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: 694 - 644

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

694. yoboi
Quoting 691. Neapolitan:
There are a lot of inane, illogical, and baseless claims made here in this forum by the anti-science sub-group, but that bit about how "man can't influence the climate by more than 10%" may take the cake. How completely and remarkably out of touch with reality would a person have to be to make such an insipid claim?



Well if we are talking about "reality"....I would say using the term "man" and not including "women" also is very reckless with comprehension......That's why I use the term "Humans"......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
Quoting 689. Neapolitan:
30 or 40 years from now, we'll be reminiscing with our old friends some evening about how silly we were thinking that 1998 was the hottest year ever...


More like 3 or 4 years would be closer..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 673. Physicistretired:


From GRACE satellite measurements:



From 2003 to 2012, East Antarctica ice mass was +97 +/- 13 Gigatonnes (Gt) per year, and West Antarctica ice mass was −159 +/- 9 Gt per year- for a total annual loss of −58 ± 16 Gt per year.

That loss is accelerating, at the rate of −15 +/- 13 Gt per year.

On a side note, scientists don't 'believe' Antarctica is loosing ice (very poor wording on the part of the NSIDC, IMO). Scientists don't 'believe', period.

They accept empirical data, like that generated by GRACE, or they refute it. 'Belief' has nothing to do with science.



That's correct...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
There are a lot of inane, illogical, and baseless claims made here in this forum by the anti-science sub-group, but that bit about how "man can't influence the climate by more than 10%" may take the cake. How completely and remarkably out of touch with reality would a person have to be to make such an insipid claim?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 689. Neapolitan:
30 or 40 years from now, we'll be reminiscing with our old friends some evening about how silly we were thinking that 1998 was the hottest year ever...

...or even a hot year.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 686. Birthmark:

The interesting thing in that table is that we now have several years warmer than 1998. I remember how outrageously hot 1998 was compared to previous years. A graph of the UAH temperature data set illustrates this:



Now 1998's warmth is just one of several years. It's no longer extraordinary.
30 or 40 years from now, we'll be reminiscing with our old friends some evening about how silly we were thinking that 1998 was the hottest year ever...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 687. yoboi:



And humans can not influence/cause/impact the climate by more than 10%.....

You have never supported that claim with any published science. I suspect the reason for that is that no such published science exists.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
687. yoboi
Quoting 685. Xulonn:
Regarding local vs regional vs global weather and climate.

Quite frankly, it is my opinion that it is appropriate to post about and discuss any of these topics. This is particularly true in the context of trying to understand the possible relationship of these weather events and local or regional climate patterns to the global picture.

The problems arise when people attempt to extrapolate individual local and regional weather events to global trends - which they are not. They are simply pieces of a complex puzzle.

Trying to tease out the details of what is "influenced" by AGW/CC, what is natural variation or noise, and how much of each influence is involved, is extremely complex and difficult.

Unfortunately, "influence" is a word that AGW/CC denialists, living in their little world of ignorance, confirmation bias and exercising of their Dunning-Kruger rights, seem to think is synonymous with "cause." And most AGW/CC denialists seem to be intellectually incapable of dealing with confidence levels and probabilities, insisting on black and white explanations that are not possible or realistic.



And humans can not influence/cause/impact the climate by more than 10%.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
Quoting 676. JohnLonergan:
Global temperature 2013 analysis from RealClimate

The global temperature data for 2013 are now published. 2010 and 2005 remain the warmest years since records began in the 19th Century. 1998 ranks third in two records, and in the analysis of Cowtan & Way, which interpolates the data-poor region in the Arctic with a better method, 2013 is warmer than 1998 (even though 1998 was a record El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral).

The end of January, when the temperature measurements of the previous year are in, is always the time to take a look at the global temperature trend. (And, as the Guardian noted aptly, also the time where the %u201Cclimate science denialists feverishly yell [...] that global warming stopped in 1998.%u201D) Here is the ranking of the warmest years in the four available data sets of the global near-surface temperatures (1):



More ...

The interesting thing in that table is that we now have several years warmer than 1998. I remember how outrageously hot 1998 was compared to previous years. A graph of the UAH temperature data set illustrates this:



Now 1998's warmth is just one of several years. It's no longer extraordinary.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Regarding local vs regional vs global weather and climate.

Quite frankly, it is my opinion that it is appropriate to post about and discuss any of these topics. This is particularly true in the context of trying to understand the possible relationship of these weather events and local or regional climate patterns to the global picture.

The problems arise when people attempt to extrapolate individual local and regional weather events to global trends - which they are not. They are simply pieces of a complex puzzle.

Trying to tease out the details of what is "influenced" by AGW/CC, what is natural variation or noise, and how much of each influence is involved, is extremely complex and difficult.

Unfortunately, "influence" is a word that AGW/CC denialists, living in their little world of ignorance, confirmation bias and exercising of their Dunning-Kruger rights, seem to think is synonymous with "cause." And most AGW/CC denialists seem to be intellectually incapable of dealing with confidence levels and probabilities, insisting on black and white explanations that are not possible or realistic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From The Guardian:

If we don't put people before profits, spills like West Virginia are our future
Stronger regulation of the coal and chemical industries are the only way to ensure clean water and healthy communities

The dirty secret in President Obama's "all-of-the-above" energy policy was quietly overlooked in his State of the Union address.

Three weeks after global media attention on the West Virginia coal-chemical disaster, the most important line of information still remains buried in an AP report:

…[A] review of federal environmental enforcement records shows that nearly three-quarters of the 1,727 coal mines listed haven't been inspected in the past five years to see if they are obeying water pollution laws. Also, 13% of the fossil-fuel fired power plants are not complying with the Clean Water Act.

Translation: with federal and state blessing, the coal industry under President Obama is free to operate in a continual state of violation.

In the meantime, in the latest episode in West Virginia's coal-chemical debacle, state officials announced on Wednesday that residents affected by the latest coal-chemical disaster are inhaling formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

"There is never peace in West Virginia," labor organizer Mary "Mother" Jones famously said nearly 100 years ago, "because there is never justice."

More ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3363
RECONSTRUCTED DATA RANKS 2013 HOTTER THAN 1998

Last year was even hotter than 1998, the year of the most recent major El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event, according to a reanalysis of global temperature data designed to plug gaps in measurements in the sparsely monitored polar regions.

Climate scientists Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa produced the new reconstruction using the UK Meteorological Office's HadCRUT4 global temperature record combined with satellite data and a clever data analysis technique.

This reconstruction ranks 2013 as the fifth warmest year on record and it ranks 1998 in seventh place, even though 2013 did not include an El Nino event like that seen in 1998. The original Met Office HadCRUT4 time series ranks 2013 as tied in sixth place behind 1998 in third place. Similarly, the temperature records maintained by US government agencies NASA, known as GISTEMP, and NOAA's NCDC place 1998 above 2013.




Read more ...

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3363
This is a cross-post from Dr. Masters's forum.

The water situation in California is pretty dire--in fact, more dire than many might think at the moment. Here are a few select snippets from a news report about yesterday's announcement by the state's largest water distributor:

California officials forecast ‘zero’ water deliveries

State officials announced Friday that 29 water agencies serving 25 million people across California can expect "zero" water deliveries from the State Water Project this summer because of the worsening drought.

Although that delivery projection could change, it is the first time a “zero allocation” forecast has been made in the 54-year history of the State Water Project, which is operated by the California Department of Water Resources and typically delivers Sierra snowmelt to cities and farms throughout the state.

---

(Other limited water sources are available, but) [e]ven so, the announcement assures further conservation measures will be required, and may press some farmers to fallow land. Farms consume about three-fourths of California’s freshwater supply.

---

“This is the most serious drought we’ve faced in modern times,” said Felicia Marcus, chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control Board, which approved the emergency measures. “We will have to collaborate our way through this as never before.”

State and federal officials announced that starting today, water diversions from the Delta, a crucial wildlife habitat and California’s largest freshwater source, will be minimized to serve only urban areas and health and safety purposes. No water will be diverted for farms.

---

“Today’s action means everyone will get less water as a result,” said DWR director Mark Cowin. “There’s simply not enough to go around.”

---

“I never though in my entire career I’d see a zero allocation,” said Jim Beck, general manager of the Kern County Water Agency.

Beck has worked for the agency for 30 years. It is the largest agricultural water contractor in the State Water Project system and also serves urban areas including Bakersfield, Taft and Tehachapi. He said farmers will be able to draw from a vast groundwater banking system operated by the agency and, in some cases, from private wells.

But that water won’t go far enough, he said, and many farmers will be in “survival mode” this year.

“Our growers are going to have to make really tough decisions on which crops they can fallow and which trees or vines they can take out of production,” Beck said.

---

Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, worries that the emergency changes, along with the drought itself, could push some imperiled Delta fish species toward extinction.

“Yes, fish are going to suffer. Population crashes occur during these periods,” Jennings said. “We can cast blame, but we’re in this situation and they don’t have a lot of leeway. Everybody’s going to pay a price this year.


---------------------------------------------

A person doesn't need to be a scientist to understand the seriousness of the situation; a person doesn't need to be a radical environmentalist to grasp the effect the drought will have on the state's flora and fauna; a person doesn't need to be an economist to get what the drought could do to their pocketbook. No, pretty much anyone who lives in California--or has relatives who live in California, or buys things grown or manufactured in California, or uses the services of companies located in California--is going to understand this thing before it's over.

(At the very least, it looks like I may be forced to make the financial decision to stop buying California's awesome avocados, navel oranges, strawberries, pistachios, and almonds. And that's the best-case scenario; I fear the direct effects on many of us will be far greater.)

[NOTE to denialists. 1) Nowhere in the above comment is climate change mentioned. 2) Yes, California has had droughts before. 3) Yes, this p[articular drought will probably end sometime: next week, next month, next year, next decade, whenever. 4) A torrential, flooding rain somewhere else does NOT "offset" or "balance out" or "make up for" the California drought.]
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 673. Physicistretired:
.............On a side note, scientists don't 'believe' Antarctica is loosing ice (very poor wording on the part of the NSIDC, IMO). Scientists don't 'believe', period.

They accept empirical data, like that generated by GRACE, or they refute it. 'Belief' has nothing to do with science.
Agreed. "Believe" is a tricky word. Diane Rehm, an otherwise excellent interviewer on NPR, is always asking her guests "do you believe..." It drives me crazy, because the context almost always shows that she means "are you convinced?" or "what is your opinion?" or "how do you analyze this?" She's almost never asking if the guest has faith or trust.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387
Quoting 677. JohnLonergan:

A lack of reading comprehension skills is a necessary attribute for deniers, coupled with an inate confirmation bias it makes them impervious to facts.


Don't forget narcissism.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2552
Quoting 675. ColoradoBob1:
North Atlantic Ramping up to ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ to set off Major Flood Event for Tempest-Tossed England?

Link


Floods and snowstorms hit Europe

Hundreds of people have been forced to evacuate their homes in the Italian city of Pisa as the Arno River threatens to burst its banks. Italian police footage, filmed from a helicopter, showed fields flooded and houses isolated by muddy water.

Meanwhile in northern Serbia, strong winds forming snowdrifts have blocked roads and disrupted energy supplies. Soldiers and special police were deployed Friday to help evacuate dozens of people stranded in cars and buses on the blocked roads.
Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2552
Quoting 668. yoboi:
Now we use Global models???? or Regional??? Please have an Alarmist conference so I can proceed....TIA
As I'm sure you very well know, we're talking right now about data, not models. All kinds of weather and climate data get analyzed (I think weather geeks are right up there with sports fanatics in their love of stats). The problem is when people like Curry and Spencer and Willard Watts and you start twisting the data and the analyses to prove your "beliefs".
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387
Quoting 667. FLwolverine:
663 - gee, this comment (649) seems to have a wide application to the deniers amongst us: "Your lack of reading comprehension skills is nothing short of stunning."

A lack of reading comprehension skills is a necessary attribute for deniers, coupled with an inate confirmation bias it makes them impervious to facts.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3363
Global temperature 2013 analysis from RealClimate

The global temperature data for 2013 are now published. 2010 and 2005 remain the warmest years since records began in the 19th Century. 1998 ranks third in two records, and in the analysis of Cowtan & Way, which interpolates the data-poor region in the Arctic with a better method, 2013 is warmer than 1998 (even though 1998 was a record El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral).

The end of January, when the temperature measurements of the previous year are in, is always the time to take a look at the global temperature trend. (And, as the Guardian noted aptly, also the time where the “climate science denialists feverishly yell [...] that global warming stopped in 1998.”) Here is the ranking of the warmest years in the four available data sets of the global near-surface temperatures (1):



More ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3363
North Atlantic Ramping up to ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ to set off Major Flood Event for Tempest-Tossed England?

Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2552
São Paulo's average maximum daily temperature in January through Friday was 31.9 degrees Celsius (89.4 degrees Fahrenheit), a degree hotter than the previous January record and surpassing February 1984 as the city's hottest month ever, according to INMET, Brazil's national meteorological institute.

Meanwhile, a high pressure system has blocked normal tropical afternoon rains during what is usually the year's wettest month. São Paulo's main reservoir is now at less than a quarter of its capacity, a 10-year low.

Meteorologists aren't hopeful for a change anytime soon.

"This is the hottest, driest January we've ever had ... and there isn't much hope for this heat to stop in the next two weeks," said Celso Oliveira, meteorologist for Somar weather service.

Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2552
Quoting 641. yoboi:



Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice..."

hmmm.....


From GRACE satellite measurements:



From 2003 to 2012, East Antarctica ice mass was +97 +/- 13 Gigatonnes (Gt) per year, and West Antarctica ice mass was −159 +/- 9 Gt per year- for a total annual loss of −58 ± 16 Gt per year.

That loss is accelerating, at the rate of −15 +/- 13 Gt per year.

On a side note, scientists don't 'believe' Antarctica is loosing ice (very poor wording on the part of the NSIDC, IMO). Scientists don't 'believe', period.

They accept empirical data, like that generated by GRACE, or they refute it. 'Belief' has nothing to do with science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 653. iceagecoming:




Judith Curry: The Case Of The Missing Heat

Date: 20/01/14
/blockquote>


You might want to change the date here.
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
Quoting 656. iceagecoming:


Global Cooling News





Localized Area, not World-wide.
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
Quoting 619. iceagecoming:
Met Office global forecasts too warm in 13 of last 14 years

by Paul Hudson,

Monday 27 January 2014, 18:09


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

Hmmmm???? Could it be agenda driven?


It really all depends on if he was referring to localized, national, regional or world-wide areas.

Now we all know that 2012 was the warmest on record, especially for the U.S.

Take Central California for example,(regional) 2011 was one of the coldest years since the 1970s. On our local mountains in San Jose, we had a snow pack and it lasted for two months above the elevation of 2800 feet. All the years prior no snow pack. On April 8 at 1:45am a very light dusting of snow fell in my location in South San Jose, covered 12 miles. (localized) The snow stayed on the ground for a few hours and the temperature was 39*F (seven above freezing). I video taped this unusual weather event and saved a snowball. It was not reported by weather or news because of the time of day. A side note: an hour before the snow arrived it was extremely windy from the north close to 60 mph. When the snow arrived no wind.

Sincerely,
Dave
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
Quoting 415. PedleyCA:


Conditions are looking better up your way for rain. Hope you get some, we only got a 20% chance down South and it doesn't look like anything is lining up to offer up any relief.



Hello PedleyCA

On Thursday Morning before daybreak, South San Jose, CA. received 0.10 of measurable rainfall. It was enough to wet the streets and sidewalks, the soil remained dry. This same weather front brought a fair amount of snow in the Sierra Nevada above the 5800 foot level but it's a start. There is another weather front coming to Central California on Sunday February 2nd with precipitation, colder temperatures and lowering snow levels.

Sincerely,
Dave
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
668. yoboi
Quoting 666. FLwolverine:
I think goosegirl missed the discussions the other night and thinks you are a contrarian like yoboi et al, trying to present some regional stats to disprove global warming. From what you've said before, I gather you are fascinated by statistics and are not trying to prove or disprove anything.

Ignore what yoboi says; he likes to stir up trouble.



Now we use Global models???? or Regional??? Please have an Alarmist conference so I can proceed....TIA
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
663 - gee, this comment (649) seems to have a wide application to the deniers amongst us: "Your lack of reading comprehension skills is nothing short of stunning."
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387
Quoting 664. VAbeachhurricanes:
I'm confused by what you are challenging?
I think goosegirl missed the discussions the other night and thinks you are a contrarian like yoboi et al, trying to present some regional stats to disprove global warming. From what you've said before, I gather you are fascinated by statistics and are not trying to prove or disprove anything.

Ignore what yoboi says; he likes to stir up trouble.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387
665. yoboi
Quoting 664. VAbeachhurricanes:


I'm confused by what you are challenging?



They are saying you are cherry picking data to run....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
Quoting 660. goosegirl1:


And here we go again- did you see that Daisyworld's link said "global"?


I'm confused by what you are challenging?
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6599
663. yoboi
Quoting 660. goosegirl1:


And here we go again- did you see that Daisyworld's link said "global"?




536. Birthmark 1:19 AM GMT on January 31, 2014 +11








Quoting 535. yoboi:


It's only important for 1 region and why??? With Climate Change you need to look at things on a global scale.....Not cherry picked regions.....

The Arctic isn't a cherry picked region. It is an area that has a profound effect on the weather of the Northern Hemisphere -where most people live. The Arctic sea ice, therefore, is of utmost interest.

The Antarctic sea ice surrounds ~14 million sqkm of land ice. Even if all Antarctic sea ice melts out, there is still all that land ice. It should also be remembered that that land ice is losing mass, too, but that's not terribly important...yet. (Antarctic sea ice was predicted to increase around 20 years ago, btw, so the increase isn't a big surprise.)

When the Arctic sea ice melts out in summer, which will happen somewhere between fairly soon and very soon, that pretty much only leaves Greenland's less than 2 million sqkm of land ice in the NH. (Arctic sea ice was predicted to decrease 30 or more years ago, so it isn't a surprise, either.)

So there are very valid reasons for treating the two areas differently.
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
Someday's, dontcha get this feeling here about the er, contrarian's view ?



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128764
661. yoboi
Quoting 660. goosegirl1:


And here we go again- did you see that Daisyworld's link said "global"?


Did you see birthmark and others we use regional now and not global.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
Quoting 659. VAbeachhurricanes:
Last 365 Days All-time Records Broken in USA:

High Temp Max: 32
High Temp Min: 41
Low Temp Max: 10
Low Temp Min: 2
Precipitation: 60
Snow: 97

Source: Link


And here we go again- did you see that Daisyworld's link said "global"?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Last 365 Days All-time Records Broken in USA:

High Temp Max: 32
High Temp Min: 41
Low Temp Max: 10
Low Temp Min: 2
Precipitation: 60
Snow: 97

Source: Link
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6599
Quoting 657. Daisyworld:


How soon we forget....

(rank) (year) Anomaly �C Anomaly�F
1 2010 0.66 1.19
2 2005 0.65 1.17
3 1998 0.63 1.13
4 (tie)* 2013 0.62 1.12
4 (tie)* 2003 0.62 1.12
6 2002 0.61 1.10
7 2006 0.60 1.08
8 (tie)* 2009 0.59 1.07
8 (tie)* 2007 0.59 1.06
10 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.04
10 (tie) 2012 0.57 1.03

Link


How long you think it would take to get a set on monthly temperature records for each state, lows and highs? I would love to run regression analysis on that.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6599
Quoting 656. iceagecoming:
[...]


Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth



How soon we forget....

(rank) (year) Anomaly C AnomalyF
1 2010 0.66 1.19
2 2005 0.65 1.17
3 1998 0.63 1.13
4 (tie)* 2013 0.62 1.12
4 (tie)* 2003 0.62 1.12
6 2002 0.61 1.10
7 2006 0.60 1.08
8 (tie)* 2009 0.59 1.07
8 (tie)* 2007 0.59 1.06
10 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.04
10 (tie) 2012 0.57 1.03

Link
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 857
No More Keystone Excuses
Obama's choice: the green 1% or new and well-paying union jobs.
Updated Jan. 31, 2014 6:41 p.m. ET

The Obama Administration has spent 1,960 days studying the potential impact of the Keystone XL pipeline project—nearly five and a half years, or 1/20th of a century. The fifth environmental report on the pipeline that the State Department published late Friday afternoon ought to be the last word, unless President Obama decides to bow again to his rich green funders.

Global Cooling News

Link




Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 653. iceagecoming:


... (Common Use Judith Curry Denialist Holy Grail Text) ...



Quotes by Judith Curry, Climate Misinformer

CLIMATE MYTH:
"I suspect that the higher level of belief among ocean sciences and particularly geophysics represents second order belief (i.e. support for a perceived consensus) rather than personal research on AGW detection/attribution or a careful survey of the literature. How to square this with the oft reported 97% consensus? Well, 'climate scientists' in these surveys typically includes economists, ecologists etc., nearly all probably representing second order belief."
10 November 2013 (Source)

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS:
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

CLIMATE MYTH:
"the narrative of the 'spiral of death' for the sea ice has been broken ... It remains unclear as to what extent the decline in sea ice over the past decades is caused by natural variability versus greenhouse warming. Whether the increase in 2013 is a one year blip in a longer declining trend, or whether it portends a break in this trend remains to be seen."
10 September 2013 (Source)

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS:
A one-year increase in Arctic sea ice extent is short-term noise caused by weather, and is not indivative of a long-term recovery from the rapid human-caused decline.

CLIMATE MYTH:
"This is 'hide the decline' stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline"
30 October 2011 (Source)

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS:
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.

CLIMATE MYTH:
"I just finished listening to Murry Salby%u2019s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow. [...] If Salby%u2019s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."
4 August 2011 (Source)

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS:
Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

CLIMATE MYTH:
"There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record....It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest"
22 February 2011 (Source)

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS:
The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.

And of course:

CLIMATE MYTH:
"I certainly agree that the PDO is probably a crucial piece of the puzzle". . . (Paraphrasing the position): "The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a temperature pattern in the Pacific Ocean that spends roughly 20-30 years in the cool phase or the warm phase. In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase. In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase. In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase. In 1998, PDO showed a few cool years. Note that the cool phases seem to coincide with the periods of cooling (1946-1977) and the warm phases seem to coincide with periods of warming (1905-1946, 1977-1998)." (The Reference Frame)

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS:
The PDO is an oscillation with no trend. It moves the heat through different part of the climate system but can not create nor retain heat. It cannot be the cause of a long term warming trend.

Conclusion: Judith Curry has performed a disservice to humanity by denouncing her credibility through abandonment of her scientific principles of inductive reasoning.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 857
Quoting 652. LowerCal:
LOL!


... and on a hopeful note:
Today the U.S. State Department released its final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Keystone XL pipeline permit application. As Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have directed Committee staff to review the EIS line by line.

I will not be satisfied with any analysis that does not accurately document what is really happening on the ground when it comes to the extraction, transport, refining, and waste disposal of dirty, filthy tar sands oil. My biggest concerns continue to be the serious health impacts on communities and the dangerous carbon pollution that comes from tar sands oil.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator


I agree. Hopefully she tears this down to the studs.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 642. JohnLonergan:
Not really, Paul Hudson is a minor league denier from Great Britain. I found a couple of references to him at The Stoat's 1. misrepresenting a paper by Mike Lockwood (here) and 2, promoting the same "it stopped warming in 1998" garbage as above on his personal blog. He didn't provide any backup in either of the two cases above, just his own assertions.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."




About Paul Hudson

I worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for nearly 15 years locally and at the international unit, after graduating with first class honours in Geophysics and Planetary physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1992. I then joined the BBC in October 2007, where I divide my time between forecasting and reporting on stories about climate change and its implications for people's everyday lives.


Judith Curry: The Case Of The Missing Heat

Date: 20/01/14
Judith Curry, Climate Etc.

The global warming ‘pause’ has now gone mainstream, even though the IPCC did its level best to downplay it.

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. – Jeff Tollefson

Nature has a News and Views piece entitled Climate Change: The Case of the Missing Heat (complete article is available online). Some excerpts:

Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled. For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.

JC comment: My, my. Recall David Rose’s article in Oct 2012 on the pause, claiming that global warming had stopped, and the pushback against Rose’s article. The pause has now gone mainstream with this article in Nature, even in the IPCC did its level best to downplay it.

Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

JC comment: Now, no one understands the cause of the pause, but climate scientists say the heat is hiding in the ocean. My next post will be on ocean heat content, so I’m not getting into this here. The competing explanation (the ‘denier’ one, I guess since I don’t hear mainstream climate scientists mentioning this) is that the heat never made it into the system, possibly related to changing cloud patterns or properties that reflected more solar radiation.

But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Others say that this conclusion goes against the long-term temperature trends, as well as palaeoclimate data that are used to extend the temperature record far into the past. And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate.

JC comment: Size matters here, i.e. the length of the hiatus. Depending on when you start counting, this hiatus has lasted 16 years. Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small. If the 20 year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large. Further, 20 years is approaching the length of the warming period from 1976-2000 that is the main smoking gun for AGW.

This has led skeptics – and some scientists - . . . Rather scary that Nature does not seem to acknowledge that skepticism is one of the norms of science, and regards ‘skeptics’ and ‘scientists’ are mutually exclusive groups.

“If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

JC comment: People are interested in climate change on all sorts of time scales, including decadal. Solomon should have stated that if you are interested in the climate response to a long-term secular buildup of greenhouse gases, then your main focus should be timescales of 50-100 years. I agree with this. And if you look at the last 100 years, you have that other inconvenient pause to explain: 1940-1975. With the reduction in sensitivity to aerosol forcing, the aerosol explanation for this earlier pause no longer holds up. Stadium wave dynamics can explain both the 1940-1975 and the current hiatus; a further inference is that warming of 1976-2000 was enhanced by natural climate variability.

This variation in ocean temperature, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), may be a crucial piece of the hiatus puzzle.

JC comment: I certainly agree that the PDO is probably a crucial piece of the puzzle, but one of the quickest ways to get labeled as a ‘denier’ has been to argue that the PDO in its warm phase contributed to the 1976-2000 warming.

“You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.

JC comment: Well that is an interesting ‘forecast.’ If this is natural internal variability, e.g. the stadium wave (which includes the PDO), then you would expect warming to resume at some point (I’ve argued this might be in the 2030′s). This would make the hiatus 30+ years (similar in length to the pevious hiatus from 1940 to 1975). This is long enough to invalidate the utility of the current climate models for projecting future climate change.

And about the missing heat reappearing, well stay tuned for my next post on ocean heat content.



Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 649. AlwaysThinkin:


Your lack of reading comprehension skills is nothing short of stunning. You linked to a news story about what the State Department's environmental review found, not their opinion of it. Here, if you're looking for where you'd find what the editorial board at the LA Times thinks about news stories this would be the place. Please stop wasting our time with your mindless crap. Thank You
LOL!


... and on a hopeful note:
Today the U.S. State Department released its final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Keystone XL pipeline permit application. As Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have directed Committee staff to review the EIS line by line.

I will not be satisfied with any analysis that does not accurately document what is really happening on the ground when it comes to the extraction, transport, refining, and waste disposal of dirty, filthy tar sands oil. My biggest concerns continue to be the serious health impacts on communities and the dangerous carbon pollution that comes from tar sands oil.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RAP data on US temps this month.


Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6599
650. yoboi
Quoting 644. FLwolverine:
We've already established that you don't understand satire, so don't worry about this comment.



Satire is what they are calling it these days???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
Quoting 627. Cochise111:


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

Link


Your lack of reading comprehension skills is nothing short of stunning. You linked to a news story about what the State Department's environmental review found, not their opinion of it. Here, if you're looking for where you'd find what the editorial board at the LA Times thinks about news stories this would be the place. Please stop wasting our time with your mindless crap. Thank You
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 646. Some1Has2BtheRookie:
The LA Times reported on the State Dept.'s report on the pipeline. I did not read where the LA Times admitted that there will be little to no impact on climate……...


How ironic that cochise's fellow denier posted this accusation: "You grasp only what your agenda will allow".
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387
And finally, from the same Climate Denial Crock blog, here's some information from the commenters related to the State Department's just issued environmental statement on the Keystone Pipeline:
---------------------
Sandy Porter Says:

January 31, 2014 at 7:54 pm
Here’s the White House contact info. Also what I wrote:

White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-question s-and-comments
PHONE NUMBERS
Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Mr. President,
I believed in you, but you may be just about to betray the people who supported you, our planet and even your beautiful daughters. You must not say ‘YES’ to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The idea that it would not significantly contribute to climate change is completely wrong. Even CEO’s of fossil fuel companies know this, if a project becomes too onerous and expensive it won’t be continued. You must stop the oil companies from extracting perhaps the dirtiest form of fossil fuel – bitumen – which takes massive treatment even to extract it, dilute it with benzene and send it by pipeline. It would then go to the Gulf to be refined and EXPORTED. No, please, NO KXL PIPELINE.

--------------
Sandy Porter Says:

January 31, 2014 at 7:57 pm
FIGHT BACK – CALL AND EMAIL THE STATE DEPARTMENT. CALL AND EMAIL THE WHITE HOUSE. SIGN THE KXL PLEDGE OF RESISTANCE.

1.) The KXL Pledge of Resistance gives you many options – anywhere from calling and writing letters to engaging in civil disobedience. Please sign and mark your comfort level. The Pledge right now has 76,751 signatures – we need many more.

2.) STATE DEPARTMENT – contacts – submit comments via link or call

http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask/session/L3Rpb WUvMTM5MTIwMDk3My9zaWQvd3BuUWJOTGw%3D

Main Switchboard: 202-647-4000
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387
Quoting 627. Cochise111:


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

Link


The LA Times reported on the State Dept.'s report on the pipeline. I did not read where the LA Times admitted that there will be little to no impact on climate.

You do know that some of those that were contracted to review the environmental aspects of the pipeline were former employees of pipeline and oil companies?

EXCLUSIVE: State Dept. Hid Contractor's Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company

The Keystone XL Coverup: The State Department's Attempt to Hide Oil Industry Connections

Keystone XL: US government report drew on analysis by oil consultants

Probe of Keystone contractor energizes pipeline foes

One would be hard pressed to say that was an unbiased review.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Another video from Peter Sinclair at Climate Denial Crock:

Richard Alley on the Polar Vortex and What He Worries About Most

Here's the first entry in the comment thread - I think it's excellent:

indy222 Says:

January 31, 2014 at 12:40 am

I wish Alley had included that the “next degree” is unavoidably “in the pipeline” because we’re not in equilibrium, like an iron skillet that takes time to let the heat it’s getting distribute itself through and through. I wish he’d mentioned the connection between lower temp gradient between pole and mid-latitude (the reality of which is clear) predicts in models the wider meanders in the storm-guiding jet stream, which we seem to be seeing. I wish he’d said that the next degree is MUCH more expensive than the first degree, and the 3rd degree is MUCH more expensive than the 2nd degree. Worried that we’ll be “worse off” ( how much? A bit?) isn’t getting it across. It’s just not getting across how dangerous our path is.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387
Quoting 640. yoboi:
I am not an alarmist....but I am having a very difficult time grasping this......
We've already established that you don't understand satire, so don't worry about this comment.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2387

Viewing: 694 - 644

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.