Showing posts with label Arctic sea ice loss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arctic sea ice loss. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Once Again: The Current "Super Freeze" Doesn't Mean Global Warming Is A Hoax

Image result for polar vortex

Once again, almost like clock work, the  "dummy brigade"  has emerged (mainly on FOX, Limbaugh) to dismiss the bitter sub-zero temperatures sending the mid-western U.S. into a deep freeze  as  part of a "natural cycle".  Thereby arguing there's really no global warming, no climate change and hey,just bundle up more for the polar vortex.  It's all a "hoax"according to these nitwits.  

A recent example of the latter was a  letter in the local press (COS Indy, Jan. 2-8, p. 4 ) by a  Mark Rozman who claimed:

“Climate change is a natural, ongoing process as evidenced by tree ring data”   etc.

But there is more than tree ring data to be factored in here.   While tree ring data is a useful proxy indicator, it still doesn’t come close to ice core analysis in ascertaining the increasing concentration of CO2 and its effect on climate. In ice core analysis the air trapped in  cylindrical ice cores (extracted from deep within the Earth)  is chemically assayed .  The gases are analyzed to quantify the  CO2  concentration, then related to the climate at the time.

One of the most prolific ice core researchers - who originally discovered (ca. 1986) that the Arctic was warming much more than the continental U.S.  -  was Prof. Gunther Weller of the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska- Fairbanks :

Prof.  Gunther Weller (1987)

 His work and that of others has disclosed that over the past 800,000 years the CO2 concentration of  300 ppm was never crossed until after the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.  Further, it has been found that no Ice ages have occurred whenever the CO2 concentration exceeded 200 ppm.  This means that climate change cannot be a “natural ongoing process.´ How can it when the greatest spike in CO2 concentration (now approaching 410 ppm) occurred after the human-instigated Industrial Revolution? 

In terms of tree rings, the relevant indicator is the ratio of the C14 isotope to the C12 isotope, as disclosed by solar physicist John Eddy.    

Eddy showed (‘The New Solar Physics’; p. 17, 1978) that an anthropogenic effect could be deduced from a graph of C14:C 12 deviations over a long enough period, i.e. 2,000 years.  

Specifically, “the sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve is  attributed to anthropogenic causes and is the mark of increased population and the industrial age.” (Op. cit.)

Eddy’s work  in concert with many others, shows clearly humans are the primary agents driving climate change. Remove the human influence from the past 250 years or so and we are not approaching 410 ppm of CO2 concentration. Not even close!

Now what about the polar vortex? What is its role in climate change- global warming?

This Arctic heat emphasis, for example,  was exposed in the January , 2016 zonal temperature map :

Data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that January was, for the entire  globe, was an extraordinary month. In particular the data showed the Arctic took the brunt of heating (see graphic) with a temperature increase more than 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 1951 to 1980 average in this region. (This data constitutes a "zonal mean" temperature map, which shows how the temperature departures from average change based on one's latitude location on Earth.)

The finding dovetailed  with Prof. Gunther Weller's predictions (from the mid -1980s) - based on his ice core analyses- that future warming would be greatest in the Arctic.  This is  a phenomenon known as "Arctic amplification".  In papers and seminars delivered at the GI over 1985-1990 he pointed out that a much warmer Arctic also means a much more unstable polar region with more frequent intrusions ("waves")  of the polar vortex,  leading to frigid temperatures in parts of the U.S. such as we've seen the past few years.  In one seminar he described it "almost like moving the Arctic to the continental U.S."

Unpacking it further: there is generally an immense cold mass of air that sits over the Arctic.  Because of global warming, climate change the Arctic has experienced diminished sea ice, E.G.
Image result for brane space, aRCTIC SEA ICE

As the sea ice mass melts there is less reflection of radiation into space and hence more rapid warming of the surface.  This diminished sea ice then results in more heat dispatched into the atmosphere. This in turn destabilizes the polar vortex - a low pressure area normally residing over the north pole. This instability then allows polar air to plunge southward into the continental U.S. .

The details leading to what we've seen the past several days (with temperatures in some locations even rivaling those in Antarctica) occurred on January 2nd.  NOAA monitors showed that part of the stratosphere had a rapid rise of 50 degrees F in just a few days.    The event split the unstable polar vortex, so that part broke off. Afterward, pockets of Arctic air migrated south causing the current deep freeze.

Let's also process that the warming onslaught is exacerbated by the rapid melting of permafrost. Vast expanses of former  Arctic permafrost have been reduced to mud, and also in the process of warming released methane - perhaps the Greenhouse gas which is most potent.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-rapid-permafrost-melting-triggers.html

As reported by the University of Alaska -Fairbanks Arctic Research site:
In 2016, the latest year of complete records, the majority of Arctic observation sites reported the highest permafrost temperatures on record.

The takeaway is that these sub-zero super freezes we're seeing with polar vortex intrusions are likely to become more frequent in the future, not less. The deniers and climate dummies would do well to learn more about this phenomenon and why they should be fearful, not wise ass snarky, to play into the agnotology narrative.  See e.g.



Brane Space: The Pseudo-Science Agnotologists Strike Again!




Thursday, February 2, 2017

The Actual (Not Alternative) Facts Concerning The Hottest Year Yet Of The Modern Era: 2016

No automatic alt text available.
After the email arrived in my inbox that the incoming EPA gang of Scott Pruitt plans to replace scientific data and facts with alternative facts, it occurred to me that getting the facts of the hottest year out might be appropriate. Before the Trumpistas got in, the EPA with other agencies (NOAA, NASA) delivered the sorry stats concerning 2016, as the third straight record warm year in a row - and the hottest yet of the modern era.

What are some of the facts revealed via the separate analyses?

-  The last time the planet was warmer than 2016 was 125,000 year, this according to data extracted concurrently from tree rings, ice cores, sediments, according to NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt.

- The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces in 2016 was 58.69 degrees F or 1.69 degrees above average. This, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  It was the largest differential by which an annual global temperature record has ever been broken.

The Agency pointed out that while the difference may appear insignificant,  global climate temperature averages are reckoned generally in tenths of a degree difference, or even hundredths of a degree.

- Most of the warming recorded thus far for Earth has happened in the past 35 years and 16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2001.

- Temperature records were set on nearly every continent and no land areas were cooler than average.

- For eight straight months (January through August) each month recorded its warmest temperatures since record keeping began 15 years after the Civil War.

- The warmth detected was 80-90 percent the result of long term climate trends (including the fact CO2 accumulates and molecules remain in the atmosphere on average 100 years) and 10 percent derived from the El Nino climate pattern. (According to Gavin Schmidt)

Finally, the warmth last year contributed to deadly heat waves in Asia and the Middle East, as well as record low sea ice in the Arctic.

Process these stats carefully and save them, because you won't be seeing them on agency websites much longer if the Trump bunch has their way.


See also:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/02/when-are-climate-records-really-records.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/new-data-shows-el-nino-has-accelerated.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/skewering-spurious-global-warming.html

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Hyprocrisy on "Academic Freedom" Exposed Again In Defense Of Climate Change Denier

Most people who pay any attention to the news would only have heard of Roger Pielke Jr. when Nate Silver's 538 blog took him under its wings as some kind of "official" voice re: climate. But as I noted in my March 30 post from last year this is all huff and puff baloney. And Pielke Jr. is no more a real climate scientist than I'm the pope.

According to one profile on Wikipedia:

"Pielke Jr. is an American meteorologist with interests in climate variability and climate change",

 Leaving out all the fulsome  bollocks on his assorted "numerical modeling" skills  this is basically what it all comes down to: his meteorological background. As I noted in a Jan. 2012 post on the climate agnotologists,  citing the Jan.-Feb. 2011 issue of The Columbia Journalism Review,  most meteorologists have a distorted view on climate change- global warming. They can't help it, as NBC's Al Roker also demonstrated,  It's how they're taught, unable to see the "data forests for the trees." In addition, they fail to properly recognize the limits of their own scientific training – and hence the implausibility of their pronouncing on climate science.
 
As one reviewer of his book  The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming,  puts it:
 

"Pielke Jr. is really astonishing in the way he almost completely denies the urgent need to mitigate climate change by greatly lowering global carbon emissions. He does it in a very slick way by masquerading as someone with real and different solutions, when in reality all he proposes is that society do next to nothing about burning fossil fuels.
 
He basically brushes aside climate change as if it were a trivial concern."
 
So no surprise that ultimately someone of authority would wish to investigate Pielke Jr's background and whether he was collecting money from the fossil fuel lobbies or companies. After all. we know Willie Soon - another climate scientist pretender- is in up to his eyeballs with fossil fuel money, e.g.
 
 
So the ranking Democratic member of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva,  was quite correct to launch an inquiry into the basis for his academic views. Certainly to see if they were his own or being shaped by $$$ from fossil fuelers, as Soon's views are.  Grijalva wrote the University of Colorado demanding information, including Pielke's funding sources, communications and all drafts "of testimony before any government body"
 
Grijalva's interest was to ferret out conflicts of interest, which was totally justifiable. Again, as we saw with Willie Soon's case, even the Smithsonian - under which umbrella he's allowed to operate at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics- took issue with his failure to disclose funding sources.
 
But what was the Post's take in its fulsome Editorial yesterday?
 
"In fact, his gambit amounts to a bold, abusive assault on academic freedom"
 
Please, Spare me the phony  sanctimonious , self-righteous squawking. Because I'd like to know where the hell the Post was some years ago when CU (the same university Pielke's at now) rummaged through all of Prof. Ward Churchill's drafts, academic papers and communications - which they did with no other prof - to find hum guilty of "plagiarism" - after his essay 'On Roosting chickens' came to light. This was an essay written after 9/11 that compared the investment specialists and brokers in the World Trade Center to "little Eichmanns".
 
Every little anti-free speech dunce in Colorado went batshit crazy calling for Churchill's head,  with the university - and the Denver Post - complying in full. The Post hung Churchill out to dry in a number of editorials and op-ed columns, The guy was convicted and hung, drawn and quartered before he could ask why.  The whole episode showed the "free speech" meme for the hypocritical bollocks it was, because while someone could depict Muslims as "ragheads" in cartoons, he couldn't dare call into the question the U.S. role in inciting blowback - as Churchill did.
 
So it's kind of choice now to see the Post going all holier than thou on defending "academic freedom" for Pielke Jr. when they never did it for Ward Churchill.  In fact, they wanted him tossed out of CU as rapidly as possible. No way could a critic of government policy in the wake of 9/11 be allowed to continue to publish his work without hyper-scrutiny and kangaroo academic courts.
 
The Post at the end then quotes Pielke Jr's whining (on his blog) on his departure from climate change research:
 
"The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt. I have already shifted all my academic work away from climate issues."
 
Awwwww,,,,boo hoo hoo, cry me a river, and pass the handkerchiefs. Our hearts bleed for the poor little denier rat.  Just don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out, Sparky.
 
And the Denver Post's final take?
 
"It is a sad day when bullies can push honest brokers such as Pielke into another line of research."
 
Balderdash. It's a sad day - really sad - when our supposed objective newspapers can't tell an honest broker from a dishonest one like Pielke Jr. A pseudo researcher whose specious science has helped to probably delay effective action that leaves us all at risk. As I said, good riddance he's out of the climate field so he can't pump out any more of his denier BS.
 
Before anyone sheds a tear for this "honest broker" let's recall Skeptic Science referred to Pielke Jr as a “classic misinformer.  For example, Pielke Jr. claimed:
 
"Not all glaciers and ice caps are melting. While the Arctic Ice for example has been decreasing, Antarctic ice has not"

 


 
To see a comprehensive rebuttal by Skeptic Science of many other of Pielke Jr. claims - go to this link: