July 4th, 2013, 09:41 AM
There have been a few discussions lately that have touched on this topic. Tonight's Catalyst program gives a neatly packaged 20 minute summary of the incidence of extreme weather. It includes a very concise introduction to how a warmer Arctic can lead to extended periods of cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere (wandering Rossby waves).
Catalyst: Extreme Weather - ABC TV Science
(I'm not sure how many countries can view these ABC shows. afaik, most can.)
also known as SSW(Stratospheric Sudden Warming), which disrupts the polar vortex, and chills the temperate land masses, while warming the arctic?
With pollution being added at 60.000 tons per day by humans that too will cause problems in the atmosphere for decades to come.
The general term like "pollution" is pretty useless in a scientific discussion, unless well defined and specified by type--60,000 tons of what?Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
Air and Water PollutionThe general term like "pollution" is pretty useless in a scientific discussion, unless well defined and specified by type--60,000 tons of what?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...UIcafGeKxDxrtg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...UzFMEYB-uDctJw
(sigh)
You are not helping.
If, I understood the last thing i read of Hansen:
The particulate matter and sulfides are cooling the atmosphere, while plants are soaking much higher amounts of co2, while we are pumping more co2 into the atmosphere.
feedback and dampening systems which he had previously underestimated.
Only a disengaged, uninterested, or deluded person would think it possible for us to enrich the atmosphere and see no effect.
That being said: let me add:
The phrase "Anthropogenic Global warming" was silly, stupid, and grossly misrepresented the likely outcome. It was the atmosphere that was charged, and began to warm, not the earth. This led to noticable warming of the high altitudes and latitudes. (Ok--fit that into a sound bite to be sold to the lumpen?)
Most paleo climate studies show that though it was warmer in the past, most of the warmth was used at the poles, and increase of the size of the tropical climate zones, with little change in the temperate zones.
Studies indicating changes(paleo and present) in the hadley cells, temperate cells, and polar cells seem inconclusive?
Anyone have any recent data on estimated curve of future carbon emissions? And, who is increasing and/or decreasing their emissions?
Not exactly.The phrase "Anthropogenic Global warming" was silly, stupid, and grossly misrepresented the likely outcome. It was the atmosphere that was charged, and began to warm, not the earth. This led to noticable warming of the high altitudes and latitudes. (Ok--fit that into a sound bite to be sold to the lumpen?)
In fact it's wrong.
This graphic from Skeptical Science shows the real problem.
Total amount of heat from global warming that has accumulated in Earth's climate system since 1961, from Church et al. (2011) (many thanks to Neil White from the CSIRO for sharing their data). Also see this graphic that shows the ocean heating in the two layers 0-700 meters and 700-2000 meters deep.
Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, and other greenhouse gases, absorb and trap heat energy that would otherwise be radiated to space, and since the input of energy from the sun is about constant on average, there is an energy imbalance and heat accumulates in Earth's climate system. About 90% of the excess heat of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and only about 3% of global warming goes into heating the atmosphere (see summary here). The ocean has such a high heat capacity relative to the land and atmosphere that relatively small exchanges of heat between the ocean and atmosphere can cause significant changes in the surface temperature, and this internal shuffling around of heat within our climate system is why the surface temperature record is such a noisy signal.
Its all about the atmosphere ratings. Lets say there was an automatic detecting or scanning weather radar. It tells if your area location is cold,warm, or hot. There can be severe weather. Seasonal weather is different. Extreme weather happens anywhere. List of severe weather conditions (Phenomena) I know
Cyclones,blizzards, tornadoes, Extreme heat waves,waterspouts,whirlpools, (mostly caused by extreme wind),Windstorms, sandstorms,winter storms,avalanche,firestorms,high seas,droughts, and flash floods.
Last edited by SolarCatcher; July 5th, 2013 at 09:05 PM. Reason: Forgot to add more topics.
Cannot speak scientifically, but had a strange year in Hawai'i....Spring was warmer...but El Nina and La Nina also have been a effect on weather in both Northern California and Hawai'i for many years. Affects the albacore season dramatically. After 30 years of observation. Weather patterns are changing, but I don't find that unnatural. Mother Nature adapts to what she has handed to us over many centuries, it is we, who don't understand that she'll do what she needs to do.
Think I'm gonna get a lot a neg's about this. It is an opinion. I don't need agreements.
agreed we had an unusual wet time this year..sorely needed....and huge huge winds....but can you tell me why?
El Nino? I know there've been the occasional months in the last few years where the ENSO indicators went into el Nino territory, but there hasn't been an el Nino year for ages.but El Nina and La Nina also have been a effect on weather in both Northern California and Hawai'i for many years
Look at this graph from About the Lack of Warming… | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog
As for effects on fishing, I'd be more inclined to blame disrupted currents than anything else.
GISTemp global temperatures, with trends for El Niño, neutral, and La Niña years computed separately. Pinatubo years are excluded.
Depends on how widely or narrowly you like to define natural and unnatural.Weather patterns are changing, but I don't find that unnatural.
Yes it is perfectly "natural" for temperatures to get higher when the atmosphere contains higher levels of greenhouse gases. Fine so far. How "natural" is it, geologically speaking, to release atmospheric gases from fossils accumulated over several million years in a single year? There's no equivalent "natural" process that can do that. Where you place it on that on the natural-unnatural continuum is a matter for judgement.
Not so fast slick
for evidence I present the studies of Julie Brigham-Grette, and Natalia Rybczynski
for paleo climate studies
their findings indicate that 3.5 million years ago, while the earth(global) was 2-3 degrees C warmer, the arctic was 14-20 degrees C warmer than today and co2 was then about 400ppm(a number we just passed this may)---so most noticible warming of the poles, expansion of the tropics, and little change for the temperate land masses.
as/re the oceans: It is most likely that only after the polar ice is melted that the warmth will find it's way down to the deep ocean currents. Anything above the thermocline is transient in nature. It is the warming of the deep ocean waters that has an impact on climate as opposed to weather.
If you wish to understand the present and future: Understand the past!
as to the graphics, you already know my opinions as/re what we called "gee whizz graphs" in the science sections at the u of i.(my last u)
(for those new to this arguement, a gee whizz graph is a cherry picked set of data which ignores the bulk of the data---like a climate record starting in 1818
(which, of course coincided with the final years of the "little ice age")and shows almost steady warming over the bulk of our industrialization.)
as the younger generation might say "Well DUH"
You mean this Julie Brigham-Grette talking about Lake El'gygytgyn ......?
Weekend Wonk Bonus: Sobering Sediments from Lake E | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
When the Arctic was 8 °C warmer - Arctic Sea Ice
Video: Lake El'gygytgyn, Pleistocene super-Interglacials and Arctic warmth
What she and everyone else takes away from this research is that our current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is a lot more dangerous, a lot sooner, to agriculture and the civilisation we've built on it than we thought previously.
Anyone who thinks that an ice free Arctic - along with Greenland's ice sheets melting faster than they are already - is something we can "adapt" to without huge losses of life and property is wrong. Any such "adaptation" will involve the ugly and untimely deaths of many tens of thousands of people each year it goes on. Global threat to food supply as water wells dry up, warns top environment expert | Global development | The Observer
A disappearing Arctic means disrupted growing conditions for Northern Hemisphere crops. It makes little difference to food supplies whether grain is unavailable because of floods or droughts or frosts or fires. It simply won't be there in sufficient quantities at affordable prices to make up for the deficits emerging in countries with already stressed grain production themselves. Adaptation? We can instal solar panels and green roofs and double glazing to our heart's content - but that's no consolation to starving people."Iran is already in deep trouble. It is feeling the effects of shrinking water supplies from overpumping. Yemen is fast becoming a hydrological basket case. Grain production has fallen there by half over the last 35 years. By 2015 irrigated fields will be a rarity and the country will be importing virtually all of its grain."
Jeez adelady you always focus on the negative.
You really need to broaden your research a bit and look more closely at what we don't know, and stop paying exclusive attention to the biased bullshit.
Something should warn you that you are reading extreemly biased material when it includes the phrase:
I realize that biased inflamatory bs like that helps sell the articles, but it ain't science when it comes into information with a pre-determined outcome."climate denial crock of the week"
the F vs C temperature confusions remind me of the failed mars mission wherein some measurements were in meters, and some in feet and inches. Oops, crash!
I've watched, and read darned near everything that prof. Julie Brigham-Grette has brought to the table, and not come away with the concept "danger", but rather with the knowledge she has provides about the paleo climates of this earth and ice age. Though, as always, there is some confusion.
Which is why i introduced you to phd/prof. Natalia Rybczynski. Whose work in the Canadien arctic clarified the temperature confusion when she stated that the temperatures in Canada's arctic were between 14 and 20 degrees C warmer than today 3.7 million years ago(when camels lived there), while global temperatures averaged 2-3 degrees C warmer, and while co2 was 400 ppm.
Take that as a warning?, or just as valid information upon which you may base a greater understanding of the potentials for climate change.
Weather or climate is another area of confusion. We had the coldest 1st 3 months on record here in Iowa this year. Which was most likely due to the SSW which disrupted the polar vortex in January 2013. That's weather----damned inconvenient, but only an indicator of potential climate change. And, that change would involve colder temperate land masses while the arctic warmed. Beyond which, No body has yet formed any valid modeling. Logic would dictate that IF SSW events become more common and if the arctic is warming, then future disruptions of the polar vortex would bring us a less cold from the arctic weather pattern here in Iowa(the heart of the temperate zone).
The pumping(dry?) of the water tables has a lot more to do with the agricultural "green revolution" (which involves using more water along with fertilizers to get greater yields) than it does with "climate change". It may come to pass that one day in the future some folks will not be able to pump water to wash their faces or brush their teeth or brew their tea because the aquifers were drained to produce food crops that went to making animal feed, or ethanol. And the folks will look back with regret on the folly of this generation. Look at any satelite mapping and see all those green circles in normally dry areas---and each indicates thousands of cubic feet of water being used(foolishly?).
Anyone who "thinks" that we can enrich the atmosphere as we are doing without looking to the likelyhood of rising sea levels isn't actually thinking.
Anyone who "thinks" that we can enrich the atmosphere as we are doing without looking to the likelyhood of long term climate change isn't actually thinking.
Anyone who "thinks" that we can enrich the atmosphere as we are doing and sees only negative consequences to that climate change isn't actually thinking.
Did Hansen see the effects of the aforementioned increased greening, and the counterbalancing of co2 vs particulates?
No. Has he now seen these forces at work, and revisited his earlier predictions? Yes.
Hell woman, If Hansen can revisit the earlier prognostications can we do less?
When we have hard data on paleo climate balancing, only unthinking fools would ignore that information when looking to the future.
Let us all constantly revisit our formed opinions in light of new data (whether from the study of paleo climates, or new satelite data) which is coming in in increasing regularity.
With 7 billion of us on this planet, perhaps between 150,000 and 300,000 of us die every single day. Think of the portugese and minoans who lost their empires when tsunamis claimed their port cities. Change is what brought us here, and change is what makes us stronger. Look back, not in regret, but rather look forward with knowledge and wisdom.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...study-20130513The extended warm period during the middle Pliocene also raises new questions about the subsequent ice ages. According to the new study, warm Arctic temperatures persisted past the time when previous studies estimated the start of expanding glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere, Moran said.
These conflicting results mean scientists are still unclear when big continental ice sheets began to expand and grow, and what triggered these changes.
"It really stays relatively warm in the Arctic, even in the onset of the first part of the ice age cycle," Miller said. "That one was unexpected."
But, researchers are slowly filling in the history of the Arctic's climate.
"I like to think of it as working on a big 500-piece puzzle," she said. "We had 200 pieces before, and now the lake record provides us with another 100 pieces, and the picture is starting to become more and more clear."
40%(of the potential total) more data yet to come? Or 60% more data to be added to what we now have?
The story ain't been told yet!
All we have going for us as a species is our ability to reason.
Have you watched or read anything at all from Jennifer Francis (and/or Kevin Tremberth's different views)? The reason you get extended hot or cold periods according to Francis is related to the slowing and relaxing of Rossby waves. If you're on the north side of the wave, you get Arctic air, if you're on the southern side, you get warm - and the length of time it stays that way is related to how slowly the wave is circulating. Two Expert -- and Diverging -- Views on Arctic's Impact on Weather 'Whiplash' - YouTube I know Trenberth is pretty good, but I find Francis more logical / persuasive on this particular matter.Weather or climate is another area of confusion. We had the coldest 1st 3 months on record here in Iowa this year. Which was most likely due to the SSW which disrupted the polar vortex in January 2013. That's weather----damned inconvenient, but only an indicator of potential climate change. And, that change would involve colder temperate land masses while the arctic warmed. Beyond which, No body has yet formed any valid modeling.
As for Peter Sinclair at Crock of the Week being "extreme". I take it you don't know that he's currently in Greenland with Dr Jason Box and the rest of the team working on the Dark Snow project. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/01/more-science-and-visuals-fForestry and Environmental rom-greenland/ Plan B, Plan C | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Nor that he's doing a regular series of videos, like the Jennifer Francis one, for the Yale School of Environmental Studies. afaik, Yale's not a hotbed of extremism, unless you have some other information about Yale University or this particular school within it.
Hot Climate Women Scientists in Cool Places (2013) - YouTube
jennifer
I may not agree with her,(mostly perhaps because she speaks more as a pr person than like a scientist). She is also present in this video that I found with Julie and Natalia Rybczynski.
In the linked video, Jennifer said "this was a horrible year for the arctic". "Horrible" ? That is an emotionally charged opinion and a damned poor reflection on science. As is much of her reasoningand phrases like "wacky weather" is science a carnival side show to her?
Caveat, the vidio I linked starts with much more opinion for the ammt. of knowledge. maybe,skip the first 19 and last 11 minutes.
I find it valuable only for knowledge of Julie Brigham-Grette and Natalia Rybczynski. All the rest is infused with opinion and fudged, or incompletely reported data.
First, I want knowledge(data), from which I will formulate my own opinions, then I want other's opinions to re-examine /revisit the reasoning behind my own.
Being an autodidact, this is a lesson I learned long ago, and appreciated more and more as I went to/through the various Universities.
For myself, being autodidactic, I found that the professors' knowledge foundations broadened my knowledge base, and their opinions brought insites to their knowledge strengths and weaknesses from which, I always learned, and before ending my time at my 5th university, both parties learned from each other, as I brought insights from other professors, and other diciplines to the table.
god bless all those who would share knowledge.
,,,,edit-epimetheus
as/re the jet stream- somewhere else, I read a suggestion that the polar jet may diminish, being partly replaced by a higher amplitude temperate jet-----can't remember the source now, but I'll try and get that for you.
Last edited by sculptor; July 7th, 2013 at 12:57 PM.
It is unfortunately you feel this way. I think you have a fundamental misconception of what science is, and what science does and how best to communicate it to the public and among other scientist. Communicating science doesn't have to be some boring and unpersuasive ivory-towers dialog. She and other scientist are figuring out that scientist are loosing the PR war on every front, particularly in the US. And honestly there's nothing wrong with using qualitative terms that can be backed up with quantitative observational evidence as she it doing.
Maybe, all those University hours studying and reading science has left me a tad biased in favor of scientist like the 2 mentioned above, who share their data and conclusions without the opinionated preaching.
Maybe I just ain't into the pr you think necessary to "sell the science".
Who are they trying to sell to? uneducated children or lumpen? It just turns ugly to anyone who is well studied.
If you like your science served that way, well, that makes one of us.
There is nothing boring in the presentations of Julie Brigham-Grette, she shares the data and impressions, and the adventure in data collection in a very human way and stops short of biased preaching.
I suspect that those who flaunt their biased opinions while offering little data are doing so because deep in their hearts, they know they have nothing new to add, but feel forced to publish and make presentations as though they had. This is all too common in academia, and a damned shame.
Don't get me wrong, as I formulate and reformulate what I think I have learned(my opinion) then I seek out others to get their opinions on the same data, to see if there is a perspective, or ancillary information which I had missed. I've started many a thread here in furtherance of that behaviour.
As well as conversations elsewhere, in person, and in other forums.
Like I said, I want the knowledge first, then the opinions. I do not want my education biased by ill informed opinions------a bitch you may have seen me voicing as re my anthropology studies and degree.
Childes was dead wrong and yet, cannonized by ill informed fools who did their best to pass on the insanity to one more generation.
All we have going for us as a species is our ability to reason.
would you rather reason from biased opinions? or from accurate field data?
.................................................. .................................................. ...
I don't know if this is telling but, the
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxbOSB7zDgY
julie-lake e video has only had 4696 views
maybe most people simply don't care to learn about this paradigm shifter?
Last edited by sculptor; July 7th, 2013 at 05:54 PM.
Without the training - and the constant access to other trained people - that working scientists have, I just don't see how you can form well-founded opinions very often. The literature reviews and technical knowledge required just to barely follow what Jennifer Francis is saying when she talks meteorology jargon is a pretty big ask.First, I want knowledge(data), from which I will formulate my own opinions, then I want other's opinions to re-examine /revisit the reasoning behind my own.
As for Brigham-Gette and her team's work, the only "paradigm shift" I can see is that her work confirms that the Arctic area is much more responsive (and much faster) to greenhouse gas concentrations than was previously thought. Which is really just an addition to the hefty clue by four the disappearing sea ice has been pounding us with. Lake El'gygytgyn is confirming what a lot of people were previously suggesting - that 400+ppm CO2 means the rapid loss of sea and glacier ice in the Arctic is not exceptional and entirely to be expected. It's what we would have expected if the Lake E work had been done a decade earlier. (Which would have made Julie Brigham-Gette into one of those "alarmists" in the early 2000s, nowadays she's just another scientist. Swings and roundabouts, I suppose.) It does mean that somehow a few people have to put on their thinking-programming hats and work out how this could/should show up in models - or at least how the ocean and atmospheric models should be linked.
The first thing we should do as skeptical-but-interested people is acknowledge our own limitations when dealing with scientific reports. We lack both the time and the expertise to master the details of every topic and sub-specialty we might find interesting. We have no option but to accept what most scientists in a field tell us is well-established. We can also take a keen interest in new or revised understanding of natural phenomena.
But we should never kid ourselves that our opinions and judgements are the equivalent of scientific analysis or judgement. (Any time I fear I might be getting a bit over-confident in the climate area, a brief visit to The Science of Doom | Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science straightens me out.)
adelady:
If you adapt that attitude, do be very careful just who it is that you are listening to.
I started my climate studies in 1971 at southern illinois university, followed them up in 1975 at Florida Atlantic University, and finished them at the University of Illinois, ending in 1981. I was into archaeology and anthropology(degreed) and got into paleo climatology after stating in one seminar in 1979 that "You could not understand paleoman if you did not know his environment" (put up or shut up), and I began to lead that group into a study of paleo climatology as it affected the people of that time. I then followed that introduction with every class and seminar on the subject offered there.
The lake e data proved the previously only softy speculated warmer
super interglacials (that's a paradigm shift)
and confirmed stray earlier data indicating warmer previous interglacials
When she said
"we never knew that"
"we couldnt make the data fit any computer climate model"
that's indicating new data that indicates a new concept of paleo climates, and is indeed a paradigm shift.
Are we now in a "super interglacial" or are we due for another onslaught of the glaciers? (go ahead, take a guess, and follow the logic embodied therein)
do not sell yourself short
Always be willing to think for yourself and eschewing other's biases formulate your own opinions
You may be wrong alot
But you may also be that one stray point of light that sees the science clearly.
when you type:
by your use of "you" you actually mean yourself.Without the training - and the constant access to other trained people - that working scientists have, I just don't see how you can form well-founded opinions very often
If you do not believe you can understand the science, you have adapted a defeatist attitude which will turn into a self fulfilling prophesy.
as/reWhat is it that you didn't understand? ( the meterological series offered at southern was my introduction to climatology)meteorology jargon
Dont sell yourself short, you ain't that ignorant, nor unintelligent.
you seem to really care, and that may just be the most important component to any learning curve.
Last edited by sculptor; July 7th, 2013 at 08:49 PM.
The thing is you seem to object to how she presents more than accounting for her considerable expertise in the field. Jennifer is extremely well versed in the subject, with a long list of research papers, and thousands of citations for her work. If she choices to use the term "wacky weather," it's not some idol uninformed opinion, it's an expression of her expertise summed up into a small bit that anyone can understand. If she wished she could (and has in her writings), gone into the considerable scientific detail.
You might find it more credible that she stick to the dry terminology and science-speak such as talking about outliers, explaining whether she's defining that as to the 2nd or 3rd sigma, and than based on which type of statistical distribution best fits the observational record--but to be honest that puts most laymen, even those who understands it asleep. Most will just tune out because they don't understand a word. Far better she just describe it as "wacky," and let that sink in backed by her knowledge-- it should make scientist laugh and will be far more convincing to the average citizen who even if they don't understand the science, know enough that when a scientist tells them something is wacky...it's far different than what's considered normal.
Honestly we need a LOT more scientist just like her. Fortunately there seem to be more and more scientist willing to boil down their fields into common, sometimes entertaining, and effective language everyday.
I can understand it OK. But I'd never dream of suggesting that what I do should be regarded as having done it - let alone all by myself and without reading all of the 200 or more relevant papers or texts and not talking it through with experts in the topic.If you do not believe you can understand the science, you have adapted a defeatist attitude which will turn into a self fulfilling prophesy.
An analogy. (Treat with caution.)
I treat evaluating science a little like judging food or wine. I can tell you that a particular wine was or wasn't well-made or properly stored or correctly served - but I'd never kid myself that I could make the same quality wine. (Anyone can make rotgut, or vinegar.) Equally, I can tell you that a loaf of bread or dish that's served was probably made a certain way with a predictable quality of ingredients and cooked in a certain way. But if I don't have a baker's oven, or access to restaurant quality ingredients, I can't match it myself with my own resources. I can do an excellent job of the things that I can do in my circumstances, but I can't equal or better the professionals without a lot more resources, staff, training, practice. (I could, of course, equal or better most home-cooked meals if they're a cuisine I'm familiar or comfortable with, but that's not what we're talking about.)
So I treat climate science as something done by various groups of experts and, like wine or food, I can learn how to tell good from bad, better from worse, outstanding from ridiculous. But I'd never pretend that my own evaluations or summaries should be taken as serious science by me or anyone else. That comes only from reading papers, understanding physics properly, and listening to experts - often enough to know whether a report, a paper or a person is reputable and of reliable quality and whether it's worth my time and effort to follow through with the data or insights offered. I treat any claims to contradict or overturn established science with either dismissive speed when it's from a source known to be unreliable/ biased/ dishonest or with tentative caution if it's from a reputable person or organisation.
I disagree Lynx
I think she is doing a disservice to the science with her rhetorical style.
But that is just my opinion. I credit most people with a tad more ability to determine the difference between real simple science and biased opinion, and assume that her style will make them assume that all scientist are selling an opinion, and ultimately ignore those who are just presenting the science.
I suspect that this is boiling down to a simple matter of taste.
It smacks to me of dishonesty.
Why are you calling it biased opinion? That's what I don't get. Just because she uses more flowery language doesn't mean she doesn't know her stuff. You seem to be making quick judgements just based on her language while discounting her considerable expertise in her field.
Now that is a very big step too far. Francis is one of the leading experts in her field. Accusing her of dishonesty is a bit rich. And just because you don't like the message she's delivering - what? that a year of extreme record breaking events is just another routine data point in a scientist's spreadsheet? or is she allowed to say what she really means? Wacky is pretty mild when you look at the data she's discussing.It smacks to me of dishonesty.
It's a matter of perspective'
mine differs from yours
I expect simple honest discussions of data from scientist
something different from philosophers
and something different still from hucksters and salesmen
You forgot "theatre arts people" Mahalo.
OKWhy are you calling it biased opinion? That's what I don't get. Just because she uses more flowery language doesn't mean she doesn't know her stuff. You seem to be making quick judgements just based on her language while discounting her considerable expertise in her field.
would you prefer that I called it a horrible and wacky opinion?
How about a wacky presentation of an horrible opinion?
or a horrible presentation of a wacky opinion?
or add more flower to the really boring scientific jargon?
There was an horrible ssw event which led to a wacky springtime in the daffy temperate landmasses.
Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves
Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe:
All mimsy were ye borogoves;
And ye mome raths outgrabe
and then it rained buckets of blood
slithering the sunsets eerie glow
......................
alternately
You could support your obviously biased opinion of her and simply direct me to any of her articles/papers which would illustrate herwritten in a language not intended for the lumpen nor children nor the lowest common denominator.considerable expertise in her field
If she has done original field work, that would be even gollywonkers better.
Last edited by sculptor; July 8th, 2013 at 08:39 AM.
Don't know why I didn't think of it earlier. There's an expression - within the fairly small climate circles anyway - WACCy weather. Warm Arctic Cold Climate weather. That's not what she was talking about, because it's the particular combination of freezing weather in a NH region with warm temperatures in the Arctic, but it's probably a word that wouldn't have occurred to her a few years ago.
As for "If she has done original field work, that would be even gollywonkers better."
Well, she did become interested in the Arctic by actually going there. Privately. In a sailboat. (Which reinforces my personal view that many of the scientists working on various aspects of ice and/or ocean are more like extreme sports aficionados than ivory tower academics.) Jennifer Francis - Marine and Coastal Science I know I've seen a picture of her in standard Arctic gear somewhere, but I can't find it just now.
wacc w
fersure
this Jan-april describes what happened following the disruption of the polar vortex by the ssw carried on a rosby wave
still no good links to less biased, more scientific words from francis?
got any good data on the temp anomolies for northern greenland and canadien maritime arctic islands?
(an early (january, 2013) prognosticated estimate for northern greenland was up yo 10 degrees F warmer than normal (maybe "less cold" would be a more apt description?)
You want more scientific words from Francis? Go to Google Scholar or maybe the website of the university where she is a Research Professor.
If you click on the Recent Publications link you get this list of peer reviewed publications. Notice it's a partial list, only since 2007, of her published work. (I'll happily admit I've only looked at a few of these.) Go to the link yourself to see the larger, but still incomplete, version.
Knock yourself out.Peer-reviewed Publications
Francis, J. A. and S. J. Vavrus, 2012: Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 39, L06801, doi:10.1029/2012GL051000PDF
Skific, N., and J. A. Francis, 2013: Drivers of projected change in arctic moist static energy transport. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50292.
Tang, Q., X. Zhang, X. Yang, and J. A. Francis, 2013: Cold winter extremes in northern continents linked to Arctic sea ice loss.Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 014036. PDF
Greene, C.H., J.A. Francis, and B.C. Monger, 2013: Superstorm Sandy: A series of unfortunate events? Oceanography26(1):8–9,26-1 Greene et al.. PDF
Overland, J.E., J.A. Francis, E. Hanna, and M. Wang, 2012: The recent shift in early summer Arctic atmospheric circulation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39,L19804,doi:10.1029/2012GL053268.
Chen, Y., J.R. Miller, J.A. Francis, and G. L. Russell, 2011: Projected regime shifts in Arctic feedbacks, Env. Res. Lett., 6, 044007. PDF
Rawlins, M.A., M. Steele, M.M. Holland, J. C. Adam, J. E. Cherry, J. A. Francis, P.Y. Groisman, L.D. Hinzman, T.G. Huntington, D. L. Kane, J. S. Kimball, R. Kwok, R. B. Lammers, C. M. Lee, D. P. Lettenmaier, K. C. McDonald, E. Podest, J. W. Pundsack, B. Rudels, M. C. Serreze, A. Shiklomanov, Ø. Skagseth, T. J. Troy, C. J. Vörösmarty, M. Wensnahan, E. F. Wood, R. Woodgate, D. Yang, K. Zhang, and T. Zhang,2010: Analysis of the Arctic System for Freshwater Cycle Intensification: Observations and Expectations. J. Climate,23,5715-5737,doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3421.1. PDF
Francis, J. A., D. M. White, J. J. Cassano, W. J. Gutowski, L. D. Hinzman, M. M. Holland, M. A. Steele, and C. J. Vorosmarty,2009: An Arctic Hydrologic System in Transition: Feedbacks and Impacts on Terrestrial, Marine, and Human Life. J. Geophys. Res., 114, G04019, doi:10.1029/2008JG000902. PDF
Francis, J.A., W. Chan, D.J. Leathers, J.R. Miller, and D.E. Veron, 2009: Winter northern hemisphere weather patterns remember summer Arctic sea ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L07503, doi:10.1029/2009GL037274. PDF
Skific, N., J.A. Francis, and J.J. Cassano, 2009: Attribution of Seasonal and Regional Changes in Arctic Moisture Convergence. J. Climate, 22, 5115–5134, DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2829.1. PDF
Skific, N., J.A. Francis, and J.J. Cassano, 2009: Attribution of Projected Changes in Atmospheric Moisture Transport in the Arctic: A Self-Organizing Map Perspective. J. Climate, 22, 4135–4153, DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2645.1. PDF
Overland, J., J. Turner, J. Francis, N. Gillett, G. Marshall, and M. Tjernstrom, 2008: The Arctic and Antarctic: Two faces of climate change. Eos Trans., 89, 177-184. PDF
Vavrus, S.J., D. Waliser, A. Schweiger, and J. Francis, 2008: Simulations of 20th and 21st century Arctic cloud amount in the global climate models assessed in the IPCC AR4, Climate Dynamics, doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0475-6.
Schweiger, A.J., R.W. Lindsay, S. Vavrus, and J.A. Francis,2008: Relationships between Arctic sea ice and clouds during autumn.Jounal of Climate, 21, 4799-4810. PDF
Menon, S., N. Unger, D. Koch, J. Francis, T. Garrett, I. Sednev, D. Shindell, and D. Streets, 2008: Aerosol climate effects and air quality impacts from 1980 to 2030. Environmental Research Letters, 3, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024004.
Francis, J.A. and E. Hunter, 2007: Drivers of declining sea ice in the Arctic Winter, Geophysical Research Letters,34, L17503, doi:10.1029/2007GL030995. PDF
Francis, J.A. and E. Hunter, 2007: Changes in the fabric of the Arctic’s greenhouse blanket, Environ. Res. Lett., 2, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045011. PDF
Miller, J., Y. Chen, G. L. Russell, and J. A. Francis, 2007: Future regime shift in feedbacks during Arctic winter,Geophysical Research Letters,34, L23707, doi:10.1029/2007GL031826. PDF
White et al., 2007:The arctic freshwater system: Changes and impacts, J. Geophys. Res., 112, G04S54, doi:10.1029/2006JG000353. PDF
Liu, Y., J. R. Key, J. A. Francis and X. Wang, 2007: Possible causes of decreasing cloud cover in the Arctic winter, 1982-2000,Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L14705,doi:10.1029/2007GL030042 . PDF
..........
| « Seeking Clarification on the debate between climate change nay-sayers and supporters | Global warming science in 12 minutes. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
5Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
