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: 994 - 944

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 989. Neapolitan:
As James Hansen says of Keystone II, it's game over. Although to be perfectly honest, the game was over long ago--around about the time the fossil fuel monster bought enough influence to sway the minds of the gullible, easily-misled voter.

I sometimes like to imagine there's a hyper-intelligent alien life form somewhere out there, a sentinel species whose sole task is to monitor the development of civilization on the millions of habitable planets in the galaxy. They watch and they wait for eons, never intervening, knowing well that every so often one of those nascent collections of life will have the intelligence and the will to survive its unstable adolescence to contribute value to the universe. But, like weak sprouts in a garden, many--perhaps even most--will fail to cross that threshold, and will wither away to nothingness. And I imagine the individual tasked with watching the sector of the galaxy that contains Earth cringed when he saw us developing fossil fuels, whispering, "Ah, damn. They were doing so well, but here we go again," and now just gazes upon us with knowing pity, slowly shaking its alien head from side to side, a sad and weary look on its face. And its alien fingers hover over the 'reboot' key, moving ever closer, ever closer...
If only it was going to be as easy (on us) as a reboot. Instead I believe (am pretty well convinced) that there will be a long and vicious decline, with much misery and death - inevitable with 7 billion people on a planet that's well over carrying capacity - and then a longer but slightly less nasty "dark ages". That is, provided we don't blow ourselves up in some idiotic war over the last bits of fuel and food.

Have a nice day, everyone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
When the documentary Chasing Ice came out in 2012, it included footage of the largest glacier calving event ever caught on film. Two years later, the filmmakers hope to use that monumental capture as visual proof of climate change.

In March they begin a several-month tour, stopping in the Congressional districts of climate-change denying legislators. The idea is to shift the debate back from politics to science, to determine what happens when people can actually see rather than just hear about what’s taking place at the Earth’s farthest reaches.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
Peter Sinclair has an interesting post over at Climate Denial Crock of the Week today: Do Trolls Make Us Dumber?. Spoiler alert: not always.

But even more interesting to me was the embedded video debunking the denier meme "temperature always leads CO2". Excellent presentation.

NB to the denialists amongst us: I'm presenting the video as a discussion/explanation of the peer reviewed science, not as the science itself, so don't make any false comparisons to the 10% argument attempted (badly) yesterday.

Ridiculous that I should have to point that out on a science blog!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Keystone cops from Seeing the environmental forest blog.


After digging through the recent State Department Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline, I am quite disappointed. While right-wingers are cheering the fact that the State Department found that building Keystone XL won't have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions, that is the wrong conclusion. In reality, the State Department found that the tar sand oil flowing through Keystone XL will generate the equivalent of 147 to 168 million metric tons of CO2 emission per year (Executive Summary, page 15). That is a sizable contribution to greenhouse gas emission from one single project. It's between 57% and 65% of the average total CO2 emissions from all the world's volcanoes combined (average combined volcanic emissions per year: 260 million metric tons, see Gerlach 2011) and enough to raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 0.021 ppmv per year. And the State Department somehow thinks that isn't going to impact greenhouse gas emissions?

So, how could the State Department conclude that Keystone XL won't have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions? Simple. They assumed that the Canadian tar sands will get developed regardless of whether or not the pipeline is built, then compared expected emissions from transporting that oil via train versus transporting it via Keystone XL (ES page 28). They didn't even consider the possibility that the tar sands won't be developed without the pipeline. And that, IMO, is a mistake.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
And the "hoax" pulls off another trick -

Residents of Brazil's business hub Sao Paulo are sweltering in record temperatures after a January with the highest average in 70 years, while low rainfall could lead to water rationing.

Meteorologists recorded 35.8 Celsius (96.4 Fahrenheit) Saturday afternoon -- the highest February temperature since records began in 1943. And the Inmet meteorological institute said Sunday the hot spell would continue.

The seething metropolis of 20 million has been laboring under baking conditions since the turn of the year.

Average temperatures of 31.9 Celsius made January the hottest in 71 years.

The unrelenting heat -- along with rainfall at an 80-year low -- has left water levels at the main reservoir serving the city at their lowest levels in a decade, leading water and sewage services company Sabesp to warn it may have to impose rationing.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3191
As James Hansen says of Keystone II, it's game over. Although to be perfectly honest, the game was over long ago--around about the time the fossil fuel monster bought enough influence to sway the minds of the gullible, easily-misled voter.

I sometimes like to imagine there's a hyper-intelligent alien life form somewhere out there, a sentinel species whose sole task is to monitor the development of civilization on the millions of habitable planets in the galaxy. They watch and they wait for eons, never intervening, knowing well that every so often one of those nascent collections of life will have the intelligence and the will to survive its unstable adolescence to contribute value to the universe. But, like weak sprouts in a garden, many--perhaps even most--will fail to cross that threshold, and will wither away to nothingness. And I imagine the individual tasked with watching the sector of the galaxy that contains Earth cringed when he saw us developing fossil fuels, whispering, "Ah, damn. They were doing so well, but here we go again," and now just gazes upon us with knowing pity, slowly shaking its alien head from side to side, a sad and weary look on its face. And its alien fingers hover over the 'reboot' key, moving ever closer, ever closer...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
988. ARiot
Quoting 968. Naga5000:


To be fair, those may have been authoritarian, but voted on and reactionary. We don't do authoritarian preventative, unless it's "national security theatre". see: Patriot Act


Well yes and no.

We nationalized the S and L sectors in the 80s to prevent them from their own attempts at going under, and we did the same to the Financials free-wheelers and Auto companies in 06-11.

In fact we have a whole progressive support system for farming and energy. It provides cash on demand directly or through absence of significant taxes on profits. My line of work, the military is a tax on the future as well. Preparedness gets no hard look when it's for us folks with our names on our shirts and flags on our shoulders. :-)

But yeah, I agree that we wait for the tiger in the grass (generally speaking) to mobilize our vast fiscal resources and regulatory power. (Except for some things that are just woven in to the economy it seems)

That's ok, unless the tiger is moving up on us so slowly we can't see it.

Edited to add my grand conspiracy theory: I think the move to privatize the U.S. Social Security sytem and invest the trillions in the market was a plan to "externalize" or "socialize" the impending and known-to-most transition to non-carbon energy. Privatized pensions allowed hundreds of billions in risk to be washed through average people, and proved the concept will work to bail out the carbon energy sectors if you do it on a large enough scale (now I will put my tin foil hat away)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 986. DaveFive:



Hello Physicistretired,

I read the information on the link about the oil sand pollution near Fort McMurray in Alberta. Great detailed information and photos too.

Sincerely,
Dave


We repeatedly use industry numbers for this kind of analysis, Dave - often because researchers aren't allowed on fracking/drilling/mining/tar sands sites.

It's very much a case of the fox guarding the henhouse - and it's infuriating. Researchers should have access to sensor-equipped drones capable of gathering emissions data directly over these sites.

But what Congressional House session would approve that kind of funding? Our current session is allowing our climate satellite fleet to decay almost into oblivion, while sequestration cuts are creating years-long delays in the building of replacements.

Because, you know, we don't need no stinkin' climate data. And we certainly don't need to know just how badly the damage from Keystone XL will be.
Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 231
Quoting 984. Physicistretired:
From PhysOrg:

Oil sands pollution two to three times higher than thought (Update)

The amount of harmful pollutants released in the process of recovering oil from tar sands in western Canada is likely far higher than corporate interests say, university researchers said Monday.

Actual levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions into the air may be two to three times higher than estimated, said the findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal.
The study raises new questions about the accuracy of environmental impact assessments on the tar sands, just days after a US State Department report said the controversial Keystone pipeline project to bring oil from Canada to Texas would have little impact on climate change or the environment.

Current, government-accepted estimates do not account for the evaporation of PAHs from wastewater pools known as tailings ponds, which are believed to be a major source of pollution, said researchers at the University of Toronto.

According to corporate interests which are responsible for projecting their environmental impact, the Athabasca oil sands beneath Alberta, Canada—which hold the third largest reserve of crude oil known in the world—are only spewing as much pollution into the air as sparsely populated Greenland, where no big industry exists.

Lead study author Frank Wania, a professor in the department of physical and environmental sciences, described the corporate estimates as "inadequate and incomplete."

"If you use these officially reported emissions for the oil sands area you get an emissions density that is lower than just about anywhere else in the world," he told AFP.

"Only with a complete and accurate account of the emissions is it actually possible to make a meaningful assessment of the environmental impact and of the risk to human health," he added.


More at the link.




Hello Physicistretired,

I read the information on the link about the oil sand pollution near Fort McMurray in Alberta. Great detailed information and photos too.

Sincerely,
Dave
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 983. DaveFive:


Hello Xandra,

I read the information on the link provide and I found it to be very educational and well presented.

Sincerely,
Dave


Many positive comment feedbacks about the article too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From PhysOrg:

Oil sands pollution two to three times higher than thought (Update)

The amount of harmful pollutants released in the process of recovering oil from tar sands in western Canada is likely far higher than corporate interests say, university researchers said Monday.

Actual levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions into the air may be two to three times higher than estimated, said the findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal.
The study raises new questions about the accuracy of environmental impact assessments on the tar sands, just days after a US State Department report said the controversial Keystone pipeline project to bring oil from Canada to Texas would have little impact on climate change or the environment.

Current, government-accepted estimates do not account for the evaporation of PAHs from wastewater pools known as tailings ponds, which are believed to be a major source of pollution, said researchers at the University of Toronto.

According to corporate interests which are responsible for projecting their environmental impact, the Athabasca oil sands beneath Alberta, Canada—which hold the third largest reserve of crude oil known in the world—are only spewing as much pollution into the air as sparsely populated Greenland, where no big industry exists.

Lead study author Frank Wania, a professor in the department of physical and environmental sciences, described the corporate estimates as "inadequate and incomplete."

"If you use these officially reported emissions for the oil sands area you get an emissions density that is lower than just about anywhere else in the world," he told AFP.

"Only with a complete and accurate account of the emissions is it actually possible to make a meaningful assessment of the environmental impact and of the risk to human health," he added.


More at the link.

Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 231
Quoting 916. Xandra:
Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect



Figure 2: Takakkaw Falls rainbow in the misty spray from the waterfall. Rainbows show that light is made of many colours, and we can split light and analyse these colours separately. This is a key technique that has identified the greenhouse effect (stunning image courtesy of Wiki).


Hello Xandra,

I read the information on the link provide and I found it to be very educational and well presented.

Sincerely,
Dave
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 918. Cochise111:
New paper finds that water vapor acts as negative-feedback mechanism, not positive-feedback as has been proclaimed for so long:

Link



Hello Cochise111,
I have read the article dated February 2, 2014 on "The Hockey Schtick". Somewhat interesting, but I don't see any reader comments listed below that article yet. Lets wait and see what readers have to say about that article regarding the Indian Ocean and the W. Pacific.

Sincerely,
Dave
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 918. Cochise111:
New paper finds that water vapor acts as negative-feedback mechanism, not positive-feedback as has been proclaimed for so long:

Link



Hello Cochise111,
I have read the article dated February 2, 2014 on "The Hockey Schtick". Somewhat interesting, but I don't see any reader comments listed below that article yet. Lets wait and see what readers have to say about that article regarding the Indian Ocean and the W. Pacific.

Sincerely,
Dave
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 935. yoboi:




Where did you get this graph from? Can you provide me a Link on the web.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 940. yoboi:









Link


I'm afraid not, it's close to just the opposite from what that graph states.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 942. overwash12:
Has anybody seen this day in weather history? A feb. tropical storm in 1952 hit Florida on this day. Wow,today it would be because of AGW fer sure!



Where may I find the article about this tropical storm in 1952? Or could you provide us a LINK?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 970. BaltimoreBrian:
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview


Excellent article about the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, June 1991.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 885. PedleyCA:
What time does the night shift show up?


The night shift comes around leaving comments on this blog from 3:00pm through 11:00pm our time (Pacific Time).

Quoting 894. iceagecoming:



and this is not helping temps any time soon.

Mount Sinabung paints Sumatra gray





And as for you, volcano eruptions can and will affect our weather as a result to cooling. This eruption should start affecting our temperatures somewhat in about 20 days from now, right in the middle of our rainy season for the drought state of California, as well as other areas around the world. The rain and snow will for sure come to the state of California now, thanks to that volcanic eruption. Of course we all know that the volcanic eruption there does not benefit the people who are located close to the eruption. Lets look on the positive side of this eruption, that it's beneficial for slowing down the negative effects on climate change as well as global warming.


Quoting 901. cyclonebuster:



Small eruptions like that have.000001 effect..



Thank you cyclonebuster for posting that information.

Lets hope this volcanic eruption can help us out here, even though it's a small eruption.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 974. Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Brian #962

I had read this article earlier and actually responded to it on Yahoo's site. I found this to be core of the article:

"Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change to any degree that would make any difference. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say." From this article - Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say scientists

What I take from this is that even the team that wrote the article has a low confidence that nature can mitigate our impacts on climate change to any sufficient level. Also, why would water vapor due to the enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans limit itself to just the near-surface area? This is what I do not understand about this research.


I don't either. Humid air is actually less dense than dry air so I would expect the water vapor to quickly rise. Also increasing precipitation means more heat released by the condensation of water vapor. Where does it go?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Brian #962

I had read this article earlier and actually responded to it on Yahoo's site. I found this to be core of the article:

"Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change to any degree that would make any difference. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say." From this article - Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say scientists

What I take from this is that even the team that wrote the article has a low confidence that nature can mitigate our impacts on climate change to any sufficient level. Also, why would water vapor due to the enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans limit itself to just the near-surface area? This is what I do not understand about this research.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 971. FLwolverine:
So not only does yoboi's chosen source misstate and misinterpret scientific information, it falsely frames Dr Francis as a denier.

Are we surprised?

Not in the slightest.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 971. FLwolverine:
Here's a little something more to show how denialists twist things. One of the pages on the denalist site yoboi linked to gives an alleged "quote" from Jane Francis, a paleoclimatogist whom I have heard several times on the BBC.

From wiki: Jane Francis is Professor of Palaeoclimatology at the University of Leeds. In 2002 became the fourth woman to receive the Polar Medal. In 2013 she became the director of the British Antarctic Survey.

From my research, Francis seems not to have taken a position on climate change. But the denialist site quotes her as saying: "What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." and "It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."

Since I was always impressed by Francis, I decided to try to track down the quote. There is NO evidence on the internet that Francis ever said this. Yoboi's site gives no source for the quote (and remember those web pages haven't been updated since 2007); every other reference (through google) of the quote turned out to be a denialist site that restated the exact wording (quote and commentary) from the denialist site, sometimes with attribution, sometimes without. WITH ONE EXCEPTION: a discussion in the Wikipedia archives about whether Francis should be included in the wiki list of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming (spoiler alert: she's not). The discussion is really interesting. Link

And then, by a circuitous route, I found the blog written by the host of the BBC program In Our Time. Here are his comments on the 2013 segment on Ice Ages, in which Francis participated with two other scientists (i thought this was an extremely interesting program). BTW the reference to "close call" and "merciful release" from a relevant contemporary conversation is part of the host's (Melvyn Bragg) shtick that his program never covers current events:

"It was a close call. After the programme Jane Francis and Carrie Lear continued to talk about the climbing count of CO2 which was pumping up global warming, in their opinion, which would lead most dramatically to mass flooding. On the programme Richard Corfield did not join in very enthusiastically, pointing out that the CO2 count had been at least twice as high quite recently (geologically speaking) and even higher than that a bit before recently. The situation was beginning to develop into a relevant, contemporary conversation about climate change and the final bell was a merciful release. There was no thought of the ingenuity of men and women combating what would be a gradual increase (if it happens) of rising sea levels - we could have looked at the Dutch in the sixteenth century onwards. But I strayed from my task.

The grim conclusion of Jane Francis was never to buy or rent a house on a flood plain, always to buy or rent a house on a hill, or take a tent, or anything, as long as it's on a hill and, I think Richard Corfield added, fortify it. Well, well.

Link

--------------------------
So not only does yoboi's chosen source misstate and misinterpret scientific information, it falsely frames Dr Francis as a denier.

Are we surprised?


I posted this at Birthmarks

Quoting 494. JohnLonergan:


There's nothing to refute, blog post from some joe blogger with no credentials ain't science, three of the authors referred to in the blog(Michaels, Jaworski and Essenhigh) are known to be discredited deniers(See Desmogblog). Robert Grumbine was cited, I'm familiar with Dr. Grumbine's work and he is a firm supporter of standard model of AGW. It's obvious the blog post is just a combination of complete ignorance of physics and mathturbation.


Lindzen should be listed among the known deniers cited.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Quoting 960. Birthmark:

Yeah, so? Surely you know that good information can be used to arrive at an incorrect conclusion? You do it often enough. :)
Here's a little something more to show how denialists twist things. One of the pages on the denalist site yoboi linked to gives an alleged "quote" from Jane Francis, a paleoclimatogist whom I have heard several times on the BBC.

From wiki: Jane Francis is Professor of Palaeoclimatology at the University of Leeds. In 2002 became the fourth woman to receive the Polar Medal. In 2013 she became the director of the British Antarctic Survey.

From my research, Francis seems not to have taken a position on climate change. But the denialist site quotes her as saying: "What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." and "It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."

Since I was always impressed by Francis, I decided to try to track down the quote. There is NO evidence on the internet that Francis ever said this. Yoboi's site gives no source for the quote (and remember those web pages haven't been updated since 2007); every other reference (through google) of the quote turned out to be a denialist site that restated the exact wording (quote and commentary) from the denialist site, sometimes with attribution, sometimes without. WITH ONE EXCEPTION: a discussion in the Wikipedia archives about whether Francis should be included in the wiki list of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming (spoiler alert: she's not). The discussion is really interesting. Link

And then, by a circuitous route, I found the blog written by the host of the BBC program In Our Time. Here are his comments on the 2013 segment on Ice Ages, in which Francis participated with two other scientists (i thought this was an extremely interesting program). BTW the reference to "close call" and "merciful release" from a relevant contemporary conversation is part of the host's (Melvyn Bragg) shtick that his program never covers current events:

"It was a close call. After the programme Jane Francis and Carrie Lear continued to talk about the climbing count of CO2 which was pumping up global warming, in their opinion, which would lead most dramatically to mass flooding. On the programme Richard Corfield did not join in very enthusiastically, pointing out that the CO2 count had been at least twice as high quite recently (geologically speaking) and even higher than that a bit before recently. The situation was beginning to develop into a relevant, contemporary conversation about climate change and the final bell was a merciful release. There was no thought of the ingenuity of men and women combating what would be a gradual increase (if it happens) of rising sea levels - we could have looked at the Dutch in the sixteenth century onwards. But I strayed from my task.

The grim conclusion of Jane Francis was never to buy or rent a house on a flood plain, always to buy or rent a house on a hill, or take a tent, or anything, as long as it's on a hill and, I think Richard Corfield added, fortify it. Well, well.

Link

--------------------------
So not only does yoboi's chosen source misstate and misinterpret scientific information, it falsely frames Dr Francis as a denier.

Are we surprised?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 950. VAbeachhurricanes:
Yeah that is what I meant, I was curious if the numbers were just completely fabricated. Thanks.
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 931. Patrap:
Not much good against sea level rise, but then he (and I) will be long gone by 2100.

Hang on, some research shows if we 50 plus can hold another 20-25 years, we could go on much longer.

That should rattle some of the "yute's" here


.

: )


Alright Yoda...but it'll cost you some for me to explain the new technology to ya in 25 years.

:-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 902. ARiot:


I agree, but think about this.

Let's find an example when a government didn't use more authoritarian policy measures to solve a crisis?

Wait. I can't think of any.

While it's true that when we "want" something, we throw piles of money at a few people (see NASA), but when TSHTF, we go authoritarian. Everyone does.

Depression - Check
WWII - Check
GWOT - Check

You name it, anything since the industrial age that has been really threatening has been answered in one way, not becuase it's the best way but because we had no options.

So yeah, we could naitonalize fossil fuel industries right now to begin the smooth and orderly trasition to alternatives on a 50 year timeline.

But we won't.

We're all about waiting until TSHTF.


To be fair, those may have been authoritarian, but voted on and reactionary. We don't do authoritarian preventative, unless it's "national security theatre". see: Patriot Act
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 965. yoboi:


So you are saying just because something is peer reviewed that it is correct???


No, what I am saying is that if a study is peer-reviewed and found to properly adhere to the strict principles of inductive logic found in modern-day research methods, then it can be considered scientifically valid.

Science is not rigid or unshakable. It is self-correcting, and inaccurate hypotheses can become obsolete through peer-review and continuing theorization and experimentation.

However, until one uses the scientific process and peer review to demonstrate that the current standing science is somehow inaccurate, they cannot move forward and demand their opinions and biases be refuted.

Good luck with that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Archive's are like lil reminders of the "duh" in all of us.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
965. yoboi
Quoting 964. Daisyworld:


No, yoboi. There is no possible way you are "sticking to the science". Science requires substantial peer review of every single research project in order to be considered valid, and as you clearly pointed out in Dr. Masters' blog last September, you do not give credence to the peer review process. In fact, you hold it in disdain:



So you are saying just because something is peer reviewed that it is correct???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 961. yoboi:



Well.....I am just going to stick with the science....I showed a study backed by peer reviewed papers....This is just the tip of the iceberg.....I have a mountain of evidence that I will be providing......


No, yoboi. There is no possible way you are "sticking to the science". Science requires substantial peer review of every single research project in order to be considered valid, and as you clearly pointed out in Dr. Masters' blog last September, you do not give credence to the peer review process. In fact, you hold it in disdain:

Quoting 60. yoboi (in Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog entry #2536):


the peer review process is a joke today...it's no diffrent than going to a bar and getting a beer then ask all the drunk guys is the beer good at this place......laughing stock is what it is......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 961. yoboi:



Well.....I am just going to stick with the science....I showed a study backed by peer reviewed papers....This is just the tip of the iceberg.....I have a mountain of evidence that I will be providing......

And I showed a handful of peer-reviewed papers that refuted the claim in the one sorry paper you like. Many of them published after the sorry paper.

Scientifically, you're way behind.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.

The following article is courtesy of nigel20:

!!! In the Caribbean, Fighting Climate Change With Entrepreneurship An excellent article! Short but about something I think will be important.

************************************************* ************************************************** *******

Keystone Foe Tom Steyer Urges Review of 'Defective' Analysis


* Graphene circuit's wireless promise


Warmth spurs plants to move or bloom earlier

!!! Dramatic thinning of Arctic lake ice cuts winter ice season by 24 days compared to 1950

*** Pesticides increase risk for Parkinson's disease: Certain people may be more susceptible

!!! Greenland's fastest glacier reaches record speeds


* Written all over your face: Humans express four basic emotions rather than six

* Greenhouse 'time machine' sheds light on corn domestication

Big chill to understand quark-gluon plasma of early universe

New understanding could result in more efficient organic solar cells

!!! Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say scientists Discuss.

To calculate long-term conservation pay off, factor in people

* GE misstated chemical harm to NY's Hudson River: federal trustees

Truck in the snow: Warming to hit future Winter Games

Georgia asks Supreme Court to reject Florida water suit

Alaska Editorials

White Houses' Chief of Staff Denis McDonough vague on Keystone next steps

To Study Male Aggression, a Fight Club for Flies


*** In the End, It All Adds Up to minus 1/12

TechKnow 123: A machine keeps lungs breathing, and tracking shark behavior

************************************************* ************************************************** *******

The following articles are courtesy of etxwx:

!!! In China's war on bad air, government decision to release data gives fresh hope

Anti-Regulation Politics May Have Hurt Energy Industry

*** Without Keystone, oil trains may cause six deaths per year: U.S. State Department report


Keystone Ardor Cools Among Producers With More Options

Old idea for new rail safety problem: slow down trains carrying crude

Proposed pipeline biggest in company history (and nope, it's not Keystone)

*** California farmers brace for drought, unemployment

Pennsylvania inventors work on 'radical reuse' for bottles

* South Texas ant variety may fend off invasive ants
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
961. yoboi
Quoting 960. Birthmark:

Yeah, so? Surely you know that good information can be used to arrive at an incorrect conclusion? You do it often enough. :)



Well.....I am just going to stick with the science....I showed a study backed by peer reviewed papers....This is just the tip of the iceberg.....I have a mountain of evidence that I will be providing......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 959. yoboi:


they were used for the scientific study....

Yeah, so? Surely you know that good information can be used to arrive at an incorrect conclusion? You do it often enough. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
959. yoboi
Quoting 957. Birthmark:

You don't know what "references" means, do you? lol

Hint: It doesn't mean those papers listed agree with the study. The references may not even support the claims in the study -for example, the references can be misused, misinterpreted, or pieces of the references can be cherry picked. Even if used correctly, though, the references have little bearing on whether the study is correct.


they were used for the scientific study....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 956. yoboi:



By all means feel free to refute all the sources that I provided.....


Why should I? Some of them are completely legitimate peer-reviewed sources. Just because they were added to a scientifically-invalid study doesn't make the study itself any more legitimate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 956. yoboi:



By all means feel free to refute all the sources that I provided.....

You don't know what "references" means, do you? lol

Hint: It doesn't mean those papers listed agree with the study. The references may not even support the claims in the study -for example, the references can be misused, misinterpreted, or pieces of the references can be cherry picked. Even if used correctly, though, the references have little bearing on whether the study is correct.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
956. yoboi
Quoting 955. Daisyworld:


Adding references to a scientifically invalid study does not make it any more truthful.



By all means feel free to refute all the sources that I provided.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 954. yoboi:


[...]

this is the reference list for post 940


Adding references to a scientifically invalid study does not make it any more truthful.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
954. yoboi
Quoting 953. Daisyworld:


It cannot be refuted, because it is not scientifically valid in the first place.




References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.


2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine


this is the reference list for post 940
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 951. yoboi:


When are you going to refute post 940?????


It cannot be refuted, because it is not scientifically valid in the first place.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 951. yoboi:


When are you going to refute post 940?????

I already did. Daisyworld did, too, with NOAA as a source.

Making believe it wasn't refuted is silly.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
951. yoboi
Quoting 947. Birthmark:

Irrelevant since the carbon cycle is capable of absorbing all natural sources of atmospheric carbon, along with a majority of the man-made contribution. But it cannot absorb all of the man-made emissions. It is that excess which is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.


When are you going to refute post 940?????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 944. Daisyworld:


What's wrong with it is that it's a flat out lie. This has less to do with statistics, than it has to do with applied scientific measurements of atmospheric gasses.

The fingerprint of humans on the rising CO2 is very clear, and it's 50-100 times that of natural volcanic origin. The evidence is:

(1) Measurements of the CO2 output from both volcanoes and fossil fuel burning show that fossil fuel burning far exceeds that of present-day volcanoes. (Link)

(2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to a decrease in atmospheric O2, which shows that the CO2 is being created from combustion. (Link)

(3) The carbon isotope signature of the CO2 shows an increase in 12C, which comes from living organisms. There's NO relevant increase in 13C, which comes from melting rocks (volcanoes), and NO increase in 14C, which comes from recently dead living organisms. Therefore, the carbon in CO2 is coming from once living organisms that have been dead for a very long time… aka fossil fuels. (Link)

I've posted it before, and I'll post it again. Dr. Richard Alley says it best:



Yeah that is what I meant, I was curious if the numbers were just completely fabricated. Thanks.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6705
The annual carbon budget, by the numbers:

Net sources of carbon dioxide have a positive (+) sign in the chart above, while net sinks have a negative (-) sign. Total, when you add up all of the carbon entering the atmosphere and subtract all of the carbon leaving the atmosphere, you find that more carbon dioxide is added to our atmosphere each year. However, without net sinks, this value would be twice as large!

Source: NOAA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 929. Birthmark:

What math would that be? You've been asked this frequently...still waiting for a substantive reply from you.

Why you "10%" claim isn't deleted as trolling at this point is a bit of a mystery.


At Tamino's Horatio Algeranon uses the words of Ian Anderson to demonstrate the problems of deniers:


"Really don’t mind if you sit this one out.
My words but a whisper — your denseness a shout.
I may make you peel but I can’t make you think.
Your quant’s in the gutter — your stocks in the sink.
So you ride roughshod o’er sea-ice fields and
You make all your animal* appeals and
Your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick.

*fawns, stags, monkeys
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Quoting 940. yoboi:









Link

Irrelevant since the carbon cycle is capable of absorbing all natural sources of atmospheric carbon, along with a majority of the man-made contribution. But it cannot absorb all of the man-made emissions. It is that excess which is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 933. yoboi:

Nope. They're wrong. Here's why:

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Try again.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 932. FLwolverine:
Oh, because we need to hear both sides of the debate............

You know ...... If we can change just one mind .......

Fat chance!


What Debate? There is no Debate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 941. VAbeachhurricanes:
Reading yoboi's paper I am genuinely curious. What is wrong with it statistically?
Is it just plain wrong numbers wise?


What's wrong with it is that it's a flat out lie. This has less to do with statistics, than it has to do with applied scientific measurements of atmospheric gasses.

The fingerprint of humans on the rising CO2 is very clear, and it's 50-100 times that of natural volcanic origin. The evidence is:

(1) Measurements of the CO2 output from both volcanoes and fossil fuel burning show that fossil fuel burning far exceeds that of present-day volcanoes. (Link)

(2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to a decrease in atmospheric O2, which shows that the CO2 is being created from combustion. (Link)

(3) The carbon isotope signature of the CO2 shows an increase in 12C, which comes from living organisms. There's NO relevant increase in 13C, which comes from melting rocks (volcanoes), and NO increase in 14C, which comes from recently dead living organisms. Therefore, the carbon in CO2 is coming from once living organisms that have been dead for a very long time… aka fossil fuels. (Link)

I've posted it before, and I'll post it again. Dr. Richard Alley says it best:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 994 - 944

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.