A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 9:18 PM GMT on June 21, 2011

Share this Blog
4
+

A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

In the previous entry I set out the need of a scientific organization; that is, an organization that is designed and run to honor the tenets of the scientific method. This stands in contrast to, say, a laboratory or a center that is populated by scientists carrying out a multitude of projects, each following the scientific method. One motivation for the scientific organization is the steady stream of reports from the past two decades calling for better integration of U.S. climate activities to provide predictions to meet societal needs. At the foundation of my argument is that the way we teach, fund and reward scientific investigation has been, traditionally, fragmenting. Without addressing this underlying fragmentation, there are high barriers to achieving the needed integration. (see, Something New in the Past Decade?, The Scientific Organization, High-end Climate Science).

What does it take for an organization to adhere to the scientific method? Ultimately, I will arrive at the conclusion that it takes a diligence of management and governance, but for this entry I will continue to focus on the elements of the scientific method, and specifically the development of strategies to evaluate and validate collected, rather than individual, results.

In May I attended a seminar by David Stainforth. Stainforth is one of the principles in the community project climateprediction.net. From their website, “Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models.” In this project people download a climate model and run the model on their personal computers, then the results are communicated back to data center where they are analyzed in concert with results from many other people.

This is one example of community science or citizen science. Other citizen science programs are Project Budburst and the Globe Program. There are a number of reasons for projects like this. One of the reasons is to extend the reach of observations. In Project Budburst people across the U.S. observe the onset of spring as indicated by different plants – when do leaves and blossoms emerge? A scientific motivation for doing this is to increase the number observations to try to assure that the Earth's variability is adequately observed – to develop statistical significance. In these citizen science programs people are taught how to observe - a protocol is developed.

Education – that is another goal of these citizen science activities, education about the scientific method. In order to follow the scientific process, we need to know the characteristics of the observations. If, as in Project Budburst, we are looking for the onset of leafing, then we need to make sure that the tree is not sitting next to a warm building or in the building’s atrium. Perhaps, there is a requirement of a measurement, for example, that the buds on a particular type of tree have expanded to a certain size or burst in some discernible way. Quantitative measurement and adherence of practices of measurement are at the foundation of developing a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment is one where we try to investigate only one thing at a time; this is a difficult task in climate science. If we are not careful about our observations and the design of our experiments, then it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to evaluate our hypotheses and arrive at conclusions. And the ability to test hypotheses is fundamental to the scientific method. Design, observations, hypothesis, evaluation, validation – in a scientific organization these things need to be done by the organization, not each individual.

Let’s return to climateprediction.net. A major goal is to obtain a lot of simulations from climate models to examine the range of variability that we might expect in 2100. The strategy is to place relatively simple models in the hands of a whole lot of people. With this strategy it is possible to do many more experiments than say one scientist or even a small team of scientists can do. Many 100,000s of simulations have been completed.

One of the many challenges faced in the model-based experiments is how to manage the model simulations to provide controlled experiments. If you think about a climate model as a whole, then there are a number of things that can be changed. We can change something “inside” of the model, for example, we can change how rough we estimate the Earth’s surface to be – maybe grassland versus forest. We can change something “outside” of the model - the energy balance, perhaps, some estimate of how the Sun varies or how carbon dioxide will change. And, still “outside” the model, we can change the details of what the climate looks like when the model simulation is started – do we start it with January 2003 data or July 2007? When you download a model from climateprediction.net, it has a unique set of these parameters. If you do a second experiment, this will also have a unique set of parameters. Managing these model configurations and documenting this information allows, well, 100000s of simulations to be run, with a systematic exploration of model variability. Experiment strategy is explained here.

What impressed me about climateprediction.net is the ability to design and execute a volunteer organization that allows rigorous investigation with of a group of thousands of people on thousands of different computers distributed all over the globe. Protocols have been set up to verify that the results are what they should be; there is confidence in the accuracy of the information collected. Here is an example where scientists are able to define an organization where the scientific method permeates the organization. Is this proof that a formalized scientific organization is possible? What are the attributes that contribute to the success of a project like climateprediction.net? Are they relevant to a U.S. climate laboratory?

Bringing this back to the scale of U.S. climate activities – in 2008 there was a Policy Forum in Science Magazine by Mark Schaefer, Jim Baker and a distinguished number of co-authors. All of these co-authors had worked at high levels in the government, and they all struggled with the desire and need to integrate U.S. climate activities. Based on their experience they posed an Earth System Science Agency made from a combined USGS and NOAA. In their article they pointed out: “The synergies among our research and monitoring programs, both space- and ground-based, are not being exploited effectively because they are not planned and implemented in an integrated fashion. Our problems include inadequate organizational structure, ineffective interagency collaboration, declines in funding, and blurred authority for program planning and implementation.” Planning and implementation in an integrated fashion, I will add – consistent with the scientific method – that is what is needed for a successful scientific investigation by an individual; it is needed to make climateprediction.net substantive; it is needed for any climate organization that is expected, as a whole, to provide integrated climate information.

r




Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

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

Viewing: 284 - 234

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Quoting RMuller:
If there is truly no "climategate" as several on here have suggested, why are the Universities of E. Anglia and Virginia fighting so hard to prevent release of raw data and email? Hmmmm. UEA was ordered to release all of their raw climate data yesterday. Maybe the light of day will be finally shone on Phil Jones and Michael Mann.


1. Just because there is a "gate" does not mean there was a wrong.

2. Should Phil Jones and Michael Mann be proved inept and/or manipulative in the performance of their duties then this does not discredit the research of the many thousands that are doing the research.

I seek scientific evidence that AGW is a sham. You continuously offer me attacks on others and, at best, hypotheticals that are not really related to the debunking of the study of AGW. Give me the undeniable evidence that AGW is a sham. I am more than willing to receive it and I most certainly do hope that AGW is a sham. Until you, or someone else, can convince me that AGW is a sham, I will continue to err on the side of caution. We are not, after all, talking about replacing a vehicle when its symptoms were wrongfully diagnosed and now we have to replace it. We are talking on a MUCH larger scale than this and with considerably more adverse effects on us ALL. Bring me your proof, not your ideologies. If you cannot convince those that are WILLING to be convinced, how do you plan on convincing anyone else?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
CO2 is NOT a poisonous gas.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
cyanide gas

cyanide? yikes! has this blog turned into the Apocolypse blog?


Yes, Amy. Things may be worse that we first realized. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
cyanide gas

cyanide? yikes! has this blog turned into the Apocolypse blog?
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 316 Comments: 31944
Quoting RustyShackleford:
Rookie-

.039% of the atmosphere is CO2, right?

How does such a small amount actually warm up the Earth?

Just doesn't seem like the knockout blow they are looking for.

Oh but 393 PPM makes it seem a whole lot better.

Lets stick with the .039%.


I cannot offer to you the science behind that, other than to say an even smaller percentage of cyanide gas, in the atmosphere, would probably prove most detrimental to us all. I do not believe it has as much to do with the percentage that is measured as to how much that percentage is harmful to us. CO2, in a high enough concentration ( percentage of total volume ), would be fatal for us to breath but, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about what percent of our atmosphere can contain CO2 before we see a detrimental effect, for life on Earth. While even a very small percentage of our atmosphere is CO2 and may not seem harmful to life on Earth it does not change the reality. This really is not a very good analogy but, have you ever boiled a live lobster? You put the live lobster in a cold pot of water and slowly increase the heat. The lobster never reacts to the slowly increasing water temperature and is cooked to death while it never struggles to escape the heat. Once you reach a certain point, it is all over and you may never know it. Now, if you drop a live lobster into water that it is too hot for its comfort zone it will immediately try to escape the heat. Slow, incremental increases can have a very detrimental effect on you and you never notice it until.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:



Could be since Methane warming would last a few hundred years where as Carbon warming would last a few thousand years.


When sampling the ice cores the CO2 drops off rather
quickly once it gets cold and the next glaciation
continues for 100K years or so. So my question is,
prior to the eemian period of glaciation, CO2 and ambient temperature were high but then it cooled off
and both dropped. At least that is what the cores show
just curious.




Global Warming: the Object Speaks For Itself
Posted on April 25, 2006 by Ira Flatow
Post on Twitter
Share on Facebook

My favorite legal latin phrase is Res Ipsa Loquitur: “the object speaks for itself.”
When a doctor leaves a scalpel in a patient’s stomach, and the patient sues the doctor for malpractice, the doctor can’t say he didn’t have anything to do with it. The scalpel speaks for itself.

The same thing is happening to the earth. Glaciers are melting all over the planet. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are the warmest on record. Global warming? The planet is speaking for itself.

Sometimes, that voice is not so evident as in melting polar caps. Global warming will show up as a different symptom. One piece of evidence, is the strength of recent hurricanes in the gulf. Another is more subtle: mosquitos bringing malaria too people living higher up in mountains where the bloodsuckers never used to be able to survive.

The University of Flordia, through its Explore magazine, points to another one. “Florida sacrificed more than 11 million citrus trees over the last 10 years in a desperate struggle to keep citrus canker from spreading, but all of that effort was wiped out in just a few short hours last October when Hurricane Wilma rampaged through the heart of the state’s groves, spreading the bacteria far and wide.”



The big question is “what is behind this phenomenon”?

I would love to hear a show that tackles this question from a geologic history perspective. Our planet has experienced several periods of warming and cooling. What do geologists believe was behind those non-human influenced occurces, what data support these beliefs and are similar factors at work today? Are global greenhouse gas (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, water vapor) levels higher, lower or about the same as warm periods in the geologic past? Is there close correlation of CO2 and mean (and/or median) global temperature? What other factors do current geologic theory find related to these periods of warming and cooling that billions of years of strata of tell us.
How did the earth rid itself of higher levels of CO2 in the geologic past and can we harness these techniques to sequester CO2 emissions today?



Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:



This can prevent that.



Yes the tunnels:

Our fiends in OZ are all about green, they have there version of the Gulf Stream (EAC)
This would be a wonderful plan for them.
I heard they were building giant convection towers
and using the draft. The tunnels would be better.

I suggest you submit the plan:
They are listening.

Australia Ratifies International Renewable Energy Statute
21 January 2011


Link




Also as long as it is turtle safe, of course.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hottest day on record in Texas Panhandle; fire threatens Los Alamos

The hottest temperatures in recorded history scorched large portions of the Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma Panhandle, and southwestern Kansas on Sunday. Amarillo hit 111°, breaking its hottest day-ever record of 109° (set just two days previously, on June 24). A cold front moved through the region overnight, bringing northerly winds and cooler temperatures to the region. However, a new ridge of high pressure will gradually build in this week and temperatures are expected to reach near-record levels again by Thursday, with 102°F expected in Amarillo.


Link


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting Neapolitan:
Climkate Change Indicator #3,627:

Global warming decreasing salt in sea

Climate change will turn the Baltic Sea into an increasingly freshwater sea and devastate its marine life, according to scientists.

A multinational study has found that an increase in precipitation in the region would lead the water in the Baltic to become less salty. Such a decrease in salinity would change the make-up of sea life, which is already suffering from over-fishing and harmful chemicals.

Professor Chris Reid, of the Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, who was involved in the study, said: “Due to global warming, it is predicted there will be an increase in precipitation in the river basins that flow into the Baltic Sea. As a result - because it's an enclosed sea with a very narrow exit - the sea will become fresher. We predict this will happen over the next 100 years.”

Transformations to the Baltic's ecosystem is among a number changes reported in the research project, led by Climate Change & European Marine Ecosystem Research (Clamer) which has collated more than 13 years' worth of reports, involving 17 marine institutes from 10 European countries.

Another alarming discovery is the arrival of a new species of plankton in the north Atlantic from the Pacific. The microscopic species had disappeared from the region 800,000 years ago. As the melting Arctic icecap has opened the Northwest Passage, the plant has drifted back across the pole.

While the algae is a food source, experts say any changes at the base of the marine food web, could shake or even topple the pillars of existing Atlantic Ocean life.

IOL Sci-Tech Article...



This can prevent that.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Climate Change Indicator #3,627:

Global warming decreasing salt in sea

Climate change will turn the Baltic Sea into an increasingly freshwater sea and devastate its marine life, according to scientists.

A multinational study has found that an increase in precipitation in the region would lead the water in the Baltic to become less salty. Such a decrease in salinity would change the make-up of sea life, which is already suffering from over-fishing and harmful chemicals.

Professor Chris Reid, of the Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, who was involved in the study, said: %u201CDue to global warming, it is predicted there will be an increase in precipitation in the river basins that flow into the Baltic Sea. As a result - because it's an enclosed sea with a very narrow exit - the sea will become fresher. We predict this will happen over the next 100 years.%u201D

Transformations to the Baltic's ecosystem is among a number changes reported in the research project, led by Climate Change & European Marine Ecosystem Research (Clamer) which has collated more than 13 years' worth of reports, involving 17 marine institutes from 10 European countries.

Another alarming discovery is the arrival of a new species of plankton in the north Atlantic from the Pacific. The microscopic species had disappeared from the region 800,000 years ago. As the melting Arctic icecap has opened the Northwest Passage, the plant has drifted back across the pole.

While the algae is a food source, experts say any changes at the base of the marine food web, could shake or even topple the pillars of existing Atlantic Ocean life.

IOL Sci-Tech Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Hurricanes & Climate Change
About the future
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."



Link


Above is what the Heat Biased Claim:




Below is the empirical reality:
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update



New Paper: Maue (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity:

During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.
In his new paper, "Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity", Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined the last 40-years of global hurricane records and found strikingly large variability in both tropical cyclone frequency and energy from year-to-year. Since 2007, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased dramatically and has continued at near-historical low levels. Indeed, only 64 tropical cyclones were observed globally in the 12-months from June 2010 - May 2011, nearly 23-storms below average obliterating the previous record low set in 1977.
On average, the North Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea accounts for about 1/8 of total global tropical cyclone energy and frequency. However in 2010, the Atlantic saw 19 tropical storms, of which 12 became hurricanes as expected (and forecasted) due to the intense La Nina event and continued positive Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The Atlantic Ocean's accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) corresponded to about 1/3 of the global calendar year output while the Western North Pacific typhoon season experienced a record few number. Seasonal forecasters of Atlantic hurricanes expect a similar but somewhat tempered outcome for the 2011 season, which has yet to get underway.
While the North Atlantic continued a 16-year period of above-normal activity in 2010, the North Pacific including the warm tropical waters from China to Mexico experienced the quietest tropical cyclone season in at least 40-years of historical records. Similarly, the most recent Southern Hemisphere cyclone season, except for the disastrous impacts of Yasi, was also notably below average. All told through June 27, 2011, overall global accumulated cyclone energy and frequency has settled into a period of record inactivity.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
So, given the credentials and impressive list of accomplishments of the 4, you must be claiming unabashed lies in any discussion of their thoughts on AGW.

Clearly, their ability appears to be on the order of "eagle", rather than just par, especially Singer.

The four may have done good, solid science in their younger years. But even a cursory glance at their latter day "accomplishments" shows that they all went off the rails at some point, lured away from science by the fame and fortune and immortality offered to those willing to exchange their earlier well-earned credibility for them.

Frederick Seitz (born in 1911) was once involved with the construction of the world's largest particle accelerator. Spent his final non-science years testifying as to the beneficial effects of cigarette smoke, pesticides, and nuclear war.

William Nierenberg (1919) was once professor of physics at the University of Michigan, and director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Spent his final non-science years helping the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute* lie about global warming.

Robert Jastrow (1925) was once chairman of NASA's Lunar Exploration Committee. Spent his final non-science years claiming that tobacco smoke wasn't harmful, CFCs didn't harm ozone, and that pesticides did nothing but good for the environment.

S. Fred Singer (1924) was once involved in developing satellites for NASA; spends his non-science years testifying for and consulting with Big Energy. Hasn't authored a peer-reviewed article in over 30 years.

* - Of which has been said the following:

"As it happened, in the spring I landed a job as executive director of [the George C. Marshall Institute] in Washington. This felt like a coup. But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style -- that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting iceagecoming:
The hottest new trend in climate change may be global cooling, some researchers say.

Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.

“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.

Ah, Easterbrook. He's the one that announced in 2009 that global warming was over, a laughable proclamation made all the more laughable when the following year turned out to be the warmest ever.

So what will Easterbrook and the rest say when the desperately hoped-for cooling doesn't happen?

The thing is, if the sun's irradiance drops as predicted by solar scientists and the planet starts cooling and all the many signs of warming abruptly disappear, I and many tens of thousands of others are prepared to say, "Wow, I guess we really were wrong about everything!". But if that irradiance drops as predicted and the planet continues to get warmer and warmer, will Easterbrook and Watts and Singer and Pielke and all the rest admit that they were wrong?

Of course not; that wouldn't make the Koch Brothers happy at all, and would certainly cost them speaking fees for events sponsored by the Heartland Institute and the Global Policy Institute and the International Conference Of Science Haters.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting Neapolitan:

I took the time to read that article. As many times as I've seen it, it's always funny reading someone trying to defend Jastrow, Seitz, Nierenberg, and their pro-tobacco, pro-pollution, pro-war, anti-regulation, anti-science, anti-logic points of view--and to defend their obvious willingness to sell the credibility they once earned to whoever would pay the most, whether that's Big Ebergy, or Big Tobacco, or the MIC.

Th subject of the article--Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's excellent book Merchants of Doubt--was extremely well-received by a wide range of scientists reviewers for many reasons, among them its depth of research. It's no surprise, then, that Singer et al would be unhappy with it.

I've given out several copies of the book. If I had any left, I'd offer to send you one. But you can order one here.
So, given the credentials and impressive list of accomplishments of the 4, you must be claiming unabashed lies in any discussion of their thoughts on AGW.

Clearly, their ability appears to be on the order of "eagle", rather than just par, especially Singer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The hottest new trend in climate change may be global cooling, some researchers say.

Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.

“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-c ooling-scientists-warming/#ixzz1QTv0f3pL


Some hundreds of scientists would disagree.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:
Sun's Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity
by Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 14 June 2011 Time: 03:50 PM ET



Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.

The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

"The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus," Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14).

The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun's visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles. [Photos: Sunspots on Earth's Star]

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," Hill said. "But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."



Link

Get ready for one frigid fall/winter 2011 unless
things pick-up soon.


I remember in April Pat posting solar increase,
Really? Seems pretty quite, hmmm?

I suppose that when the desperately hoped-for cooling fails to materialize, denialists will have to take a different tack. My guess: they'll claim it takes many years for cooling to become noticeable, so we need to wait 10 years or 20 for it to manifest itself.

Ain't gonna happen, folks.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Sun's Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity
by Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 14 June 2011 Time: 03:50 PM ET



Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.

The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

"The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus," Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14).

The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun's visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles. [Photos: Sunspots on Earth's Star]

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," Hill said. "But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."



Link

Get ready for one frigid fall/winter 2011 unless
things pick-up soon.


I remember in April Pat posting solar increase,
Really? Seems pretty quite, hmmm?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
Smear Merchants
They exist right here on this board, too.

I took the time to read that article. As many times as I've seen it, it's always funny reading someone trying to defend Jastrow, Seitz, Nierenberg, and their pro-tobacco, pro-pollution, pro-war, anti-regulation, anti-science, anti-logic points of view--and to defend their obvious willingness to sell the credibility they once earned to whoever would pay the most, whether that's Big Ebergy, or Big Tobacco, or the MIC.

Th subject of the article--Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's excellent book Merchants of Doubt--was extremely well-received by a wide range of scientists reviewers for many reasons, among them its depth of research. It's no surprise, then, that Singer et al would be unhappy with it.

I've given out several copies of the book. If I had any left, I'd offer to send you one. But you can order one here.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting martinitony:
Smear Merchants
They exist right here on this board, too.


That's why we are here, to defeat the heat.

(or the lack of such)




Very quite up there.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Smear Merchants
They exist right here on this board, too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


The first two links were directly related to the 1st paper. It was to provide a glimpse of what the paper was about if you did not have access to the original. Your statements with respect to the content are not wrong, but the paper goes a bit deeper ...

My point of posting it was to show that we still have much to learn about our climate and its interaction with the solar system in general. Cosmic rays, sun spots, etc. all play a role that we really don't understand, and don't properly model for at this time. Our Sun is our climate at the most fundamental level.


The answer to your last question is simply, yes.

How do you model/code for that of which you do not understand?

That said, toss this in the mix for fun with respect to cloud formation ~

Extinction and optical depth of contrails 2011

and one from 1993 :)

Satellite remote sensing of the optical depth and mean crystal size of thin cirrus and contrails


Thank you, Ossqss.

I am aware that there are many factors that have a play in our global climate and that all of the factors are not know or what their feedback would be. This is the only reason that I am not fully signed on to the AGW claims. I am looking for evidence that would negate the AGW claims. I must be honest with you and state that I have not yet seen this evidence. I have seen many opinions as to why AGW is a sham but, I have not seen the evidence that supports these opinions, as of yet. Simply stating that we do not yet know all of the variables does not necessarily negate the variables that we do know.

The articles on contrails are interesting, even if I do not understand what they are stating. I remember seeing satellite photos of the CONUS when all flights were grounded due to 9/11. What an amazing difference between the photos when regular flights were in effect and during the non flight conditions of 9/11. I am curious. Why would you use contrails as an example of unknown factors concerning climate change when contrails are man made. Would not the existence of contrails only bolster the AGW claims? You are still looking at man made variables that could be affecting the climate. Is this not correct?

I found these links that discuss the absence of contrails over the CONUS after 9/11:

This is not a scientific study but, the answer seems reasonable to me.

Link

This one is interesting:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ocean Currents Speed Melting of Antarctic Ice: A Major Glacier Is Undermined from Below

ScienceDaily (June 26, 2011) — Stronger ocean currents beneath West Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier Ice Shelf are eroding the ice from below, speeding the melting of the glacier as a whole, according to a new study in Nature Geoscience. A growing cavity beneath the ice shelf has allowed more warm water to melt the ice, the researchers say -- a process that feeds back into the ongoing rise in global sea levels. The glacier is currently sliding into the sea at a clip of four kilometers (2.5 miles) a year, while its ice shelf is melting at about 80 cubic kilometers a year -- 50 percent faster than it was in the early 1990s -- the paper estimates.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I read the article in the first link and you will have to provide some clarification for me. What I read states that an increased solar activity causes more cosmic rays that creates the aerosols that aid in cloud formation. Is this correct? The article also states that an increase in clouds causes a cooling effect on the Earth. Is this correct? Then, logically, based on this article, any increase in solar activity will have an increase in cloud formation and the additional cloud formation would have a cancelling effect to any heating due to the increased solar activity. Is this correct? Then, logically, any increase in solar activity will not have any effect on warming the earth until such time that the solar activity is intense enough to start to burn off the WV necessary for cloud formation. Is this correct?

The second link was a very short article and had no citation associated with it. In other words, I could have posted this myself and claim it as true until it is proven false. Is this correct?

The third link gets way out of my league. I lack the skills to extract the data and I lack the math skills as well. You can throw all the formulas and charts you want at me and there will not be any data that I can verify.

The first two links state that they use lab models to simulate conditions on Earth. The second link said he used conditions that "resemble" Earth. And, it appears, he is not even talking about Earth's climate but, rather, a cheaper way of doing things. "This implies that inexpensive ionization sources - as opposed to expensive accelerator beams - can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation." I do not doubt the science but, I have always heard that the Earth is far too big and complex to simulate Earth's conditions in a lab. Is this correct?


The first two links were directly related to the 1st paper. It was to provide a glimpse of what the paper was about if you did not have access to the original. Your statements with respect to the content are not wrong, but the paper goes a bit deeper ...

My point of posting it was to show that we still have much to learn about our climate and its interaction with the solar system in general. Cosmic rays, sun spots, etc. all play a role that we really don't understand, and don't properly model for at this time. Our Sun is our climate at the most fundamental level.


The answer to your last question is simply, yes.

How do you model/code for that of which you do not understand?

That said, toss this in the mix for fun with respect to cloud formation ~

Extinction and optical depth of contrails 2011

and one from 1993 :)

Satellite remote sensing of the optical depth and mean crystal size of thin cirrus and contrails
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
Perhap the climate models are wrong after all; it appears they may be underestimating the amount and speed of change we can expect:

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE: MODELS OF BEHAVIOR

Some of the world's most powerful supercomputers are devoted to ingeniously devised model simulations intended to help us understand what our future climate will be like. So you'd think they would be pretty good at it.

But people most familiar with how the climate system behaved in the past -- before humans came along to alter the composition of its atmosphere -- see patterns of natural change that are fundamentally different from what the biggest, most complex models project for the future.

Remarkably, the character of this "disconnect" between geological data of the past and computer simulations of the future is not at all what people who complain about climate science and climate scientists would have us believe.

"The models seem to be too stable," Paul Valdes, a climate modeler and "paleoclimate" specialist at the University of Bristol in the UK, argues in the new issue of the journal Nature Geoscience.

Judging from the evidence, Earth's climate is more sensitive than the computer models designed to simulate its behavior.

Thousands of years of climates past are punctuated by episodes of change that are rapid and radical -- big, sudden shifts in temperature and precipitation. This inclination toward "abrupt climate change" -- found in ice cores, ocean sediments and other geological data -- surprised earth scientists as it was uncovered in the 1990s, and still it remains outside of much conventional thinking on the subject.

Valdes argues that the models used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report (2007) "have not proved their ability to simulate abrupt change when a critical threshold is crossed."

Scientists calculate the likely accuracy of models to foretell the future by testing their ability to accurately recreate the past.

Discovery Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Excellent article in Rolling Stone. I suggest everyone read the entire (admittedly long) piece when they have a chance:

Climate of Denial: Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?

Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it's a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

The referee -- in this analogy, the news media -- seems confused about whether he is in the news business or the entertainment business. Is he responsible for ensuring a fair match? Or is he part of the show, selling tickets and building the audience? The referee certainly seems distracted: by Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen, the latest reality show -- the list of serial obsessions is too long to enumerate here.

But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)

This script, of course, is not entirely new: A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The show went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by cigarettes than all of the U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II.

This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."

Rolling Stone Article...

(And, yes, it's authored by none other than Al Gore, so I know everyone will be interested.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting Ossqss:


Presser

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-arti cle/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partik ler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45982

Paper for those with access, I can't share it.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL04703 6.shtml

bonus

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.476 3v1.pdf


I read the article in the first link and you will have to provide some clarification for me. What I read states that an increased solar activity causes more cosmic rays that creates the aerosols that aid in cloud formation. Is this correct? The article also states that an increase in clouds causes a cooling effect on the Earth. Is this correct? Then, logically, based on this article, any increase in solar activity will have an increase in cloud formation and the additional cloud formation would have a cancelling effect to any heating due to the increased solar activity. Is this correct? Then, logically, any increase in solar activity will not have any effect on warming the earth until such time that the solar activity is intense enough to start to burn off the WV necessary for cloud formation. Is this correct?

The second link was a very short article and had no citation associated with it. In other words, I could have posted this myself and claim it as true until it is proven false. Is this correct?

The third link gets way out of my league. I lack the skills to extract the data and I lack the math skills as well. You can throw all the formulas and charts you want at me and there will not be any data that I can verify.

The first two links state that they use lab models to simulate conditions on Earth. The second link said he used conditions that "resemble" Earth. And, it appears, he is not even talking about Earth's climate but, rather, a cheaper way of doing things. "This implies that inexpensive ionization sources - as opposed to expensive accelerator beams - can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation." I do not doubt the science but, I have always heard that the Earth is far too big and complex to simulate Earth's conditions in a lab. Is this correct?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:


Giant hippo fossils discovered in the UK
02 July 2004

Fossilised remains of two ancient hippos have been discovered in Norfolk by scientists at the Natural History Museum and Queen Mary, University of London.


The fossil bones of hippos, hyena, fish and rodents are providing a rare glimpse of the landscape of East Anglia 500,000-780,000 years ago. The fossil remains point towards a unique find of animals living in Britian during a warmer climate, never previously recorded.

Initial excavation work was led by Simon Parfitt, palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum and Dr Simon Lewis, senior lecturer in Physical Geography at Queen Mary, University of London.

‘This is a rare and significant fossil find,’ said Simon Parfitt. ‘To find two hippopotamuses together is very unusual, but to find evidence of the land surface around them is exceptional. The excavation site provides a unique opportunity to study an environment that we believe has never been recognised before and that, if we don’t act quickly, could be lost forever.’

The hippos and other animals would have lived in the early Middle Pleistocene where exotic species, now found only in African savanna, would have roamed the landscape.
The ancient hippopotamus (Hippopotamus sp.) weighed about six to seven tonnes, much heavier than today's modern hippos weighing up to four tonnes. The ancient hippos had prominent eyes that acted as periscopes when under water. It is likely the hippos discovered died through natural causes and their bones show evidence of having being gnawed by hyenas.

The site is approximately 15 kilometres from Norfolk’s present-day coast and insect fossils indicate the summer temperature at that time was 2-3°c warmer than today.



Link


Must've been excess methane from all those large
critters that created the global warming that tossed
the planet into a ice age?


Fauna Global Warming>

Just my two cents.



Could be since Methane warming would last a few hundred years where as Carbon warming would last a few thousand years.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting RustyShackleford:
Overall they have proven themselves cheaper, in the long run. A standard incandescent bulb would last me 3-4 months and cost me about a dollar apiece. The bulbs that I bought 5 years ago are still burning, with the exception of one that I replaced 3 months ago. Do the math and this does not even bring into the equation what I saved on my electric bill. .. Where do you get the idea that these will be $50 light bulbs? Oh, never mind. Fox News network, correct?

Through Yahoo I do believe.

The stereotype that I'm a right wing nut job is just not there.

I don't watch Fox News because they are blatantly for war and well I've been moving towards Libertarian this past year.

Sorry I will watch if they have Ron Paul on.

I'm out for the day I'll reply to the other posts later.

Humans can be adding CO2 to the atmosphere via cars and factories but the amount is so small that anything up there can not have the effect of warming.


I supplied the link to Fox because it was at the top of the list when I Googled "$50 light bulbs". I was not implying that you are an avid FOX NEWS fan but, rather, that you just read the first link that came up.

I have no problem with Fox News. I have many issues with the news commentators on the Fox News network.

I voted for Ron Paul ( write-in ) last election. I will vote for Ron Paul again in the coming election. When it comes to politics, Obama has nearly completely mirrored Bush policy. I did not like Bush policy. The other Republican candidates? I would rather keep the known inept as opposed to an unknown inept.

Here is where the problem with climatology lies. Science is not and never will be political. Science researches, gathers the data and reports what the data shows. Those with political ideologies are the ones that try to make science political.

Please, if you will, explain to me why I should believe those that have known financial ties to discredit the scientist and the science for their own financial gains over that of climatologists that have spent years learning their field of study? Trust me. Should those that push the deniest agenda show me the evidence that climatologists are wrong then I will follow the evidence and side with them. When it comes to the status of Earth's future ability to sustain life for us the political is not the correct answer. The scientific answer is. Show me the science that disproves the climatologist and I will support your side. Until then, as I have said, I will err on the side of caution. I will not be so arrogant as to try stop those seeking a life boat simply because I do not believe the ship is sinking! The risk that I am wrong, no matter how small that risk may be, would be catastrophic to all if I am wrong by only a small percentage. When you look forward to the long term ability of the planet to support us then it is best to hedge bets. Since we cannot just summon up a new planet to support us then it always wise to do your utmost to protect the planet we are on, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING. To me, this is nothing short of the simplest of logic. Your opinion and my opinion or anyone's opinion on AGW does not mean squat. Show me the facts that shows AGW is a sham.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Whale's odyssey sheds light on climate change, scientists say
'The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed'

AMSTERDAM — When a 43-foot gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: it must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather had briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier. On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.

The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicates a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.

"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip C. Reid, of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.

"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

Reid said the last time the world witnessed such a major incursion from the Pacific was 2 million years ago, which had "a huge impact on the North Atlantic," driving some species to extinction as the newcomers dominated the competition for food.

Reid's study of plankton and the research on the whale, co-authored by Aviad Scheinin of the Israel Marine Mammal Research and Assistance Center, are among nearly 300 scientific papers written over the last 13 years that are being synthesized and published this year by Project Clamer, a collaboration of 17 institutes on climate change and the oceans.
Implications for fisheries
Changes in the oceans' chemistry and temperature could have implications for fisheries, as species migrate northward to cooler waters, said Katja Philippart, of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research who is coordinating the project funded by the European Union.

"We try to put the information on the table for people who have to make decisions. We don't say whether it's bad or good. We say there is a high potential for change," she said.

The Northwest Passage, the route through the frigid archipelago from Alaska across northern Canada, has been ice-free from one end to the other only twice in recorded history, in 1998 and 2007. But the ice pack is retreating farther and more frequently during the summers.

Plankton that had previously been found only in Atlantic sea bed cores from 800,000 years ago appeared in the Labrador Sea in 1999 — and then in massive numbers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence two years later. Now it has established itself as far south as the New York coast, Reid said.

The highly endangered gray whale sighted off the Israeli coast in May 2010 belonged to a species that was hunted to extinction in the Atlantic by the mid-1700s. The same animal — identified by unique markings on its fluke, or tail fin — appeared off the Spanish coast 22 days later, and has not been reported seen since.

Though it was difficult to draw conclusions from one whale, the researchers said its presence in the Mediterranean "coincides with a shrinking of Arctic Sea ice due to climate change and suggests that climate change may allow gray whales to re-colonize the North Atlantic."

That may be good for the whales, but other aspects of the ice melt could be harmful to the oceans' biosystems, the scientists warn.

Plankton is normally the bottom of the marine food chain, but some are more nutritious than others. Plankton changes have been blamed for the collapse of some fish stocks and threats to fish-eating birds in the North Sea, the studies show.

The migration of a solitary whale and two species of plankton is not of much concern so far, Reid said. "It's the potential for further ones to come through if the Arctic opens. That's the key message."

Link


Giant hippo fossils discovered in the UK
02 July 2004

Fossilised remains of two ancient hippos have been discovered in Norfolk by scientists at the Natural History Museum and Queen Mary, University of London.


The fossil bones of hippos, hyena, fish and rodents are providing a rare glimpse of the landscape of East Anglia 500,000-780,000 years ago. The fossil remains point towards a unique find of animals living in Britian during a warmer climate, never previously recorded.

Initial excavation work was led by Simon Parfitt, palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum and Dr Simon Lewis, senior lecturer in Physical Geography at Queen Mary, University of London.

‘This is a rare and significant fossil find,’ said Simon Parfitt. ‘To find two hippopotamuses together is very unusual, but to find evidence of the land surface around them is exceptional. The excavation site provides a unique opportunity to study an environment that we believe has never been recognised before and that, if we don’t act quickly, could be lost forever.’

The hippos and other animals would have lived in the early Middle Pleistocene where exotic species, now found only in African savanna, would have roamed the landscape.
The ancient hippopotamus (Hippopotamus sp.) weighed about six to seven tonnes, much heavier than today's modern hippos weighing up to four tonnes. The ancient hippos had prominent eyes that acted as periscopes when under water. It is likely the hippos discovered died through natural causes and their bones show evidence of having being gnawed by hyenas.

The site is approximately 15 kilometres from Norfolk’s present-day coast and insect fossils indicate the summer temperature at that time was 2-3°c warmer than today.



Link


Must've been excess methane from all those large
critters that created the global warming that tossed
the planet into a ice age?


Fauna Global Warming>

Just my two cents.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
CO2 first or second?

I'd like to hear Dr. Rood's explanation of why this can't be all there is.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Could you catch me up a little as to what you are talking about here, please? Do you reference WV, since that is what makes those cloud thingys, having a greater greenhouse effect than does CO2? This would mean that for the Earth to be warming due to WV then the amount of WV would have had to increase otherwise there would have been no additional heating. Is this correct? Should this be correct then that would mean something had to trigger the increased WV. Is this correct? What would have been that trigger? I am trying to learn more about this.


Presser

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-arti cle/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partik ler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45982

Paper for those with access, I can't share it.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL04703 6.shtml

bonus

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.476 3v1.pdf
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Whale's odyssey sheds light on climate change, scientists say
'The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed'

AMSTERDAM — When a 43-foot gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: it must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather had briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier. On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.

The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicates a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.

"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip C. Reid, of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.

"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

Reid said the last time the world witnessed such a major incursion from the Pacific was 2 million years ago, which had "a huge impact on the North Atlantic," driving some species to extinction as the newcomers dominated the competition for food.

Reid's study of plankton and the research on the whale, co-authored by Aviad Scheinin of the Israel Marine Mammal Research and Assistance Center, are among nearly 300 scientific papers written over the last 13 years that are being synthesized and published this year by Project Clamer, a collaboration of 17 institutes on climate change and the oceans.
Implications for fisheries
Changes in the oceans' chemistry and temperature could have implications for fisheries, as species migrate northward to cooler waters, said Katja Philippart, of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research who is coordinating the project funded by the European Union.

"We try to put the information on the table for people who have to make decisions. We don't say whether it's bad or good. We say there is a high potential for change," she said.

The Northwest Passage, the route through the frigid archipelago from Alaska across northern Canada, has been ice-free from one end to the other only twice in recorded history, in 1998 and 2007. But the ice pack is retreating farther and more frequently during the summers.

Plankton that had previously been found only in Atlantic sea bed cores from 800,000 years ago appeared in the Labrador Sea in 1999 — and then in massive numbers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence two years later. Now it has established itself as far south as the New York coast, Reid said.

The highly endangered gray whale sighted off the Israeli coast in May 2010 belonged to a species that was hunted to extinction in the Atlantic by the mid-1700s. The same animal — identified by unique markings on its fluke, or tail fin — appeared off the Spanish coast 22 days later, and has not been reported seen since.

Though it was difficult to draw conclusions from one whale, the researchers said its presence in the Mediterranean "coincides with a shrinking of Arctic Sea ice due to climate change and suggests that climate change may allow gray whales to re-colonize the North Atlantic."

That may be good for the whales, but other aspects of the ice melt could be harmful to the oceans' biosystems, the scientists warn.

Plankton is normally the bottom of the marine food chain, but some are more nutritious than others. Plankton changes have been blamed for the collapse of some fish stocks and threats to fish-eating birds in the North Sea, the studies show.

The migration of a solitary whale and two species of plankton is not of much concern so far, Reid said. "It's the potential for further ones to come through if the Arctic opens. That's the key message."

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


UPS vs. USPS - Have you ever shipped or received anything fragile through UPS? I have. This is never a pretty story. UPS is OK for non fragile goods but, FedEx is how I would ship anything fragile. I do use the USPS quite often when I ship. I have never had any issues with them. The Post Office is quite a bit closer than is any UPS or FedEx store, for me. The USPS delivers on Saturday and at no additional charge. UPS will deliver on Saturday, for an extra fee. FedEx does not make Saturday deliveries. ...Why do you prefer UPS over USPS?

That is my point about a California company making the laws. Either government does it or is privatized for a company to do it. What would prevent a California company from winning a contract to make the laws for a state or the nation?

"Fixing AGW" cannot be done by a single government no matter how big it is. This must be done as a global effort. Should this need to be fixed then it needs to be fixed sooner than later. Making the world's largest corporation bigger will not get the job done either. I tend to err on the side of caution. I would rather prepare now for a worse case event that may never happen than to not be prepared if only 10% of the claims are true. I can make more money but, I cannot make enough to buy me a new planet that will sustain me. Nor will I be so arrogant as to make decisions that potentially risks the lives of every man, woman and child on Earth. I will take risks with my own life but, not with everyone elses life. .. When the Titanic was going down there were those onboard that did not believe it was sinking. They made no preparations to save themselves or anyone else. They also did not prevent anyone from trying to save themselves. They may have thought them foolish but, they did not impede them. Those that did not prepare and take actions died. Many that believed that the ship was sinking also died. The ones that did survive are the ones that worked to survive. This is not the Titanic and there are those that are making extreme efforts to keep anyone from getting to a lifeboat. Their own arrogance may literally cost us all our lives. I may not be fully convinced that AGW is correct but, I am also not so arrogant as to risk the lives of others simply because I do not agree with their assessment. Like I said, this is not the Titanic where you can escape to another ship and there are those that are preventing you from seeking a lifeboat or, at the very least, delaying your efforts to try to save yourself. I find this unreasonable, arrogant and potentially more costly than an all out effort to combat GW. I, sir, err on the side of caution.

I have had these light bulbs for the past 5 years. The bulbs cost me around $4.50 each. They were a bit pricey to start with but, the costs have dropped considerably since then.
Link
Overall they have proven themselves cheaper, in the long run. A standard incandescent bulb would last me 3-4 months and cost me about a dollar apiece. The bulbs that I bought 5 years ago are still burning, with the exception of one that I replaced 3 months ago. Do the math and this does not even bring into the equation what I saved on my electric bill. .. Where do you get the idea that these will be $50 light bulbs? Oh, never mind. Fox News network, correct?
Link
Here is the actual truth:
Link



LOL! Good ole Fox News always over inflating things.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting aquak9:
life is the same whether I'm getting paid or not, rookie.

arby's cheese sticks are terrible.


"life" may be the same whether you are getting paid or not but, without the pay there is little incentive for me to go to work. And I truly like my job! I would, however, do it for free, if I could afford to do so.

Well, their cheese sticks don't look too bad from this perspective:
Link
Then again, I guess there is that taste thing to consider. ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
life is the same whether I'm getting paid or not, rookie.

arby's cheese sticks are terrible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aquak9:
Burger King has cheese sticks?


Hi, Aqua! You still at work?

BK and cheese sticks? Well, I don't see any of them on the menu:
Link
Perhaps they are special order, if you bring your own cheese sticks for them to fry? Hey, it might be possible?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RustyShackleford:
From Wiki:

"Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume."

---

So how can something at .039% effect the atmosphere so much to warm it up?

I just don't see it.

Inform me please.


The sun shines 12 hours a day at any one point on the equator. Should you be pale skinned you could probably take 15 minutes exposure to the direct sun without any harm. Should you increase that exposure by 23% then you are at risk of a sunburn and damage to your skin cells. The damage done then will not show up for years to come but, should you live long enough, it will show up in the form of cancer. The point I am trying to make is that, yes, even a small increase ( and 23% is not a small increase ) can have a detrimental effect on you. If not now, then later.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Hummm,,you must have missed the post on the cosmic ray/sun thing with the peer reviewed paper. Those cloud thingy's do make a bigger difference than any of those of which you speak of , no?

You are a very dedicated person, and I think that is a great virtue. That my friend is truly a compliment!

for you~



Could you catch me up a little as to what you are talking about here, please? Do you reference WV, since that is what makes those cloud thingys, having a greater greenhouse effect than does CO2? This would mean that for the Earth to be warming due to WV then the amount of WV would have had to increase otherwise there would have been no additional heating. Is this correct? Should this be correct then that would mean something had to trigger the increased WV. Is this correct? What would have been that trigger? I am trying to learn more about this.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Burger King has cheese sticks?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RustyShackleford:


The percentage in the atmosphere is so small that it doesn't help you case.

But percentage is what should be looked at!!!!!!


The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 394.35 ppm.
Link
When you do the math, this equates to .03945 % of the atmosphere. Since you are simply talking conversions then it makes no difference if you state % of atmosphere or ppm. They are easily converted one to the other. One will not give different results than the other. This is like asking what is the length of an object. You can give the length in mm, cm, m, km, in., ft., yds. or mi. The length of the object remains the same. The only thing that is different is the unit of measure.

In 1960 the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 320 ppm or .032% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase of over 23% in about 50 years. That, my friend, is not an insignificant increase.

Thank you, Rusty. I am learning. Now I only need to find out if volcanic emissions and other CO2 emitters have increased a combined 23% over the past 50 years to account for all of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere now. Should this number be less than 23% then logic would dictate that you need to look at human contributions as well. You may deny that humans could not emit enough CO2 to change the climate but, it would be foolish to say that human activities do not create CO2. The evidence of this is beyond denial.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RustyShackleford:


Government control is bad.

Private companies could do just as great if not better.

UPS>USPS any day.

A California based company has crazy lefty laws in their way and therefor their laws are different than Michigan or Illinois.

There are so many problems with the government making it bigger to fix AGW is not the answer.

We are being set up to lose a lot.

Starting with the $50 light bulb that you will have to buy this coming year if you want lights in your house.


UPS vs. USPS - Have you ever shipped or received anything fragile through UPS? I have. This is never a pretty story. UPS is OK for non fragile goods but, FedEx is how I would ship anything fragile. I do use the USPS quite often when I ship. I have never had any issues with them. The Post Office is quite a bit closer than is any UPS or FedEx store, for me. The USPS delivers on Saturday and at no additional charge. UPS will deliver on Saturday, for an extra fee. FedEx does not make Saturday deliveries. ...Why do you prefer UPS over USPS?

That is my point about a California company making the laws. Either government does it or is privatized for a company to do it. What would prevent a California company from winning a contract to make the laws for a state or the nation?

"Fixing AGW" cannot be done by a single government no matter how big it is. This must be done as a global effort. Should this need to be fixed then it needs to be fixed sooner than later. Making the world's largest corporation bigger will not get the job done either. I tend to err on the side of caution. I would rather prepare now for a worse case event that may never happen than to not be prepared if only 10% of the claims are true. I can make more money but, I cannot make enough to buy me a new planet that will sustain me. Nor will I be so arrogant as to make decisions that potentially risks the lives of every man, woman and child on Earth. I will take risks with my own life but, not with everyone elses life. .. When the Titanic was going down there were those onboard that did not believe it was sinking. They made no preparations to save themselves or anyone else. They also did not prevent anyone from trying to save themselves. They may have thought them foolish but, they did not impede them. Those that did not prepare and take actions died. Many that believed that the ship was sinking also died. The ones that did survive are the ones that worked to survive. This is not the Titanic and there are those that are making extreme efforts to keep anyone from getting to a lifeboat. Their own arrogance may literally cost us all our lives. I may not be fully convinced that AGW is correct but, I am also not so arrogant as to risk the lives of others simply because I do not agree with their assessment. Like I said, this is not the Titanic where you can escape to another ship and there are those that are preventing you from seeking a lifeboat or, at the very least, delaying your efforts to try to save yourself. I find this unreasonable, arrogant and potentially more costly than an all out effort to combat GW. I, sir, err on the side of caution.

I have had these light bulbs for the past 5 years. The bulbs cost me around $4.50 each. They were a bit pricey to start with but, the costs have dropped considerably since then.
Link
Overall they have proven themselves cheaper, in the long run. A standard incandescent bulb would last me 3-4 months and cost me about a dollar apiece. The bulbs that I bought 5 years ago are still burning, with the exception of one that I replaced 3 months ago. Do the math and this does not even bring into the equation what I saved on my electric bill. .. Where do you get the idea that these will be $50 light bulbs? Oh, never mind. Fox News network, correct?
Link
Here is the actual truth:
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 284 - 234

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Top of Page

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.