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

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 9:20 PM GMT on January 26, 2014

Share this Blog
26
+

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

In the last blog, I promised an 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.

I want to start with the work of Jennifer Francis and her collaborators. Professor Francis gave an excellent seminar in my department last week, which can be viewed here. This seminar uses as a foundation the paper Francis and Vavrus (2012), Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. There is a whole set of coherent and convergent evidence that documents the changes in the Arctic. There is an increase in temperature, which is much greater in the Arctic than at lower latitudes and in the tropics (Polar or Arctic amplification). This has led to large changes in Arctic sea ice and springtime snow cover. There has been 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).

In the past, roughly, 15 years, there has been an observed change in the of the Arctic sea-level atmospheric pressure (see previous blog). The pressure is slightly higher, which leads to a weakening of the stream of air that flows around the North Pole. I wrote a tutorial about this in Wobbles in the Barrier. Also in the past decade there have been a number of researchers, for example, Liu et al. (2012) who in Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall – noted circulation patterns that have “ … some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation.”

These papers lead to a few questions. Are the changes in the Arctic sea-level pressure a direct consequence of local changes in the Arctic, or are they more closely related to changes in global circulation patterns? Are changes in the Arctic sea-level pressure causing changes in weather in the middle latitudes? Are the differences we have seen in the past 15 years indicative of a climate-change related differences in weather patterns? Is what we have traditionally called the Arctic Oscillation changing?

Trenberth and Fasullo are following the heat of the warming earth, with the primary goal of understanding of how much heat is contributing to warming the Earth’s surface air temperature versus how much is going to heating the ocean and melting ice and snow. Their focus is on approximately the past 15 years. Therefore, they pay attention to known ways that the atmosphere and ocean vary (Some previous tutorials: Still Following the Heat and Ocean, Atmosphere, Ice and Land). Trenberth and Fasullo document the strong influence of the 1997-1998 El Nino. El Nino typically has a large effect on global temperature. The 1997-1998 El Nino was especially large. Trenberth and Fasullo show that the temperature in the atmosphere and oceans still remembers the 1997-1998 El Nino. They also examine the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is characterized by sea surface temperature differences being above (or below) average in the north-central Pacific while they are below (or above) in the north and east Pacific near the Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been in a pattern of being cooler than average in the north and east Pacific since the 1997-1998 El Nino. Trenberth and Fasullo document a pattern that spans the globe, and the changes in the Arctic are part of that pattern. Conversely, their analysis would suggest that the global aspects of circulation pattern are too large to be caused by changes in the Arctic – it just takes too much energy.

What might be a scientifically based difference between whether changes in the Arctic are part of a global pattern or caused by the loss of sea ice changing the absorption and reflection of solar energy is to some extent not relevant to the question about weather patterns over the U.S. My experience in scientific controversies of this nature is that there are usually both global and local pieces to the puzzle. Further, changes in the U.S. weather could be directly linked to changes in the Arctic as well as to global patterns. In both the Trenberth and Fasullo and the Francis and Vavrus (2012) analysis there are consequential changes in jet stream pattern which is strongly influential to weather in the U.S. and, in fact, all of the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

It’s not surprising that changes in the polar jet stream, the river of air that meanders around the North Pole, would have a profound effect on weather in the U.S. The waves that make up the weather systems of winter storms, for example, draw their energy from the environment that forms the jet stream. The jet stream steers these storms. In classes on dynamical meteorology, students learn that what is going on at the jet stream is often better information for forecasting weather than what is going on at the surface. Though there is a direct link between the jet stream and weather systems, the path of cause and effect in the changes in the Arctic, changes in the jet stream and changes to extreme events in the U.S. is not easy to map.

We have seen observations from Francis and Vavrus and Liu et al. (2012) that suggest large meanders in the jet stream. Both of these papers suggest that the scale of these meanders is unprecedented and does not fit easily into the framework we have used historically to describe the Arctic Oscillation - the primary way we describe correlated variability between the Arctic and the middle latitudes. In addition to the Arctic Oscillation, another characteristic we use to describe mid-latitude weather is blocking. Blocking describes a pattern of atmospheric flow, perhaps a particular configuration of the jet stream. Blocking slows or stops the normal west-to-east movement of storms around the Earth. Here is a nice description of blocking. Blocking is most common with high pressure, and high pressure is associated with the northern meanders of the jet stream. Note, blocking is associated with the meanders in the jet stream, but large meanders do not always mean that our definition of “block” is fulfilled. Blocking patterns are difficult to predict on a case-by-case basis. Blocking patterns are known to be associated with droughts, floods, heat waves and cold snaps. Therefore, when we look to a way that changes in the jet stream might change the weather over the U.S. we logically look a changes in blocking, which will discussed more fully in next blog.

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: 644 - 594

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Quoting 640. yoboi:
I am not an alarmist....but I am having a very difficult time grasping this......
We've already established that you don't understand satire, so don't worry about this comment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Peter Sinclair at Climate Denial Crock of the Week:
(the video is at the linked site; I have no idea how to embed it)

One Vid to Rule Them All: National Journal Discovers Climate Crocks

This week’s video, “If There’s Global Warming, How Come it’s So Cold”, is making the rounds.

I got a call from National Journal this morning wanting to know more about the vid, how it was made, and what my “position” was at Greenman Studio.

I explained that my current position was standing in the kitchen with a dishrag and a coffee cup.

Reena Flores in the National Journal:

Somewhere in Michigan, a lake is frozen.

And Dr. Jeff Masters, the Weather Underground‘s king of climate nerds, stands atop the ice trying to explain to climate deniers: Yes, it’s cold this winter. No, that doesn’t mean global warming is a liberal conspiracy.

“If There’s Global Warming … Why Is It So Cold?” is a video for the Yale Forum‘s “This Is Not Cool” series, and it does an excellent job breaking down why what may seem like an average cold snap might actually be an alarming symptom of global warming.

In fact, explains Masters to his YouTube audience, there’s a lot more to the freezing temperatures than your phone’s weather app might be able to tell you.

--------------------------------
You go, Jeff!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 637. Birthmark:

Amazing, isn't it?
Not really, Paul Hudson is a minor league denier from Great Britain. I found a couple of references to him at The Stoat's 1. misrepresenting a paper by Mike Lockwood (here) and 2, promoting the same "it stopped warming in 1998" garbage as above on his personal blog. He didn't provide any backup in either of the two cases above, just his own assertions.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
641. yoboi
Quoting 632. cyclonebuster:


" Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland."

To learn more about how changes in the Antarctic Ice Sheet could affect sea level, see State of the Cryosphere: Sea Level. To read about an NSIDC research project on the Antarctic Ice Sheet, see Antarctic Megadunes.



Link




....



hmmm.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
640. yoboi
Quoting 594. Neapolitan:
Yep. Any day now. In fact, it's happening already; it's just being masked by all that heat; as soon as that heat goes away, you'll see.

Remember, here in Denialist Fantasyland, less polar ice is a sign of more polar ice; rising global temperatures are a sign that those temperatures are on the way down; one ideological crackpot with no formal education in any of the sciences writing on some internet blog knows more about the planet's atmosphere than 10,000 highly-trained, -educated, and -experienced climate scientists; and despite the $100 billion-plus in annual profits, no one affiliated with the fossil fuel industry would ever lie to protect those profits. Also: up is down, black is white, etc.

I'm not sure why you alarmists have such a difficult time grasping all this...em>


I am not an alarmist....but I am having a very difficult time grasping this......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
If they ever found out what goes on here daily, the Werld would faint.





Weather service debunks rumors of giant snowstorm

By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, January 31, 5:32 PM


By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, January 31, 5:32 PM
INDIANAPOLIS — Meteorologists in the Midwest took to social media on Friday to quell rumors that a winter storm expected to move into the region next week could dump up to 30 inches of snow in some areas.

The National Weather Service’s Indianapolis bureau said in Facebook and Twitter messages that predictions that 20 to 30 inches of snow could fall on Indiana and other Midwestern states next Tuesday and Wednesday “are EXTREMELY premature & improbable.”

Meteorologist Mike Ryan said none of the forecast models he and his colleagues in Indianapolis have reviewed point to anything like a 2-foot or greater snowfall. He said the Indianapolis office sent the Twitter and Facebook messages because it and other Midwestern weather bureaus have been getting calls from people worried about dire storm predictions that are “rampant” online.

“We wanted to try to alleviate these rumors because the social media network is just kind of running out of control,” Ryan said Friday. “Like we said, any snowfall amounts like those people are talking about would really be improbable.”

Next week’s storm has the potential to bring snow, sleet, freezing rain to Indiana and other states in the Ohio River Valley, but he said it’s too early to predict how much will fall and where.

Ryan said that won’t be known until early next week when the storm’s expected track becomes clearer. Any snowfall projections now would be “highly speculative,” he said.

AccuWeather meteorologist Randy Adkins agreed that it’s too soon to know what the storm will bring, let alone how much it will dump as it scoots north and east across the central U.S.

“Thirty inches of snow for anyone with this storm system is pretty remote,” he said.

AccuWeather’s current models show the storm could bring significant snow to a swath including Kansas City, Mo., Des Moines, Madison, Wis., and Chicago. Areas to the south of that, including Indianapolis, appear likely to see a mix of snow, freezing rain and sleet because the storm will pull milder air northward.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129904
Quoting 637. Birthmark:

Amazing, isn't it?


Dey make me sooooooo angry'

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129904
Quoting 620. ScottLincoln:Hmmmm. Looks like Mr. Hudson missed this opportunity to look at the Cowtan & Way analysis of HadCRUT data. And if they were within the margin of error, how would they be "incorrect predictions?"

Amazing, isn't it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I told you fungus is smarter than the 3%ers....


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
FYI... if anyone knows where to get historic forecasts for global temperature from the UK Met Office, please let me know. I'm trying to look further into Paul Hudson's claims, but he doesn't provide any of his data, he just claims that ___ of ___ were "wrong" or "biased warm." I've only been able to get good, concrete data for the last 3 years, but he claims to use ~14 now in his verification statistics. I've got some pieced-together information for 2 more years. Now I'm stuck.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The lil NOLA Ice age lasted, Oh, about 40 Hours here.





Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129904
Quoting 628. Cochise111:


You mean you ignore Antarctica because ice is growing there? Of course you do.

1. No one is ignoring it.

2. Antarctic sea ice gain is far less than Arctic sea ice loss.

3. Antarctic land ice is losing mass.

4. I explained above in this thread why the Arctic is of more interest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 628. Cochise111:


You mean you ignore Antarctica because ice is growing there? Of course you do.


" Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland."

To learn more about how changes in the Antarctic Ice Sheet could affect sea level, see State of the Cryosphere: Sea Level. To read about an NSIDC research project on the Antarctic Ice Sheet, see Antarctic Megadunes.



Link




....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
626 - huh?

Edited: sorry, don't know anything about Talking Heads so I had to look this up. Here's what Wiki says about the song: "The lyrics discuss a paranoid and alienated man who feels he is stressed by his urban surroundings. These lyrics are of common theme for Talking Heads and categorize lead singer David Byrne's writing style."

Gee, sorry you're feeling so stressed, IAC. Must be tough having no science to back up your belief.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 628. Cochise111:


You mean you ignore Antarctica because ice is growing there? Of course you do.
Not in mass...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting 627. Cochise111:


Even the left-wing LA Times admits Keystone would have little or no impact on climate. They are finally seeing the light.

Link



You fail to understand we are already over 400ppm Co2 ANY burning of carbon based fuel will exacerbate the problem.... Earth is losing ice mass because of it...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting 622. Naga5000:


This just in, Cochise still doesn't understand the difference between Antarctic and Arctic Sea Ice. Community members' minds continue to be boggled.


You mean you ignore Antarctica because ice is growing there? Of course you do.
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 352
Quoting 625. cyclonebuster:


Melt baby melt..


Even the left-wing LA Times admits Keystone would have little or no impact on climate. They are finally seeing the light.

Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 352
Quoting 594. Neapolitan:
Yep. Any day now. In fact, it's happening already; it's just being masked by all that heat; as soon as that heat goes away, you'll see.

Remember, here in Denialist Fantasyland, less polar ice is a sign of more polar ice; rising global temperatures are a sign that those temperatures are on the way down; one ideological crackpot with no formal education in any of the sciences writing on some internet blog knows more about the planet's atmosphere than 10,000 highly-trained, -educated, and -experienced climate scientists; and despite the $100 billion-plus in annual profits, no one affiliated with the fossil fuel industry would ever lie to protect those profits. Also: up is down, black is white, etc.

I'm not sure why you alarmists have such a difficult time grasping all this...


You grasp only what your agenda will allow.


Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape

I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 624. iceagecoming:
Keystone XL oil pipeline clears big hurdle
Pressure grows on Obama to OK project

By Ben Wolfgang

-

The Washington Times

Friday, January 31, 2014

FILE - In this March 11, 2013, file photo, a sign reading "Stop the Transcanada Pipeline" stands in a field near Bradshaw, Neb. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will run through this field. In a move that disappointed environmental groups and cheered the oil industry, the Obama administration on Jan. 31, 2014, said it had no major environmental objections to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

A long-awaited State Department review has raised no serious environmental objections to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, potentially clearing the way for President Obama to approve the massive, politically charged project and dealing a blow to environmentalists who continue to vehemently oppose it.




Link


Drill Baby, Drill!


Melt baby melt..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Keystone XL oil pipeline clears big hurdle
Pressure grows on Obama to OK project

By Ben Wolfgang

-

The Washington Times

Friday, January 31, 2014

FILE - In this March 11, 2013, file photo, a sign reading "Stop the Transcanada Pipeline" stands in a field near Bradshaw, Neb. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will run through this field. In a move that disappointed environmental groups and cheered the oil industry, the Obama administration on Jan. 31, 2014, said it had no major environmental objections to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

A long-awaited State Department review has raised no serious environmental objections to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, potentially clearing the way for President Obama to approve the massive, politically charged project and dealing a blow to environmentalists who continue to vehemently oppose it.




Link


Drill Baby, Drill!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
EPIC Logic fail.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129904
Quoting 621. Cochise111:
Antarctic ice on pace for a record minimum. Personally, I don't believe thirty years of records means a damn thing, but most on this blog seem to have a different opinion.

Link


This just in, Cochise still doesn't understand the difference between Antarctic and Arctic Sea Ice. Community members' minds continue to be boggled.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Antarctic ice on pace for a record minimum. Personally, I don't believe thirty years of records means a damn thing, but most on this blog seem to have a different opinion.

Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 352
Quoting 619. iceagecoming:
Met Office global forecasts too warm in 13 of last 14 years

by Paul Hudson,

Monday 27 January 2014, 18:09


The Met office has announced that 2013 was the 9th warmest year in records dating back to 1880. But the annual global temperature fell short of their prediction. So why have 13 of the last 14 global temperature forecasts been too warm?

Hmmmm???? Could it be agenda driven?

Why would their agenda be to overpredict year after year only to be wrong so that no one would trust their predictions? How does a few years of people trusting their predictions, followed by many more of no trust, promote some "agenda" of the MetOffice?

When you think about your claim, it really doesn't make much sense.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Met-O ffice-global-forecasts-too-warm-in-13-of-last-14-y ears
"...It's worth stressing that all the incorrect predictions are within the stated margin of error..."

"The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this warm bias in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth. "

Hmmmm. Looks like Mr. Hudson missed this opportunity to look at the Cowtan & Way analysis of HadCRUT data. And if they were within the margin of error, how would they be "incorrect predictions?"
It also would be helpful for him to provide the data he used to make the prediction, or even just a table of each of these predictions he used for his conclusion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Met Office global forecasts too warm in 13 of last 14 years

by Paul Hudson,

Monday 27 January 2014, 18:09


The Met office has announced that 2013 was the 9th warmest year in records dating back to 1880. But the annual global temperature fell short of their prediction. So why have 13 of the last 14 global temperature forecasts been too warm?

Hmmmm???? Could it be agenda driven?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
PT Barnum was right there is a "Pine Beetle" born every day...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Who are the Pine Beetles responsible for this?


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Why the U.S. should not export oil - SmartPlanet
....

The U.S. oil industry has a very tricky needle to thread right now: It must convince the American public that exporting crude oil is in its best interest, when it is not.

The reason the industry wants to export crude oil is simple. U.S. refineries can't use all the crude coming from shale plays like the Bakken formation in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas. This boom in "tight oil" has created a bit of a glut for those specific grades of "light, sweet crude" because before the fracking revolution, most of the domestic refining complex was reconfigured to take in heavier sour crude grades of the sort we import from places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

The oversupply has forced tight oil producers to sell their crude to refiners at a discount to the U.S. benchmark grade, West Texas Intermediate (WTI). For most of the past two years, for example, Bakken crude has sold for $5 to $15 per barrel (bbl) less than WTI.

....

The problem for producers is that overseas exports of U.S. crude were banned after the Arab oil embargo of 1973. (Crude exports to Canada and Mexico are permitted, and exports of refined products like gasoline and diesel are unrestricted.) But U.S. refineries are pretty well maxed-out, and domestic demand for gasoline has been muted. The rest of the world runs on diesel, so diesel exports have been strong.
Business vs. business

The ban has had two consequences. The first is that domestic prices for gasoline have been lower in the United States than they would be without the crude export ban. The second is higher profits for refiners, because they can buy crude from tight oil plays at a discount, while fetching higher world prices for exports of refined products like diesel.

Producers need to find a way to get around the ban so they can export their oil to foreign refiners, where it would fetch at least $10/bbl more, and keep that investment cash flowing. If they can't do that, as I explained one year ago, the tight oil boom could go bust.

But they can't just come out and say that. Americans only want to hear about the promise of "energy independence;" they don't want to hear that independence will ultimately mean higher prices.

Instead, the oil companies deploy their business lobbyists, like Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's energy arm, the Institute for 21st Century Energy. "We have a mismatch between what we are producing and what our refining capacity is, and our refiners are not going to expend a tremendous amount of capital to meet this," Harbert told the National Journal. "We need to adjust to these market inefficiencies, which will benefit the American consumer over time." How, exactly, the American consumer will benefit, she didn't say.

Instead, they trot out their proxies in Congress, like Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who has been stumping for lifting the crude export ban. "From a policy perspective, it's good policy, again, to allow for that level of trade. My interest is not to protect the refineries' bottom line," she said. And that's true. As a senator from Alaska, her interests are to protect the producers' bottom line.

....

As petroleum geologist Art Berman has quipped, the U.S. experience with fracking shale is "more of a retirement party than a revolution." We have burned through the big, accumulated reservoirs of oil, and now we're getting into the shale below them, or what geologists call the "source rocks" that created the oil. Once we get to the point where we can't produce oil and gas profitably from shale, we're done. Kaput. Toast.

That's why Berman calls it the "last gasp." Or, as I called it in 2012, the last sip.

As I explained then, there's only so much oil and gas we can reasonably expect to produce from these marginal, expensive shale resources. It's like a beer: We can drink it slowly or quickly, but it's not bottomless.

The real question for the United States is not about optimal trade policy or economic theory, but whether we want to extract the last drops of our oil endowment as quickly as possible by enabling the debt-fueled land rush that has brought us a gratifying, but temporary, bump in production, or whether we want to make it last as long as possible, knowing that two or three decades from now the world will be absolutely desperate for the stuff, with scarce exports and unimaginably high prices.

....

In fact, U.S. "energy independence" is a chimera. The United States still imports about 40 percent of its petroleum. Credible analysts, including the EIA, do not foresee a day when U.S. crude oil imports will be eliminated. Ever. "Energy independence" is just a political slogan designed to manufacture consent for ever-more-disruptive drilling, and make the hearts of investors go pitter-pat.

More importantly to consumers, more fracking drives fuel prices up, not down.


....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Forgot to bold this part.

The financial risks of staying invested in fossil fuels are high because two-thirds of proven fossil fuel reserves simply cannot be burned, yet the markets treat this basic physics like it is science fiction,”


If this has been posted already, pardon me, but due to nonexistent troll removal, I no longer read back.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/ 2014/0131/Chevron-follows-Shell-Exxon-Mobil-profit -slide.-Is-Big-Oil-in-troubleLink

Some investors question the long-term value of fossil-fuel assets – concerned with a changing climate and the risk of more governments pricing carbon down the road. More than a dozen major foundations announced Thursday they would join a small but growing fossil-fuels divestment movement. The Park Foundation, the Schmidt Family Foundation, and the Wallace Global Fund are among 17 foundations who said Thursday they would pull their combined $1.8 billion in assets out of oil, gas, and coal companies.

“The financial risks of staying invested in fossil fuels are high because two-thirds of proven fossil fuel reserves simply cannot be burned, yet the markets treat this basic physics like it is science fiction,” Tom Van Dyck, financial adviser at RBC US Wealth Management, said in a statement.

“Either coal, oil and gas deposits become stranded assets, or we do,” said Mr. Van Dyck, who advised several of the signatories to the initiative.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The blog Klimaatverandering just has just posted a list of 10 ways to “falsify AGW”.

Is klimaatwetenschap falsifieerbaar?

The list:

1. A global and long-term drop in temperature to values ​​of half a century or more ago, with no obvious cause.

2. A global and prolonged decline in the sea [level].

3. A sharp increase or decrease in atmospheric CO 2 concentration.

4. The discovery that forcings of the climate in the past were much larger or much smaller temperature changes than hitherto assumed.

5. Warming of the stratosphere

6. Large errors in equipment in the satellites which are starting to measure IR radiation..

7. Prove that the relative humidity sharply decreases with an increase in temperature.

8. A hitherto completely unknown source of heat in the climate system.

9. The discovery that the whole science undisputed and widely used concepts of thermodynamics radiation is incorrect.

10. The discovery that CO2 molecules, in the wild behave differently than in the lab.

Read the entire post here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 602. martinitony:Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?
Others have answered, but I'll give it a try. How about a list? In no particular order:
  • At least a decade of planet-wise cooling
  • Polar ice to recover to where it was 100 years ago
  • Ocean acidification to reverse itself
  • Glaciers around the planet to enter a sustained period of robust regrowth
  • The seasons to reverse their current trend toward longer summers and shorter winters
  • Sea levels to drop back to where they were 100 years ago (as oceanic water is re-deposited on the growing icecaps and glaciers)
  • Plant and animal species that have migrated due to the current warming to reverse their migrations and return to where they once were
  • Extreme weather events to begin decreasing in severity and frequency
  • Tens of thousands of painstakingly researched, written and peer-reviewed papers to be thoroughly and credibly refuted by further peer review
  • The laws of physics to be rewritten to explain how the four million tons of pure, heat-trapping CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every hour of every day have absolutely no effect on things despite the fact that a hundred years of research has shown otherwise


That'd be a great start, anyway...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting 573. ILwthrfan:
On a side note, this is discouraging...:/

Looks as if Keystone is about to try and rally.

Pipeline boost? Keystone XL report may disappoint project's foes

The State Department is expected to release an environmental analysis on the Keystone XL oil pipeline as early as Friday that may disappoint environmentalists and opponents of the proposed project, according to individuals briefed on the matter.

Also thought this was a bit funny.

The report's findings were not immediately available, but government officials told Fox News the review would probably disappoint Keystone opponents who say the pipeline would carry "dirty oil" that contributes to global warming. One official said the report would be released Friday.

Probably not much facts in trying to argue that this pipeline has little to no impact on our climate and environment.


From the op-ed, "Congressional sources, though, made clear that the analysis is not the final word, and the review process could continue to drag on. Sources familiar with the report said it does not give a "specific recommendation" -- and other agencies will still be asked to weigh in."

I would say that Fox (Distorted) News is merely setting the battlefield from which to further blast Obama should he not allow the pipeline to go through.

The tar sand oils are coming even if the pipeline is not approved. I have seen too much invested in the infrastructure for this purpose for it to be abandoned now. The "masses" will not educate themselves to the problems that this will bring and so we all will suffer from this ignorance. Another brick is being placed on this path to destruction.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 602. martinitony:
It looks as though forecasts made a couple of years ago about Earth cooling and the beginning of a few decades of colder weather were accurate. Now, most of you will claim one or two years of cooler weather doesn't nullify what we believe to be true. And yes, that is a fair statement. So, I ask you, how many more years of colder weather will it take for you to pitch your computer models and say, "They're wrong"?
Would it matter if the ice extent in Antarctica set records?
Would it matter if the ice in the Great lakes got much greater?
We have nothing but time.

Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?


For the umpteenth time. Global average decadal temperature anomaly, with regard to the average for 1951-80. Source NASA GISS:

1981-90 +0.20C
1991-00 +0.32C
2001-10 +0.55C

Link

In this decade, the 2011-13 figure is +0.58C. So, remind me, why is it I should change my mind?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 606. Naga5000:


You are incorrect. There has been no slowing of the warming. You are misled by only looking at surface temperature and ignoring oceanic heat content.

Honestly, it's not that he is misled by looking at the near-surface atmospheric temperatures, either. Those warming trends continue, on the same pace - if not faster - than the trend from pre-1998.
It's more that he was misled by eye-balling a graph, or reading a blog that did nothing more than eye-balling a graph, rather than doing any form of minimal statistical analysis.

Of course you comment about needing to take into account oceans (ice too!) is very relevant, however.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
608. ARiot
Quoting 602. martinitony:
It looks as though forecasts made a couple of years ago about Earth cooling and the beginning of a few decades of colder weather were accurate. Now, most of you will claim one or two years of cooler weather doesn't nullify what we believe to be true. And yes, that is a fair statement. So, I ask you, how many more years of colder weather will it take for you to pitch your computer models and say, "They're wrong"?
Would it matter if the ice extent in Antarctica set records?
Would it matter if the ice in the Great lakes got much greater?
We have nothing but time.

Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?


That's not a true statement.

There hasn't been a time in the last 40-50 years when a majority of climate science theorized that the earth was cooling.

Even the infamous Time Magazine cover was a sensationalized view of a significant majority of the work at the time.

In short, positions based on a review of the evidence at hand indicate that anthropogenic global warming is a significant threat to the quality of life and safety of at least a few billion people during the next century.

There are no current signals that indicate a climate forcing to cooler global average temperatures will take the place of the anthropogenic forces that are contributing to warming.

However, AGW theory does not rule out other significant climate forces within the realm of remote possibility, such as asteroid impacts, super volcano activity, etc. That is to say, there are climate forces known to science that could act to cool us down. When someone talks about ice ages, I look for these known climate forces in their statements.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 602. martinitony:
It looks as though forecasts made a couple of years ago about Earth cooling and the beginning of a few decades of colder weather were accurate....So, I ask you, how many more years of colder weather will it take for you to pitch your computer models and say, "They're wrong"?
Would it matter if the ice extent in Antarctica set records?
Would it matter if the ice in the Great lakes got much greater?
We have nothing but time.

Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?

1) That's a very good question, a type of humble introspection that scientists need to do from time to time. Scientists should always have an idea in their heads of what it would take to falsify their hypotheses or theories.

2) Let's ignore the first part of your comment for now, and jump straight to the "what would it take" questions.
First, we would need to see a climatically-significant pause or decrease in global heat content (thats atmosphere, ice, and oceans) that cannot be explained by a very-significant non-anthropogenic forcing overwhelming the anthropogenic forcing. So if we have no massive, unexpected solar energy drop, no massive meteorite impact, no super volcano eruption, nothing on the scale of these things, yet temperatures over a climatically-significant period stayed flat or cooled, then we would have reason to question the theory. That doesn't necessarily disprove the theory, as it is based on far far more than just temperature measurements, but it would raise questions. A better theory would need to be created, over time and independent verification of numerous hypotheses, before the current theory loses it's place.

3) So let's start there and see if today is even close to matching any of these requirements.
* The vast majority of the world's glaciers continue to lose mass. No papers indicate that this trend has changed in a climatically-meaningful way.
* Melting continues in sensitive areas of the world's ice sheets, exactly where melting would be expected. No papers indicate that this trend has changed in a climatically-meaningful way.
* Ocean temperatures continue to climb, and have since the infamous "1998." No papers indicate that this trend has changed in a climatically-meaningful way.
* Near-surface air temperatures continue to climb. Using the trend from before the infamous "1998" as the baseline warming rate of the planet and comparing this to recent temperatures, we can see that not only have temperatures better matched the continued warming trend much more than the "no warming" trend, but there is evidence that the warming trend has accelerated (more observations above trend line than below).


Conclusion:
Thanks for raising a good question. That said, however, not only have your questions not been validated by any data, the claim you made to come up with your questions in the first place was not even accurate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 602. martinitony:
It looks as though forecasts made a couple of years ago about Earth cooling and the beginning of a few decades of colder weather were accurate. Now, most of you will claim one or two years of cooler weather doesn't nullify what we believe to be true. And yes, that is a fair statement. So, I ask you, how many more years of colder weather will it take for you to pitch your computer models and say, "They're wrong"?
Would it matter if the ice extent in Antarctica set records?
Would it matter if the ice in the Great lakes got much greater?
We have nothing but time.

Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?


You are incorrect. There has been no slowing of the warming. You are misled by only looking at surface temperature and ignoring oceanic heat content.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 602. martinitony:
Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?


NOAA: World in 2013 Was 4th Hottest on Record

Link

You may want to broaden your reading materials.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
Quoting 602. martinitony:
It looks as though forecasts made a couple of years ago about Earth cooling and the beginning of a few decades of colder weather were accurate. Now, most of you will claim one or two years of cooler weather doesn't nullify what we believe to be true. And yes, that is a fair statement. So, I ask you, how many more years of colder weather will it take for you to pitch your computer models and say, "They're wrong"?
Would it matter if the ice extent in Antarctica set records?
Would it matter if the ice in the Great lakes got much greater?
We have nothing but time.

Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?



Of particular note were the amazingly warm January temperatures in the Balkans. According to weather record researcher Maximiliano Herrera, "over 90% of all stations in the Balkans from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Serbia To Montenegro to Macedonia to Kosovo etc, have DESTROYED their previous record of warmest January ever (many locations have 100 - 200 years of data.) In many cases the monthly temperatures were 7 - 9°C (13 - 16°F) above average, and the new records were 3 - 4°C above the previous record. This is for THOUSANDS of stations, almost all of them. In Slovenia, for example, Mount Kredarica is the only station in the whole country not to have set its warmest January on record."
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
Quoting 596. Patrap:
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Share
California's Sierra Snowpack Only 12% of Average, a Record Low


Of particular note were the amazingly warm January temperatures in the Balkans. According to weather record researcher Maximiliano Herrera, "over 90% of all stations in the Balkans from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Serbia To Montenegro to Macedonia to Kosovo etc, have DESTROYED their previous record of warmest January ever (many locations have 100 - 200 years of data.) In many cases the monthly temperatures were 7 - 9°C (13 - 16°F) above average, and the new records were 3 - 4°C above the previous record. This is for THOUSANDS of stations, almost all of them. In Slovenia, for example, Mount Kredarica is the only station in the whole country not to have set its warmest January on record."

Given the numbers from the Balkans this story from Romania is all the more remarkable -
Romania under extreme weather alert with no let up in blizzards

“We anticipate widespread gales with winds exceeding 80 kilometres per hour and a steady layer of snow forming on top of the existing one which is over 40 centimetres,” said Florineal Georgescu who is the executive director of the National Administration of Meteorology.

Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
It looks as though forecasts made a couple of years ago about Earth cooling and the beginning of a few decades of colder weather were accurate. Now, most of you will claim one or two years of cooler weather doesn't nullify what we believe to be true. And yes, that is a fair statement. So, I ask you, how many more years of colder weather will it take for you to pitch your computer models and say, "They're wrong"?
Would it matter if the ice extent in Antarctica set records?
Would it matter if the ice in the Great lakes got much greater?
We have nothing but time.

Really, what would it take for you guys to reconsider your position?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 595. ColoradoBob1:
Francis told me this week that “the highly amplified pattern that the jet stream has been in since early December is certainly playing a role in the CA drought.”

“The extremely strong ridge over Alaska has been very persistent and has caused record warmth and unprecedented winter rains in parts of AK while preventing Pacific storms from delivering rain to CA,” she explained. “But is this pattern a result of human-caused climate change, or more specifically, to rapid Arctic warming and the dramatic losses of sea ice? It’s very difficult to pin any specific weather event on climate change, but this extremely distorted and persistent jet stream pattern is an excellent example of what we expect to occur more frequently as Arctic ice continues to melt.”


Link


Given the numbers from the Balkans this story from Romania is all the more remarkable -
Romania under extreme weather alert with no let up in blizzards

“We anticipate widespread gales with winds exceeding 80 kilometres per hour and a steady layer of snow forming on top of the existing one which is over 40 centimetres,” said Florineal Georgescu who is the executive director of the National Administration of Meteorology.

Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
Quoting 596. Patrap:
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Share
California's Sierra Snowpack Only 12% of Average, a Record Low


Of particular note were the amazingly warm January temperatures in the Balkans. According to weather record researcher Maximiliano Herrera, "over 90% of all stations in the Balkans from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Serbia To Montenegro to Macedonia to Kosovo etc, have DESTROYED their previous record of warmest January ever (many locations have 100 - 200 years of data.) In many cases the monthly temperatures were 7 - 9°C (13 - 16°F) above average, and the new records were 3 - 4°C above the previous record. This is for THOUSANDS of stations, almost all of them. In Slovenia, for example, Mount Kredarica is the only station in the whole country not to have set its warmest January on record."


Well there's 2 places the next ice age ain't starting, the Balkans and Norway.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
Quoting 595. ColoradoBob1:
Francis told me this week that “the highly amplified pattern that the jet stream has been in since early December is certainly playing a role in the CA drought.”

“The extremely strong ridge over Alaska has been very persistent and has caused record warmth and unprecedented winter rains in parts of AK while preventing Pacific storms from delivering rain to CA,” she explained. “But is this pattern a result of human-caused climate change, or more specifically, to rapid Arctic warming and the dramatic losses of sea ice? It’s very difficult to pin any specific weather event on climate change, but this extremely distorted and persistent jet stream pattern is an excellent example of what we expect to occur more frequently as Arctic ice continues to melt.”


Link


Back in 2004, Lisa Sloan, professor of Earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz, and her graduate student Jacob Sewall published an article in Geophysical Research Letters, “Disappearing Arctic sea ice reduces available water in the American west” (subs. req’d).

As the news release at the time explained, they “used powerful computers running a global climate model developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to simulate the effects of reduced Arctic sea ice.” And “their most striking finding was a significant reduction in rain and snowfall in the American West.”

“Where the sea ice is reduced, heat transfer from the ocean warms the atmosphere, resulting in a rising column of relatively warm air,” Sewall said. “The shift in storm tracks over North America was linked to the formation of these columns of warmer air over areas of reduced sea ice in the Greenland Sea and a few other locations.”
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating

Committed to the Cause Pause
Recently, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, along with Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler, testified before a US Senate committee on the subject of climate change. While Dessler's testimony was excellent and well-supported by the body of scientific evidence, Curry's contained a number of errors (i.e. see the Guardian on global warming attribution, Eli Rabett on Antarctic sea ice, and Tamino on Arctic warming and sea level rise, for starters).

Curry's main and most flawed argument was that information in the latest IPCC report should decrease our confidence in human-caused global warming; an argument she based in large part on the supposed global warming 'pause', which is itself a fictional creation. While the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed (though not nearly as much as previously believed), the overall amount of heat accumulated by the global climate has not, with over 90 percent being absorbed by the oceans.

A few days after her Senate testimony, Curry took to her blog to dispute these data, essentially arguing that the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans has also 'paused', which would then support her arguments. However, in evaluating the ocean heat content data and scientific literature, Curry made a number of mistakes. This gives us an excellent opportunity to properly evaluate the science on rising ocean heat content and see what it tells us. The key points are:

The deep oceans are warming rapidly in every data set that measures them (including those referenced by Curry).
Sea levels are rising consistent with rapid ocean warming.
The rate of ocean warming is consistent with the global energy imbalance.
The geographic distribution of ocean warming is consistent with natural variability superimposed on a warming background state forced by the increased greenhouse effect.
The global warming 'pause' is a fictional product of wishful thinking.


Read more...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph

Because the oceans cover some 71% of the Earth's surface and are capable of retaining heat around a thousand times that of the atmosphere, the oceans are where most of the energy from global warming is going - 93.4% over recent decades. So greenhouse gases emitted by human industrial activity not only cause more heat to become trapped in the atmosphere, they also cause more of the sun's energy to accumulate in the oceans.

Long-term the oceans have been gaining heat at a rate equivalent to about 2 Hiroshima bombs per second, although this has increased over the last 16 or so years to around 4 per second. In 2013 ocean warming rapidly escalated, rising to a rate in excess of 12 Hiroshima bombs per second - over three times the recent trend. This doesn't necessarily mean we are entering a period of greatly accelerated ocean warming, as there is substantial year-to-year variation in heat uptake by the oceans. It does, however, once again dispel the persistent myth of a pause in global warming, because the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.

As can be seen in Figure 1 below, the global oceans have warmed so quickly in 2013 that the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) is going to need a bigger graph.



Figure 1 - Ocean Heat Content data for the 0-2000 metre layer (based on Levitus [2012]) for the period 1957-2013. The orange band highlights the interval falsely labelled as a 'pause' in global warming. Further ocean warming will necessitate the vertical axis being extended. Image adapted from the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC).

Read more...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Share
California's Sierra Snowpack Only 12% of Average, a Record Low


Of particular note were the amazingly warm January temperatures in the Balkans. According to weather record researcher Maximiliano Herrera, "over 90% of all stations in the Balkans from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Serbia To Montenegro to Macedonia to Kosovo etc, have DESTROYED their previous record of warmest January ever (many locations have 100 - 200 years of data.) In many cases the monthly temperatures were 7 - 9°C (13 - 16°F) above average, and the new records were 3 - 4°C above the previous record. This is for THOUSANDS of stations, almost all of them. In Slovenia, for example, Mount Kredarica is the only station in the whole country not to have set its warmest January on record."
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129904
Francis told me this week that “the highly amplified pattern that the jet stream has been in since early December is certainly playing a role in the CA drought.”

“The extremely strong ridge over Alaska has been very persistent and has caused record warmth and unprecedented winter rains in parts of AK while preventing Pacific storms from delivering rain to CA,” she explained. “But is this pattern a result of human-caused climate change, or more specifically, to rapid Arctic warming and the dramatic losses of sea ice? It’s very difficult to pin any specific weather event on climate change, but this extremely distorted and persistent jet stream pattern is an excellent example of what we expect to occur more frequently as Arctic ice continues to melt.”


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
Quoting 592. schwankmoe:
my god, the ice age really is coming!
Yep. Any day now. In fact, it's happening already; it's just being masked by all that heat; as soon as that heat goes away, you'll see.

Remember, here in Denialist Fantasyland, less polar ice is a sign of more polar ice; rising global temperatures are a sign that those temperatures are on the way down; one ideological crackpot with no formal education in any of the sciences writing on some internet blog knows more about the planet's atmosphere than 10,000 highly-trained, -educated, and -experienced climate scientists; and despite the $100 billion-plus in annual profits, no one affiliated with the fossil fuel industry would ever lie to protect those profits. Also: up is down, black is white, etc.

I'm not sure why you alarmists have such a difficult time grasping all this...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805

Viewing: 644 - 594

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog 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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.