Nell, Dudley and Snidely: Uncertainty

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:07 AM GMT on February 17, 2015

Nell, Dudley and Snidely: Uncertainty

In last week’s article I wrote:

Probability and likelihood are notoriously difficult ways to communicate in quiet consultation, and even more difficult in newspapers, on the radio, television and online. Probability and risk are just made for conflicting headlines. The conclusions are, therefore, by definition, uncertain, and uncertainty can always fuel both sides of a rhetorical or a political argument.

I got a very nice comment from Scott Sabol of WJW FOX 8 about the “uphill battle attempting to communicate uncertainty both in day-to-day weather forecasts and the describing of the components of extreme weather events/climate change influence without alienating the audience.” I have seen several blogs since the blizzard forecasts of January 23 – 26 that focus on the need to better quantify and describe the uncertainty associated with winter storms. Uncertainty is subject of this article.

Here’s a still growing record of the Northeast blizzard news cycle on my Tumblr site. This record includes some of the blogs referenced in the previous paragraph that discuss the need for better communication of uncertainty.

In the fall of 2014, I taught a small course on uncertainty, and specifically, on placing uncertainty of climate change in context with other sources of uncertainty in applying climate knowledge to planning and policy. My starting point in many uncertainty discussions is from the uncertainty fallacy; namely, that the quantification and reduction of uncertainty is the primary barrier that hinders the use of scientific knowledge in decision making. During the 1990s, many proposals and measurement missions were sold on the promise of “reducing uncertainty.” If you consider all of the complex processes that make up the climate system and their simplified representation in models, then casual statements that uncertainty will be reduced by any one investigation are not likely to hold up. Uncertainty might be better understood and be better described, but reduction is unlikely. Further, reduction does not assure better usability of knowledge, and in most cases it is not required.

One of my favorite classroom experiences is when the business students in class describe to the scientists and engineers that they are always making decisions in the face of great uncertainty. They want to know how climate uncertainty stacks up against other sources of uncertainty. They also what evidence that changes in the uncertainty descriptions will be incremental; that is, for example, from one assessment to the next, the description is largely the same.

If you listen to the NPR series on Risk and Reason, you will get a feeling of the difficulty of communicating uncertainty and the difficulty that people have in using information about uncertainty. In that series, there are those who advocate never using numbers describing uncertainty in policy contexts, and then there are those thinking of clever and effective ways to communicate numbers to individuals making important decisions. One take away is that how people use information about uncertainty is highly personal. There are often strong elements of fear and want.

Also, in many cases people have an agenda of how they want to use uncertainty – to make something happen or to keep something from happening ( a Rood blog, an ancient Rood blog, and yet another Rood blog, enough).

The quest for uncertainty quantification and highly quantified descriptions of uncertainty to assist in decision making is a mistake often made by scientists. In the cohort of clients I work with, the vast majority is simply not prepared to work with highly quantitative descriptions of uncertainty. Even more to the point, when climate uncertainty is placed into context with other sources of uncertainty, the quantification is overkill. There are studies that suggest, for instance Tang and Dessai (2012), that highly quantified descriptions of uncertainty can, on average, reduce the usability of climate information.

All of these factors together lead to at least one robust conclusion, there is no way to communicate uncertainty in a usable way to everyone. Therefore, you need have several strategies for communicating uncertainty, and you need to frame those strategies for different audiences. In the work that I have done with experts in public health, there is always the discussion about how to communicate a risk, for example, heat waves to the public. There is also the discussion of how to communicate information to first responders and to emergency health providers so that they will be on the lookout for heat-related afflictions. I am not aware that there is any discussion to communicate to anyone the numbers from epidemiological statisticians that one type of heat index has some fractional advantage in predicting heat-related afflictions.

An important point is the need to make a special effort to communicate to those who are trained professionals and have a framework in which to interpret and use uncertainty information. In the case of a weather emergency, one imagines that large cities might have such professionals. One of the most interesting responses that I saw in the Northeast blizzard news cycle was one where funding for experts, interpreters, in providing guidance on the use of forecasts had been eliminated. I don’t know the complete knowledge chain from weather forecast to shutting down a city, but this type of expertise is critical at some place in that knowledge chain.

My whole raison d’être these days is training interpreters on how to use climate knowledge in problem solving. Many of the same principles apply in how to use weather forecasts and how to use science-based knowledge in general. The Northeast blizzard news cycle has been and continues to be a real-world example for both climate and weather. The continued snow storms in Boston, for example, are a wonderful example of relentless patterns of weather that demonstrate that weather is not “random.” However, the biggest lessons are on uncertainty, communication and exaggeration for the benefit of telling a story.

I stated, above, that how we use uncertainty is highly personal. I have used climate knowledge and weather uncertainty to choose the location of a house on the Chesapeake Bay as well as to decide whether of not to take a kayak out into a hurricane. In neither case did I feel I was taking on large risk. This weekend, I (over)heard what seemed to be a discussion of two people deciding not to vaccinate their son because they had determined that their son had exceptional natural immunity. A relevant weather-related example of personal choice and, perhaps, the subconscious is the evidence that people take hurricanes named after women less seriously than hurricanes named after men. It made me think of naming winter storms and what Venus or Vesta might suggest compared to Jupiter or Mars. That, of course, led to Nell, Dudley and Snidely.

One thing that I count on from scientific organizations is a dispassionate description of events and uncertainty. Winter storms, especially if we are going to personify them, need a dispassionate, standard scale to describe them. The weather service has several scales that are effective for hurricanes, tornadoes and storms at sea. Winter storms offer a difficult detail, namely, the rain-ice-snow line, whose boundaries are tricky and important. Climate change offers the additional difficulty that characteristics of storms are changing and expected to change more. Therefore, placing storms within recent and historic context seems like a potentially usable piece of information. We need qualifiers, not number-heavy quantifiers. We don’t need to explain numerical dispersion errors in models to the masses. We don’t need to break down all of the pieces – to speak loudly and more slowly.

From the point of view of the climate scientist and the roles that climate change plays in a particular storm – it is always true that public communication is walking into a maelstrom where people have many agendas of how they want to use uncertainty – to make something happen or to keep something from happening. I have had colleagues tell me that there is an imperative to participate in ever loudening ways to convey the knowledge of climate change. This does not appeal or seem effective to me. Those conversations of deliberate disruption and doubt need to be identified for what they are and left in their stewing pool. We need to persistently differentiate the important aspects of climate change, isolate the deliberate disruption, and more effectively expose that which is important about climate change in the many conversations that are emerging.

r


The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 114 - 64

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Quoting 83. Xandra:

NWS Salt Lake City:

We're running out of adjectives, but it's worth repeating: February has been incredible!



(Click for larger image)




SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The National Weather Service says the summer of 2013 was the hottest on record in Salt Lake City.

The average temperature of 80.7 breaks the previous record of 79.3 sent in 2007. The National Weather Service considers June to August as summer. Temperatures come from a gauge at the Salt Lake City International Airport.

This is the latest record to fall during the searing summer in Utah's largest city. Salt Lake City has recorded the most days ever of 95 degrees or higher, and the second-most days of triple digit heat.

July was the hottest month on record in Salt Lake City.

The three hottest summers in Salt Lake City have come in the past six years; and the five hottest within the past two decades.

Link

2013 was the hottest summer from Salt Lake all the way to Reno, the entire northern Great Basin all the way up to Boise, Idaho . I suspect the same region is now recording the hottest winter, or very near to it.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Another Big Oil shill masquerading as a "climate expert" has bitten the dust: Willie "It's only the sun" Soon looks to be well on his way to going down for the count:

"For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

"One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun%u2019s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

"But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon%u2019s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as 'deliverables' that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."


Read the whole piece here.

Personal observation: what a sniveling little weasel...

(Just noticed that Bob posted excerpts from the same article a while before this comment. Good catch, Bob...)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash For a Doubtful Climate Scientist

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.


Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting riverat544:

I'd be a little cautious about saying that quite yet. In the annual CO2 cycle levels usually reach a maximum in May near the start of the Northern Hemisphere growing season and a minimum in October near the end of the NH growing season. I think it could be another year or two before the CO2 level remains over 400 ppm for the full year at Mauna Loa.
In 2013, CO2 rose above the 400ppm line for a single week in early June.
In 2014, CO2 crossed the 400ppm line in mid-March, and stayed there until mid-July.
In 2015, CO2 crossed the 400ppm line in mid-January. It's likely to stay there until roughly September or so. It should then rise back above the line again in late November or early December, and likely won't fally below it again in our lifetimes. It's possible, of course, that the Keeling Curve won't be quite so curvy as it has been, and that the readings could drop very briefly below 400 sometime in the fall of 2016, but at this point I'm very highly doubting that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 108. Patrap:

When we pass 400 ppm CO2 in the Summer/Fall, no one alive today or then will ever see that number again..

.....ever.


399.85


I'd be a little cautious about saying that quite yet. In the annual CO2 cycle levels usually reach a maximum in May near the start of the Northern Hemisphere growing season and a minimum in October near the end of the NH growing season. I think it could be another year or two before the CO2 level remains over 400 ppm for the full year at Mauna Loa.

Added: Of course 400 ppm is only noteworthy because of humans fondness for round numbers. Climatologically the difference between that and 399 ppm in miniscule.

110. Neapolitan, to clairfy by "a year or two" I meant the falls of 2015 & 2016 so I agree with your post.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
When we pass 400 ppm CO2 in the Summer/Fall, no one alive today or then will ever see that number again..

.....ever.


399.85
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
From VICE News:

Toxic Waste in the US: Coal Ash (Full Length)

Coal ash, which contains many of the world's worst carcinogens, is what's left over when coal is burnt for electricity. An estimated 113 million tons of coal ash are produced annually in the US, and stored in almost every state — some of it literally in people's backyards. With very little government oversight and few safeguards in place, toxic chemicals have been known to leak from these storage sites and into nearby communities, contaminating drinking water and making residents sick.

VICE News travels across the US to meet the people and visit the areas most affected by this toxic waste stream. Since coal production is predicted to remain steady for the next few decades, coal ash will be a problem that will affect the US for years to come.

See also:

Humans Are Destroying the Environment at a Rate Unprecedented in Over 10,000 Years

The Economic Cost of Carbon Pollution Is Much Greater Than Estimated, Say Stanford University Researchers

Green Groups Say Another Coal Ash Spill Remains Likely, One Year After North Carolina Accident

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
A melting Arctic and weird weather: the plot thickens

By Jennifer Francis, Rutgers University

Everyone loves to talk about the weather, and this winter Mother Nature has served up a feast to chew on. Few parts of the US have been spared her wrath.

Severe drought and abnormally warm conditions continue in the west, with the first-ever rain-free January in San Francisco; bitter cold hangs tough over the upper Midwest and Northeast; and New England is being buried by a seemingly endless string of snowy nor’easters.

Yes, droughts, cold and snowstorms have happened before, but the persistence of this pattern over North America is starting to raise eyebrows. Is climate change at work here?

Wavier jet stream
One thing we do know is that the polar jet stream – a fast river of wind up where jets fly that circumnavigates the northern hemisphere – has been doing some odd things in recent years.

Rather than circling in a relatively straight path, the jet stream has meandered more in north-south waves. In the west, it’s been bulging northward, arguably since December 2013 – a pattern dubbed the “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” by meteorologists. In the east, we’ve seen its southern-dipping counterpart, which I call the “Terribly Tenacious Trough.” (See image here)

These long-lived shifts from the polar jet stream’s typical pattern have been responsible for some wicked weather this winter, with cold Arctic winds blasting everywhere from the Windy City to the Big Apple for weeks at a time.

We know that climate change is increasing the odds of extreme weather such as heatwaves, droughts and unusually heavy precipitation events, but is it making these sticky jet-stream patterns more likely, too? Maybe.

Read more...

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
#103 - I figured out how to embed using Win 7 / Chrome -
- follow Nea's instruction in #86 - but change the https://
- to http:// (remove the "s") -
- occurs two places in the generated code

Just guessing that the latest Chrome secure browser (and IE) both have a problem with the older embedded codes - anyway - works fine now - on either machine / browser.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Climate change is real!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 87. RevElvis:

86. I right clicked & "Copy embedded Code" direcly from the video you posted - pasted it in the "Your Comment" box - did a preview & again - nothing - if I "Post Comment" - nothing again & when I hit the "Modify Comment" - there is nothing where the video code is supposed to be - like it's being filter out - I don't know.




Thanks for the help - I won't waste anymore forum time / space on this.

* Nea - that's exactly what I've been doing - and same result - nothing - it's like it treats the "less than" symbol as a command to filter out everything after - until the "greater than" symbol (it's doing it with this text) - similar to using a "remark" symbol when using code.

** FIXED - Used your coderizer with Ubuntu Firefox - works perfect -
- Win 7 - IE11 / Chrome 40.x - neither works (probably a security setting - somewhere)

Huh, I thought I might have been the only one who couldn't get this to work. You've made me feel a bit better. I'd previously tried this with ie11/win8.1 and with Chrome, but no luck. I tried it just now with Firefox, did a preview, and it worked. Thanks!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 95. Cochise111:



If it weren't for years of stalling, stonewalling, and obfuscation from the Dems, we actually might know something about Lois Lerner and exactly what happened in Benghazi. The investigations have just begun. . . .


Pray tell: Why don't you care about Beirut?

Or Karachi (2002, 2003, 2006)?

Or any of the other attacks that have happened at embassies and overseas military facilities over the years?

I know that the interest in Benghazi is about safeguarding our brave diplomats and servicemen and women abroad and not something that's simply motivated by a bankrupt ideology, right? (Don't worry, you don't need to answer. I think everyone knows the answer without you having to embarrass yourself explicitly.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you can hold your lunch down while watching and listening to the smug, obnoxious, lie-peddling, powder-blue-shirt-wearing Marc Morano, you might enjoy this trailer for the big-screen documentary "Merchants of Doubt", which is set to be released in just two weeks:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Cochise111:


If it weren't for years of stalling, stonewalling, and obfuscation from the Dems, we actually might know something about Lois Lerner and exactly what happened in Benghazi. The investigations have just begun. . . .
Oh, I'm sure they have. After all, witch hunts are never about actually finding witches, because the best hunters know they don't really exist. They are, rather, the desperate posturings of those hoping to hide the fact that themselves they have absolutely nothing of substance to add by constantly pointing at no one in particular and crying, "Look! A witch!!"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Drone Skies

-Signe Wilkinson

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 88
Congress to investigate temperature data manipulation by NASA. It's about time.
Here is a plot of the raw vs. adjusted NASA data.

Please point out how the adjustments are significantly changing the trend.

And why do you support using data that has lots of errors?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Hawking: Stop being so aggressive, humans, or we're finished

CNET.com

* I would like to add that I'm sure that IGNORANCE is running a close second !
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
One can't help but wonder whether the latest "investigation into the climate fraud" will be more fruitful than any of the same groups' "investigations" into the Benghazi "scandal", or the IRS "scandal", or the climategate "scandal", or the birther "scandal", or whatever nonsensical, tax-wasting, paranoia-driven, completely baseless conspiracy the Fox loons are buying into on any given day.

I would imagine not.

Of course, there'll be a lot of harrumphing from ignorati like Inhofe and Rohrbacher, along with a lot of razzle-dazzle BS from boobs like "Goddard" and Watts and Monckton, and a lot of boot-licking false equivalence from the mainstream (that is, conservative) press. And the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathering dummies in flyover country will doubtless eat it all up like so many slobbering puppies. But while all that will certainly bolster the anti-science POVs of the Fox-watching masses, the majority of Americans aren't stupid enough to fall for it yet again.

And so it goes...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 91. Cochise111:



And what is your claim to fame?


Guinness World Record holder for most trucks jumped in a Prius. No small task, mind you.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
#88
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
#88 So a bunch of science illiterates are going to look like idiots while the world laughs on. Great news.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
86. I right clicked & "Copy embedded Code" direcly from the video you posted - pasted it in the "Your Comment" box - did a preview & again - nothing - if I "Post Comment" - nothing again & when I hit the "Modify Comment" - there is nothing where the video code is supposed to be - like it's being filter out - I don't know.




Thanks for the help - I won't waste anymore forum time / space on this.

* Nea - that's exactly what I've been doing - and same result - nothing - it's like it treats the "less than" symbol as a command to filter out everything after - until the "greater than" symbol (it's doing it with this text) - similar to using a "remark" symbol when using code.

** FIXED - Used your coderizer with Ubuntu Firefox - works perfect -
- Win 7 - IE11 / Chrome 40.x - neither works (probably a security setting - somewhere)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting RevElvis:
82 / 75 - Thanks Again! I've tried everything including the coderizer site you listed (and several other coderizers) - to no avail. - my understanding of html is somewhat limited - but I used to post videos here without a problem (using the old embed code) - it just doesn't work for some reason (or another) - I've also tried chrome, explorer (win7) & ubuntu 14.04 Firefox on different machines - same result.
- Not a big deal - I'll just post the links instead -


Directions:

1) Open the YouTuve video you want;
2) Look for the 'Share' link below the video, and click it;
3) Look for the 'Embed' link, and click it;
4) Highlight and copy the entire contents of the box;
5) Open the Coderizer;
6) Paste the text you copied in step four into the top box;
7) Click the red 'Coderize!' button;
8) Highlight and copy the entire contents of the bottom box;
9) Paste this copied text into a WU comment field. You don't need to surround it with anything, or put it in an 'image' tage, or anything else. Just the copied text, period.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
82 / 75 - Thanks Again! I've tried everything including the coderizer site you listed (and several other coderizers) - to no avail. - my understanding of html is somewhat limited - but I used to post videos here without a problem (using the old embed code) - it just doesn't work for some reason (or another) - I've also tried chrome, explorer (win7) & ubuntu 14.04 Firefox on different machines - same result.
- Not a big deal - I'll just post the links instead -
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 76. Cochise111:

Four cities set all-time record lows. I suppose that is due to AGW also:

No, it's due to natural variability and is only a tiny piece of a vast sea of climate data.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
NWS Salt Lake City:

We're running out of adjectives, but it's worth repeating: February has been incredible!



(Click for larger image)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 78. RevElvis:


Try Neapolitan's excellent YouTube Old Embed Coderizer
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 76. Cochise111:

Four cities set all-time record lows. I suppose that is due to AGW also:

Link


A more appropriate headline? "Man Confuses Eastern U.S. for Entire World, Mistakenly Posts Weather Information in Climate Forum"
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Solar Industry Prepares for Battle Against Koch Brothers’ Front Groups

Mark Twain said it best, there are “lies, damned lies and statistics.” It’s hard to tell which is which after closely reviewing the latest hatchet job on solar energy by the Koch brothers’ front group, The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA).

Aside from spelling solar correctly, much of the report, Filling the Solar Sinkhole, is untrue or misleading—including its basic assertion that the U.S. solar industry receives $39 billion in annual subsidies. Seriously? How can that be? How can an industry with a U.S. market value of $15 billion receive $39 billion in annual subsidies? The answer: it doesn’t. This is fuzzy math, and dirty tricks, at their very worst. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise. The purpose of this report isn’t to inform or educate. The purpose is to incite activists and generate scandalous headlines, when, in fact, no scandal exists.

According to PV-Tech’s John Parnell, who did a thoughtful analysis, “The report doesn’t make it clear how it arrived at the $39 billion figure. Of the 26 references cited in the report, 16 of them are from organizations that were either founded by the Koch brothers, or have received funding from them.”

Enough is enough. If clean energy critics want a bare knuckle brawl, then they’re going to get one. This type of guerrilla warfare simply isn’t going to work. Americans overwhelmingly support clean, renewable solar energy—and that scares the hell out of the Koch brothers and their lackeys. Here’s the dirty little truth: few industries benefit more from the U.S. tax code than carbon-rich big oil. By their own estimates, oil and gas tax breaks amount to a staggering $100 billion over 10 years. So how do the Koch brothers divert attention away from this? They prod conservative groups, many of which they fund directly or indirectly, to attack clean energy.

EcoWatch.com
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
#76 I missed the flag on my first attempt. :^[
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Why Obama Should Veto the Keystone XL Pipeline Permanently !"
- Robert Reich

iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KjSk4kIGTL4?fea ture=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

it strips off anything in between "lesser than" & "greater than" symbols ????

Youtube Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
75. - Thanks Pat - I've tried using the old embed codes & when I hit the "Post Comment" button - it removes everything related to the video -
I'll keep trying & use your post as an example.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 74. RevElvis:

Can't embed youtube video (I've tried the old / new embed codes several different ways - used to work - doesn't anymore?)


Embed's are fine, use the "old embed code" though.







Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Can't embed youtube video (I've tried the old / new embed codes several different ways - used to work - doesn't anymore?)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Current Very Weak El Nino Now Equivalent to Huge '97-98 El Nino

Here's an update to the world's temperature compared to the 1997-8 massive El Nino:



Even though the Nino3.4 anomaly hasn't reached an El Nino phase yet (5 consecutive months of an anomaly above 0.5 C are rquired to be an "official" El Nino), last years's index has been much below that of the big 1997-98 El Nino.

But temperatures have been running higher. Significantly higher.

So in less than 20 years, the warming that resulted from a huge El Nino is now seen from a weak-to-nonexistent El Nino.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 68. ColoradoBob1:

Very unusual for mid February

Watson Lake, Yukon 32F.

Columbia, South Carolina 22F (8:30 a.m. EST)


More weird stuff:

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 68. ColoradoBob1:

Very unusual for mid February

Watson Lake, Yukon 32F.

Columbia, South Carolina 22F (8:30 a.m. EST)


The numbers for Fairbanks the next 5 days -

Fri. 28F
Sat 34F
Sun 38F
Mon 35F
Tue 29F

Snow melting in Fairbanks for 3 days in Feb.

Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Brief Communication:
Newly developing rift in Larsen C Ice Shelf presents significant risk to stability


PDF from Cryosphere
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Very unusual for mid February

Watson Lake, Yukon 32F.

Columbia, South Carolina 22F (8:30 a.m. EST)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 64. cyclonebuster:

While the North East experiences record snow the Arctic is at record low. , , , .


Bering Sea Animation



Advection thru the Fram Strait:



Very unusual for mid February
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 42. Frasersgrove:




Better tell the arctic this news, according to IJIS the ice extent in the arctic has dropped by almost 200,000 sq/ km in the last 2 days to set a record low for today.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_exten t.htm


your link has a space in it that prevents it from working.. Arctic Sea Ice Monitor
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 63. RevElvis:

If we treated our homes like we do the earth

- Jen Sorensen / SlowPokeComics.com





"If the house gets dirty enough, then Jesus will come back and clean for us!"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 114 - 64

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.