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.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 444 - 394

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 438. FLwolverine:
Sorry, the only thing your reply is doing is avoiding the subject. Try reading the articles.


Here is an excerpt from the latest post at Ingenious Pursuits, Dr Roy Spencer's intellectual honesty


... Now I don't know about you but I don't sign things I don't agree with. Even if I agree with a bit of it, if there is something I don't agree with on a petition, I don't sign the petition. The reason is simple - by putting my name to it, someone, everyone, can make the justified assumption that I do agree with it. If my signature is required on a contract, I need to agree to all those clauses. I can't go to my boss later and say that I don't like this line about having to actually work for the salary. So, sorry, Roy. You made your bed when you signed it. If you don't agree, have your name taken off the list of the advisory board so we can believe that you have a touch more intellectual honesty than perhaps your piece demonstrates. ...
...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4115
442. yoboi
Quoting 440. Birthmark:

Signing a ticket is a promise to either appear in court or pay the ticket. It is not a position statement on the offense at all.

Signing a check isn't an endorsement of the government. It is an instrument from the government to the individual that may be redeemed at a bank. It in no way requires one to agree with anything more than the amount on the check is correct.



"Now I don't know about you but I don't sign things I don't agree with. Even if I agree with a bit of it"


that was in the article.......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3203
Quoting 439. yoboi:


I did just because you sign something or attend something does not mean you support it.....
Well, that's a novel defense. You should be on politics. "Yes, I voted to attack Iraq but I really didn't support it." "Yes, I took an oath of office to serve my country, but I really didn't mean it." "Yes, I did marry you, dear, but I didn't really mean those vows about being faithful."

Yeah, right.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2554
439. yoboi
Quoting 438. FLwolverine:
Sorry, the only thing your reply is doing is avoiding the subject. Try reading the articles.


I did just because you sign something or attend something does not mean you support it.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3203
Quoting 437. yoboi:




So you would avoid signing a speeding ticket if you were not speeding???? Have you ever signed a check from the Government??
Sorry, the only thing your reply is doing is avoiding the subject. Try reading the articles.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2554
437. yoboi
Quoting 435. FLwolverine:

How appropriate that Dr Spencer's name has been invoked! Poor guy is taking it on the chin recently, including from a fellow denier:

From Real Science Link:

Not everyone might be aware of this but Dr. Roy Spencer is someone who believes in Intelligent Design. He has often defended his support of Intelligent Design and his rejection of the Theory of Evolution quite vocally. ..... That Spencer rejects the Theory of Evolution and replaces it with Intelligent Design brings into question his ability to assess evidence in a detached way. This because Intelligent Design is nothing else than the attempt of dressing up creationism (religion) in a lab coat to make it seem more legit. Which might sound harsh but it is an accurate description, anyone familiar with the book ‘Of pandas and people‘ will be well aware of that.

I’m writing about this as Ethan Epstein made the following remark in his article ‘What Catastrophe?‘ (on page 3):
So many “alarmists” prefer to ignore him [Eric Lindzen] and instead highlight straw men: less credible skeptics, such as climatologist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama (signatory to a declaration that “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”)

The article itself is filled with misrepresentations of climate science and known myths, almost every single point raised in the article is present on the Skeptical Science ‘Global Warming & Climate Change Myths‘ page. But Epstein did touch on a small grain of truth with this passage.
-----------------------

Ingenious Pursuits Link discusses Spencer's rebuttal to Epstein:

The background is at Real Sceptic so I won't repeat it here, but Spencer wrote a defence of his religious beliefs and how they do or do not affect his science at his own website. You can read an archived link here. [http://archive.is/ElTMz]

The piece Spencer wrote is a mess. He's an intelligent man but this looks as if it was written in a coffee break. ........
" [Quoting from Spencer's blog] Epstein [a journalist who mentioned Spencer's beliefs and precipitated his response] incorrectly assumes that I support the wording of all of the positions of the Cornwall Alliance, as stated in their Cornwall Declaration. But the Director of the Cornwall Alliance knows I don’t. We’ve discussed it."


Now I don't know about you but I don't sign things I don't agree with. Even if I agree with a bit of it, if there is something I don't agree with on a petition, I don't sign the petition. The reason is simple - by putting my name to it, someone, everyone, can make the justified assumption that I do agree with it. If my signature is required on a contract, I need to agree to all those clauses. I can't go to my boss later and say that I don't like this line about having to actually work for the salary. So, sorry, Roy. You made your bed when you signed it. If you don't agree, have your name taken off the list of the advisory board so we can believe that you have a touch more intellectual honesty than perhaps your piece demonstrates. You are a clever man. Show it.

---------------
There's more, but basically Spencer has further damaged his own credibility. He demonstrates that for him, ideology trumps science. Pity.




So you would avoid signing a speeding ticket if you were not speeding???? Have you ever signed a check from the Government??
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3203
Quoting 433. Daisyworld:


Yes, that's definitely a better way of saying it for those literate in science and mathematics. Null-hypothesis means no correlation between two data sets, and that's the starting point. Those with an alternate hypothesis must show that there is a correlation.

ToMAYto, toMAHto, I guess.


Yeah, if there is one thing I know its statistics :P You guys can stick to the rest.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6781

How appropriate that Dr Spencer's name has been invoked! Poor guy is taking it on the chin recently, including from a fellow denier:

From Real Science Link:

Not everyone might be aware of this but Dr. Roy Spencer is someone who believes in Intelligent Design. He has often defended his support of Intelligent Design and his rejection of the Theory of Evolution quite vocally. ..... That Spencer rejects the Theory of Evolution and replaces it with Intelligent Design brings into question his ability to assess evidence in a detached way. This because Intelligent Design is nothing else than the attempt of dressing up creationism (religion) in a lab coat to make it seem more legit. Which might sound harsh but it is an accurate description, anyone familiar with the book ‘Of pandas and people‘ will be well aware of that.

I’m writing about this as Ethan Epstein made the following remark in his article ‘What Catastrophe?‘ (on page 3):
So many “alarmists” prefer to ignore him [Eric Lindzen] and instead highlight straw men: less credible skeptics, such as climatologist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama (signatory to a declaration that “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”)

The article itself is filled with misrepresentations of climate science and known myths, almost every single point raised in the article is present on the Skeptical Science ‘Global Warming & Climate Change Myths‘ page. But Epstein did touch on a small grain of truth with this passage.
-----------------------

Ingenious Pursuits Link discusses Spencer's rebuttal to Epstein:

The background is at Real Sceptic so I won't repeat it here, but Spencer wrote a defence of his religious beliefs and how they do or do not affect his science at his own website. You can read an archived link here. [http://archive.is/ElTMz]

The piece Spencer wrote is a mess. He's an intelligent man but this looks as if it was written in a coffee break. ........
" [Quoting from Spencer's blog] Epstein [a journalist who mentioned Spencer's beliefs and precipitated his response] incorrectly assumes that I support the wording of all of the positions of the Cornwall Alliance, as stated in their Cornwall Declaration. But the Director of the Cornwall Alliance knows I don’t. We’ve discussed it."


Now I don't know about you but I don't sign things I don't agree with. Even if I agree with a bit of it, if there is something I don't agree with on a petition, I don't sign the petition. The reason is simple - by putting my name to it, someone, everyone, can make the justified assumption that I do agree with it. If my signature is required on a contract, I need to agree to all those clauses. I can't go to my boss later and say that I don't like this line about having to actually work for the salary. So, sorry, Roy. You made your bed when you signed it. If you don't agree, have your name taken off the list of the advisory board so we can believe that you have a touch more intellectual honesty than perhaps your piece demonstrates. You are a clever man. Show it.

---------------
There's more, but basically Spencer has further damaged his own credibility. He demonstrates that for him, ideology trumps science. Pity.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2554
Quoting 407. Cochise111:
New paper shows the temperature smoothing and homogenization leads to greatly exaggerated warming predictions (among other things like falsifying past temperature records):

Link



Hmmm, did you send a memo to the world's glaciers? They are defying this and making you look a bit foolish.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 430. VAbeachhurricanes:


No, I just meant the theory of a null hypothesis. You realize the null hypothesis is the assumption that two data sets are not correlated. So you could say that scientists have proven that they can reject the null hypothesis.


Yes, that's definitely a better way of saying it for those literate in science and mathematics. Null-hypothesis means no correlation between two data sets, and that's the starting point. Those with an alternate hypothesis must show that there is a correlation.

ToMAYto, toMAHto, I guess.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 912
More on Spencer's competence, his paper published in the jounal Remote Sensing was so bad that the journal retracted it and the editor resigned.






...the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing%u2026 should therefore not have been published%u2026 I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing%u2026 I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper%u2019s conclusions in public statements ...




The Stoat has more ...

The deniers really need better scientists. I can hear Yoboi now, it's the IPCC what done it.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4115
We's like for you to "Null" yer rates for the Burn, also the Hypothesis is up-linked in yer morning execute pkg, copy D-world?.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 431 Comments: 131961
Quoting 429. Daisyworld:


Not really. It's pretty straight-forward. The current state of the science has established beyond any reasonable doubt that (1) CO2 increases in the atmosphere have trapped excess solar radiation at the surface of our planet in the form of heat, (2) these CO2 increases are the primary result of human activities via the burning of fossil fuels, and (3) the increase in trapped solar radiation is causing our planet to warm at an accelerated rate leading to faster-than-normal climate change across the globe.


No, I just meant the theory of a null hypothesis. You realize the null hypothesis is the assumption that two data sets are not correlated. So you could say that scientists have proven that they can reject the null hypothesis.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6781
Quoting 426. VAbeachhurricanes:


Speaking of the null hypothesis. It might be the most frustrating thing to explain to people...


Not really. It's pretty straight-forward. The current state of the science has established beyond any reasonable doubt that (1) CO2 increases in the atmosphere have trapped excess solar radiation at the surface of our planet in the form of heat, (2) these CO2 increases are the primary result of human activities via the burning of fossil fuels, and (3) the increase in trapped solar radiation is causing our planet to warm at an accelerated rate leading to faster-than-normal climate change across the globe.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 912
I,..Dr. Ro9 8eNCeR, Have solved this so called Global's Warming's Hoax'

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 431 Comments: 131961
Spencer is a highly respcted climate scientist? Really??? Explain this!!



Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming

In some followup discussion with Barry Bickmore (by email) and Kevin C (at Skeptical Science) it became clear we were missing something in the analysis of Roy Spencer's climate model. Specifically, Bickmore's Figure 10:

http://bbickmore.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/long pdomodel.png?w=500&h=388
...

...It turns out that to actually match Spencer's 20th century temperature fit the starting temperature in 993 AD needs to be extraordinarily, far beyond impossibly, low. We'll get to the details shortly. ...

...It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer's model for the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that's global warming!


Is that the work of a respected climate scientist?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4115
Quoting 424. Daisyworld:


Yoboi, we've been through this many, MANY times before...

You cannot demand that a person's alternate hypothesis be disproven, when it hasn't been proven to be valid against the current state of the science (the null hypothesis).

What is so hard for you and AGWSpecialist to understand about this subject?

It's like a person standing outside demanding that everyone around him disprove that the sky is neon pink with glowing green polka-dots, when it's very clearly obvious that it's blue. It only makes you look foolish and comes no where near to having any scientific validity.

So, sorry. Wrong approach on your part... again...


Speaking of the null hypothesis. It might be the most frustrating thing to explain to people...
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6781
Quoting 422. yoboi:



Thanks I read both links....Can you provide any evidence they are wrong???


Yoboi, we've been through this many, MANY times before...

You cannot demand that a person's alternate hypothesis be disproven, when it hasn't been proven to be valid against the current state of the science (the null hypothesis).

What is so hard for you and AGWSpecialist to understand about this subject?

It's like a person standing outside demanding that everyone around him disprove that the sky is neon pink with glowing green polka-dots, when it's very clearly obvious that it's blue. It only makes you look foolish and comes no where near to having any scientific validity.

So, sorry. Wrong approach on your part... again...
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 912
423. yoboi
Quoting 421. Birthmark:

Let me point out that you are now contradicting Cochise since Cochise doesn't believe the ground data sets are correct. You evidently believe they are since they match UAH very well. And UAH says it's warming rapidly.


I don't usually support Cochise...I don't plus many of his post....Yeah I am in the camp that Humans can not impact the climate by more than 10%
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3203
422. yoboi
Quoting 419. Birthmark:

I have clouds appear to be a net-positive forcing climatically.

As far as Spencer goes, I have said before that UAH seems to be pretty good, though it still seems to over-react to ENSO. Spencer's work is respectable.

However, his blog is atrocious. It is filled with cherry-picking, misrepresentation, and phenomenal lapses in logic. I attribute that to Spencer's Senior Fellow status in the Cornwall Alliance.

"The Cornwall Alliance is a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. The Cornwall Alliance fully supports the principles espoused in the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, and is seeking to promote those principles in the discussion of various public policy issues including population and poverty, food, energy, water, endangered species, habitat, and other related topics."
Link




Thanks I read both links....Can you provide any evidence they are wrong???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3203
Quoting 411. AGWSpecialist:
It's been warmer in the past in the Arctic. And it's been peer reviewed. Yet another head scratcher for the denialists to ponder:

Link

They didn't bother to put an overlay of recent temperature estimates from the more accurate thermometer and satellite based datasets? They are missing almost 13 years of data during which some of the fastest rates of warming occurred.

Such lack of critical thinking skills for a "specialist." Sigh.
Quoting 412. JohnLonergan:
Tamino has a new post up:

Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise

Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, what%u2019s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?...


Tamino plots a no warming scenario and constant trend (the 1979-1998 trend)scenario for the major temperature datasets.

Here are his graphs:













Given how fast global temperature was rising prior to 1998, the real surprise which followed is not that temperatures slowed or stopped their increase %u2026 the real surprise is that temperatures rose so far so fast and were so damn hot. Even allowing for the existing trend.


I dont see any pause.

More detals and discussion here...

Wow, look at UAH go. Much faster warming than predicted from the pre-1998 trend. And that used to be the go-to dataset for some. They'll probably be using HadCRUT for a while until they operationally implement the kriging methodology.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
417. yoboi
Quoting 416. Birthmark:

Uh-huh. Then why does UAH agree so well with the ground data sets? Bueller?



Because he is a very good climate scientist......When you get time you should read about clouds and the impact it is causing with the climate....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3203
Quoting 403. DaveFive:


Conditions are looking better up your way for rain. Hope you get some, we only got a 20% chance down South and it doesn't look like anything is lining up to offer up any relief.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 411. AGWSpecialist:
It's been warmer in the past in the Arctic. And it's been peer reviewed. Yet another head scratcher for the denialists to ponder:

Link


You made a mistake when you typed the word "Arctic". Instead, you should have typed the words "Northern Scandinavia".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 410. AGWSpecialist:

Care to refute?


Refute what? Read the paper, it doesn't support what Cochise wrote.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tamino has a new post up:

Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise

Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, what’s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?...


Tamino plots a no warming scenario and constant trend (the 1979-1998 trend)scenario for the major temperature datasets.

Here are his graphs:













Given how fast global temperature was rising prior to 1998, the real surprise which followed is not that temperatures slowed or stopped their increase … the real surprise is that temperatures rose so far so fast and were so damn hot. Even allowing for the existing trend.


I dont see any pause.

More detals and discussion here...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4115
Quoting 407. Cochise111:
New paper shows the temperature smoothing and homogenization leads to greatly exaggerated warming predictions (among other things like falsifying past temperature records):

Link


No, it doesn't. You guys don't know how to read scientific papers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RE: 406 Boy did Al Roker make Rush Limbaugh look silly...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
We need to get to 300ppm - 350ppm Co2...



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting 404. yoboi:What is the plan if they run out of water??
I read in the local newspaper that they could always build desalination plants in the ocean so that way we can have fresh water, like some countries in the Middle East have. The full article is in the "San Jose Mercury News" Sunday Edition January 25, 2014, page A20 paragraph 19, just under the words FALLBACK PLANS.
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
404. yoboi
Quoting 403. DaveFive:



What is the plan if they run out of water??
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3203
Quoting 390. yoboi:
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Seventeen rural communities in drought-stricken California are in danger of running out of water within four months, according to a list compiled by state officials.

Link
Yes yoboi, that's the city I live in where the drought is serious and we could very well run out of water in the next several months. We really need a snowpack up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, including our own local mountains like the Diablo Mountain Range and the Santa Cruz Mountains. In 2011 the Diablo Mountain range snow pack lasted for two months. We really need to see this occur again so, at least the run-off from the Diablo range will help keep our local rivers and reservoirs from drying up.
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
Quoting 314. Physicistretired:
DaveFive,

Modifying a comment is tricking on this blog. I often have similar issues.

This is what I do: when reposting a modified comment, I insert additional hard returns between each paragraph, and the hit 'Submit'. That seems to do the trick for me.

Hope that helps.

Hello Physicistretired,

I appreciate the info, thank you.
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
Quoting 388. Neapolitan:
All--well, mostly--true. So if denialists want their hypotheses to be respected as scientifically valid, why don't they publish?*

* - By publish, I mean write up the hypothesis, have it reviewed by an anonymous jury of peers, then printed in a credible scientific journal. NOTE: posting winter weather reports and/or rants about Al Gore do not qualify.


Climate change is happening, it's CO2 causing the warming and it's humans adding the CO2, all of these points have been proven, there is no other hypothesis which can explain climate change. The only questions that remain uncertain are timing and scale. How much warming, how soon and how bad will the effects be?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4115
Also, FYI please if you are going to claim AGW isn't real be consistent. Don't say it's not warming, and then try to claim it's warming, but it's not CO2. Contradictions of your own positions don't sit well in debate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 395. Naga5000:


More blog science. Lovely. This is too easy. Link

You do know there are other forcings in climate than just CO2, don't you? You do know that we can measure there forcings, right? You do know that despite the other natural forcings, CO2 is the larger forcing right now, correct?

I think 98% if all this non belief in climate science stems from scientific illiteracy on the subject.

...not to mention the fact that when you got back millions and millions of years, you start talking about continental drift...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How do we know it's CO2? Good question, it's because we used science and measured it. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 394. tramp96:


Link


More blog science. Lovely. This is too easy. Link

You do know there are other forcings in climate than just CO2, don't you? You do know that we can measure there forcings, right? You do know that despite the other natural forcings, CO2 is the larger forcing right now, correct?

I think 98% if all this non belief in climate science stems from scientific illiteracy on the subject.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 444 - 394

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.