Tracking El Niño: Underlying Models

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 8:13 PM GMT on May 29, 2014

Share this Blog
20
+

Tracking El Niño: Underlying Models

El Niño and La Niña are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Niño the globe is warmer and when there is a La Niña the globe is cooler.

In the last blog I wrote about predictions of a 2014 El Niño and why it is of such interest to climate and climate change. In this blog, I want to write about models that predict El Niño and relation of this type of modeling to climate change and climate modeling. Reaching very far back, I have written a bunch of blogs about modeling. In this blog from 2007, I write about types of models: intuitive or heuristic, statistical and physical. For this blog I will focus on physical models. I have also written about the difference between weather predictions and climate projections, with a simplistic explanation of internal variability versus forced behavior. Finally, I wrote a series to introduce models and modeling to nonscientists and here is a link to a late article in that series.

Here, I focus on the modeling of El Niño and a set of issues that are potentially related to climate change over the next decades and centuries.

Basic Information on El Niño Predictability: It has been recognized from earlier than the 1990s that El Niño might be predictable. El Niño is often stated as the largest source of natural variability, though such a statement depends on how long a time period you are talking about. Someone, who studies ice ages might provide a convincing counterexample of large natural variability. However, if we look at the recent weather and climate that is relevant to humans and society, El Niño is a major cause of variability in, for example, the global average temperature. This is especially obvious when looking at the hot years, for example 1997 and 1998, and even a moderate El Niño this year is likely to lead to the hottest year on record. El Niño also has a big impact on the weather. For the U.S., El Niño is known to affect the precipitation on the West Coast and in the Southeast. There is also a reliable impact on Atlantic hurricanes. Therefore, with an El Niño forecast, we can say something about the characteristics of weather. This is an example of how a forecast or projection that focuses on climate variability provides usable information for planning – a strong El Niño will matter a lot to water managers and emergency managers in California.

Seasonal prediction is feasible if there are slow and predictable variations in measures such as sea-surface temperature, sea-ice, snow cover and soil moisture. The atmosphere and, therefore, the weather is sensitive to these changes. Especially for El Niño, which is first described by a change of sea-surface temperature in the eastern Pacific, there is an atmospheric response. This response has a pattern, which includes more precipitation in California in the winter and fewer hurricanes in the North Atlantic in the summer. Here are a couple of references I use in class if you want to read more (Seasonal Prediction in 2001) and (Seasonal Prediction 12 years later).

One of the interesting pieces of information that comes from these papers is the “springtime barrier.” That is, if the forecast extends through the springtime of the northern hemisphere, then the skill of the forecast declines. One explanation of this characteristic is that the northern springtime signal of El Niño is relatively small, therefore variability that might be construed as noise to an El Niño forecast dominates the projection. There is an obvious consequence of a springtime barrier, a limit of forecasting of about six months. There is an interesting paper Very Early Warning of Next El Niño, which “indicated (in September 2013 already) the return of El Niño in late 2014 with a 3-in-4 likelihood.”

Some Changes in the Climate?: I wrote a long, some would say tedious, series of blogs on the Arctic Oscillation, changes in sea ice and atmospheric blocking (all of those terms defined in that series). Whether or not the changes in the Arctic are having large impacts on weather in middle latitudes or the tropics remains an open question subject to scientific investigation. From the point of view of predicting El Niño, during this prediction cycle we have levels of sea ice that are far lower than in previous El Niño cycles. This changes the heat exchange between the atmosphere and ocean in the Arctic. This is outside of the range of previous variability, which intrinsically increases the uncertainty in the forecast. The same could be said for springtime snow cover. In short, our background environment, on which we have developed what forecast skill we have, is changing. Also in my mind is a project that I participated in back in 2011 and 2012, where we were concerned about La Niña and flooding in the Upper Missouri River Basin. In that project, any sensitivity to La Niña was overwhelmed by the Arctic Oscillation being in its negative phase.

We Can’t Predict Beyond Two Weeks: One of the sacred utterances of the community of the skeptic is that the the description of weather as chaos means that we cannot predict climate. Another statement is that errors in weather forecasting mean that we cannot predict climate. The skill that we have established in seasonal prediction stands as a concrete example of why these utterances are merely rhetorical diversions. A talking point would be that ocean sea-surface temperature can be predicted. We both predict and observe organized patterns of warm and cool regions of the sea. The atmosphere responds to these patterns. The atmospheric response is not random, for example, during an El Niño in winter, California can expect major rainstorms. In the summer, hurricanes are likely to be less frequent in the North Atlantic. The people who place real money on these predictions, emergency managers, insurance companies, farmers and water managers, ultimately, win.

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: 700 - 650

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14Blog Index

700. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
7:30 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
699. CuriousAboutClimate
7:25 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
another denialist lie about Michael mann, a scientist whose work has been replicated with every large scale reconstruction since, the most comprehensive of which was published last year, not to mention the most comprehensive southern hemisphere reconstruction that was published this year, both agreeing very well with mann's original research. yet they keep saying he's got it all wrong! pure insanity.
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 205
698. Xyrus2000
5:49 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 693. Cochise111:

A real scientist destroys the IPCC's predictions. The IPCC panders to the uninformed masses and is assisted by the mainstream media. Nothing that they have ever published has a basis in reality:

Link


Well, I can say you're doing a very good job of convincing me that you really have no clue what you're talking about.

The IPCC report does include an analysis of model performance. The reason why it's not mentioned WUWT is because it's actually done correctly and doesn't say what Anthony "If I Only Had A Brain" Watts wants to hear.

But for the sake of argument, let's say there was no model analysis and let's just look at what Euan Mearns says.

Well, in the first paragraph he's already completely off base beginning with a comparison between oil/gas flow models and climate models. He's comparing apples to 747's. Even if we just limit it to the atmospheric component of a climate model (which is just one of many) they aren't even remotely the same. They may both use fluid dynamics, but the similarity stops there.

And of course, there's the hint of conspiracy there too. Wouldn't be a WUWT post if he didn't throw a bone to the nutters.

Next he goes on to use the familiar tactic that is often used by deniers: omitting information and context. First set of graphs he's comparing temperature anomalies. Seems legit. Until you realize he's comparing surface temperature trends to combined trends. Since the oceans have been absorbing the bulk of the heat, leaving it out it kind of a big oversight.

On top of that, he's comparing it to just one temperature record. We've been over this already. Selectively choosing data that best fits what you want to show is CONFIRMATION BIAS. That is scientifically DISHONEST and makes his argument WORTHLESS.

Then rest of his post continues to repeatedly make such mistakes and assumptions (including the standard take-things-out-of-context tactic) until he finally reaches his completely incorrect conclusion of "nothing wrong here". If this analysis were submitted as a paper it'd get rejected almost before it left the packaging.

So once again Cochise, you post yet another "analysis" from someone with no clue how to do a proper analysis and even less of a clue how climate models work. And yet you somehow expect this to be convincing evidence that some 100+ years of science is wrong.

Some day I do hope you post some peer-reviewed research. I'd love for AGW theory to be wrong.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
697. Xyrus2000
5:13 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 686. Cochise111:

Another scientist demonstrates that climate change proponents are the ones in denial. They live in their own little vacuum, ignoring the real science that destroys their gaia fantasies:

Link


Christian Schlüchter again? Man, this guy just doesn't know when to stop making himself look like an idiot. He ranks right up there with Roy Spencer in scientific trustworthiness and ranks even higher on the nutter scale since he repeatedly espouses his paranoia and conspiracy theories.

Look Cochise, the theory of global warming is older than relativity. It is extremely well supported by evidence and observation. It's going to take a lot more than bloggers and crazy old codgers with little if any scientific credibility spouting off opinions and paranoia to refute it.

Post some legitimate research sources. Post links to peer reviewed papers. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, especially from the sources you normally like to post.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
696. Naga5000
4:25 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
So, Cochise, you have once again come here to post links from known science denial and conspiracy websites with no evidence to support the claims you make. Do you ever wonder why, given your position that these are accurate claims, that not once have they actually lead anywhere or added to the science?

It must be one crazy reality you live in.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3389
695. Naga5000
4:21 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 693. Cochise111:

A real scientist destroys the IPCC's predictions. The IPCC panders to the uninformed masses and is assisted by the mainstream media. Nothing that they have ever published has a basis in reality:

Link


You are the uniformed masses. More of the same, already debunked nonsense and pseudo science. I honestly feel bad that you are this uneducated.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3389
694. Cochise111
4:15 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 691. Xulonn:

Flagged for denialist lies. The b.s. at this link has no relationship to climate science.

Yet another retired/emeritus geologist claims that by extrapolating evidence of past geological events and referring casually to solar trends (which are actually being trampled by greenhouse-gas caused warming), he knows what is controlling today's climate change. This is unsupported conjecture.

Also, climate science has nothing to to with James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, but is hard-core physics, chemistry, and other basic sciences.

The fact that Mocnkton, Bastardi, and dozens of other prominent AGW/CC denialists love this crusty old geezer is telling. He is famous and highly respected for his work in historical glaciation cycles and historic climate variation, but is apparently totally ignorant of modern climate science, and seems to be on an emotional high caused by a desire for confirmation of his own bias.


Isn't that how Mikey Mann developed the lie of the hockey schtick? He blatantly left out data when extrapolating from tree rings. Typical leftist MO. Do as I say, not as I do.
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 344
693. Cochise111
4:13 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
A real scientist destroys the IPCC's predictions. The IPCC panders to the uninformed masses and is assisted by the mainstream media. Nothing that they have ever published has a basis in reality:

Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 344
692. Xulonn
4:08 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 690. ScottLincoln:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past -climate-predictions-arctic-sea-ice-extent-2012.ht ml
Thanks Scott. It's a good post for the time, but I would like to see an update including 2013 predictions. On the side of real science, we have to admit our failures and analyze them, and work on finding and including the factors that caused the unexpected bumps in the road to better knowledge.

I'm following the discussion of the 2014 melt season with great interest at Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Forum. The contributors there are painfully aware of the miserable performance of most 2013 Arctic melt forecasts. They are trying very hard to better understand the dynamics of the Arctic melt/freeze cycle and the changes in the cycle that are being caused by AGW/CC.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
691. Xulonn
3:57 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 686. Cochise111:
Another scientist demonstrates that climate change proponents are the ones in denial. They live in their own little vacuum, ignoring the real science that destroys their gaia fantasies:
Flagged for denialist lies. The b.s. at this link has no relationship to climate science.

Yet another retired/emeritus geologist claims that by extrapolating evidence of past geological events and referring casually to solar trends (which are actually being trampled by greenhouse-gas caused warming), he knows what is controlling today's climate change. This is unsupported conjecture.

Also, climate science has nothing to to with James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, but is hard-core physics, chemistry, and other basic sciences.

The fact that Mocnkton, Bastardi, and dozens of other prominent AGW/CC denialists love this crusty old geezer is telling. He is famous and highly respected for his work in historical glaciation cycles and historic climate variation, but is apparently totally ignorant of modern climate science, and seems to be on an emotional high caused by a desire for confirmation of his own bias.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
690. ScottLincoln
3:43 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 684. Xulonn:

I found the graphic at SKS buried in the pics folder, but couldn't find a blog entry or any reporting on it. Do you have a link, John?
Quoting 688. JohnLonergan:



I only have the link to the image; I got it when someone posted it at Stoat's.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past -climate-predictions-arctic-sea-ice-extent-2012.ht ml

We should have worked up a Wunderground/Ricky Rood consensus value and submitted it before the deadline:
http://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
689. ScottLincoln
3:39 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 673. yoboi:



Mr Xulonn I have not had much time to really look at climate change topics.....

Hmmmm....
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
688. JohnLonergan
3:32 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 684. Xulonn:

I found the graphic at SKS buried in the pics folder, but couldn't find a blog entry or any reporting on it. Do you have a link, John?


I only have the link to the image; I got it when someone posted it at Stoat's.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3298
687. CuriousAboutClimate
3:29 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
more pseudoscience blogs! next up: answers in genesis refutes evolution!

what a bunch of losers.
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 205
686. Cochise111
3:12 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Another scientist demonstrates that climate change proponents are the ones in denial. They live in their own little vacuum, ignoring the real science that destroys their gaia fantasies:

Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 344
685. ColoradoBob1
2:59 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Beetles Have Destroyed 38,000 Square Miles of Forest

Out in the west, mountain pine beetles are killing off trees. More than 38,000 square miles of forested land out have been affected by these beetles, which target trees that happen to be important to these ecosystems and create great brown blotches across the verdant landscape. It's not just bad for trees: those brown blotches are particularly prone to wildfires.

This year%u2019s farm bill designated 45.6 million acres%u2014that's 71,250 square miles%u2014of forest across the National Forest System for restoration. These forested areas were targeted because they are facing down massive epidemics, either from disease or insects like the pine beetles. Without interventions like this one, the future isn%u2019t looking all that rosy for beetle-infested trees.




Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2443
684. Xulonn
2:53 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 682. JohnLonergan:
From "The wish I saw this earlier department"

Compare the prior predictions of Tamino and WTFUWT.
I found the graphic at SKS buried in the pics folder, but couldn't find a blog entry or any reporting on it. Do you have a link, John?
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
683. CuriousAboutClimate
2:47 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 682. JohnLonergan:



From "The wish I saw this earlier department"

Compare the prior predictions of Tamino and WTFUWT.




have the clowns at WUWT ever seen that comparison? if so, what do they have to say? furthermore, what do the WUWT fans that post here have to say about it? I am oh so curious.
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 205
682. JohnLonergan
2:32 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 646. JohnLonergan:

It time for the annual arctic sea ice predictions, Tamino has his here:




From "The wish I saw this earlier department"

Compare the prior predictions of Tamino and WTFUWT.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3298
681. ColoradoBob1
1:38 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Large sea ice changes North of Swalbard

During the last decades warmer Atlantic water has caused a retreat of the ice edge north of Svalbard. In contrast to other areas of the Arctic Ocean, the largest ice loss north of Svalbard occurred during winter.

A paper published in Tellus by Ingrid Husøy Onarheim and co-workers demonstrates large changes in the sea ice cover north of Svalbard. The Arctic sea ice area has been measured, using satellites, since 1979.
The new study shows that the ice cover north of Svalbard is decreasing for all months, with largest ice reduction during winter. This is in contrast to the observed changes in more central parts of the Arctic Ocean, where largest ice decline is happening during summer.



Read more at: Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2443
680. ColoradoBob1
1:07 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Soot and Dirt Is Melting Snow and Ice Around the World
New report highlights increased loss in Greenland ice cap from dust and soot.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/1 40610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-c hange-dimick/?google_editors_picks=true
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2443
679. Neapolitan
12:49 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 646. JohnLonergan:

It time for the annual arctic sea ice predictions...


Mine own:


JAXA extent: 4.2 million km2
Cryosphere Today area: 3.2 million km2
PIOMAS volume: 5.3 thousand km3
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
678. JohnLonergan
12:48 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Big Hugs to all the climate scientists. Today is hug a climate scientist day. I'll have to send mine via cyberspace:



More at HotWhopper ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3298
677. Xulonn
12:47 PM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 676. ColoradoBob1:
Roaring Video Shows Record Flood at Brazil’s Igazu Falls
Heavy rains have inundated parts of southern Brazil and northern Argentina and Uruguay, driving severe flooding across the region. Video from Igazu Falls, one of South America’s natural wonders, puts the scope of that flooding into perspective.
Really poor quality video, but seeing 15 times the normal volume of Niagara Falls going over Iguazu Falls is an amazing sight. Take a close look at the two pictures below - this is a massive set of waterfalls that during normal flow, dwarfs Niagara Falls. Look at the pictures HERE to get more perspective of the scale of Iguazu during normal, and even more typical rainy season "high" flow rates.

Quoting text from the video link at climatecentral.org:
As with heavy rainfall events earlier this year in Pensacola, Fla., and the Balkans in Europe, no specific percent of this event can be directly attributed to climate change. However, it is in line with predictions that climate change is likely to make intense rain events more common. Those heavy rain events can in turn lead to more extreme flooding.

Aside from the stunning video, the rainfall stands out for another reason. This is usually the start of Brazil’s dry season, when rainfall becomes scarce. While the deluge has displaced nearly a half million people in the Brazilian state of Parana according to Reuters, it comes with a small silver lining: a slight uptick in the amount of water in the region’s parched reservoirs. Much of the country has been dealing with a major drought following a wet season that produced only sporadic rains. The drought has led to concerns of blackouts because of decreased hydropower generation and helped drive up coffee prices around the globe.
Normal flow at Iguazu Falls:


Current image of extreme flooding flow at Iguazu Falls:


It may get even worse because the rains continue in Brazil. According to local media, the Paraná river is quickly increasing its level too and it will overflow, flooding everything along its path. Reportedly, the Paraná's level has increased 16 meters [52 feet] in some areas.
Although it seems that there are many extreme weather events occurring this year, the human mind is not good at approximating even cursory statistical relationships from such casual observations. I remember reading recently about the new field of climate study named "attribution" science, but I haven't seen any significant papers from it yet. Perhaps I will wander over to Dr.Burt's extreme weather blog here at WU later this morning and see if he has anything to say about this year's global weather events.

Right now, however, it's time for a shower, breakfast, and a cup of carefully brewed, prize-winning Boquete coffee, the best in the world - which I hope to start selling on my website's online store today to friends and family in the U.S.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
676. ColoradoBob1
5:17 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Roaring Video Shows Record Flood at Brazil’s Igazu Falls

Heavy rains have inundated parts of southern Brazil and northern Argentina and Uruguay, driving severe flooding across the region. Video from Igazu Falls, one of South America’s natural wonders, puts the scope of that flooding into perspective.

Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2443
675. Xyrus2000
5:15 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 674. bappit:

Wikipedia factoids:

Water is transparent in the visible electromagnetic spectrum. Thus aquatic plants can live in water because sunlight can reach them. Ultra-violet and infrared light is strongly absorbed.

In physics, absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way by which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom. Thus, the electromagnetic energy is transformed to other forms of energy for example, to heat.

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[3]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[4] (or 28%[5]) of the incoming sunlight, the planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about -18 or -19 C,[6][7] about 33C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 C or 15 C.[8] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.


Notice that difference between the earth's effective blackbody temperature and the earth's actual surface temperature. If a greenhouse effect were not occurring then we would not have a tropical weather blog. No way.

Now we get to the "interesting" part.

Global warming, a recent warming of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere,[9] is believed to be the result of a strengthening of the greenhouse effect mostly due to human-produced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases.[10]

Bottom line: the greenhouse effect is real. Homo sapiens probably would not exist without it--not at -18C average temp. I think we certainly would be hairier if we did exist in those conditions.


It should also be noted, that the bulk of that greenhouse effect is due to "trace" gases in the atmosphere.

Nitrogen 78.084
Oxygen 20.946%
Argon 0.934%
Total 99.964%

The remaining .036% includes the longer term greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, etc. (with CO2 being the largest of those at around .03%).

So what about water vapor? Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for most of what keeps are planet pleasant. However, water vapor is a transient gas. You can't put more of it into the atmosphere and keep it there without raising the temperature. And you can't even keep what you have in the atmosphere since it so readily condenses out. Without the long term GHGs in the atmosphere, water vapor enters a negative feedback cycle which ultimately leads to an ice age (or planet snowball if things get out of hand).

That .036% of the atmosphere plays a big role in whether or not our planet toasts, freezes, or stays just right. And we are significantly affecting the .036% of our atmosphere. We're putting more long term GHGs into the air, which in turn makes things warmer, which in turn puts more water vapor into the air, which in turn makes makes things warmer.

Our climate really does balance on a knife edge.

Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
674. bappit
3:49 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Wikipedia factoids:

Water is transparent in the visible electromagnetic spectrum. Thus aquatic plants can live in water because sunlight can reach them. Ultra-violet and infrared light is strongly absorbed.

In physics, absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way by which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom. Thus, the electromagnetic energy is transformed to other forms of energy for example, to heat.

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[3]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[4] (or 28%[5]) of the incoming sunlight, the planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about -18 or -19 C,[6][7] about 33C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 C or 15 C.[8] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.


Notice that difference between the earth's effective blackbody temperature and the earth's actual surface temperature. If a greenhouse effect were not occurring then we would not have a tropical weather blog. No way.

Now we get to the "interesting" part.

Global warming, a recent warming of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere,[9] is believed to be the result of a strengthening of the greenhouse effect mostly due to human-produced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases.[10]

Bottom line: the greenhouse effect is real. Homo sapiens probably would not exist without it--not at -18C average temp. I think we certainly would be hairier if we did exist in those conditions.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6031
673. yoboi
2:55 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting Xulonn:
Humor does not require evidence. However, denseness inhibits the appreciation of humor.


Mr Xulonn I have not had much time to really look at climate change topics..... This is my busy time of year trying to get rice going.....working 20 hr days for the next few weeks......Hope you are doing ok.......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
672. yoboi
2:50 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting Xulonn:
Humor does not require evidence. However, denseness inhibits the appreciation of humor.



I agree.... I have seen you and others share that attribute many times....But I still try to continue to educate the alarmanati group......tough task I must say......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
671. Xulonn
2:46 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 666. yoboi:
Evidence?
Humor does not require evidence. However, denseness inhibits the appreciation of humor.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
670. yoboi
2:39 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:



Brian can you work on the collar???????????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
669. BaltimoreBrian
2:36 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8605
668. yoboi
2:34 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting Neapolitan:


True:

CLICK FOR INTERACTIVE VERSION:



Again, anyone who repeatedly claims the planet isn't warming is a liar or an idiot. Period.




FWIW....Your margin of error is not in synch with NOAA or ARGO data..........8 on 12 pitch you might tumble............
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
667. BaltimoreBrian
2:33 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.



Americans by 2 to 1 Would Pay More to Curb Climate Change


India Dumping Duties Risk Choking Modi's Solar Revolution

Gigaboom: Obama Adds One More Reason to Like Tesla's Battery Factories

* Recession 'led to 10,000 suicides' Discuss

!!! Virunga Park oil hunt in DR Congo halted

* Extreme flooding events influence UK climate views

Germany struts its renewable stuff

!!! Genes found in nature yield 1918-like virus with pandemic potential




Gigantic explosions buried in dust: Probing environment around dark gamma-ray bursts

*** New fossil find pinpoints the origin of jaws in vertebrates



!!! Human language's deep origins appear to have come directly from birds, primates


*** Map of universe questioned: Dwarf galaxies don't fit standard model

* Mining data archives yields haul of 'red nuggets' galaxies


!!! Weird 'magic' ingredient for quantum computing: Contextuality



* More than just food for koalas: Scientists sequence genome of eucalyptus -- a global tree for fuel and fiber

*** Newly discovered paddle prints show how ancient sea reptiles swam


!!! How Earth avoided global warming, last time around

Texas Fishing Report

* Mixed report on West Virginia, Virginia Chesapeake Bay pollution control efforts

What's powering cleaner air? Natural gas.

Are we throwing away an energy solution?

*** Chile: Patagonia Dams Rejected

* How fish can make wind farms more efficient

Report: Forest loss starves fish

* Neil deGrasse Tyson Turns Down Pluto Debate Challenge


!!! Open-Air Defecation of 600 Million Indians Targeted by Inventor
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8605
666. yoboi
2:29 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting Xulonn:
We already are in contact with sentient humanoid alien beings - climate deniers!

They are not as intelligent and informed as regular earthlings, but they are definitely a factor in inhibiting action by humans who want their civilization to continue and evolve for the better.



Evidence???????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
665. yoboi
2:27 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Good news.... E Cantor gone....Hope we will now see some REAL climate-change bills....Tired of the claptrap status....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
664. Xyrus2000
12:49 AM GMT on June 12, 2014
Quoting 661. ColoradoBob1:



Areas farther south, near where the monsoon was advancing, were even more unbearable. Just after midnight Wednesday local time, the heat index was still 110 Fahrenheit (43.3 Celsius) in Mumbai. Yep, 110 degrees. At nearly 1 in the morning. I simply can’t fathom existence in those kinds of conditions. Hindu priests there performed special prayers for rain to relieve the sweltering country of its misery.


You'd get heatstroke just lying down in those temperatures. :P
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
663. ColoradoBob1
10:49 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Extreme weather to occur more often around Indian Ocean rim

A double whammy of weird ocean behavior washed over the world in 1997. The Pacific Ocean had already succumbed to an exceptionally strong El Niño, and then the Indian Ocean was hit fiercely by El Niño’s close cousin: the so-called Indian Ocean Dipole. Surface waters off the coast of Indonesia cooled and the ocean’s predominant westerly winds reversed, leading to catastrophic weather. Fires raged across a drought-stricken Indonesia, and floods across east African nations killed thousands.

Climate change could make years like 1997 come more often, according to a new study of the Indian Ocean Dipole cycle, which alternates between two opposite extremes, positive and negative, just as El Niño does with La Niña. The study suggests that rising greenhouse gases will cause extreme positive dipole events—like the one that struck the Indian Ocean in 1997—to occur three times as often this century as they did in the 20th century, or about once every 6 years, as opposed to once every 17 years.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2443
662. FLwolverine
10:23 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
From Peter Sinclair:

Melting Arctic Warms Up Cold War:


This image made available by the Norwegian Military on Thursday, June 5, 2014 shows a Norwegian vessel passing through the Bosporus in Istanbul Turkey, on March 2, 2014. The mysterious ship the size of a large passenger ferry left a Romanian wharf, glided through the narrow Bosporus that separates Europe and Asia, and plotted a course toward Scandinavia. About a month later, at the fenced-in headquarters of Norway’s military intelligence service, the country’s spy chief disclosed its identity. It was a $250 million spy ship, tentatively named Marjata, that will be equipped with sensors and other technology to snoop on Russia’s activities in the Arctic beginning in 2016. (AP Photo/Norwegian Military)
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2371
661. ColoradoBob1
10:20 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 660. ColoradoBob1:

India’s Heat Wave Is Unbearable

Under relentless heat, India is reaching the breaking point.

As the country tries to keep cool, the power grid is failing. Rioting protesters in the north of the country set fire to electricity substations last weekend and held power workers hostage, accusing the government of distributing scarce power resources based on political preference.


Link


Areas farther south, near where the monsoon was advancing, were even more unbearable. Just after midnight Wednesday local time, the heat index was still 110 Fahrenheit (43.3 Celsius) in Mumbai. Yep, 110 degrees. At nearly 1 in the morning. I simply can’t fathom existence in those kinds of conditions. Hindu priests there performed special prayers for rain to relieve the sweltering country of its misery.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2443
660. ColoradoBob1
10:15 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
India’s Heat Wave Is Unbearable

Under relentless heat, India is reaching the breaking point.

As the country tries to keep cool, the power grid is failing. Rioting protesters in the north of the country set fire to electricity substations last weekend and held power workers hostage, accusing the government of distributing scarce power resources based on political preference.


Link
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2443
659. cyclonebuster
8:47 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Something interesting hanging right in there with 1st, 2nd & 3rd lowest extent..

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
658. DonnieBwkGA
8:37 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
4.09 million km2
Member Since: June 29, 2013 Posts: 29 Comments: 2084
657. cyclonebuster
8:35 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 656. Xyrus2000:



WUWT: The place to go when you fail grade school math and science.

We still have a huge chunk of the melting season to go. Current forecasts call for a large amount of warming along with a dipole forming in the arctic. The state of the ice pack itself is abysmal with most of it being a shattered mass, even at the pole. And then, of course, there are the huge warm SST anomalies all around the pack.

The current extent is 10,875,956 km^2. We still have 100 days or so of melting. That's an average of approximately 47,000km^2 per day of loss. Even back in the 80's the average daily loss rate is higher than that during melt season.


I am going with something biblical for extent like in Genesis 2.0.... Genesis 2.0 Thus the heavens and earth were finished and all the hosts of them.

So it's 2.0 Million SQ. km for me...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
656. Xyrus2000
8:20 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 646. JohnLonergan:
The WTFUT crowd has come up with a guess of 6.11 million sq. km...


WUWT: The place to go when you fail grade school math and science.

We still have a huge chunk of the melting season to go. Current forecasts call for a large amount of warming along with a dipole forming in the arctic. The state of the ice pack itself is abysmal with most of it being a shattered mass, even at the pole. And then, of course, there are the huge warm SST anomalies all around the pack.

The current extent is 10,875,956 km^2. We still have 100 days or so of melting. That's an average of approximately 47,000km^2 per day of loss. Even back in the 80's the average daily loss rate is higher than that during melt season.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
655. sirmaelstrom
7:35 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
№ 646

Quoting 646. JohnLonergan:

It time for the annual arctic sea ice predictions[...]


I'll take a stab at it: I'm going to go exactly halfway between Tamino's 4.14 million km^2 and WUWT's commenters' 6.12 million km^2.

This means that the Official Sirmaelstrom Minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent For 2014 is: 5.13 million km^2.

So let it be written; so let it be done.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
654. Neapolitan
7:04 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 642. JohnLonergan:

It's warming, Dr. Spencer's data shows it.

UAH Lower Troposphere: Warmest 10-year Period on Record





True:

CLICK FOR INTERACTIVE VERSION:



Again, anyone who repeatedly claims the planet isn't warming is a liar or an idiot. Period.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
653. Xulonn
6:58 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 638. Cochise111:
"Climate change" now may prevent contact with alien civilization...
We already are in contact with sentient humanoid alien beings - climate deniers!

They are not as intelligent and informed as regular earthlings, but they are definitely a factor in inhibiting action by humans who want their civilization to continue and evolve for the better.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
652. Xulonn
6:04 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 651. cyclonebuster:
Area without holes extent area including holes.
More precisely, sea ice "area" is actually the areal measurement of the sea ice only, while sea ice "extent" is the area of seawater with at least 15% of its surface covered with ice. "Extent" is always a bigger number than "area"

Theoretically, if it the "extent" was all at the minimum 15% coverage, its value could be 6.6 times greater that of "area" for the same amount of ice surface.Currently,

Edit: As of yesterday, extent is at 10,875,956 km3, and area is at 9,518,166 km3, so extent is currently about 15% greater that area.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
651. cyclonebuster
5:18 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 647. FLwolverine:

And for those of us [raises hand] who need a refresher:

What is the difference between sea ice area and extent?

Area and extent are different measures and give scientists slightly different information. Some organizations, including Cryosphere Today, report ice area; NSIDC primarily reports ice extent. Extent is always a larger number than area, and there are pros and cons associated with each method.

A simplified way to think of extent versus area is to imagine a slice of swiss cheese. Extent would be a measure of the edges of the slice of cheese and all of the space inside it. Area would be the measure of where there is cheese only, not including the holes. That is why if you compare extent and area in the same time period, extent is always bigger. A more precise explanation of extent versus area gets more complicated.

Extent defines a region as “ice-covered” or “not ice-covered.” For each satellite data cell, the cell is said to either have ice or to have no ice, based on a threshold. The most common threshold (and the one NSIDC uses) is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is considered ice covered; less than that and it is said to be ice free. Example: Let’s say you have three 25 kilometer (km) x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells covered by 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice. Two of the three cells would be considered “ice covered,” or 100% ice. Multiply the grid cell area by 100% sea ice and you would get a total extent of 1,250 square km (482 square miles).

Area takes the percentages of sea ice within data cells and adds them up to report how much of the Arctic is covered by ice; area typically uses a threshold of 15%. So in the same example, with three 25 km x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells of 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice, multiply the grid cell areas that are over the 15% threshold by the percent of sea ice in those grid cells, and add it up. You would have a total area of 662 square km (255.8 square miles).

Scientists at NSIDC report extent because they are cautious about summertime values of ice concentration and area taken from satellite sensors. To the sensor, surface melt appears to be open water rather than water on top of sea ice. So, while reliable for measuring area most of the year, the microwave sensor is prone to underestimating the actual ice concentration and area when the surface is melting. To account for that potential inaccuracy, NSIDC scientists rely primarily on extent when analyzing melt-season conditions and reporting them to the public. That said, analyzing ice area is still quite valuable. Given the right circumstances, background knowledge, and scientific information on current conditions, it can provide an excellent sense of how much ice there really is “on the ground.”

Source: NSIDC


Area without holes extent area including holes..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
650. cyclonebuster
5:09 PM GMT on June 11, 2014
Quoting 649. JohnLonergan:



Yes, both are relative to NSIDC.


.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401

Viewing: 700 - 650

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14Blog 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.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
54 °F
Partly Cloudy