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: 94 - 44

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 77. Birthmark:

I generally agree, but I wouldn't bet it's here to stay, though. I expect all kinds of strange...stuff as the system wobbles around trying to find stability.

(Note: IANAC-I am not a climatologist)
Is it possible that there is a struggle between persistent blocking and wobbles/meanders of the jet stream? Features like the Pacific anomaly that I believe has been in place for almost a year are things I am aware of, but do not fully understand.

Also, the relationship between the equatorial trade winds, SST's and ENSO episodes seem to be very difficult to analyze and understand.

It is sadly amusing as the AGW/CC denialist community belittles the scientific community for attempting to model these complex and interrelated features and subsystems that are part of the global climate system, and that affect weather worldwide. Perhaps they simply prefer to remain ignorant, and to be filled with doubt and confusion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 24. AGWSpecialist:

Asking a question is harassment? Really? Didn't you recently ask me a second time what my handle meant after I ignored you the first time? A simple yes or no would suffice.


when a kid in science class asks a question and gets an answer, that's fine. when he deliberately re-asks the same question 1000 more times in order to screw up the class for everyone else, it isn't anymore.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 55. RichardET:
I am used to 40 degree weather in NJ, not - 5. When does it warm up again, or will we be stuck with this abnormal cold for several more weeks, or even months? The idea of ice in April, is this the future climate here in the mid-atlantic?

For a look at longer term weather possibilities, you could look at output from the CFS model:
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~slincoln/model/cfs _hopwrf_menu.php

I am not familiar with verification statistics for that particular model.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting 88. ColoradoBob1:
Air pollution from Asia affecting world's weather

Extreme air pollution in Asia is affecting the world's weather and climate patterns, according to a study by Texas A&M University and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory researchers.

Using climate models and data collected about aerosols and meteorology over the past 30 years, the researchers found that air pollution over Asia -- much of it coming from China -- is impacting global air circulations.

"The models clearly show that pollution originating from Asia has an impact on the upper atmosphere and it appears to make such storms or cyclones even stronger," Zhang explains.

"This pollution affects cloud formations, precipitation, storm intensity and other factors and eventually impacts climate. Most likely, pollution from Asia can have important consequences on the weather pattern here over North America."


Link



Terra/MODIS
2014/023
01/23/2014
04:05 UTC


Haze in central China
Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2783
Quoting 69. yoboi:
Read the link I had in post 36....I am having a difficult time determining if a lawyer drafted that.....I would like your prospective about it...
I think Steyn wrote this himself after his lawyers withdrew from representation, ie, dumped him. But I have seen similar rubbish written by lawyers - the style is called "throw in everything you can possibly say because there's no legal basis for this motion".

And about Daisyworld's post - you, yoboi, have raised the climategate emails and the Nobel prize question as possible important aspects of this case. Although the post may have been a bit harsh, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that you are not sympathetic to Mann in ths matter.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2405
Air pollution from Asia affecting world's weather

Extreme air pollution in Asia is affecting the world's weather and climate patterns, according to a study by Texas A&M University and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory researchers.

Using climate models and data collected about aerosols and meteorology over the past 30 years, the researchers found that air pollution over Asia -- much of it coming from China -- is impacting global air circulations.

"The models clearly show that pollution originating from Asia has an impact on the upper atmosphere and it appears to make such storms or cyclones even stronger," Zhang explains.

"This pollution affects cloud formations, precipitation, storm intensity and other factors and eventually impacts climate. Most likely, pollution from Asia can have important consequences on the weather pattern here over North America."


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2783
Quoting 86:
[snip]
Right...

Neapolitan image
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 5. Daisyworld:
Thanks, Dr. Rood.



There's currently a major block in the southwestern United States, shifting rainfall further north, causing unprecedented drought in California and Nevada. Normally, this is California's wet season, and after tying their all-time high last summer in Las Vegas, Nevada, they've broken their longest number of days without precipitation, with a drought disaster declared all the way up to Reno.

Interesting times ahead...


Last summer saw a band from Salt Lake City, across to Reno, Nevada. Set their all time heat record for an entire summer. This included Boise, Idaho. Their records begin 1875.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2783
More on Curry from Eli Rabett's den:


Gauntlet Tossing

Judith Curry to Michael Mann

“Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.”


Robert Way
One of your major points:

“Lack of warming since 1998″
“the warming over the past 15 years is only ~0.05″

Is inconsistent with surface air temperature datasets that have more complete coverage of the Arctic (e.g. Cowtan and Way; GISS). We have done many more further tests which strengthen this result. If you believe that the rate of warming is only 0.05 then I ask that you prove it and provide your code and rationale for how you deal with the missing coverage areas. Remember leaving a region out treats it the same as the global average.

A second major point:

“Further, Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies”

Your statement (and the IPCC one you referenced) regarding the early century Arctic warming being of comparable magnitude to the recent Arctic warming is incorrect. Once again I ask that you provide the analysis to prove this erroneous statement. Myself and Kevin have already verified based on all available land, and land+ocean datasets even including the NansenSAT dataset that the IPCC referenced for this statement.


Tamino

I’ve recently done three blog posts about your senate testimony. In addition to offering my opinions, I have also taken the time to “(publicly) document and rebut” statements in your testimony that are “factually inaccurate or … not supported by the evidence” that you provide.

If you think my efforts are “dubious,” then I invite you to publicly support that contention. Be sure to provide scientific evidence, and rest assured that those (including me) who will place whatever you provide under the microscope will be far better prepared to evaluate it than members of a senate committee.

As for the legal case between Steyn and Mann, I suggest that the judge who will decide the case has at least as much reverence for our constitution’s free-speech guarantee, and a far better understading of the issues, than you and others who talk of “rather frightening implications of this case for free speech.” Or have you spent enough time on google and wikipedia to launch a “21st century democratization of expertise” when it comes to the law?



Eli

Prof. Curry, perhaps you would be kind enough to reconcile the claim in your written testimony that increasing Antarctic sea ice extent as reported in the AR5 WGI report weakens the case for attributing most of the warming to human influences can be reconciled with your 2010 PNAS paper, Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice the abstract of which reads:
The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall. The simulated sea surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak. With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice.


Good times.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3479
So whats the solution so we don't have to live with this for next 1000 years?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 78. yonzabam:


Well, if the 'unprecedented scale' of the current meanders is due to reduced temperature contrast between the arctic and temperate latitude air masses, as climatologists believe, that's not a situation that's likely to change for the better. It's only going to get worse.

No doubt about that. It's going to get worse -much worse. How much worse, how fast, and exactly how and when are the pertinent questions for me personally --and I expect most people here.

The slower the change, the better; the smoother the change the better. That is, for those of us trying to prepare. But slow, smooth changes will make it more difficult to communicate the impending danger to the general public.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Dupe.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Sort of reminds me of a hurricane can't buck a high it has to go around it... Right Dr. Rood?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 77. Birthmark:

I generally agree, but I wouldn't bet it's here to stay, though. I expect all kinds of strange...stuff as the system wobbles around trying to find stability.

(Note: IANAC-I am not a climatologist)


Well, if the 'unprecedented scale' of the current meanders is due to reduced temperature contrast between the arctic and temperate latitude air masses, as climatologists believe, that's not a situation that's likely to change for the better. It's only going to get worse.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 76. yonzabam:
The abnormal jet stream that brought very cold conditions to the US north east, brought almost continuous gales and flooding to the UK. In most places, the floods receded, but they have persisted in an area known as the 'Somerset Levels'. It's only a 17,000 acre area, but that's small comfort for the residents whose homes are still flooded and who can't leave in their cars because of flooded roads.

Link

The abnormal jet stream activity is here to stay. It's a new climate regime, and not a transient effect. I think it's going to result in extreme and persistent weather events in all regions of the temperate northern hemisphere.

I generally agree, but I wouldn't bet it's here to stay, though. I expect all kinds of strange...stuff as the system wobbles around trying to find stability.

(Note: IANAC-I am not a climatologist)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
The abnormal jet stream that brought very cold conditions to the US north east, brought almost continuous gales and flooding to the UK. In most places, the floods receded, but they have persisted in an area known as the 'Somerset Levels'. It's only a 17,000 acre area, but that's small comfort for the residents whose homes are still flooded and who can't leave in their cars because of flooded roads.

Link

The abnormal jet stream activity is here to stay. It's a new climate regime, and not a transient effect. I think it's going to result in extreme and persistent weather events in all regions of the temperate northern hemisphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 74. Neapolitan:
This morning's fun fact brought to you by NOAA and the NCDC:

All-time monthly high temperature records tied or broken in the US through January 25: 32

All-time monthly low temperature records tied or broken in the US through January 25: 6


I say give us an update in a week.....But I am sure by some kind of magic January will be in the top 5 warmest.....


Edit btw thanks for the morning fun fact...;)
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443
Quoting 57. iceagecoming:
[winter weather report]
This morning's fun fact brought to you by NOAA and the NCDC:

All-time monthly high temperature records tied or broken in the US through January 25: 32

All-time monthly low temperature records tied or broken in the US through January 25: 6

ha
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 72:
An article from another non-practicing tool of the fossil fuel industry.

[snip]


1) It's not cool to quote verbatim an entire article, and certainly not without at least providing links.

2) We've already discussed both Paltridge's lack of knowledge on modern climate science and his affinity for making money feeding at the teat of Big Oil. Can you find someone else?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
An article from Garth Paltridge
The World Meteorological Organisation of the United Nations took its first steps towards establishing the World Climate Program in the early 1970s. Among other things it held a conference in Stockholm to define the main scientific problems to be solved before reliable climate forecasting could be possible. The conference defined quite a number, but focused on just two.

The first concerned an inability to simulate the amount and character of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds are important because they govern the balance between solar heating and infrared cooling of the planet, and thereby are a control of Earth’s temperature. The second concerned an inability to forecast the behaviour of oceans. Oceans are important because they are the main reservoirs of heat in the climate system. They have internal, more-or-less random, fluctuations on all sorts of time-scales ranging from years through to centuries. These fluctuations cause changes in ocean surface temperature that in turn affect Earth’s overall climate.

The situation hasn’t changed much in the decades since. Many of the problems of simulating the behaviour of clouds and oceans are still there (along with lots of other problems of lesser moment) and for many of the same reasons. Perhaps the most significant is that climate models must do their calculations at each point of an imaginary grid of points spread evenly around the world at various heights in the atmosphere and depths in the ocean. The calculations are done every hour or so of model time as the model steps forward into its theoretical future. Problems arise because practical constraints on the size of computers ensure that the horizontal distance between model grid-points may be as much as a degree or two of latitude or longitude—that is to say, a distance of many tens of kilometres.

That sort of distance is much larger than the size of a typical piece of cloud. As a consequence, simulation of clouds requires a fair amount of guesswork as to what might be a suitable average of whatever is going on between the grid-points of the model. Even if experimental observations suggest that the models get the averages roughly right for a short-term forecast, there is no guarantee they will get them right for atmospheric conditions several decades into the future. Among other problems, small errors in the numerical modelling of complex processes have a nasty habit of accumulating with time.

Again because of this grid-point business, oceanic fluctuations and eddies smaller than the distance between the grid-points of a model are unknown to that model. This would not be a problem except that eddies in turbulent fluids can grow larger and larger. A small random eddy in the real ocean can grow and appear out of nowhere as far as a forecasting model is concerned, and make a dog’s breakfast of the forecast from that time on.

All of the above is background to one of the great mysteries of the climate change issue. Virtually all the scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous problems and uncertainties still associated with their product. How then is it that those of them involved in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can put their hands on their hearts and maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades?

Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of water vapour, which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide—on average over most of the models—by a factor of about three. In other words, two-thirds of the forecast rise in temperature derives from this particular model characteristic. Despite what the models are telling us—and perhaps because it is models that are telling us—no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind, when asked the specific question, would say that he is 95 per cent sure that the effect of clouds is to amplify rather than to reduce the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide. If he is not sure that clouds amplify global warming, he cannot be sure that most of the global warming is a result of increasing carbon dioxide.

Bear in mind too that no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind, when asked the specific question, would say there is only a very small possibility (that is, less than 5 per cent) that internal ocean behaviour could be a major cause of the warming over the past half-century. He would be particularly careful not to make such a statement now that there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years. In the mad scurry to find reasons for the pause, and to find reasons for an obvious failure of the models to simulate the pause, suddenly we are hearing that perhaps the heat of global warming is being “hidden” in the deep ocean. In other words we are being told that some internal oceanic fluctuation may have reduced the upward trend in global temperature. It is therefore more than a little strange that we are not hearing from the IPCC (or at any rate not hearing very loudly) that some natural internal fluctuation of the system may have given rise to most of the earlier upward trend.

In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour. Trading reputational capital for short-term political gain isn’t the most sensible way of going about things.

The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven. Among other things it would provide a means by which scientists could distance themselves from responsibility for any public overstatement of the significance of their particular research problem.

The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.

Somewhere along the line it came to be believed by many of the public, and indeed by many of the scientists themselves, that climate researchers were the equivalent of knights on white steeds fighting a great battle against the forces of evil—evil, that is, in the shape of “big oil” and its supposedly unlimited money. The delusion was more than a little attractive.

The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster. It can no longer use the environmental movement as a scapegoat if it should turn out that the threat of global warming has no real substance. It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity. The current redirection of global funds in the name of climate change is of the order of a billion dollars a day. And in the future, to quote US Senator Everett Dirksen, “a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we’ll be talking about real money”.

At the same time, the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.

Scientists—most scientists anyway—may be a bit naive, but they are not generally wicked, idiotic, or easily suborned either by money or by the politically correct. So whatever might be the enjoyment factor associated with supporting officially accepted wisdom, and whatever might be the constraints applied by the scientific powers-that-be, it is still surprising that the latest IPCC report has been tabled with almost no murmur of discontent from the lower levels of the research establishment. What has happened to the scepticism that is supposedly the lifeblood of scientific inquiry?

The answer probably gets back to the uncertainty of it all. The chances of proving that climate change over the next century will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil. For the same reason, the chances of a climate sceptic, or anyone else for that matter, proving the disaster theory to be oversold are also virtually nil. To that extent there is a level playing field for the two sides of the argument. The problem is that climate research necessarily involves enormous resources, and is a game for institutions and organisations. Scepticism is an occupation for individuals. Things being as they are in the climate-change arena, scepticism by an individual within the system can be fairly career-limiting. In any event, most individual scientists have a conscience, and are reluctant to put their heads above the public parapet in order to propound a view of things that may be inherently unprovable.

In short, there is more than enough uncertainty about the forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as is currently touted. Climate scientists, and indeed scientists in general, are not so lucky. They have a lot to lose if time should prove them wrong.

Garth Paltridge is an emeritus professor at the University of Tasmania and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. He is the author of The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming. He was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 57. iceagecoming:A list of low-temperature records broken Tuesday morning:Alabama 4 in Huntsville: Previous record low 5, 7 in Birmingham: Previous record low 11, 14 in Mobile: Previous record low 18. Delaware 6 in Dover: Previous record low 10. Georgia 19 in Savannah: Previous record low 21, 11 in Macon: Previous record low 14, 6 in Atlanta: Previous record low 10, 12 in Augusta: Previous record low 15, 7 in Athens: Previous record low 12. Maryland 3 in Baltimore: Previous record low 8. Michigan, -14 in Detroit: Previous record low -5, -14 in Flint: Previous record low -10, Mississippi 13 in Vicksburg: Previous record low 17,11 in Meridian: Previous record low 15, 14 in Jackson: Previous record low 16. New York 4 in New York City: Previous record low 6 North Carolina -1 in Asheville: Previous record low 3, 9 in Raleigh: Previous record low 15, 5 in Greensboro: Previous record low 14, 6 in Charlotte: Previous record low 12. Ohio -11 in Akron-Canton: Previous record low -5, -12 in Mansfield: Previous record low -7, -11 in Cleveland: Previous record low -7, -14 in Toledo: Previous record low -6, -12 in Youngstown: Previous record low -6, -7 in Columbus: Previous record low -5, -9 in New Philadelphia: Previous record low -3, -8 in Zanesville: Previous record low -3. Pennsylvania 4 in Philadelphia: Previous record low 7, -9 in Pittsburgh: Previous record low -5, 0 in Harrisburg: Previous record low 5, -5 in Williamsport: Previous record low -2, -13 in Dubois: Previous record low -5. South Carolina 20 in Charleston: Previous record low 21, 6 in Greenville-Spartanburg: Previous record low 9, 13 in Columbia: Previous record low 16, 14 in Florence: Previous record low 18. Tennessee 2 in Knoxville: Previous record low 6, 5 in Chattanooga: Previous record low 9, -1 in Kingsport: Previous record low 5. Virginia-5 in Blacksburg: Previous record low 1, 8 in Danville: Previous record low 10, 2 in Lynchburg: Previous record low 10, 1 in Roanoke: Previous record low 8, 10 in Richmond: Previous record low 12, 3 at Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia: Previous record low 8. West Virginia, -8 in Bluefield: Previous record low 0, -8 in Lewisburg: Previous record low 7, -7 in Morgantown: Previous record low -4. YOUR TAKE: Show us your winter weather selfieSources: The Weather Channel; AccuWeatherhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 014/01/07/ weather-polar-vortex-cold/4354945/Link
I sure wish that the west coast could have these temperatures and snowfall. We can sure use it here in California where it's dry and we're experiencing a winter heat wave. Here is a list of extreme temperatures readings for California on January 25, 2014. . . .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......... Gilroy 80*F. San Luis Obispo 79*F. Pacifica 79*F. Hollister 79*F. Watsonville 79*F. Palm Springs 78*F. Fremont 78*F. Los Angeles 77*F Redding 77*F. Red Bluff 77*F. Salinas 77*F. Santa Cruz 77*F. Anaheim 75*F. Ukiah 75*F. Yuba City 75*F. Chico 75*F. Morgan Hill 75*F. Santa Rosa 75*F. San Jose 74*F. San Francisco 74*F. Redwood City 74*F. Palo Alto 74*F. Antioch 74*F. Danville 73*F. Bakersfield 73*F. Riverside 73*F. Modesto 73*F. Sacramento 73*F. Santa Barbara 73*F. Livermore 73*F. Concord 73*F. Cupertino 72*F. Berkeley 71*F. Navato 71*F. Oakland 71*F. San Diego 71*F. Stockton 70*F. Vallejo 70*F. Richmond 70*F. Half Moon Bay 70*F. Barstow 69*F. Mount Hamilton summit 64*F. Yosemite Village 64*F. Mount Shasta Summit 57*F. Mammoth Lakes 53*F. Lee Vining 52*F. Lake Tahoe 50*F. Truckee 50*F. . . .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...... . Source comes from the "San Jose Mercury" newspaper, local section page B12. January 26, 2014.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 69. yoboi:




Read the link I had in post 36....I am having a difficult time determining if a lawyer drafted that.....I would like your prospective about it...

I don't think so, but that's a question better directed to FLW. I'll defer to his expertise.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 68. Birthmark:

There's really no other probable outcome.

The best the defendants can do is trot out McIntyre and McKitrick to whine about the PCA used by Mann. On cross, it will come out that that choice makes no substantive difference whatsoever to the "hockey stick". Additionally, M&M has been refuted multiple times in the scientific literature. After that...well, there's nothing factual to indicate anything fraudulent about Mann's work. That's for the very good reason that there's nothing fraudulent about Mann's work.

The defendants need to get together and decide how much they think a jury will award and offer a substantial fraction of that, with a retraction and an apology quickly. Otherwise CEI might find itself out of business, whats-his-name unable to find work, and Mann as the new owner of a magazine. lol




Read the link I had in post 36....I am having a difficult time determining if a lawyer drafted that.....I would like your prospective about it...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443
Quoting 66. yoboi:


My gut instinct this will be settled out of court.....Wow I have been agreeing with you too much lately...;)

There's really no other probable outcome.

The best the defendants can do is trot out McIntyre and McKitrick to whine about the PCA used by Mann. On cross, it will come out that that choice makes no substantive difference whatsoever to the "hockey stick". Additionally, M&M has been refuted multiple times in the scientific literature. After that...well, there's nothing factual to indicate anything fraudulent about Mann's work. That's for the very good reason that there's nothing fraudulent about Mann's work.

The defendants need to get together and decide how much they think a jury will award and offer a substantial fraction of that, with a retraction and an apology quickly. Otherwise CEI might find itself out of business, whats-his-name unable to find work, and Mann as the new owner of a magazine. lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 65. Birthmark:

I wouldn't be surprised if a very generous settlement is reached, complete with apology and retraction from the defendants.

Have you considered the things that might be learned about the defendants in discovery? lol Oh, mama! Wish I was there to see it.


If it ever does go to trial maybe we can petition HLN to carry it on tv...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443
Quoting 65. Birthmark:

I wouldn't be surprised if a very generous settlement is reached, complete with apology and retraction from the defendants.

Have you considered the things that might be learned about the defendants in discovery? lol Oh, mama! Wish I was there to see it.


My gut instinct this will be settled out of court.....Wow I have been agreeing with you too much lately...;)
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443
Quoting 61. yoboi:



I agree with most of what you are saying....Like I said before I have not seen all the evidence that will be allowed....I think we will know the final outcome it about 3-5 yrs.....Thanks for sharing your opinion.....

I wouldn't be surprised if a very generous settlement is reached, complete with apology and retraction from the defendants.

Have you considered the things that might be learned about the defendants in discovery? lol Oh, mama! Wish I was there to see it.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 62. Daisyworld:



Yoboi, you are approaching this as if there is evidence that Dr. Mann lied. There is no evidence of that; quite the contrary.

To continue to approach this with the assumption that there is hidden evidence is conspiratorial in nature, and therefore, shows that you are trying to implicate an innocent man with evidence that doesn't exist.

That is called forged evidence.

That is a crime.


BS... you are making the wrong assumption and that is a crime....I am not privy to what evidence will be allowed in this trial...I have never implied what the outcome will be....I have clearly stated I think this will not be an easy trial .....In fact if it get's the first amendment involved it will get very complex.....I and others have provided each other information about the trial and we all have been discussing it in a very civil manner and for the most part we are agreeing with each other about it....So stop with the false assumptions about me.....THANKS!!!!!
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443
Quoting 59. FLwolverine:
57 - yes, it's really cold out there. Thanks for the weather report.

In winter, no less!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 48. yoboi:


....It's really hard to call this one because I am sure there is evidence from both sides that we don't know about.....

Quoting 61. yoboi:



I agree with most of what you are saying....Like I said before I have not seen all the evidence that will be allowed....I think we will know the final outcome it about 3-5 yrs.....Thanks for sharing your opinion.....


Yoboi, you are approaching this as if there is evidence that Dr. Mann lied. There is no evidence of that; quite the contrary.

To continue to approach this with the assumption that there is hidden evidence is conspiratorial in nature, and therefore, shows that you are trying to implicate an innocent man with evidence that doesn't exist.

That is called forged evidence.

That is a crime.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 58. FLwolverine:
Re the Mann defamation lawsuit

(1) Birthmark - you're right. The current trial judge has made clear that the "manufactured and tortured data" allegations are the crux of this lawsuit, not the Jerry Sandusky slur.

(2) yoboi - you're wrong. This lawsuit at its core has nothing to do with Mann's claim to be a Nobel prize winner. It's going to be all about the data - if it ever gets that far, which I doubt.

(3) All of Steyn's posturing is just deception and illusion. I haven't read everything, but it does look like the defendants created some of the procedural confusion (that they complain about) by bringing and maintaining motions out of the usual order - eg maintaining the motion to dismiss the original complaint when an amended complaint had been (properly, or so it seems) filed. Oh, and the jurisdictional question? Once he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court - which he has - AFAIK he can't change his mind just because he doesn't like the way the case is going.

(4) Steyn can go on and on about the first trial judge being incompetent or stupid or whatever, but it won't do him any good in the lawsuit. I suspect he's more interested in getting people to see him as a victim so they'll contribute to his defense.

(5) If defendants want to make this a "First Amendment case", then they need to be challenging the valiity of the law and its applicability to the facts of this case. I'm not sure they have done that - but if Steyn thinks it's expensive now, wait until he starts challenging the validity of years of defamation case law (not just the Anti-SLAPP law)! Then it's really going to the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't predict how this turns out. If the defendants had very deep pockets, then I would expect them to pursue this as far as they could in hopes of exhausting Mann's resources. But since the defendants are already complaining about the costs, they might at some point try to settle with an apology and some money - and then of course try to spin that as a win.

No lawyers were harmed in the preparation of this comment.



I agree with most of what you are saying....Like I said before I have not seen all the evidence that will be allowed....I think we will know the final outcome it about 3-5 yrs.....Thanks for sharing your opinion.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443


Yes,record cold, a fact often left out, I wonder why.


There's A Brutal Propane Shortage Right Now
Reuters
Sabina Zawadzki and Edward McAllister, Reuters
Jan. 24, 2014, 4:52 AM


NEW YORK (Reuters) - A propane shortage is affecting millions of Americans this week as brutal cold exposes the vulnerabilities of a network responsible for heating homes, schools and businesses across wide swathes of the United States.

Prices of the fuel have rocketed to all-time highs in some regions, distributors are rationing supplies, and some schools have shut due to a lack of fuel during this year's second bout of Arctic weather.

The National Propane Gas Association said on Thursday the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri are worst hit and that it has heard that some retailers have run out of supplies.

But as record cold coincides with pipeline outages and low inventories, the crisis has spread further. Most households are not connected directly to propane pipelines, and the system relies on truck fleets now running at full capacity to get emergency supplies to states across the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued emergency orders suspending the limits on the amount of time truck drivers can spend on the road for 10 Midwestern states and 12 Northeastern states, a rare regional order.

A spokesman for Pennsylvania-based AmeriGas Propane, the largest U.S. propane retailer, said it was rationing deliveries to "small pockets" of Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee on Thursday, reducing supplies to 100 gallons per customer from the standard delivery of some 250 gallons.

"Supply is very tight. There is propane to be had out there, but there are supply and transport issues across the country," spokesman Simon Bowman said.

RATIONING, PRICE SPIKES


I suppose the Propane companies based there purchases
on government projections on how hot it would be this year. Whoops!


Could go solar?

How well do solar panels work in the winter?

Solar panels work on light not heat. With shorter daylight hours in winter, solar panels produce proportionately less power. If the modules become covered with snow, they stop producing power, but snow generally melts quickly when the sun strikes the modules; if you brush the snow off, they resume operation immediately.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
57 - yes, it's really cold out there. Thanks for the weather report.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2405
Re the Mann defamation lawsuit

(1) Birthmark - you're right. The current trial judge has made clear that the "manufactured and tortured data" allegations are the crux of this lawsuit, not the Jerry Sandusky slur.

(2) yoboi - you're wrong. This lawsuit at its core has nothing to do with Mann's claim to be a Nobel prize winner. It's going to be all about the data - if it ever gets that far, which I doubt.

(3) All of Steyn's posturing is just deception and illusion. I haven't read everything, but it does look like the defendants created some of the procedural confusion (that they complain about) by bringing and maintaining motions out of the usual order - eg maintaining the motion to dismiss the original complaint when an amended complaint had been (properly, or so it seems) filed. Oh, and the jurisdictional question? Once he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court - which he has - AFAIK he can't change his mind just because he doesn't like the way the case is going.

(4) Steyn can go on and on about the first trial judge being incompetent or stupid or whatever, but it won't do him any good in the lawsuit. I suspect he's more interested in getting people to see him as a victim so they'll contribute to his defense.

(5) If defendants want to make this a "First Amendment case", then they need to be challenging the valiity of the law and its applicability to the facts of this case. I'm not sure they have done that - but if Steyn thinks it's expensive now, wait until he starts challenging the validity of years of defamation case law (not just the Anti-SLAPP law)! Then it's really going to the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't predict how this turns out. If the defendants had very deep pockets, then I would expect them to pursue this as far as they could in hopes of exhausting Mann's resources. But since the defendants are already complaining about the costs, they might at some point try to settle with an apology and some money - and then of course try to spin that as a win.

No lawyers were harmed in the preparation of this comment.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2405
Chicago airports cancel hundreds of flights Sunday
Brutal cold returns to Midwest for extended stay
Super Bowl will be coldest, could also be greenest
Major winter storm targets I-10 corridor, Carolinas
Snowstorms sweep parts of Romania, causing havoc

http://local.msn.com/snowstorms-sweep-parts-of-ro mania-causing-havoc-1

Link






Coldest air in decades

Arctic cold front is responsible for the coldest temperatures in almost two decades in many U.S. cities. Temperatures in some areas have not been this low since the arctic outbreaks of January 1997, February 1996 and January of 1994. Cities where temperatures broke record lows on Jan. 6 and Jan. 7:



http://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/usatoday.map-m28xx5x a/5/9/12.png


A list of low-temperature records broken Tuesday morning:

Alabama

4 in Huntsville: Previous record low 5

7 in Birmingham: Previous record low 11

14 in Mobile: Previous record low 18

Delaware

6 in Dover: Previous record low 10

Georgia

19 in Savannah: Previous record low 21

11 in Macon: Previous record low 14

6 in Atlanta: Previous record low 10

12 in Augusta: Previous record low 15

7 in Athens: Previous record low 12

Maryland

3 in Baltimore: Previous record low 8

Michigan

-14 in Detroit: Previous record low -5

-14 in Flint: Previous record low -10

Mississippi

13 in Vicksburg: Previous record low 17

11 in Meridian: Previous record low 15

14 in Jackson: Previous record low 16

New York

4 in New York City: Previous record low 6

North Carolina

-1 in Asheville: Previous record low 3

9 in Raleigh: Previous record low 15

5 in Greensboro: Previous record low 14

6 in Charlotte: Previous record low 12

Ohio

-11 in Akron-Canton: Previous record low -5

-12 in Mansfield: Previous record low -7

-11 in Cleveland: Previous record low -7

-14 in Toledo: Previous record low -6

-12 in Youngstown: Previous record low -6

-7 in Columbus: Previous record low -5

-9 in New Philadelphia: Previous record low -3

-8 in Zanesville: Previous record low -3

Pennsylvania

4 in Philadelphia: Previous record low 7

-9 in Pittsburgh: Previous record low -5

0 in Harrisburg: Previous record low 5

-5 in Williamsport: Previous record low -2

-13 in Dubois: Previous record low -5

South Carolina

20 in Charleston: Previous record low 21

6 in Greenville-Spartanburg: Previous record low 9

13 in Columbia: Previous record low 16

14 in Florence: Previous record low 18

Tennessee

2 in Knoxville: Previous record low 6

5 in Chattanooga: Previous record low 9

-1 in Kingsport: Previous record low 5

Virginia

-5 in Blacksburg: Previous record low 1

8 in Danville: Previous record low 10

2 in Lynchburg: Previous record low 10

1 in Roanoke: Previous record low 8

10 in Richmond: Previous record low 12

3 at Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia: Previous record low 8

West Virginia

-8 in Bluefield: Previous record low 0

-8 in Lewisburg: Previous record low 7

-7 in Morgantown: Previous record low -4

YOUR TAKE: Show us your winter weather selfie





Sources: The Weather Channel; AccuWeather


http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/01/07/ weather-polar-vortex-cold/4354945/

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Finally Released From the Paywall @ Nature..Climate Change..
Was worth the wait..
A rather tenuous read but with patience is rewarding..

The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks
Nick Pidgeon & Baruch Fischhoff
29 March 2011




Excerpt:

"Climate scientists bear a heavy burden: potentially, the fate of the world lies partly in their hands. Fortunately, they also have some of the strongest evidence ever assembled regarding a global environmental risk. All but the most adamant critics acknowledge that global-scale climate changes have occurred before (for example, the Dansgaard Oeschger events of the last glacial16) and might occur again. Where critics and mainstream scientists disagree is in their inferences about the scale and sources of the recent warming and their predictions about the impacts of continued anthropogenic climate forcing."

Also:

"In addition to its unfamiliar subject matter, much climate science relies on simulation modelling that is an unfamiliar form of inference not just for lay people but even for scientists whose disciplines use observational methods. Unless the logic of that modelling is conveyed, people may discount its conclusions. Communicating the value of climate modelling thus requires confronting such apparent contradictions as the fact that increasing a model's complexity by adding the behaviour of clouds, people or ecosystem feedbacks, for example may actually increase the uncertainty in climate projections. Atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, has explicitly warned that unless such seemingly paradoxical results are communicated carefully, the more complex modelling being used in climate simulations for the upcoming fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may confuse both the public and decision-makers, thereby reducing their willingness to act."

*Kevin Trenberth was proven correct in his assumption above..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am used to 40 degree weather in NJ, not - 5. When does it warm up again, or will we be stuck with this abnormal cold for several more weeks, or even months? The idea of ice in April, is this the future climate here in the mid-atlantic?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 53. JohnLonergan:
Flwolverine posted this early this morning on the previous thread, it seems the Defendants are seeking to delay discovery.




This link to Dr. Mann's attorney tells me that this man knows his defamation law:
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.



These were the first two posts today and got lost in the inanity.



thanks for reposting john...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443
Flwolverine posted this early this morning on the previous thread, it seems the Defendants are seeking to delay discovery.

Quoting 1389. FLwolverine:
Re the Mann defamation lawsuit: Apparently the Defendants are not as anxious "to put the science on trial" as their denier-supporters are. They filed a motion to dismiss; the trial court denied the motion; defendants have now appealed that ruling (to the Court of Appeals, not to Supreme Court). Although that's strategically a reasonable move, it further delays discovery and trial - and isn't that what the denial sphere has been yammering for? Hmmmm.

Link



This link to Dr. Mann's attorney tells me that this man knows his defamation law:
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.



These were the first two posts today and got lost in the inanity.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3479
Quoting 50. Skyepony:
The blocking to a certain extent seems to correlate to where on the edge of the Arctic, where the ice is thin or none existent. The places where the standing wave is moist with storm & warmth, to roughly the N of there tends to have an anomaly of less ice. Using the trends in the late fall in sea ice showed where the patterns would stick before they did this winter.


I wonder what the average humidity levels are in the "no-ice" zones in the Arctic this year, compared to what they were when they were ice-covered.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I liked this part from the order:

Under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, a defamation defendant may file a special motion to dismiss any claim arising from an “act in furtherance of the right of advocacy,” which shall be granted unless the claim is likely to succeed on the merits.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
50. Skyepony (Mod)
The blocking to a certain extent seems to correlate to where on the edge of the Arctic, where the ice is thin or none existent. The places where the standing wave is moist with storm & warmth, to roughly the N of there tends to have an anomaly of less ice. Using the trends in the late fall in sea ice showed where the patterns would stick before they did this winter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So Orlando Utilities Commission is making some strides. They are converting our coal power plants to partially run on natural gas, something they were never intended to do. It's a small step, but one that shows OUC is willing to spend money on cleaner forms of energy. Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3690
Quoting 43. Birthmark:

The Sandusky comparison sounds bad, but if I'm understanding correctly, those comments aren't really the major issue. The "molesting and torturing" of data and the accusations of fraud are the problems for the defendants. I think it will be child's play to demonstrate malice.

Assuming nothing bizarre comes out in discovery, I think Mann will win this pretty easily.


I don't think this is a very easy case......The concerns would be take a look at the exhibits in the link that I had posted....what is interesting let's say I lied about an achievement that I never received and then turn around a sue someone because they slandered me on my lie....It's really hard to call this one because I am sure there is evidence from both sides that we don't know about.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2443
Quoting 46. Naga5000:


I think that's what everyone seems to forget. Even with multiple investigations and tons on wasted money, no wrong doing was found.


And THAT is the essence of Manufactured Doubt campaigns.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 42. Daisyworld:


Naga, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for posting this.

I had wondered how that case ended up, since the mainstream news never seems to publish much in the way of climate change news anymore (that, or it just gets buried by more "immediate" headlines). I was very heartened to read this, and it's nice to know that the judicial system looked at the facts in this case. I was especially interested to read this (emphasis mine):

"In 2009, however, a string of emails illegally obtained from University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom purported to show that (Michael) Mann and the climate scientists he worked with had manipulated the data. Investigations were conducted by more than seven organizations, from the National Science Foundation to Penn State %u2014 all of which said the allegations were baseless. Still, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli spent two years and $500,000 unsuccessfully suing to obtain more emails from the University of Virginia, where Mann had once worked. That investigation also came up empty."

That was $500,000 of taxpayer money down the drain...


I think that's what everyone seems to forget. Even with multiple investigations and tons on wasted money, no wrong doing was found.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3690
Quoting 44. Naga5000:


The quote goes something like this. "Simberg also called Mann "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."" Link

Yeah, they're a classy bunch, ain't they?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 43. Birthmark:

The Sandusky comparison sounds bad, but if I'm understanding correctly, those comments aren't really the major issue. The "molesting and torturing" of data and the accusations of fraud are the problems for the defendants. I think it will be child's play to demonstrate malice.

Assuming nothing bizarre comes out in discovery, I think Mann will win this pretty easily.


The quote goes something like this. "Simberg also called Mann "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."" Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3690

Viewing: 94 - 44

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.