What is the right diagnosis?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:09 AM GMT on April 21, 2014

Share this Blog
23
+

What is the right diagnosis?

April 22, 2014 is Earth Day, and I will be giving a talk at an Earth Day event in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was asked to talk about the weather and if it is changing due to human-caused climate change. Yes it is. There are some safe conclusions about climate change due to increasing carbon dioxide: the planet is warming, ice is melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. All of these changes are occurring and all will continue. The more specific question that was posed to me by the meeting organizers was whether or not the changes in Arctic sea ice were leading directly to recent weather-climate events in the U.S. Perhaps even more specific, will people in Michigan see more winters like the winter of 2013-2014 in the future? Thanks to a small snowfall last week, Southeast Michigan set a record.

Thinking about recent news as a possible starting point for my talk, the last few weeks have seen the release of both the IPCC Working Group II and Working Group III assessment reports. Briefly, Working Group II assesses the impacts of global warming and Working Group III focuses on how to limit the impacts through reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. For each of these reports there was a very short flurry of press coverage. The one sentence takeaways: Working Group II - The impacts are large and emerging faster than expected. Working Group III - We still have the wherewithal to avoid dangerous climate change if we reduce greenhouse emissions by an enormous amount in the next few decades.

Also in the last few weeks there has been more discussion in the blog-press about changes in Arctic sea ice leading to changes in the atmospheric jet stream leading to California drought and the very cold and snowy winter in the eastern half of the United States. (We just don’t mention Alaska enough – so let’s add the absurdly warm winter in Alaska.) (Rood’s summary a few weeks ago)

On Climate Progress there is an entry Study Ties Epic California Drought and “Frigid East” to Manmade Climate Change. Joe Romm’s blog entry reports on a paper by Wang et al. on probable causes of the California drought. Indeed Wang et al. state (in an early publication release), “Therefore, there is a traceable anthropogenic warming footprint in the enormous intensity of the anomalous ridge during winter 2013-14, the associated drought and its intensity.”

This paper stands in contrast to an opinion piece in the New York Times by Martin Hoerling entitled Global Warming, Not Always. In this piece Dr. Hoerling states, “At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change.” Hoerling argues that there are analogues of the current drought in the historical record; hence, human-induced climate change is not necessary for severe drought. The current drought is distinguished by the huge demand for water that comes from a large population and high-demand water requirements. Hoerling concludes that as far as attribution of the cause of the drought “the correct diagnosis matters” because it informs how to respond to the drought.

If I think about what to say to an audience at Earth Day, I don’t think that my opinion on whether or not this past winter is “caused” by climate change matters a lot. In my talk I will try to frame the reports and discussion that I mentioned above.

What the recent work on sea ice and the jet stream suggests is plausibility that the recent weather in the U.S. is influenced by changes in the Arctic. The changes in the Arctic are enormous. The spatial extend of the reduction of sea ice is continental and would be expected to have some consequences. In fact, if there is any magical thinking, then it would be to expect there to be no consequences. I admit that there is a lot to be untangled in our understanding, but minimally, that the changes in sea ice might have an impact because it influences patterns of variability is important for planning. It is also important for research because it suggests a relationship between weather, climate and climate change that is traceable.

The argument suggested by the Hoerling piece and Romm’s blog on the Wang et al. paper is a continuation of an argument about event attribution that I consider flawed both scientifically and rhetorically. We live on a planet that is warming. We do not have weather events occurring in a “natural” climate and a “natural plus human changed” climate. The existence of drought analogues in the historical record does not exempt the current drought from influence by human-induced climate change. A similar argument might be that the existence of lung cancer prior to the use of tobacco excludes tobacco as a cause of lung cancer. If there were an absence of drought in past centuries and the presence of drought today that would be compelling. However, if there were no history of drought followed by the onset of drought, then that would suggest that our knowledge and understanding of weather and climate would be profoundly deficient. One of the anchors of our confidence in science-based knowledge of climate change is the ability to look at past analogues and provide nuance related to a warming planet, and for that matter, increased stress on resources by an increasing population.

When I started my climate change class in 2006, a stated goal was to move beyond polarized arguments. Polarization exists as a tactic in political and rhetorical arguments. However, we also see polarized arguments when we look at the relation of climate change to other disciplines: climate-policy, climate-agriculture, climate-ecosystems, climate-population, climate-energy, climate-economy … . We are not, however, at a point where we can separate climate change from population, from consumption, from economics and from energy. The only solution to the mitigation of climate change that we allow as viable is that we find sources of energy that are less damaging to the climate – or really to the environment.

The conclusions of the recent IPCC reports are another brick in the wall. The impacts of climate change are broad and significant. It is hard to argue that we will avoid dangerous climate change when we look at the Arctic. This is especially true if the changes in the Arctic might have an amplified affect on lower latitudes by changing the patterns of weather variability. Even with a magical explosion of existing capability and new technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we will not return to the Arctic that denied a Northwest Passage to the explorers of the Renaissance.

My message will be that the weather is changing. Also, the relation of weather with people and countries and economies is changing. Weather, what people do and how many people there are – all are changing. Currently, all in a way to increase people’s vulnerability. In the short term, we can make decisions to improve our resilience and reduce our vulnerability. If we think that the weather in the future will be the same as the weather of the past, then that will be wrong. There is no world in which we live that is uninfluenced by our emissions of many pollutants, including carbon dioxide, as well as our changes to the land and oceans. We make a mistake if we dismiss human-induced climate change as not influencing the weather each and every day.


r

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: 444 - 394

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

444. yoboi
6:55 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 442. Birthmark:

Yes, I can explain it. First, CO2 doesn't cause an immediate rise in temperature. There is a lag time just as there is on a cold night between the time you cover yourself with a blanket and the time you actually warm. Second, the Milankovitch forcings are different now than they were thousands of years ago. Prior to the Industrial Revolution the Earth was slowly cooling (so some of that CO2 is counteracting these colder orbital effects on climate.)



I agree there is a Lag time......17 yrs 8 months and counting......How long will it last??????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2583
443. Naga5000
6:50 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 441. PhreddieStLouis:

There are two very big discrepancies in the relationship of CO2 and temperature between the European Antarctic Ice Core and the weather records of the last 150 years.
1) The current temperature is the same as it was 2000 and 3000 years ago but the CO2 is 124 PPM higher.
2) For the 799,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, temperature rose one degree C for every 9 PPM CO2. In the last 150 years temperature has increased one degree C for every 116 PPM CO2. That's an order of magnitude change.

Can anybody explain these discrepancies to me? To me, the simplest explanation is that man made CO2 has had little or no affect on temperature.


There are more forcings than just CO2, and thankfully, lots of scientists researching those forcings. A start would be here: Link

Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3960
442. Birthmark
6:06 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 441. PhreddieStLouis:

There are two very big discrepancies in the relationship of CO2 and temperature between the European Antarctic Ice Core and the weather records of the last 150 years.
1) The current temperature is the same as it was 2000 and 3000 years ago but the CO2 is 124 PPM higher.
2) For the 799,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, temperature rose one degree C for every 9 PPM CO2. In the last 150 years temperature has increased one degree C for every 116 PPM CO2. That's an order of magnitude change.

Can anybody explain these discrepancies to me? To me, the simplest explanation is that man made CO2 has had little or no affect on temperature.

Yes, I can explain it. First, CO2 doesn't cause an immediate rise in temperature. There is a lag time just as there is on a cold night between the time you cover yourself with a blanket and the time you actually warm. Second, the Milankovitch forcings are different now than they were thousands of years ago. Prior to the Industrial Revolution the Earth was slowly cooling (so some of that CO2 is counteracting these colder orbital effects on climate.)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
441. PhreddieStLouis
4:39 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
There are two very big discrepancies in the relationship of CO2 and temperature between the European Antarctic Ice Core and the weather records of the last 150 years.
1) The current temperature is the same as it was 2000 and 3000 years ago but the CO2 is 124 PPM higher.
2) For the 799,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, temperature rose one degree C for every 9 PPM CO2. In the last 150 years temperature has increased one degree C for every 116 PPM CO2. That's an order of magnitude change.

Can anybody explain these discrepancies to me? To me, the simplest explanation is that man made CO2 has had little or no affect on temperature.
Member Since: April 28, 2014 Posts: 1 Comments: 8
440. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
4:35 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
439. Birthmark
4:25 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
I coulda' been a scientist if it wasn't for all those math and science classes. Fixed that for me.

There was just too much trouble I would have missed getting into if I had gone to classes
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
438. pintada
4:20 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 434. Creideiki:



Looks like we need to add some differential equations and dynamic systems to your remedial lesson plans.
Quoting 436. Birthmark:


You can pencil me in for those classes, too. :)


I coulda' been a scientist if it wasn't for all those math and science classes.
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
437. pintada
4:17 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 429. weatheringpoints:

pintada,
I didn't realize that you had crops at risk! We cannot plant here yet; it's still too cold. Right now, only onions and garlic are in the ground. Everything else has to be started indoors.

Gardening is a totally local enterprise. Even having said that, the problems that I face in this high desert (10 inches of annual precip. at 7500ft.) are pretty unique. :-)

Quoting 429. weatheringpoints:

Given that, then, in this case, the "demise"--when something ceases to exist--will be abrupt and the consequences dire!
If I completely believed JMG's "slow descent," then, I might "wish" for the "demise of the petroleum based economy." But, I believe the next "step down" in the descent to the "bottleneck" is over the cliff's edge with no way to slow the plummet.


I think one of the things JMG tries to do is make it clear that there is still time to take personal action, or even take political action. I asked him on his blog once how he squares a 4C world by the end of the century with his slow descent theory. His answer was not polite (Yes, JMG takes time to answer is readers). Still, his insistence that we are watching something relatively slow is important to me. (On the other hand, one could ask certain people in the Arkansas how "slow" the demise was yesterday, and they may disagree.)

Quoting 429. weatheringpoints:


When the SHTF, I think food, water and sanitation are immediately imperiled. I don't expect the nuclear power plant employees will do anything other than go home and take care of their families--like everyone else. As I said, I can't get farther than 300 miles away from one and that's probably not far enough.


300 miles should be enough ... I was a volunteer responder for meltdowns (more of a PR thing than anything) for the Palo Verde plant outside Phoenix for a while. The emergency action plan indicated no real problems outside a 100 mile radius given moderate winds.

Quoting 429. weatheringpoints:

I've seen other recommendations for "Supply Shock"; it's been on my list since last year. I am curious how he thinks we could unwind this. Some of the plans I've heard of are intentionally vague about the period of de-growth (because they are unspeakable.) Many others misunderstand the conundrum so the plans aren't really workable.


I found "Supply Shock" fascinating, but then, I am a total nerd and I really enjoyed the history of economic thought that he presented. Like the other plans you refer to, you will be disappointed with his "plan".

Obviously it will not be done on purpose. "Degrowth" as you say (or imply) is just a euphemism for permanent depression, and what politician in his right mind would try to sell that. On the other hand, if there was such a creature, some sort of planned end to growth could be better than what we are obviously looking at. If they get a chance to do in-situ coal gasification to keep the economy growing ... .

Interesting conversation, thank you. I didn't comment on all I wished to keep it more or less on topic, and in consideration of the other readers.
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
436. Birthmark
2:54 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 434. Creideiki:



Looks like we need to add some differential equations and dynamic systems to your remedial lesson plans.

You can pencil me in for those classes, too. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
435. ColoradoBob1
1:44 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Time to rinse, and repeat :

In the 1850's John Tyndall conducted hundreds experiments on gases. Then he discovered that some gases are translucent to sunlight , but are opaque to infrared .
No one has ever over turned his findings , ever. Not even when the USAF was developing heat seeking missiles. 100 years later.

Their missiles were even blinded by the sun. But mainly they found that CO2 in the atmosphere has a scattering effect on the heat energy . Only when they solved this problem did the USAF get a heat seeking missile that worked.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
434. Creideiki
1:39 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 412. yoboi:




639 gigatonnes produced naturally and about 29 gigatonnes produced by humans.....You and others are correct 10 % is too high a %........





Looks like we need to add some differential equations and dynamic systems to your remedial lesson plans.
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 175
433. ColoradoBob1
12:48 PM GMT on April 29, 2014
Exxon’s $900 Billion Arctic Prize at Risk After Ukraine.

The Arctic well will be among the most expensive Exxon has ever drilled, costing at least $600 million. The spending is justified by the potential prize. Universitetskaya, the geological structure being drilled, is the size of the city of Moscow and large enough to contain more than 9 billion barrels, a trove worth more than $900 billion at today’s prices.

The only way to reach the prospect is a four-day voyage from Murmansk, the largest city north of the Arctic circle. Everything will have to shipped in -- workers, supplies, equipment -- for a few months of drilling, then evacuated before winter renders the sea icebound. Even in the short Arctic summer, a flotilla is needed to keep drifting ice from the rig.

All this means drilling the prospect will cost more than $600 million, more than triple typical offshore exploration wells in other parts of the world, according to people in the industry familiar with the plans.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
432. ColoradoBob1
11:20 AM GMT on April 29, 2014
The Year Climate Change Closed Everest
As the world heats up, the Himalayas are becoming more volatile.


The deadly avalanche on Everest earlier this month wasn't technically an avalanche. It was an "ice release"—a collapse of a glacial mass known as a serac. Rather than getting swept up by a rush of powdery snow across a slope, the victims fell under the blunt force of house-sized ice blocks tumbling through the Khumbu Icefall, an unavoidable obstacle on the most popular route up Everest. The worst accident in the mountain's history has effectively ended the 2014 climbing season. And some see global warming as the key culprit.

"I am at Everest Basecamp right now and things are dire because of climate change," John All, a climber, scientist, and professor of geography at Western Kentucky University, told me by email. "The ice is melting at unprecedented rates and [that] greatly increases the risk to climbers."

"You could say [that] climate change closed Mt. Everest this year," he added.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
431. ColoradoBob1
11:14 AM GMT on April 29, 2014
Summer 2014 Melt Season to Ramp up in Early May Heat Wave: Fixed Jet Stream, Dual Ridges Form Sea Ice Achilles Heel

For many months the weather pattern has been essentially fixed. A ridge over China and Eastern Russia combined with warm air flows over Central Asia to amplify heat from Siberia and on into the Arctic Ocean. On the other side of the Pacific, a harmonic pattern involving warm southerly air flows over Alaska and Western Canada has also transported an inordinate amount of highly anomalous heat into the Arctic.

These warm ridges have been consistently reinforced by high amplitude Jet Stream waves. During the Winter of 2013-2014, these same atmospheric heat transport engines collapsed the polar vortex, causing melt, avalanches, and 60 degree F temperatures for Alaska in January all while pulling Arctic air down over the Eastern United States throughout the winter months.

For Alaska, Western Canada and the Eastern US, it is a general pattern that has now lasted nearly 14 months. A blocking pattern that weather historians everywhere should take note of as a general evidence of atmospheric changes resulting from human-caused warming and a validation in observation to the findings of Dr. Jennifer Francis.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
430. weatheringpoints
3:27 AM GMT on April 29, 2014

Member Since: February 26, 2008 Posts: 13 Comments: 2028
429. weatheringpoints
3:26 AM GMT on April 29, 2014
Member Since: February 26, 2008 Posts: 13 Comments: 2028
428. Birthmark
2:46 AM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 426. iceagecoming:



Green and black flag of green anarchism, also used for anarcho-primitivism.

So what? What does any of that have to do with anything relevant to this blog?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
427. FLwolverine
1:55 AM GMT on April 29, 2014
White roofs causing global warming seems counter intuitive, so I looked at the article the denier site linked to - an article in the Bangor ME newspaper by a couple of construction people. Link They make some valid points, but rely on a 2011 study by two engineers from Stanford that has been questioned. BTW the white roofs were only required by the Obama administration for Dept of Energy buildings.

There's a more balanced discussion in a recent Scientfic American blogpost:
Link
Cool Roofs Might Be Enough to Save Cities from Climate Overheating

New research suggests that planting gardens atop roofs or painting them white could offset both the local urban heat island effect and global warming, although one roof type does not cover all situations

Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2437
426. iceagecoming
1:48 AM GMT on April 29, 2014
Quoting 424. Neapolitan:



There are certainly far worse things that could happen...


Green and black flag of green anarchism, also used for anarcho-primitivism.


ECO-ANARCHISM

The big corporations, our clients, are scared shitless of the environmental movement.... The corporations are wrong about that. I think the companies will have to give in only at insignificant levels. Because the companies are too strong, they're the establishment. The environmentalists are going to have to be like the mob in the square in Rumania before they prevail. --Frank Mankiewicz, Vice-Chairman, Hill & Knowlton PR


The environmental movement will NEVER succeed in saving the environment so long as capitalism remains intact and untouched. The core principle behind propertarian "ethics" is the idea that the Earth exists for man to do with as he pleases.

Animals, forests, oceans, anything that exists is taken not as instrinsically worthy, but merely useful to man--worth is defined in exclusively economic terms.

Anarchists reject this authoritarian attitude and seek not control and destruction of nature, but harmony with it. We recognize that humans are not the masters of the Earth, but are, rather, tenants. And we unequivocably oppose the source of this destruction: propertarianism (aka, capitalism). Environmentalists and anarchists make for natural allies, and it has led to the growth of a significant eco-anarchist movement, represented by Murray Bookchin and Janet Biehl, first and foremost.

Animal Rights: Linked with environmentalism is a recognition of animal rights. We cannot recognize ourselves as one species and at the same time fail to accept our relationship to the animals around us.

It is for this reason that many anarchists are vegetarians (the Spanish Anarchists very often were deeply committed vegetarians for this reason). In our rejection of authority, hierarchy, and coercion, we similarly reject any "right" of man to torture animals for fun and profit.

In a fully realized anarchist world, animals would be accorded equivalent respect humans would accord each other. Anarchists recognize that we (all the animals on the Earth) came from a common ancestor, long ago, and in this common origin, we recognize our mutual kinship with animals.

Moreover, with the dissolution of property "rights", the mad rush for land and resources would abate, no longer encroaching on endangered species' habitats as capitalists sought out lucrative natural resources for their profit.

Link

Link


Time for "back to nature(al) state, right?
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1096
425. yoboi
12:47 AM GMT on April 29, 2014
Uhh....Uhh...Uhhh...Do we have a roofing expert that can explain this?????


Obama-ordered WHITE ROOFS add to warming and increase energy costs for consumers in Northern regions


Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2583
424. Neapolitan
10:28 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 423. iceagecoming:






There are certainly far worse things that could happen...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
423. iceagecoming
10:01 PM GMT on April 28, 2014


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1096
422. Neapolitan
9:51 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 420. iceagecoming:



Heatwave.


From lowest in the record to second highest in just 12 months? No, that's not a "heat wave". But it is yet another prime example of the term "extreme"...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
421. iceagecoming
9:51 PM GMT on April 28, 2014


Green tip of the month, San Francisco's way of increasing parking revenue with no additional global warming producing asphalt products.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1096
420. iceagecoming
9:44 PM GMT on April 28, 2014


Heatwave.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1096
419. JohnLonergan
9:38 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Victor Venema asks "Are debatable scientific questions debatable?"

In a previous post I tried to make clear why debates are such a bad way to improve scientific understanding. In the comments Mark Ryan pointed to a great article by John Zyman: "Are debatable scientific questions debatable?" In the article, political debates are compared to scientific disputes. Zyman seem to agree with me: a short summary of his position could be that the only similarity between political debates and scientific disputes is that they are both public.

The main difference is that while debates are typically verbal, scientific disputes are resolved in the scientific literature. That makes a large difference. In the scientific literature the ideas have to be and can be presented in all their gory details. Detail that allows one so see its errors or improve upon the idea. A written dialogue is also slow, which helps to check details and to rethink ones position multiple times before answering.



Dr. Venema's conclusion:

Further differences are:

* The audience is assumed to be already very well-informed on the topic;
* The proceedings are not adversarial, as between officially identified protagonists and antagonists;
* Attacks on the personal motivation or credibility of the disputants are unacceptable;
* The discussion does not close with a formal decision or verdict.

Concluding.
Conventional 'debating' practises just do not fit into the evolution of scientific knowledge in its traditional academic mode. In effect, 'debatable' scientific issues are never actually 'debated'. One must therefor seriously ask whether much of value can be achieved by a formal procedure designed to bring scientists together for just such an activity.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
418. ColoradoBob1
9:05 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
An Aerial View of China's Colossal Dust Storm

Northern China's not unaccustomed to dust barrages triggered by Siberian weather fronts to the north. This one's a bit different: It moved eastward across the country with incredible speed and power. Look how far the leading dust-wall had surged in these NASA satellite images, taken on Wednesday at 12:35 p.m. local time and then 2:20 p.m.:

Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
417. Neapolitan
8:58 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Just out of curiosity, how long are TPTB going to allow one certain member to endlessly troll this forum? Every day, day in and day out, all we see from him are dozens of posts that contain nothing but circular "logic", lies, distortions, copy-and-paste jobs direct from wackos like Watts and Goddard, innuendo, insult, false accusations, a tenuous grasp of even the most rudimentary physics, stalkerish behavior, and a seemingly pathological aversion to scientific truth. And that's on top of the extremely trollish WU mails he sends to those from whom he craves attention the most. He's clearly not here to learn, or even to engage in fair debate; he's simply here to disrupt this otherwise mostly valuable forum. He does nothing to raise the level of discourse; he brings up nothing substantive; he has altogether failed in his time here to demonstrate even the slightest speck of honesty or intellectual curiosity. In short, he makes this forum a far less pleasant place to be, and a far more difficult place to teach and learn. So I ask--for the second time in this comment and perhaps the 100th time overall--how long will he be allowed to troll this forum?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
416. ColoradoBob1
8:58 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Biggest sandstorm in 10 years hits northern Chinese city Dunhuang

Schools were closed and visibility was reduced to just 20 metres in places as the strongest sandstorm to strike the northern Chinese city of Dunhuang swept in.

The sandstorm hit the city, in Gansu province, at 1.40pm on Wednesday, bringing strong winds and a sudden drop in temperature, and continued to rage for hours, forcing many people to wear masks.

Link

Aqua/MODIS
2014/117
04/27/2014
07:30 UTC



Dust storm in Taklimakan Desert, Western China
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
415. riverat544
8:41 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 402. ColoradoBob1:

Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean†

Ocean surface waves (sea and swell) are generated by winds blowing over a distance (fetch) for a duration of time. In the Arctic Ocean, fetch varies seasonally from essentially zero in winter to hundreds of kilometers in recent summers. Using in situ observations of waves in the central Beaufort Sea, combined with a numerical wave model and satellite sea ice observations, we show that wave energy scales with fetch throughout the seasonal ice cycle. Furthermore, we show that the increased open water of 2012 allowed waves to develop beyond pure wind seas and evolve into swells. The swells remain tied to the available fetch, however, because fetch is a proxy for the basin size in which the wave evolution occurs. Thus, both sea and swell depend on the open water fetch in the Arctic, because the swell is regionally driven. This suggests that further reductions in seasonal ice cover in the future will result in larger waves, which in turn provide a mechanism to break up sea ice and accelerate ice retreat.

Link

Another feedback loop.

More open water and larger waves will also increase the erosion of the shores of the Arctic Ocean. I believe there are already some villages that are having to move because the ice not longer protects their shoreline from erosion like it used to.
Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 124
414. FLwolverine
8:40 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting yoboi:



639 gigatonnes produced naturally and about 29 gigatonnes produced by humans.....You and others are correct 10 % is too high a %........


Sources? Are you sayng there's a direct correlation between the amount of CO2 "produced" and the amount of temperature increase? Which temp readings are you using?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2437
413. riverat544
8:39 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 412. yoboi:




639 gigatonnes produced naturally and about 29 gigatonnes produced by humans.....You and others are correct 10 % is too high a %........




Oh, you're talking about CO2. Well let me ask you this. Since we know the amount of CO2 produced by human activities (it's actually more than 30 GT now) we can compare that to the amount that CO2 in the atmosphere increases year to year. When we do that comparison we find that the increase in CO2 is only about 45% of the CO2 that human activities release. So what happens to the rest plus all of the CO2 released by natural processes?

What you really need to do is look at the overall carbon cycle. Yes natural processes release about 639 GT/year (to use your figure) but for the last 10,000 years the CO2 levels remained at about 280 ppm because the carbon cycle absorbed as much as it emitted each year. It's only when human use of fossil fuels started ramping up that the levels in the atmosphere started rising significantly. What is happening is that the relative balance of carbon between the various stores of carbon in the carbon cycle remains about the same but by burning fossil fuels and making cement we are adding to the overall amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle by adding carbon that's been sequestered from it for millions of years. So it's disingenuous to claim that the natural release of carbon is so much greater than human emissions because it ignores the natural absorption of carbon that balances it out.
Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 124
412. yoboi
8:12 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 409. Physicistretired:


I must have seen you post that dozens of times now, yoboi - and I still don't know what the hell it means.

Ten percent above our normal average Earth temperature in degrees Kelvin? [28.7C/51.7F]

Ten percent above our normal average Earth temperature in degrees Centigrade? [1.4C/2.5F]

Ten percent above our normal average glacial period temperature? Interglacial period temperature? Entire planetary history average temperature?

Something else?

What does that statement even mean?



639 gigatonnes produced naturally and about 29 gigatonnes produced by humans.....You and others are correct 10 % is too high a %........


Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2583
411. JohnLonergan
8:10 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Michael Mann Receives NCSE Friend of the Planet AwardLink
From Greg Laden's Blog


The National Center for Science Education, the nation’s leading organization in support of science education, has awarded Professor Michael Mann the coveted Friend of the Planet award.

From the NCSE:

Climate change deniers have faced a similarly impressive foe: Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State. More than almost anyone else, Mann has been the public face of climate science. The author of more than 160 peer-reviewed papers, Mann has appeared before countless Congressional committees, battled climate change deniers in court, and written breakthrough books (such as The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars). Along the way, Mann co-authored the report that won the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. NCSE’s Friend of the Planet award will join a crowded trophy case.


Congratulations Michael!
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
410. yoboi
8:02 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 407. FLwolverine:
Something most of us can relate to - from Andthentheresphysics: Link

Dr Stephan Harrison, from the University of Exeter, was interviewed as part of an Australian documentary about Patagonia. Anthony Watts and Bishop-Hill (aka Andrew Montford) are mightily upset that he responds to a question about %u201Csceptics%u201D by saying

People often say why don%u2019t I debate with sceptics %u2026. it%u2019s a bit like mud wrestling with a pig. Firstly you get covered in mud and secondly, the pig loves it.

Andrew Montford seems to interpret this as some kind of activism, and actually goes on to say

Is it possible to formulate some guidelines that would at least make this kind of thing more difficult? Or is the answer just to cut funding to the universities?

This seems a little ironic as I%u2019d always assumed that Andrew Montford was someone who %u2013 typically %u2013 opposed regulation.

However, from what I%u2019ve experienced, Stephan Harrison is entirely correct. Apart from some notable exceptions, it is largely pointless trying to debate with outright %u201Csceptics%u201D (pseudo-sceptics might be a more appropriate term). I%u2019m not talking about those who are genuinely skeptical, but those who largely oppose mainstream climate science. Typically, they don%u2019t seem to understand the basics and they often have such entrenched views, that the only benefit to such a debate might be if a third party gets something from reading the exchange. I wish I didn%u2019t have this view, but I do. To be honest, I find it somewhat disappointing. However, if those who self-identify as %u201Csceptics%u201D don%u2019t like it that I and others hold this view, then change how you engage in such discussions. And, to be clear, I don%u2019t mean change your views; I mean have some willingness to think about what%u2019s being said. For example, if someone suggests that your idea violates energy conservation, maybe check if this is the case, or not.

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


Wow I am compared to mud wrestling with a pig?????Well An Alarmanati reminds me of a Chiroptera........
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2583
409. Physicistretired
7:40 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 380. yoboi:




My posiion with AGW and the science and math back up my position.... is that humans can-NOT impact the climate more than 10%........


I must have seen you post that dozens of times now, yoboi - and I still don't know what the hell it means.

Ten percent above our normal average Earth temperature in degrees Kelvin? [28.7C/51.7F]

Ten percent above our normal average Earth temperature in degrees Centigrade? [1.4C/2.5F]

Ten percent above our normal average glacial period temperature? Interglacial period temperature? Entire planetary history average temperature?

Something else?

What does that statement even mean?
Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 231
408. ColoradoBob1
7:25 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
When April is the New July: Siberia’s Epic Wildfires Come Far Too Early

(NASA LANCE MODIS Rapid Fire hotspot analysis of extreme fire outbreak in the Amur region of Russia on April 28, 2014. In this shot, the Amur runs west to east through the frame. To the right is the Pacific Ocean [off frame] to the left is a corner of Russia’s massive Lake Baikal. The red spots indicate currently active fires. Image source: LANCE-MODIS)

What we are currently witnessing is something that should never happen — an outbreak of fires with summer intensity during late April at a time when Siberia should still be frigid and frozen.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
407. FLwolverine
7:16 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Something most of us can relate to - from Andthentheresphysics: Link

Dr Stephan Harrison, from the University of Exeter, was interviewed as part of an Australian documentary about Patagonia. Anthony Watts and Bishop-Hill (aka Andrew Montford) are mightily upset that he responds to a question about “sceptics” by saying

People often say why don’t I debate with sceptics …. it’s a bit like mud wrestling with a pig. Firstly you get covered in mud and secondly, the pig loves it.

Andrew Montford seems to interpret this as some kind of activism, and actually goes on to say

Is it possible to formulate some guidelines that would at least make this kind of thing more difficult? Or is the answer just to cut funding to the universities?

This seems a little ironic as I’d always assumed that Andrew Montford was someone who – typically – opposed regulation.

However, from what I’ve experienced, Stephan Harrison is entirely correct. Apart from some notable exceptions, it is largely pointless trying to debate with outright “sceptics” (pseudo-sceptics might be a more appropriate term). I’m not talking about those who are genuinely skeptical, but those who largely oppose mainstream climate science. Typically, they don’t seem to understand the basics and they often have such entrenched views, that the only benefit to such a debate might be if a third party gets something from reading the exchange. I wish I didn’t have this view, but I do. To be honest, I find it somewhat disappointing. However, if those who self-identify as “sceptics” don’t like it that I and others hold this view, then change how you engage in such discussions. And, to be clear, I don’t mean change your views; I mean have some willingness to think about what’s being said. For example, if someone suggests that your idea violates energy conservation, maybe check if this is the case, or not.

--------------
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2437
406. goosegirl1
7:12 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Wow, another day, another babble.

Managers and scientists are working on the problem of the snow goose population explosion, but failure is always a possibility. The boom is due to an increase in agriculture, leaving an excess of waste grain available to the geese during migration and increasing the winter survival rate. Increased harvesting of geese is having little effect, and decreasing agriculture is not feasible when you have so many humans to feed. So yes, our management strategies were very successful, but increase in the food supply is the actual culprit, not direct action on behalf of the geese. Link

Did anyone seriously buy that windmills are the #1 culprit in the loss of the California condor? If that were true, why is the andean condor population also decreasing? Logic should tell you that the reasons might be similar... in these cases, it is lead poisoning from consuming kills that hunters leave behind. Link

Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1261
405. ColoradoBob1
4:13 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Extremes in wet, dry spells increasing for South Asian monsoons

When the team members analyzed the Indian monsoon data using their statistical methods, they discovered that although the average total rainfall during the monsoon season has declined, the variability of rainfall during the peak monsoon months has increased. In particular, the researchers observed increases in the intensity of wet spells and in the frequency of dry spells.

“The statistical techniques show that the changes in these characteristics are robust and that these changes are unlikely to happen purely by chance,” Singh said.


Read more at:Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
404. ColoradoBob1
2:59 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Spooky Atmospheric 'Teleconnections' Link North and South Poles

Long-distance atmospheric connections between the North and South poles are linking weather and climate in distant parts of the globe, according to data from a NASA spacecraft.

These so-called "teleconnections" explain why the winter air temperature in Indianapolis, Ind., during the so-called polar vortex correlated with a reduction in high-altitude clouds over Antarctica, thousands of miles away, researchers say.

"Changes in the polar regions in the North were 'communicated' all the way over to the other side of the globe," said Cora Randall, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder and a member of the Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) spacecraft's science team. [Video of Teleconnections Between Opposite Hemispheres]


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
403. ColoradoBob1
2:40 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Winter Fog is Decreasing in the Fruit Growing Region of the Central Valley of California†

Abstract


The Central Valley of California is home to a variety of fruit and nut trees. These trees account for 95% of the US production, but they need a sufficient amount of winter chill to achieve rest and quiescence for the next season's buds and flowers. In prior work, we reported that the accumulation of winter chill is declining in the Central Valley. We hypothesize that a reduction in winter fog is co-occurring and is contributing to the reduction in winter chill. We examined a 33 year record of satellite remote sensing to develop a fog climatology for the Central Valley. We find that the number of winter fog events, integrated spatially, decreased 46%, on average, over 32 winters, with much year to year variability. Less fog means warmer air and an increase in the energy balance on buds, which amplifies their warming, reducing their chill accumulation more.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
402. ColoradoBob1
2:32 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean†

Ocean surface waves (sea and swell) are generated by winds blowing over a distance (fetch) for a duration of time. In the Arctic Ocean, fetch varies seasonally from essentially zero in winter to hundreds of kilometers in recent summers. Using in situ observations of waves in the central Beaufort Sea, combined with a numerical wave model and satellite sea ice observations, we show that wave energy scales with fetch throughout the seasonal ice cycle. Furthermore, we show that the increased open water of 2012 allowed waves to develop beyond pure wind seas and evolve into swells. The swells remain tied to the available fetch, however, because fetch is a proxy for the basin size in which the wave evolution occurs. Thus, both sea and swell depend on the open water fetch in the Arctic, because the swell is regionally driven. This suggests that further reductions in seasonal ice cover in the future will result in larger waves, which in turn provide a mechanism to break up sea ice and accelerate ice retreat.

Link

Another feedback loop.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
401. ColoradoBob1
2:24 PM GMT on April 28, 2014
Dried Up: Lakes, Rivers and Other Bodies of Water Disappearing Fast
By: By Eric Zerkel
Published: April 26, 2014


Mankind's insatiable thirst for water resources in recent decades has pushed our most precious natural resource to the brink. Bodies of water, stressed by human consumption, are disappearing quicker than we ever imagined. Many of the world's largest rivers have become victimized by water demand. In fact, as the slideshow above shows, 18 of the world's mightiest rivers are undergoing "extremely high" water stress, meaning more than 80 percent of their flow is withdrawn each year.

Couple water demand with a grim forecast for more severe droughts due to climate change, and the stress on some bodies of water becomes too much to bear. Ancient shorelines are retreating and leaving behind death and decay in the place of once thriving wetland ecosystems.

Click through for a look at just a few of the world's water sources that are dying out at record pace.

Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3165
400. indianrivguy
11:57 AM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 368. FLwolverine:

No, I'm not. Thanks for alerting me to it. I looked it up online. Fracking in south Florida? Are these people nuts?


The Stonecrab Alliance is a pretty good place to get, and keep up to speed. Dr. Karen Dwyer is the point woman, and primary driver of the Alliance. https://www.facebook.com/groups/stonecraballiance/ They are considering an act of peaceful civil disobedience where everyone sits and blocks the gates to the drill rigs. Even though I am Indian Riverkeeper, the Glades are one of my first loves. I will likely join the protest and get hauled off in cuffs with everyone else. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has gone on record as saying the fracking and drilling permits, their impacts and dangers to the Florida Everglades are NOT their purview... FDEP.. Floridians Don't Expect Protection. Our state government has COMPLETELY sold us out to corporate polluters... their only priorities are "A" getting re-elected, and "B" making lots of dough. Protecting, and or representing the Citizens of our State comes somewhere WAYYYY down the line of priorities.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2637
399. pintada
10:21 AM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 390. weatheringpoints:

I hope you were able to save all of your fruit trees!

The trees are not in danger, just this years crop. LOL


Quoting 390. weatheringpoints:The 65 year number was part of RTSplayer's conjecture (207.), not mine.
Don't ask me how he came up with that number. Clearly, it's fantastical.

Both of the links to Heinberg and Kopits have been posted previously, but maybe not. I know that I recommended the Kopits' talk already to everyone here.

I've heard that it take 10 years to decommission a nuclear power plant and much longer to contain the waste. Currently, I live within 60 miles of one and don't expect to able to get more than 300 miles away.

I was asking specifically about nuclear disposal, but, I agree Tainter and JMG are valuable resources for what's ahead.

If it is any consolation at all,
by drawing down energy and capital, ICG is more weight on the accelerator.
As they say around here, faster and faster...

But, I admit, I don't know what the hierarchy is for unheralded disaster :(


So ...
No controversy here as far as i can see. And, reading your other posts gives me no (or very limited) pause. For example, you will get no argument from me about the futility of trying to run a growth monster economy on solar power.

Its all old news to you regarding the views of Greer, Tainter, Kopits, Heinberg, etc.

I thought that you disagreed with Birthmark and I, but I see no such disagreement.

How is your farm/garden doing? Are your supplies adequate? What are your plans for helping your children? Your neighbors?

Have you read Brian Czech, "Supply Shock" or anything by Herman Daly his apparent mentor? Both make excellent arguments regarding the insanity of the growth economy, and Czech provides a good argument for a short period of de-growth followed by a steady state (no growth economy). Our psychopathic leaders would never actually do anything like that, but the solutions are available.
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
398. Daisyworld
5:12 AM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 397. Naga5000:


How quaint, the myth of the Vacationing Obama? Or is this a more sinister "lazy black man" stereotype? Please do tell which of the lies you believe.


Who knows to what depths the perversion of denialist polemics will reach? Even yoboi has presented his prejudicial belief that flawed genetics are the source of why people trust in the science behind human-induced climate change:

Quoting 291. yoboi:

What part of where I say non peer review also....That's the problem your eyes only let you see certain things....Why else would you not include the entire statement????? I often wonder if being an Alarmanati is genetic?????????

Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 875
397. Naga5000
1:22 AM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 396. iceagecoming:



And our Glorious Leader was busy as well dealing with AGW, (Keystone XL), Ukraine-Russia conflict, MiddleEast (Syria, Eygpt, Iran, Iraq,Yemen, etc)







How quaint, the myth of the Vacationing Obama? Or is this a more sinister "lazy black man" stereotype? Please do tell which of the lies you believe.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3960
396. iceagecoming
12:27 AM GMT on April 28, 2014
Quoting 365. Xandra:

From Salon:

11 ways Tony Abbott is ruining Australia and threatening the whole world

He's almost single-handedly ensuring the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef -- and that's just the start


Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (Credit: AP/Andy Wong)

Tony Abbott, opposition leader of Australia’s Liberal Party since 2009, assumed office as Prime Minister on September 18, 2013. Since then, he has done Australia and the world a great many disservices in a very short amount of time.

From his rolling back of green initiatives and his disregard for climate change to his hardline stance against asylum-seekers and promotion of social conservatism, it sometimes feels like Abbott is taking Australia back into the dark ages (he suggested bringing back knighthoods, if it’s a literal example you want). And his dangerous approach to the environment threatens to take the world with him.

Here are the 11 worst things that Tony Abbott has done in his short tenure, beginning with the worst-of-the-worst: his policies on energy, climate change, and the environment.

1) He plans to allow logging in some national forests

[...]

2) He abolished the Climate Commission and is defunding the Australian Renewable Energy Agency

[...]

3) He has promised to repeal carbon and mining taxes

[...]

4) He’s allowing coal companies to dredge and dump soil for a port near the Great Barrier Reef

[...]

5) He’s murdering sharks

[...]

6) He’s taken climate change off the G20 agenda for 2014

[...]

7) He’s defunding scientific research

[...]

8) He’s failing when it comes to immigration and asylum

[...]

9) He opposes his sister’s gay marriage

[...]

10) He ended Australia’s UN opposition to the building of new Israel settlements

[...]

11) He supports constitutional monarchy and has restored honorific titles

[...]

Okay, so this one isn’t on par with climate denial, but it’s a little weird. For the first time since 1983, Australians can receive the titles of “knight” and “dame.” Really?

Complete article >>

----------

Also => Invisible Things Are Ridiculous, Says Man Who Lives His Life According To Invisible Thing




And our Glorious Leader was busy as well dealing with AGW, (Keystone XL), Ukraine-Russia conflict, MiddleEast (Syria, Eygpt, Iran, Iraq,Yemen, etc)




Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1096
395. JohnLonergan
12:23 AM GMT on April 28, 2014
I know this has been posted before, but here goes:

Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming



The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
394. riverat544
11:53 PM GMT on April 27, 2014
Quoting 380. yoboi:




My posiion with AGW and the science and math back up my position.... is that humans can-NOT impact the climate more than 10%........

Well on the face of it that's probably true and it's probably well less than 10%. Given that the climate conditions we see are a combination of the insolation we receive from the Sun, the Earth's orbit, the fact that Earth is a water world, the gaseous mixture of the atmosphere and the effects of the topology of the planet plus a lot of other stuff that goes into making the climate what it is. On the other hand since the natural climate forcings lately would point to having a slight cooling trend it's possible that human contributions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming trend. Since the average temperature on the surface of the Earth is around 288 Kelvin a rise of of 2.88 degrees centigrade is only a 1% change in temperature. Maybe you need to be more specific about what you mean by "humans can-NOT impact the climate more than 10%".

(Edited to add "the gaseous mixture of the atmosphere".
Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 124

Viewing: 444 - 394

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog 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.