Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

#49 Global warming blamed for unusual cold spell

Another wonderful attention grabbing headline in the popular media. (That is their business-as-usual.)

Near the bottom of that article though,

Some experts have said the cold weather in China and Canada may be linked to La Nina, a sea-surface cooling pattern in the east Pacific, which leads to a warmer sea surface in the west Pacific near China and Asia.

"La Nina is causing warm moist air to move to the south of China," said Professor Yan Yuk- yee, who specializes in climatology at Hong Kong Baptist University. "When this meets the cold air of the monsoon, it causes freezing conditions."

It's surprising they included that but of course it was near the bottom. I predict with 95% certainty that "reporting" in the popular media will continue in this manner.

I'm really interested in seeing a scientific comparison of pre and post ~1970 variability though.

Hey Cal!

I'm really interested in seeing a scientific comparison of pre and post ~1970 variability though.

I'm with you on that one. However, I'm sure funding for that study will be hard to come by since most funding seems to be funneled into global warming err climate change research.

When was the last time you've seen a paper written about natrual variability of climate, or better yet, a paper written that doesn't link everything imaginable to global warming induced climate change.

If anyone out there knows of one, please, let me know!

For those that missed 'Six degrees can change the world' on Sunday it is coming on in a few minutes.

Re: #52

You want a technical paper or something written for the lay? I'm pretty busy between now and tuesday, but I might have some time to search for something related to your query.

However, I must protest your claim that there aren't papers written that don't "link everything imaginable to global warming induced climate change." I applaud your clear diction - you nail the correct phenomenon - but I believe the statement is disingenuous; there are precious few scientific papers that "link" things to global warming. What many researchers study, however, is how certain forcings may impact the overall effect. They run global climate models and tweak certain variables, or add new forcings, and see what overall effect that has. They're not "linking" anything; they're attempting to derive a better understanding of the climate system so that we can increase the accuracy of our fundamental assumptions and better determine what is going to happen to our climate.

I'd prefer a technical paper, but either or would suffice.

couter

how do you know they are lay? Do you think they would not understand a paper? You are an undergrad, so you are still pretty lay.

sully

what kind a paper are you looking for? atm oscillations, oceanic low frequency variability?

Counters said:

"so that we can increase the accuracy of our fundamental assumptions"

Once again, must paraphrase:

"so that we can increase the accuracy of our fundamental statements that are assumed to be true for the sake of argument (assumptions)."

If, for your argument, they're already assumed to be true, how can you increase the accuracy of an assumption?

Where are the BTUs from the fuel that was burned that created the C02?
Action: Modify Comment


4. sullivanweather 3:36 PM GMT on February 13, 2008
Buster,

Escaping into space...


In what elements or compounds?

After watching 'Six degrees can change the World' lsat night, I must say I am very disappointed in the program.

It seemed as though most of the program was based of legends and myths to explain that the climate is changing. For example, they used the example that natives in the Brazilian rain forest would looks towards the Milky Way to decipher upcoming weather patterns and that they could no longer do so because the climate has changed.

Sounds like a bunch of witch craft, to me.

There were a few other examples that I cannot remember right now that were very similar in approach to try and explain how the climate has changed that weren't science based. Oh well...

-------

As for the paper I requested...

I would like to read a paper published in the last two years that goes to some length to explain PDO, how it changes, why it changes and what are it's effects in detail. If anyone could find such a paper I would greatly apppreciate it. This paper will also have to contain no reference to global warming induced climate change (there is no specific reason for me to look for a paper on PDO, I just want to see a paper that isn't full of global warming rhetoric). Remember, this paper should have been published within the previous two years (one would think such a paper would be easy to find since we are in the midst of a PDO regime shift, currently).

cyclone, sometimes I wonder if you are just saying things to bug us...

Think of what BTU means... is it a unit of particles/compounds?....

New Study Shows Extent of Harmful Human Influences on Global Marine Ecosystems
February 14, 2008
More than 40 percent of the world’s oceans are heavily impacted by human activities, including overfishing and pollution, according to a new study that will appear in tomorrow’s peer-reviewed journal Science.

Dr. Kenneth Casey, with NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Center in Silver Spring, Md., and co-author of the study “A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems,” joined a team of researchers that combined 17 data sets of different human activities – from fishing and fertilizer run-off, to commercial shipping and pollution – and analyzed their effects on marine ecosystems, continental shelves and the deep ocean.
Link

so the milky way changed because of climate change? whatever. Even if looking to the milky way works for those guys to predict the weather, why is it no possible to do anymore?

Which ones are they?

How do they escape to space?

Cruc,

There was no explaination.

I'm not 100% certain that it was the Milky Way, but they were looking to the stars for how they should plan for the weather. Certainly not the type of example that should have been used to explain how or why the climate is changing.

H and He are the only ones I know of escaping to space.

Buster, the same way all heat escapes into space.

locked up in what elements or compounds?

The dynamics and the causative agents of PDO still poorly know. so

here is a good one

Latif, M. and T.P. Barnett, 1994: Causes of decadal climate variability over the North Pacific and North America.
Science 266, 634-637.

How does H2O make it to space?

yeah. I see the stars are saying something and the weather now is not following.

Cruc,

See what I mean??

Perhaps if more money was funded to understanding such processes that are natrual (as opposed to the tremendous amouts of money funded to research global warming) we'd know.

Yep. All the $$ is to "prove" that CO2 is to blame. Nobody studies in detail the natural fenomena in the oceans or atmophere.

Our BTU input into the ocean is not natural.

Journal of Climate 18(21):4355–4373

Niklas Schneider and Bruce D. Cornuelle. The Forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation

This study further clarifies the causes of the “impact” of the PDO on climate of the adjacent continental areas and teleconnection patterns from the Tropics. As found from modeling experiments by Pierce (2002), the PDO does not excite the climate modulation, but the PDO and these climate anomalies share the same forcing from the Tropics and from intrinsic variability of the Aleutian low. The impact of oceanic anomalies in the Kuroshio–Oyashio Extension complicates this picture at decadal time scales. The atmospheric response to these anomalies is likely small at best, and we do not expect a large trace of these in the climate over North America (Kushnir et al. 2002; Yulaeva et al. 2001). Furthermore, the relative roles of forcing are likely to be site dependent, and our results suggest, therefore, that the stratification of climate anomalies or teleconnection patterns be based on the underlying indices of ENSO and the NPI, rather than ENSO and the PDO.

Buster, heat escapes into space as photons, specifically, electromagnetic radiation in the infrared band. The process is known as radiational cooling.

The last time the PDO shifted from positive to negative was in 1946 +/-2 years. The 1950 La Nina was fairly strong, but according to the MEI was a moderate strength event. It takes time for patterns to mature.

It would be my best guesstimation that as the PDO shifts and becomes sustained, La Nina strength on the MEI index would follow suit.

Climate Anomalies Induced by the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations: Glacial Maximum and Present-Day Perspectives

F. Justino and W. R. Peltier
Journal of Climate
Volume 21, Issue 3 (February 2008) pp. 459–475

78. LowerCal 10:05 PM GMT on February 15, 2008
Buster, heat escapes into space as photons, specifically, electromagnetic radiation in the infrared band. The process is known as radiational cooling.

So photons move the water molecule all the way to space where the BTUs are removed?

In general, the Earth re-radiates heat into outer space at about the same rate as the sun delivers heat, thus maintaining a relatively constant temperature on earth.

Now what about the extra BTUs man creates?

#81) Photons (packets of electromagnetic energy) leave Earth for space taking their energy with them. The cooling does not require any loss of atoms or molecules.

#82) The energy generated by man's technologies ends up getting radiated into space also. However, the amount of that heat is insignificant compared to the energy delivered by the Sun every day to the entire Earth.

Cal,

Before you engage yourself in a debate with buster I should warn you that you'll be getting no where.

Before you engage yourself in a debate with buster I should warn you that you'll be getting no where.

Yeah you'll just dig yourself a tun,,, uh hole

Mother nature is best when you stay out of influencing it(even though you cant really influence a huge earth/atmosphere system).....The biggest ecological problems are pollution, cutting down the rainforests, destroying animal's habitats, etc......This doesn't get as much air time as global warming because it would mean big industry would have to smarten up(ya ever think that most of all pollution is because of big industrial complexes?)...Then we have China and all those other countries over there that do nothing about reducing their emissions.....Al Gore spouts off about how bad we are creating GW while he goes around in his pollutant-ridden cars and planes....

The sun is the only thing that makes sense...That would be the greatest culprit to warming the earth, since earth is heated directly from the sun to start with!!! Just because man-made GW theorists fail to make a graph that shows sun-spot activity as being the primary temp factor, doesn't mean you can rule it out.....It just means scientists still dont understand 99.999% of mother earth.

Sully, Jer, no debate, just answering honest questions.

Cal,

Just didn't want to see you get fustrated when buster completely ignores your response

=)

Was anyone else in here able to catch six degrees? If so, what was your opinion of the program?

Ricky, what say you? I'm sure you were able to catch it...

Was anyone else in here able to catch six degrees?

Did not see it yet Sully, I have National Geographic Channel on demand on cable so can watch it any time. I'm waiting until I'm in the right mood, which may be never, lol

JER

Sully, I saw it the first time it aired. I thought it was kind of vague. (Of course no one yet knows exactly what each degree would mean.) It also seemed kind of disjointed.

I've seen more informative and compelling documentaries on related subjects.

I thought that they used horrible examples to how the climate has changed.

The example I used above I thought topped the cake. Looking at stars and trying to determine the weather from them is simply nonsense. I really don't know how that would convince anyone that the climate is changing.

I vaguely (lol) remember that part. I thought it had something to do with the haziness of the sky.

Anyway, it was another "I decided to look into it for myself" effort by a lay person. Not up to usual NatGeo level and definitely short of NOVA quality.

I thought that they could've done a much better job.

It seemed to me that the program was rushed through production to make the airwaves as quickly as possible. The examples they used in many cases were poor.

Computer models and the real world

Global climate is in a continuous dynamic state of flux, representing an analogue system, where everything is happening simultaneously. In contrast to this, computer models are digital, attempting to solve a problem by repetitive calculations (iterations), before moving on to solving the next problem, etc. This represents a drawback for computer-based modelling of climate.

While the laws of physics may be beyond discussion, it is not always equally clear or predictable which concept or process will predominate over which when a huge number of competing processes are acting simultaneously as is the case for climate. The description of the individual concepts in a model may well be correctly defined in the mathematical formulations, but the dominance or subservience of one process to others is defined by the modeller, not by the model itself. The modeller decides that issue in the way the program code is written.

In the end, the computer model therefore simply mirrors the intellectual choices of the modeller and only puts numbers to them. If those choices are based on flawed reasoning or insufficient observational evidence, it is naive to believe that the model will somehow remove this fundamental problem through sheer number crunching power. That would be to attribute qualities of judgment to models which they simply do not have. In essence, a mathematical model does not relieve the intellectual burden of determining which variable or process is dominant over which. The modellers have to make a decision on this when writing the code and this choice then becomes an integral part of the model.

Most relationships between parameters in a complex of natural processes are nonlinear relationships. As one variable changes, another may change exponentially. What is even more complicating is the fact that a number of such parameters may change simultaneously as a certain process unfolds. In addition, a relationship that may be believed to be linear when studied in isolation, may turn up being nonlinear in the context of simultaneous changes in other parameters. It is therefore entirely likely that it forever will be impossible to predict the future development of nature by way of numerical models (Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis 2007).

Anyhow, computer models of climate can never be superior to the knowledge based understanding derived from experiments and classic field observations. Models may prove powerful instruments in improving our understanding of complicated laws and process associations. But until the empirical knowledge coded into them is perfect and comprehensive, they still have to be considered as predictive tools with many limitations.

The world’s perhaps most cited climatologist, Reid Bryson, stated as early as in 1933 that a model is "nothing more than a formal statement of how the modeller believes that the part of the world of his concern actually works". Global climate models are often defended by stating that they are based on well established laws of physics. There is, however, much more to the models than just the laws of physics. Otherwise they would all produce the same output for the future climate, which they do not. Climate models are, in effect, nothing more than mathematical ways for experts to express their opinions about how the real world operates.

source

Any discussion on this would be welcome, butI'll check tomorrow since I need to hit the sack

JER

Sully, I was thinking rushed also. In a hurry, a low budget or an inexperienced producer ... I couldn't say.

JER, I'm off to bed to too. I'll read your comment tomorrow.

JER, that is why they will NEVER prove man-made GW....because models are biased.

83.

"#82) The energy generated by man's technologies ends up getting radiated into space also."

In which elements or molecules?

Re #96: Interesting, jer. You could change a few words around and make this into an attack on all of science (since most of it has to deal with a degree of uncertainty). I must say the tone sounds a little bitter.

Also, having a quick look at his publication record, this is mighty bold talk for a glaciologist who doesn't appear to use models in his own work.

Nice Try Steve.

I'm sure if anyone wants to check out Ole Humlum they will see that his credentials are at lest as impressive as yours :). Here is a part of his CV you may have missed

Comparison and integration of different climate proxy series.

Scientific applications of numerical modeling in geomorphology; e.g. modeling of active layer and permafrost thermal characteristics.


Mapping Arctic and Antarctic surface temperature changes and geomorphic effects during the observational period.


Mapping, monitoring and modeling natural cold-climate geomorphic processes and -hazards.