm starting to think that there is an active, conscious effort underway to do just that.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3233
1483. Neapolitan
7:12 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1479. Patrap:
December 2013 was the 337th month of consecutive Global Warm anomalies.

0r 28.083 years

That's okay, Pat; the Great Denialist Global Cooldown Of 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 will get underway any day now. Or so says Anthony Watts and his merry band of obedient and obsequious winged monkeys.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
1482. pcola57
7:09 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1481. indianrivguy:
I had a fundraiser last night to raise operating money for my Indian Riverkeeper program. A good friend Dr. Rob Moir of Ocean River Institute and I were talking about ocean warming.. actually started with acidification, but he told me they have successfully fitted instruments on Narwhals. He said that in just a few years the thermocline between surface warm water, and deeper cool waters have descended several hundred feet. He is down here supporting another non-prof and I will be seeing him again tomorrow evening when I am more able to converse. I think this is interesting and frightening all at once. I will ask him for some references and bring them here.. more to follow.


Thanks for sharing Marty..
Interesting about the Narwhals..
I personally will be very interested in what you can bring from your meeting with him as well..
Did the fund raiser do well?
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6877
1481. indianrivguy
7:03 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
I had a fundraiser last night to raise operating money for my Indian Riverkeeper program. A good friend Dr. Rob Moir of Ocean River Institute and I were talking about ocean warming.. actually started with acidification, but he told me they have successfully fitted instruments on Narwhals. He said that in just a few years the thermocline between surface warm water, and deeper cool waters have descended several hundred feet. He is down here supporting another non-prof and I will be seeing him again tomorrow evening when I am more able to converse. I think this is interesting and frightening all at once. I will ask him for some references and bring them here.. more to follow.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2585
1480. Xulonn
6:51 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1395. AGWSpecialist:



Care to refute the contents of the link instead of the ridicule toward the blogger?
LINK
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1489
1479. Patrap
6:45 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
December 2013 was the 337th month of consecutive Global Warm anomalies.

0r 28.083 years

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1478. Patrap
6:38 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
1477. Patrap
6:35 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Principia Science's not Science,its right wing dogma.


LOL



See here-->Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan

Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K., he adds, "I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom."

Certainly, O'Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O'Sullivan himself went on to write an "erotic" "novel" with a startlingly similar storyline: Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.

Although eager to present himself as a science researcher of accomplishment -- certainly Tim Ball's equal -- Skolnick's research found that O'Sullivan is highly prone to error, whether intentional or not.

For example, O'Sullivan provided bogus contact information when registering as an 'associate' with the New York County Lawyers' Association, an organization that apparently does not vet its members' qualifications (and does not, in any case, bestow the right to practic law). While O'Sullivan claimed to be with a firm named "Principia Scientific International," he provided the address of a construction company called Second Nature Construction; the phone number and fax number didn't belong to O'Sullivan or anyone connected to "Principia," either.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
1476. Birthmark
6:32 PM GMT on January 26, 2014
Quoting 1475. AGWSpecialist:

It's nice that you've taken up recycling...but I don't think that you've got the hang of it yet.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 1526 - 1476

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
54 °F
Mostly Cloudy