Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 Next
Comments 27051 to 27100:
-
A Real Sceptic Says at 06:20 AM on 31 October 2015There is no consensus
Okay so while a sceptic is mostly interested in checking (and if necessary refuting) new scientific claims, it is reasonable to discuss the "consensus" issue due to its importance to science as a whole.
Ironically, there is no consensus on the meanings of the terms used to define this consensus. Does it mean a majority? Or just an important and strongly agreed minority? Do voices with authority carry sway, or is it democratic. Does it need to be "overwhelming" and is it, in fact? Is it absolute or is there internal dissent? Which human beings count as scientists? Which institutions act as gatekeepers thereof and what is their motivation?
Rather than work trough all of these, I will simply ask the reader to consider whether it is healthy that you are being asked to accept the speakers' tacit definitions on these matters, as well as their unstated assumptions. You are being guided toward what is really more of a psychological sensation than any fact-based argument - the sensation of being part of something big and powerful. Maybe a sense of belonging and safety. Maybe moral superiority. Maybe the clarity that comes from being decisively led.
If the reader is ready to understand their own (and their peers') fralties in such areas, then I do not need to discuss the history of systems of control and subjudication. If not, there's no point getting in to it except to suggest you may wish to begin with the Milgram experiment.
Instead, I will take a single example, from the current article, of a flagrent manipulation of the meaning of "consensus" and surrounding terms: the 97% pie-chart.
You thought it said 97% of scientists, right? No. It's 97% of papers. That's right there in the jpeg image itself but you didn't notice it. What else didn't you notice?
If you read the underlying study, what 97% really agree with is somthing along the lines of "do you agree that (a) humans emit CO2 and (b) that the greenhouse effect is real". Your present author does, and so would be a part of the consensus!
The trick here is a toxic mix of pedantry and tactical naivety - as so often seen among precotious fifteen-year-olds, but in this case carefully hidden within a typically dull metholodgy section in a paper. It is *pedantically* true that human CO2 plus greenhouse effect implies *probably* *some* human generated warming. But has human generated warming been *shown* to occur? Not implied. Is it problematic? Not implied. Significant? Not implied. Even detectable? Not implied. Nor does the position in the question even imply that there won't be compensating factors or that warming would even be harmful anyway.
In summary, consensus taken in general is too subject to the frailties of the human condition for any wise person to pay any attention to it. Specific factoids, such as the 97% pie-chart (and there are others) may seem to lend concrete validity, but as soon as you check them you find nothing meaningful, only trickery.
Should we accept climate consensus because consensus exists around, say evolution? A real sceptic can answer this easily: the whole point of science is to investigate methodically the questions whose answers are *not* obvious on the surface. No scientist would ever be so intellectually lazy as to reason that since the climate consensus "sort-of looks like" the Darwinian consensus, that their underlying scientific validities should also match.
Climate consensus is much more like a rainbow. Amazing to look at; vast and magical. But how many times do you have to check for that pot of gold before you accept there's really *nothing there at all*!
-
Cooper13 at 06:16 AM on 31 October 20152015: A Very Bad Year for the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Also....this non sequitur statement:
What the data is showing us is that over the past 15 years or so there has been little underlying change with El Ninos elevating the temperature a little and La Ninas reducing them. Is what is happening to global annual average surface temperatures all that surprising?
is demonstrably FALSE.
If you look at decadally averaged temperatures and ENSO, you will see that during La Nina dominated periods, global temperatures are now remaning about constant (e.g. actually a 'hiatus') and during El Nino dominated periods, we are getting about 2x the decadal warming rate of the overall average. Over the past century, global temperatures basically stair-step based on ENSO phases, but they have NOT gone down.
-
Cooper13 at 06:12 AM on 31 October 20152015: A Very Bad Year for the Global Warming Policy Foundation
@One Planet Only Forever-
Well-put. It's worth noting, also that the 97/98 event was preceded by a fairly COOL 1997 year. If you want to compare THIS El Nino event and global temperatures, it should be compared with 1997 at this point, and then 1998 compared with 2016.
It is not being presented clearly enough to people that global temperatures lag El Nino by 3-6 months, which is how the data were handled in that graph posted by LarryM, originally in the Houston Chronicle.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:58 AM on 31 October 20152015: A Very Bad Year for the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Another fact against the claims that warming has not continued is that in previous El Nino events it is the year following the start of the El Nino that is the warmest, 1998 for the 1997/98 event. So it is likely that the 2016 global average will be even warmer than the anticipated 2015 global average.
And there is no need to wait for the end of a calendar year to get an annual average. Any 12 month period contains each month of a year. And the trend so far through 2015 is clearly that the averages of 12 months keep going up with each new month.
The trend of 30 years also continues to go up with each new month. In fact the trend the 30 year averages never 'noticably paused'. Every new month is significantly warmer than the month 30 years before. And it seems likely that February 2028 will be warmer than that very unusually warm Feb 1998 value, even if 2028 is La Nina influenced (the graph in LarryM's comment shows an average difference of about 0.15C between El Nino and La Nina).
-
Bert from Eltham at 05:51 AM on 31 October 20152015: A Very Bad Year for the Global Warming Policy Foundation
LarryM I crudely plotted the estimated 2015 temperature anomaly using up to September data here
http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2015_09/2015est.jpg
Bert
-
A Real Sceptic Says at 05:42 AM on 31 October 2015It's not bad
On the matter of the "goodness" or "badness" of outcomes, scepticism in the scientific sense is not relevent - because it is not a scientific question. It would be scientific to ask whether a given outcome is more or less likely under different global climate conditions (but sadly, few such predictions are scientifially checked, on either side of the debate).
It is elightening, though, to look at the stats. Cliamte change alarm supporters invariably cite all or virtually all consequences as "bad". They will fargue the toss each and every time a "good" outcome is found.
Statistically speaking, is it reasonable for a small change in climate to have 10, 100 or 1000 times more "bad" consequences than "good"? No. Even if there was some underlying mechanism skewing the true outcomes toward "bad", it could not possibly be as extreme as the alarmists from the IPCC to this site and everywhere in between claim... and one can easily show to an adequate statistical significance that they are biassed.
How could bias creep in? Well, the individual negative outcomes are often fabrications (do you have time to check them all? There are thousands!). They are cherry-picked in type, methodology and location. You can see this by taking one and asking "how many other kinds of scenarios could be looked at, that differ in some way from this case?". And you will usually find *those* outcomes are far less "bad". Many, maybe 50%, will be "good". So naturally you wonder how the one that was published (and included in alarming lists on the internet) was chosen.
What *true* underlying skew might there be? Well, the most obvious one is that more human beings are harmed by cold then by warm, and that more of the world becomes fertile when it is warm. Beyond that, the question rapidly bifurcates into less and less generally applicable effects, operating in both "good" and "bad" directions, with no "force majeure" to make them skew in either direction.
So by the (very few) arguments that are sufficiently general to produce an overall skew, warming is a net "good". The remainder of arguments should be randomly distrinuted, or at least close to that. So people who claim they are mostly bad (or mostly good) are biassed (we can be confident of that).
Of course, there are other moral positions. An actor changes something, another actor suffers as a result even though many actors benefit. What's your position on that? Well, in the case of global warming, it isn't even clear who is the actor making the change. Is it the humams who emitted CO2? OR the other humans trying to stop the first humans? Because both groups' actions will hurt *somebody*.
-
A Real Sceptic Says at 05:19 AM on 31 October 2015It's the sun
Climate change advocates have a tendancy to casually disregard the sun as an influence. This may be unreasonable given that the importance of the sun in virtually all of earth's natural processes *should* make it first port of call when trying to explain phenomena.
However, sceptics do not need to provide a solar explanation for global warming. They only need to state that one could exist. Advocates of human climate change may then either rule the sun out completely out or provide support for their preferred explanation (human CO2) by independent means. The latter is obviously off-topic for the current article.
The explaination given by scepticalscience.com does not rule out solar influences. All it does is cite one rather simplistic hypothetical mechanism for solar influence and then dismiss *that*. This could be called a straw man argument. It indicates a preference for putting words in the mouths of sceptics and then debunking *those* rather than listening to what sceptics are really saying.
Do sceptics have a convincing mechanism for a solar explaination? Well, there are some *feasable* ones, but nothing really solid.
So the status on this question is as follows: we can't say it *is* the sun and we can't say it *isn't*, either. Climate alarmists must *thouroughly* rule out the sun as a cause before making any argument along the lines of "warming must have the cause we say it does because there are no other viable causes".
-
A Real Sceptic Says at 05:05 AM on 31 October 2015Climate's changed before
Real sceptics ask the question, "Are the changes in climate that have occurred since significant human CO2 emission fundamentally different from those that occurred before?". If yes, that would support the CAGW view. If not, CAGW *could* still be true, but the recent climate changes could not be cited as support for it except in a weak, probabalistic way.
The problem is, for sceptics, that the support from the historical record has been repeatedly miserpresented and even falsified.
Firstly, the Michael Mann's "hockeystick graph", given prominence in Al Gore's propaganda work, is still cited from tie to time in spite of having been debunked. It shows climate as virtually constant for a millenium before human CO2 and in doing so ignores important changes such as the Medieval Warming Period, the Little Ice age, as well as a noticable warming trend in the hundred years or so before human CO2 emissions.
Other, more recent graphs are a good deal more honest about such things. However, the "trick" being used now is more subtle. These graphs are, without exception, smoothed to a far greater degree during pre-CO2 periods than the recent period. For example, you will see 100-year smoothing up to 1950, followed by 10-year or even unsmoothed data. It should not surprise that the less-smoothed period is less smooth - and the more bumpt section looks more alarming!
Graphs going back over many thousands of years are often even more heavily smoothed. I saw one recently that went back 400,000 years, meaning that it gave only 1 or 2 pixels to each 1000-year period, and yet the last 50-years was shown explicitly, with probably only 10-year smoothing. Now, if the underlying data has more resolution, then the correct way to show the data is with a shaded region between min and max values (so the fine variation may be seen), rather than a saeries of averages (which is just another way of hiding detail on shorter timescales).
To be fair, many studies will be intrinsically unable to uncover that fine detail. But when presenting that data, the fact that past rapid changes will not be present should be honestly pointed out. Not kept quiet.
Nearly every graph you now see of past trends is, whether by manipulation or limitations of the underlying study, not showing past rises of the kind seen in the last 50 years but only averages that would hide it. As a result, it would be incorrect to assume from them that such rises have not occurred.
Suppose for example we see a cold day followed by a hot day. Someone micht claim that is an unprecidented event. Suppose they show you a graph of the last year's temperature, and smooth that graph out by taking weekly averages. Of course you won't see any examples of the event having happened before - the smoothing process rubbed them out!
-
LarryM at 04:49 AM on 31 October 20152015: A Very Bad Year for the Global Warming Policy Foundation
An excellent visualization of the impact of El Nino (and La Nina) on the underlying global warming trend is the SkS animated gif that shows the temperature trend for separate Nino/neutral/Nina years (graphic #67).
-
knaugle at 02:12 AM on 31 October 20152015: A Very Bad Year for the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Using the Cowtan's University of York temperature plotter, it is interesting that the RSS satellite data shows a small cooling trend since 1998 (particularly if one ignores the two big El Nino spikes in 1998 and 2010). Yet UAH shows a warming trend over the same time frame. I think until the reason RSS is not keeping up with the rest of the data sets is clearly communicated, deniers will remain on the dark side of this pseudo-debate. Meanwhile, there is that "10 indicators of a warming world" that suggests to me that RSS is missing something.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:57 AM on 31 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
MA Rodger @73, Wiese's formula is A = 2 *(ν/β)0.5, where A is amplitude, ν is the North/South component of the wind field, and β is the Rossby Parameter. In addition to calculating wavelength (Lx) rather than amplitude, the formula you have found includes pi as a factor and uses the uo, ie, the "basic flow" of the geostrophic velocity, ie, the flow excluding perturbations. Under the conditions of the derivation, that is said to be a North/South flow but it is not equivalent to ν in all circumstances and that may be a relevant difference between the two formulas. So, while the formulas are superficially similar, they are not the same.
-
Philip64 at 23:00 PM on 30 October 2015Newest Entry in Inside Climate News’ #ExxonKnew Story is a Doozy
Propaganda undermines the foundations of democracy. It's serious.
-
MA Rodger at 21:20 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
For those who are intrerested, when Chuck Weise Meteorologist deigns to stray onto the topic of this comment thread, the equation he is constantly waving so vigourously ( Lx = 2π(u0/β)½ ) is derived here. You will note the equation applies to stationary waves which may be allowable as the Francis & Vavrus (2012) paper is mindful of blocking weather patterns. Also the quantity Lx is actually the wave length rather than the amplitude, although in the simple theoretical model being used amplitude will be proportional to wave length.
Moderator Response:[RH] Being this is core to the OP I would request all commenters to direct their questions and observations to this issue.
-
Phil at 20:15 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Chuck Wiese @67
how is it that cold air from the arctic can penetrate further south in her scenario if the arctic is warming rapidly?
Very cold air in the arctic can warm rapidly and still be colder than (for example) slower-warming Texan air. How come Chuck Wiese Meteorologist doesn't realise this ?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 14:53 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Sidd said pretty much everything there is to say. Chuck Wiese seems to have a Gerlisch and Tschneuer type of argument.
Ignore the U of O link if you must Mr Wiese, I provided other links, including one to your colleague Paul Douglas, who refers to NOAA and explains exactly the same thing outlined above, i.e. low zonal flows, high amplitudes.
The Francis and Vavrus paper is anything but isolated
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/12331.abstract
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/abs/ngeo2234.html
Chuck Wiese seems sensitive to expertise and authority. This last paper includes many authors, I don't know exactly how many have PhDs but at least Francis, Coumou and Overland do. Coumou has extensive expertise in fluid dynamics. How likely is it that they all have missed something that Chuck Wiese is the only one to understand? And the reviewers as well? Really?
Besides, I maintain that the argument "it hasn't warmed in 18 years" is exclusively dependent on cherry picking data set and starting point and is misleading and dishonest.
-
bozzza at 14:33 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
My mistake- you did answer that.
My latest question for you was: " You are saying CO2 has no effect on anything, perhaps?"
-
bozzza at 14:27 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
@ 68,
I have already asked if you believe CO2 comes out of solution at higher temperatures. You refuse to answer as you know this is the key...
-
sidd at 14:03 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Grrr. Please read the paper and think for a minnit. Francis is not arguing that a slower jet has larger maximum meander size. She is saying that hi k (wavenumber) modes propagate with smaller group velocity, not just theoretically, which is obvious when you consider that group velocity decreases as sumpn like 1/k^2, but also observationally. For those who don't think in terms of wavenumbers just remember that the higher the k, the more meanders.Now i'm really done with that topic.
Nyhoo, the 2015 paper is more interesting, coz it has 360 degree coverage rather than the 0 to 140 of the 2012 paper, and uses a neat technique. Would love if our hosts might find time for analysis on that one especially the self organizing map bits.
sidd
-
Chuck Wiese at 13:06 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Tom: A couple of things. First, Francis does not supply any physical connection to her claim that as the arctic warms Rossby amplitude must increase. The physics of the equations supporting the Rossby wave behavior state otherwise and clearly define the amplitude of the waves being a function of latitude and speed of the flow, with the amplitude increasing or decreasing in proportion of the same direction as the speed. In other words, the opposite of what she claims.
Second, slower progression of the waves does indeed mean that weather patterns will be more persistent in the areas they coincide over. That can include severe weather and temperature extremes. But..the speed of Rossby waves is not the same as the amplitude and depends on the westerly component of wind, latitude and wavelength. It is quite apparent that as the westerlies decrease from increased meridional flow, the speed of the waves slow. But again, long waves, meaning high amplitude are dependent on inceasing, not decreasing north or south flow (meridional).
You take a passage from her paper that describes how arctic warming supposedly "stretches" the waves thus amplifying them. Then she claims with a warmer arctic, frigid arctic air can penetrate further south, the process causing temperature extremes. The obvious weakness I see in this statement without supporting evidence from her would be to ask the question that how is it that cold air from the arctic can penetrate further south in her scenario if the arctic is warming rapidly? And especially if she claims this can cause temperature extremes. This makes absolutely no sense.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Moderator Response:[RH] This seems to be exactly the problem. Francis' statement makes perfect sense about arctic air penetrating south (being as arctic air will still be cooler than air to the south). I, and obviously others here, are dumbfounded that you so emphatically state things are wrong and don't make sense when, in truth, they're perfectly sensible. Same as with your rejection that CO2 is the main control knob for global mean temperature. Your issues over Rossby waves are more convoluted and hard to follow but I suspect it's a similar pattern.
-
Chuck Wiese at 12:38 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Moderator: Here is the abstract of Jennifer Francis's paper:
"New metrics and evidence are presented that support a linkage between rapid Arctic warming, relativeto Northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, and more frequent high-amplitude (wavy) jet-stream configurationsthat favor persistent weather patterns.Wefind robust relationships among seasonal andregional patterns of weaker poleward thickness gradients, weaker zonal upper-level winds, and a more meridional flow direction. These results suggest that as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase."
That passage was taken from here on the front page of her paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005/pdf
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
-
Tom Dayton at 12:09 PM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Francis's point 1 described the consequence of slowing without mentioning it increasing wave amplitude. Instead,
slower wave progression means that weather conditions will be more persistent
Although I have not read in detail Chuck's comments nor the responses to his, I believe neither of these two of Francis's mechanisms is what Chuck claimed. Nor do I see any necessary contradiction between these two mechanisms: If Chuck is correct (I have no idea) insofar as slowing causes lower amplitude, that's fine as long as the slowing Francis described (from both her mechanisms) results in less amplitude reduction than the amplitude increase from her mechanism 2.
Ta da.
-
Tom Dayton at 11:42 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Here is Francis's point 2 that Phil pointed to:
The second way that Arctic amplification is expected to influence the jet stream and our weather is by increasing the “waviness” of the jet stream. Because of Arctic amplification, the northern peaks of waves, called ridges, will experience more warming than the southward dips, called troughs. This is expected to cause the ridges to stretch northward, which will increase the size of the waves. Larger swings in the jet stream allow frigid air from the Arctic to plunge farther south, as well as warm, moist tropical air to penetrate northward. These wavy flows often lead to record-breaking temperatures. Meteorologists have also known for a long time that larger jet-stream waves progress eastward more slowly, as will the weather systems associated with them. Consequently this represents another mechanism that will cause weather conditions to linger.
That is not at all the mechanism that Chuck wrote Francis claimed: "Francis is arguing that a slowed jet stream as she implies is happening means the amplitude of Rossby waves increases.'
-
Phil at 09:53 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Incidentally, whilst looking into this topic, I discovered that Jennifer Francis did her PhD here - a department founded by Phil Church who worked with Carl Rossby
-
Phil at 09:48 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Chuck @61, sidd @60
That the jet stream would meander more is indeed one of Francis's points (point 2 in this article)
-
Chuck Wiese at 09:18 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
sidd: No, Francis is arguing that a slowed jet stream as she implies is happening means the amplitude of Rossby waves increases and thus causes more extremes in severe weather.
The point in the equation is to think of it in terms of its limits. A specific speed and latitude prove nothing. The point is that as the wind speed of the jet increases at a particular latitude, so must the amplittude of the wave. As speed decreases, so must the amplitude. This is the opposite of what Framcis and Vavrus are claiming and it is wrong.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Moderator Response:[RH] "Francis is arguing that a slowed jet stream as she implies is happening means the amplitude of Rossby waves increases and thus causes more extremes in severe weather."
Please cite the passage where this is claimed. Again, we expect citations here.
-
sidd at 09:03 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
If I do the calculation for max amplitude of Rossby wave 2*sqrt(V/(2*omega*cos(phi)/a)) i get, as expected a few thousand miles. Why is this relevant ? Francis argues a different point entirely, that the jet stream has slowed and that meanders are more frequent, not that they exceed some hypothetical limit in a simplified atmosphere thats neglects topo and buncha other things. I advise those interested in these matters to read Isaac Held's most excellent blog
sidd
-
uncletimrob at 08:54 AM on 30 October 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #43
I have similar admittedly anecdotal, information about my students and what they understand. Nice to see some numbers and quotes from your students. I have to say I found this quote "Is this normal, I am a vegan and I did not know this." to be somewhat amusing but in the context of a person thinking about how they are living, quite interesting.
-
Jim Eager at 07:45 AM on 30 October 2015Newest Entry in Inside Climate News’ #ExxonKnew Story is a Doozy
Hillary Clinton joins the call for an investigation:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/29/3717602/clinton-investigate-exxon/ -
Chuck Wiese at 07:38 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Moderator: I don't understand the concern in your question. The equation I provided was from published, peer reviewed and accepted literature into the atmospheric science published data base and the texbooks authors are all Phd's in atmospheric science. This material was taught in dynamic meteorology as part of my major and I don't believe any of the professors I had studied under would be so foolish as to present equations which are not valid or correct.
Textbooks for learning and lecture are not published scientific research papers as I believe you are refering to. And no, I have not seen any papers published that specifically used this equation. Does that make any difference? Every professor I know of has these texts in their own personal library and they are more commonly used as references and tools that simplify their own work and used to teach with as well. If you've never seen the equation before, does that make it wrong? The equation speaks for itself and it was derived by the authors I have given you correctly. If this paper by Vavrus and Francis is one of the first published in a climate journal that addresses Rossby wave theory, it shouldn't be a surprise that you haven't seen it elsewhere, should it?
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Moderator Response:[RH] You'll forgive my personal skepticism of your lengthy explanations when you've expressed a rejection of basic greenhouse theory, vehemently rejected the work of a well established climate researcher, and failed to present any supporting research. You state here in this comment that the equation is from published research but have been unable to cite that research. If you're serious about engaging here I believe that would be a positive move toward advancing the discussion. Short of that you're merely sloganeering (which, as a moderator, is one of my primary concerns).
-
Chuck Wiese at 06:32 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Michael Sweet, MA Rodger and Philippe: I will answer your comments in this one post.
To repeat, Jennifer Francis's conclusion in her paper and this article are wrong. You are trying to claim that just because she wrote it and it is more recent than the published and peer reviewed literature along with other recent publications, that time erases in and of itself older work. That is not how science works and any scientist with a doctorate degree knows this, and this is precisely what I have seen in many instances of work done in climate papers as they relate to atmospheric science. Assumptions are made and sometimes without bothering to look at the founding principles to see if they agree. I provided the references of this literature to show they do not and the specific equation that is used to estime a maximun Rossby wave amplitude. And as it solved from the primary equations, it is obvious that wind speed and latitude determine that amplitude with speed controlling. (And Philippe, yes, I meant EXP 1/2 to maen taking the square root of V/B.) In order for Francis and Vavrus to claim otherwise, they need to show where this realtionship is wrong, or where it was improperly derived. They have done neither. Ma Rodgers, your response is a bit more reasonable but none the less, there seems to be an attitude that older work is irrelevant if today's Phd's ignore it. That is preposterous. If Francis or Varus can show where these equations in the founding literature are wrong, then they have a valid hypothesis, but not until then and the reviewers should have caught the error in assumption.
Philippe, your post contains no citations that show how to compute the amplitute of Rossby waves or where the equation I gave is wrong. That is what is the key point in my writing to criticize, and as the moderator has asked of me, lets cut the dogpiling and "sloaganeering" . Your references not only fail to give a citation that disproves what I have provided, you are using references like the University of Oregon and calling them an "institution of superior education". What does this mean when they offer no major in atmospheric science or meteorology and have no Phd's on their staff to teach atmospheric science?
Turning briefly to the hurricanes I brought up, a few points for Michael Sweet: You are correct about hemispheres being divided at the dateline or 180 degree meridian so my bad for misstating that. But I was thinking of the body of water called the Pacific ocean that provides the fuel to both eastern Pacific hurricanes and western Pacific typhoons. Would that not be a better comparative for the puposes of climate rather than assigning an arbitrary cut-off meridian that has no climate significance?
To challenge some of your other points, I spoke by telephone this morning with Dr. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center and asked about observing techniques that were used in the 1960's. To start with, he does agree the older techniques are not as good as those used today but I never said older methods were better. It is interesting to note that what they did do in those days was fly recanaissance aircraft down to 500 ft off the ocean surface under cloud bases to estimate the winds and had a US Air Force Weather Officer estimate visual conditions by a developed hurricane "beaufort scale". They also used doppler techniques as Jeff Masters mentions, but his quote from a "hurricane expert" at the time regarding the doppler technique makes no sense. The quote claims that because they were concerned about getting attenuation from flying sea spray that readings from the doppler shift would be erroneously high. The opposite would actually be true and the readings would be too low because the reference would be with respect to the true airspeed of the aircraft to get the ground speed and compute the surface winds. That is something I am quite faniliar with being an FAA licensed Airline Transport Pilot and Flight Engineer. The point in all of this is not to claim methods were better then than now, but there is no justification in claiming speeds were measured too high alone, either. There is a degree of error in any neasurement and these criticisms do not address the actual numerical significance. It would appear by these techniques they were accurate and the margin of error could be in either direction with changing circumstances.
BTW, Dr. Landsea has informed me that the National Hurricane Center is writing up Hurricane Patricia and intends on putting it into its perspective in comparing it to the record. Those of you who believe hurricane intensity is getting stronger and related to "climate change" may not like what he is going to say, but it will be up on their website soon.
Finally, I sense a lot of tension from the readers of this blog as well as a venomous dislike of any who take issue with the orthodoxy of what is written about humman induced climate change from CO2. There also seems to be a double standard on this site. The moderator is asking as do the bloggers to provide specific citations to back up claims made about a topic like this. There is nothing wrong with asking for them and I have provided them but I take note of the fact that the author of this article provides no citations for any of his claims other than a reference to Jennifer Francis at the end. Who is John Mason, what are his qualifications to write about meteorology or atmospheric science and why did the moderator accept the article without asking for specific citations of published work to back his assertions be included?
There is also a fake credential degradation used by warmers that needs to be pointed out here. Anyone who holds a bachelors degree or higher in atmospheric science is qualified for employment as a forecast or other operations meteorologist by the US National Weather Service. That is a national standard applied by the agency. It has nothing to do with "qualifying" to be a TV weathercaster. In that arena, there are no standards and plenty of scientific illiterates who know little but use the AMS TV Seal of Approval whose standards were lowerd to less than academic to claim the use of the title "meteorologist". Many of these people call themselves meteorologists but they absolutely do not meet the professional standards required for employment at the US Weather Service and that is the standard that counts. There are no licensing authorities that police the use of this title. The US Weather Service used to do it but ceased after standards were lowered to obtain a TV or Radio AMS seal. Hope this all helps.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Moderator Response:[RH] Can we assume, based on your continued lack of citations, that there is no actual published research that supports your position. (Honest question.)
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:31 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Chuck,
You are not addressing the problem I raised, which is that all other sources I have looked so far concur with Francis on the temperature gradient, zonal index and amplitude relationship. I provided 2 of these sources, but I looked at more and they all agreed. So your problem is not only with Francis, it is also with the University of Oregon, NOAA and numerous other institutions of superior education offering meteorology courses. Innumerable other meteorologists agree with this, and, more importantly, observations of winds aloft and temperatures are also consistent with it.
A colleague of yours, meteorologist Paul Douglas, shows some nice imagery on his blog:
http://pauldouglasweather.blogspot.com/2015/02/winter-drags-extended-march-thaw-in.html
As for the paper mentioned earlier, I seriously doubt that a meteorology paper published in Nature Geoscience wold have been reviewed by people without expertise in the field, and I find it equally dubious that the rest of the authors of the paper would have no such expertise. Seriously, how likely could that be?
Of course, there is always the possibility that they're all involved in a vast conspiracy, along with NOAA, NASA and everyone else. I guess I will have to follow my judgement of the relative probabilities of being real for each option.
Unfortunately I'm not sure that I will have the time to further investigate the matter. I hope this gets sorted out. Does your formula say exponent one half? I've tried to locate online texts with relevant formulas. It's not the easiest to write mathematical formulas on SkS.
-
MA Rodger at 01:13 AM on 30 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Chuck Weise Meteorologist @50.
You kick off by conflating Francis & Vavrus (2012) with the post above which is not making your task any easier. Let us here ignore the post above.
The quote you then provide from Francis & Vavrus (2012) is, as you say, from the paper's conclusion:-
According to Rossby wave theory, a weaker flow slows the eastward wave progression and tends to follow a higher amplitude trajectory, resulting in slower moving circulation systems.
I would suggest that it is a little premature to immediately declare the whole paper in error because this quote is contrary to your own understanding of the theoretical situation. It would be prudent to at least examine the paper in its entirity. It may well be that an explanation is forthcoming. And indeed there is. A reference is provided within the body of the paper.
When zonal wind speed decreases, the large-scale Rossby waves progress more slowly from west to east, and weaker flow is also associated with higher wave amplitudes [Palmén and Newton, 1969].
So it would be pudent of you to examine Palmén, E., and C. W. Newton (1969), Atmospheric Circulation Systems, Int. Geophys. Ser., vol. 13, Academic, New York. to see what is being discussed. Yet again this matter throws up an old reference book. It appears available on-line via Researchgate which is a step too far for me. So you could be on your own in this examination.
Your point @50 that the theoretical maximum amplitude of an atmospheric Rossby wave is proportional to the square root of poleward air speed does appear to suggest a contrary relationship than the one you quote from Francis & Vavrus (2012) and such an understanding would suggest the paper makes an egregious error. But do note that it is also true this paper has been challenged since publication yet not challenged on the specific point you raise. (At least, from a limited look I have not seen such a published challenge.) This is not what we would expect if the quote were as egregiously wrong as suggested @50.
-
Alexandre at 20:42 PM on 29 October 2015Leveraging the Skeptical Science Glossary for references
Neat and useful. Good idea.
-
uncletimrob at 18:53 PM on 29 October 2015Leveraging the Skeptical Science Glossary for references
Thank you! A nice addition that I will alert my students to.
-
Eclectic at 11:18 AM on 29 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
ChuckWiese @53 : Thank you for your further comments on Rossby Waves, but please clarify what you are saying about Francis & Vavrus ["arctic amplification . . . would do the opposite of what Francis claims"]
You have not made it quite clear whether you mean: (a) arctic amplification [as a subset of global warming] is occurring yet Francis's ideas are wrong, or (b) arctic warming is not occurring and so Francis's ideas are correct (to that extent).
Also perhaps worth mentioning what you yourself think are the atmospheric circulation consequences of the present-century's increasing areas of ice-free Polar Sea (during the overall winter/summer cycle). I presume, tentatively, that large asymmetric & irregular patches of warmer sea would have some noticeable effect on zonal & meridional air flow. But is that the case; and if so, to what extent?
I hope you will correct your earlier comments about Japan & nearby ocean being "in the western hemisphere" . . . though in the bigger picture of course it doesn't really matter how you care to divide the categories of hemispheres. It's all one world, after all. (Compare, for instance, the very well documented and devastatingly strong Typhoon Haiyan, of a couple of years back.)
-
michael sweet at 10:01 AM on 29 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Chuck,
Speaking about the recent hurricane you need to check your hemispheres. Japan is in the Eastern Hemisphere, not the Western. You look stupid when you make such basic errors. Jeff Masters recently discussed the Hurricane wind speeds from the 1960's. Your discription is false. The 1960's wind speeds were estimated by eye, not with a one minute measured average. It is well known that these old wind speeds are not reliable.
Why should I believe your personal interpretation of a 1957(??) textbook when you do not even know how wind speeds were measured? Even if your ancient textbook is different from current Rossby wave science, why should anyone think that it is correct instead of current peer reviewed papers? Atmospheric Physics has advanced somewhat in the past 60 years.
This is a scientific blog. You are required to either cite current literature or substantial evidence to support your claims. The unsupported word of someone who never put in the work to earn his PhD will not get you much. You will never convince anyone that you are correct when you admit you are unable to explain the science.
Moderator Response:[PS] we are rapidly approaching dog-piling here. While I strongly agree that Chuck must provide citations rather than sloganeering, I would also ask that commentators only reply if they have a substantive response to points made. I would particularly ask that people refrain from responding to tone.
-
Chuck Wiese at 09:09 AM on 29 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Sid and Phil: There is only one primary reason why atmospheric Rossby waves amplify and create large storms, severe weather and temperature extremes. It boils down to an excessively large storage of potential energy stored as the gradient of temperature across the latitude lines. The waves are then ampified by the increased incidence of baroclinity which starts the process of wave amplification through the process of cyclogenesis, which further amplifies the waves by the incipient advection of temperature which displces atmospheric mass. A storm is generated in the outflow process of this and a high pressure system is generated with a "ridge" downwind of the vertical motions and mass displacement.
These processes use the stored energy and transfer heat poleward to relax the gradient of temperature. As the created storms fill, atmospheric mass is redistributed towards its hydrostatic equilibrium and the flow degenerates back to zonal and high index, with a lessened latitudinal temperature gradient. "arctic amplification" if it were occuring would do the opposite of what Francis claims.
The only exception to the physics here is in the tropical regime where tropical storms and hurricanes develop and their energy source is the warmed waters of spring and summer that convert increased evaporation into latent heat.
Speaking of that, it is also true that the recent hurricane Patricia was not the strongest hurricane ever in the western hemisphere. It was beat by super typhoon Nancy that hit Japan in September of 1961. Aircraft recanaissance measured 215 MPH winds sustained at 1 minute before this typhoon made landafll. 172 Japanese were killed with 11,539 homes destroyed and 280,000 homes flooded from storm surge. This super typhoon held a lot of its strength together for a longer period than Patricia did, which weakened rapidly as it made landfall and caused little damage with a much smaller core of CAT 5 winds.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Moderator Response:[PS] I am sure other commentators will respond to problems with this post, but I want to request again that you cite (and preferably quote) references in support of your argument. Without those cites, your post is close to sloganeering. You have been warned already. Persisting with this line will result in deleted posts. The authority accepted here is peer-reviewed research, not claims people sign their posts with.
-
mancan18 at 08:13 AM on 29 October 2015Global warming could be more devastating for the economy than we thought
ubrew12 @2
It is interesting that computer models are routinely attacked in the climate change debate, whereas when it comes to predicting economic trends to determine economic policy and microtrading shares on the stock market, computer modelling isn't questioned.
As for carbon taxes and the potential impacts associated with climate change on an economy, I would have thought that some carbon-based surcharge could be introduced that operated like the premium paid to an insurance company to insure against risk. It would be interesting to see how the actuaries working for insurance companies are modifying their tables to take into account the increased risks associated with climate change.
-
sidd at 08:06 AM on 29 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
There is another paper by Francis in 2015 doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0170 which is quite interesting. It uses self organizing maps, for one thing, which i quite like as a technique, subject to the usual caveats. But it also clearly points out that "A slower jet stream tends to take a more meandering (meridional) path as it encircles the Northern Hemisphere [13,14]. Large north–south jet-stream waves in a highly meandering flow tend to travel eastward more slowly. These waves create the high- and low-pressure systems at the surface, so their slower eastward progression increases the likelihood of persistent weather patterns that can cause a variety of extreme events [15]." The references are quite illuminating, I entertain a (probably futile) hope that some of the denialati in this thread might read them.
Moderator Response:[PS] Added link.
-
Eclectic at 07:26 AM on 29 October 2015Sea level rise due to floating ice?
ECLife @57 : At a quick glance, I would say that your "discrepancy" arises from the cases being different.
You have added 1 L of fresh water onto the top of the heavy saline (and done so slowly and carefully, I presume, to allow the fresh to "float" above the saline ~ not that this is necessary: yet it does look a "prettier" experiment done that way . . . and even prettier if you add a touch of blue dye to the saline first). But the essential point is that the fresh was not displacing the saline.
OTOH, for the earlier experiment, the (fresh) ice was displacing the heavy saline : so (according to Archimedes) it was actually displacing a smaller volume [of saline] than its own (freshwater-equivalent) volume.
-
ECLife at 05:54 AM on 29 October 2015Sea level rise due to floating ice?
After giving this some thought, I thought I would try a little different experiment. I made 1L of 5% salt solution (naturally there was a change in volume when adding the salt and I wasn't going for an exact salt concentration). Assuming the mass of ice to be equal to its mass of water I poured 1L of the salt solution into a 2L graduated cylinder, using a 1L graduated cylinder and using the same, rinsed graduated cylinder, I added 1L of fresh water to the 2L cylinder. Temps were the same so no thermal difference and the volume was 2L, no change. What is wrong with my thinking?
-
Phil at 05:40 AM on 29 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
I realise I'm in danger of "dogpiling", but would like to highlight this point.
Chuck Wiese @50:
"Arctic amplification therefore WEAKENS, not strengthens the latitudinal gradient of temperature."
(This is in agreement with the OP)
Phillipe @40
"When temperature contrasts are very strong, the meanders are shallow in amplitude and strong weather systems (depressions) rapidly cross the Atlantic bringing wet and windy conditions to Europe. This is described as a "high" zonal index, where the contrasts between the temperate and polar zones are strong with little mixing north or south"
So the weakening temperature gradient increases the meanders in the jet stream, no ?
-
Chuck Wiese at 04:51 AM on 29 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
MA Rodger and Philippe:
Here is the statement that Jennifer Francis makes in the conclusion of her paper that is clearly wrong just as this article is by John Mason that concludes high amplitude, low zonal index is the result of WEAKER latitudinal temperature gradient:
"According to Rossby wave theory, a
weaker flow slows the eastward wave progression and tends
to follow a higher amplitude trajectory, resulting in slower
moving circulation systems."
From this she concludes it is likely that severe weather and weather extremes are likely to increase around the globe because of pronounced WARMING in the arctic that is refered to as "arctic amlplification". I asked her and her co-author, Steve Vavrus, to clarify how they conclude this when the Rossby wave physics actually show that the opposite is true. Vavrus never responded and she never demonstrated where the physics of the waves were derived inciorrectly.
The amplitude of the waves is dependant on speed and latitude and for full latitude amplification, the speed MUST increase which is a function of baroclinity and increased, not decreased tempertaure gradient.
From the literature, it is determined that the maximum amplitiude of a Rossby wave is given as A = 2 (V/B ) Exp1/2, where to get the maximum, V=v or the northward component of velocity and B is beta or the Rossby parameter, given as B= 2(omega)cos( phi)/a, wherre omega is the angular velocity of the earth and phi the latitude, a the mean radius of earth.
It ought to be clear from this that amplitude is dependent on speed and latitude, with speed controlling, with the normal speed range found at the level of nondivergence and over the range of latitude that the jet streams are found. It also should be clear to any meteorologist that air accelerates moving away from high latitude at a static pressure gradient which is the main driving factor to create high amplitudes to the waves. In other words, COLD AIR ADVECTION from high latitude. Without this, Jennifer Francis's claims fall apart.
This is very fundamental atmospheric science. You say the reviewers of her work at Nature or elsewhere would have discovered such fundamental errors before allowing publication. That is absolutely not true if the authors are not trained in or understand atmospheric science. This would go right over their heads.
I have no clue as to why someone like Francis who has a Phd in atmospheric science would make suchh a fundamental mistake in her assertions. But she did and she is wrong and so in Mr. Mason who authored this article.
If you are claiming that severe weather or temperature extremes are increasing or will increase over time, then the physics of these waves demonstrate that you are supporting the claim that the earth is cooling, not warming over time, as incraesed temperature gradients across the latitudes can only be sustatined by an intensifying cold source region. The flow of heat energy is ALWAYS from warm to cold. Arctic amplification therefore WEAKENS, not strengthens the latitudinal gradient of temperature. Francis is wrong and so is the conclusion in this paper.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Moderator Response:[RH] Have you attempted to submit a comment to the journal?
Edit: Use of all caps is not allowed, per commenting policy.
2nd Edit: Repeat comment deleted.
-
ubrew12 at 04:26 AM on 29 October 2015Global warming could be more devastating for the economy than we thought
Important tip when presenting this study out in the blogosphere: The classic denier slam, 'its all based on computer models' (as if computer models instantly disqualify a study's conclusions) doesn't apply to this study.
-
JWRebel at 00:13 AM on 29 October 2015Global warming could be more devastating for the economy than we thought
This is huge. (moderator edited)
In terms of policy implications and instituting a carbon tax this is a really important contribution. Contrary to the oft-heard meme ("humans have always adapted", "when absolutely necessary, technology changes"), we are building up a debt which future generations will not have the wherewithal to service, since it is the capital itself (the bounty of nature) that is being destroyed and squandered.
Future losses incurred in comparison to current costs have always remained a vague discussion, even if absolutely clear in principle. This article closes the escape routes open to rhetorical rascals.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please avoid all caps.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:37 PM on 28 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Chuck Wiese, re-read the quote above: " When temperature contrasts are very strong, the meanders are shallow in amplitude ." That does not support your contention, it says the opposite. I'll add that Scaddenp's suggestion of writing to the journal that published the article you find so egregiously in error is a valid one. Did you try it?
Your argument gives the impression to be from authority. Francis has a degree in meteorology that is more advanced than yours and has published on the subject in Nature Geoscience as part of a group of authors. The likelihood that she could have made such a basic mistake and that the mistake would have gone unnoticed from the rest of her team and from the Nature reviewers is so small as to be negligible. Authority would lean more to her side.
I find it strange that one would complain about the adjustments of the NASA or NOAA datasets, which are far less problematic than all the corrections applied to the satellite data. These adjustments themselves are the subject of published articles that explain what they are and why they improve the record. Furthermore, the satellite data is an indirect measurement of teperature across large vertical segnments of the atmosphere. It is plagued by far more problems than the surface temperature data and can not by any stretch of the imagination be considered more reliable, unless one is engaged in conspiratorial or other thinking divorced from reality. I also find it suspicious that one would have to select not only the time period with such constraint but also the dataset. It seems that the "static temperature" argument has a very limited domain of validity.
-
MA Rodger at 21:59 PM on 28 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Chuck Wiese @various 32-45.
Adding to Eclectic @48, if you find some issue in the subjects raised @48 and wish to discuss them, use the approporiate thread....
...and in an appropriate manner. Concerning your input into this thread, it amounts to assertion-backed-by-insult and so far entirely lacking in any substance. If it is as you say @44 that you “have no intention of trying to educate a scientific illiterate like yourself on this subject”: if this is true then you have come to the wrong site.
It is a simple test you have to pass for this site, Chuck. Explain yourself. This is important. If you cannot explain yourself, then it is very likely you yourself do not understand what you are talking about.
Science does not operate by waving a comment and saying 'This is wrong because it contradicts the chapters that cover Rossby Waves in a couple of standard text book which are books accepted as a reference by all meteorologists!!!' And science does not operate by saying 'You are a scientific illiterate. You have no place in science.' SkS is a site that, bottom line, deals in science. Science is not like some medeaeval guild that restricts access to its secrets. So if you wish to discuss science, please act accordingly, to the best of your ability.
So far here, all we have got to is your assertion “Jennifer Francis is wrong in her paper and her assertions and so is the author of this article regarding its conclusions.. Those chapters prove it. She and those in this group have it backwards. Large waves equal large latitudinal temperature gardients and vica versa. This is basic atmospheric science and ANY unversity trained meteorologist knows about it.”
I assume you refer to Francis & Vavrus (2012). Which specific part of this paper are you asserting is wrong?
Further, it is unwise to cite chapters in a couple of books that you must know those you address will almost certainly have no access to. Do you expect all the people visiting this thread to go out and purchase copies? Because that is the only way they will be able to see what it is you are saying. If what you are attempting to establish is that well established (your reference to chapters in two books, Godske et al (1957) and Haltiner & Martin (1957) both which date to the 1950s), this piece of science must be set out in another place.
If this is not done in some manner, we may well be arguing at cross-purposes. Chuck, it is your call.
-
Eclectic at 20:26 PM on 28 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
ChuckWiese @ #44 (and earlier) :
It would be advantageous to you, if you would read the Climate Myths section ["Argument" number 12 ] titled "CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?" in relation to the Ice Ages. If you educate yourself on this matter, then you won't be so confused about what leads to what, in climate change. That would be a good start!
Just as importantly, examine the evidence showing overwhelmingly that global warming is continuing. [See the Myth number 5 about the so-called "Pause".] And look around you : sea-levels are faster rising, and vast amounts of ice [hundreds of cubic Kilometres annually] are melting away in this world ~ all as a result of an ongoing excess of incoming heat, year by year and decade by decade : i.e. real global warming. There may be an "18-year Pause" happening somewhere or other . . . but it's certainly not here on planet Earth.
Talk is cheap, and nonsensical verbiage even cheaper ~ so please take some time out to educate yourself on the most very basic climate matters, before you try to tackle any of the complexities.
Once you have corrected those basic errors in your earlier statements, then you can try discussing the minor details of circulation of the atmosphere. But you seem to have gotten things back-to-front . . . so, please, get the foundations right, before you start building anything higher.
Education is the key, and SKS here is an excellent website for your gaining of real knowledge on climate.
-
bozzza at 20:10 PM on 28 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
@ 45,
Can you not see that you are propaganda itself?
-
bozzza at 20:09 PM on 28 October 2015A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
@37,
You are saying CO2 has no effect on anything, perhaps?
Prev 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 Next
