Drought, Fire, Flood: In the News

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:22 AM GMT on July 12, 2011

Share this Blog
2
+

Drought, Fire, Flood: In the News

I have been writing about a variety of issues that I know are of interest to only a small number of people – U.S. science organizations, climate model software, and validation of climate models. I am going to move away from that arcane set of subjects for a while and spend a little more time in the climate mainstream. In this entry I want to touch on several subjects – starting with my garden.

My garden is in the flat land that is the western edge of the Great Plains, just east of Boulder, Colorado. Weather wise, it is a complex and difficult environment: more than 5000 feet above sea level, reliant upon water from the winter snow pack in the mountains, huge swings of hot and cold. In terms of climate types, I have seen region defined as both arid and semiarid. In the last week, we have had three or more inches of rain – hard driving rain with much lightning. There is water standing between the rows in the garden. The week of July 4 it was so dry there was a fire ban, and many firework fires.

Last summer in Boulder we had the Fourmile Fire, which burned thousands of acres and dozens of houses. With this rain, we have mudslides, rock slides and flash floods (Longmont Times Call). It all makes you appreciate the importance of the weather and the climate. Wet and dry. Hot and cold. ( 485 Billion Dollar Impact of Weather)

Boulder is a microcosm of what is going on in the U.S. There have been overwhelming fires in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. (Texas Fires). Dangerous drought and heat is spreading all across the southern half of the U.S. The dust storm last week in Arizona was reminiscent of pictures of the Dust Bowl. (more here). We were overwhelmed not long ago by the Mississippi River flooding. I have almost forgotten about the Missouri River flooding.



Figure 1: From KFAB Omaha News Radio. Photo Credit AP: Missouri River flood of Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant.

We see here the persistence of weather, climate, snow cover, drought, floods - one extreme after another. Jeff Master’s wrote an excellent summary of 2010-2011 as being a year of the most extreme events since 1816 – the year of Mount Tambora, a definitive and understood climate anomaly. Jeff writes that June 2011 continues the run. July 2011 is looking strong. It has been more than 300 months since there was a “below average” mean temperature. That’s a little compelling.

We are being handed one case study after another, where we see the impact that weather and climate have on us. And what is that impact? We see vulnerable people losing their homes, their crops. But where is the real threat? What does it mean that 213 counties in Texas are primary disaster areas?

Energy, economy, population – markets. We all know that the weather affects our economy. We rely on a stable climate. We see here and now an interconnected world, where extreme heat kills thousands and destroys crops and send food prices soaring. We see multiple billion dollar liens placed on our economy by floods, droughts, and tornadoes. These costs come at a time when economies all around the world are weak. There is a debt crisis, and the weather is demanding more loans. Right here and now the world is providing one climate disaster after another. The weather and climate are showing the need for more planning, for building resilience and recovery strategies. The weather and climate are revealing our vulnerabilities. While there is the obvious, the family fleeing the flood, the destroyed Joplin, Missouri hospital, there is also the accumulated impact felt through markets, higher food prices, emergency relief, things that will not be fixed, people relocating.

We are being offered lessons. I have written this far and not strung together the words “climate change” or mentioned “global warming.” This is the weather in our warming climate. The take away message from climate models, Be Prepared.

r

Rood on To the Point

Open Climate Modeling:

Greening of the Desert

Stickiness and Climate Models

Open Source Communities, What are the Problems?

A Culture of Checking


Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling:

Something New in the Past Decade?

The Scientific Organization

A Science-Organized Community

Validation and the Scientific Organization

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: 565 - 515

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

Quoting theshepherd:


Pshaw...didn't think I read a brother PADI diver's post, huh???

A bicycle only city ain't gonna happen. However, if tax incentives or other perks were offered to those who could "Prove" they biked to work, then maybe the bike traffic would increase...but I'll bet ya a cold beer and a bag of Fritos that it wouldn't make a drop in the polution bucket.

Having spent 37 years in the Construction Industry, half residential and half commercial, I can speak to the roof-top garden thingy. :)

It's a wonderfull, though expensive, concept that has been around at least since I was a long haired vegetarian surfer back in the 60s wearing love beads, chasing flower girls and drinking Boones Farm wine. I love it. And it's a beatifull option for owners that can afford it and willing to maintain it. I've always thought partially "underground" construction was even a super idea.

"However" and I repeat "however" I've noticed in the past decade that owners were more and more interested in "value engineering" on their projects. In other words, "Where can you cut my costs"? Couple that with with our ass-dragging economy one can expect even more value engineering in the future.. In my humble opinion I don't see anyone over the age of 50 maybe even 45 seeing a return to the construction industry that will see monies relax to the point that such amenities will be a viable option outside of Dubai or a few fat-cat municipalities or money-laden private groups. Maybe a handfull, but nowhere near what you or I like to see.

Certainly the "Limited" warranties are there for a "prorated materials only guarantee" with the underlying fabric, but someone has to pay to remove the fauna and topsoils, get down to the fabric, repair it and then put it all back in place as it was. I can attest that finding a leak in a membrane is painfully labor intensive at best and what you'll wind up with is the membrane manufacturer sending you a $30 repair patch while you just paid $5,000 for a crew of men to uncover and then replace things as they were. Not to mention water damage to the rooms and tenant property below. Owners and Architects know this. Heck, most Mall owners don't even want a planter on the ground floor let alone one on their roof.

What I'm getting at is that while there are hundreds of ways to design something with a multitude of forward thinking concepts, you're only looking at one in a million projects worldwide adopting such ideas.

I know you dislike the word "feasible", but when was the last time you sat down with an owner on a 65 million dollar project and accused him of being a p_ _sy, as you mentioned in your post 502, for not seeing things your way? Are you going to accuse him of being a Fox News, GOP brainwashed fool??? Not me, brother.

I have no idea what you do for a living or how old you are, but my guess is you and some of the others who post here don't have a clue what you're talking about or the reality of the mechanisms that drive this economy.

Blogging does not an expert make.
It's all about experience.

Hate to be so callous, but sometimes you just have to make an impression.





I agree about things having to be feasible and I haven't investigated costs as it's not my field and there are hundreds of variables. i also know about roofs. In all my experience, I avoided roofs even if I had to pay much extra unless I was building the entire building from scratch. I remember putting structural steel through a roof in Brooklyn and deciding to pay the owner an enourmous, essentially blackmail amount, of money to use his own roofer and be responsible for the roofinf part. I also remember going up on the roof after a rain storm and the roofing contractor is using a skill saw and extension cord to cut the membrane. I yelled at the guy, said: you don't work for me but 1. get the cord out of the pubble 2. if you do cut the membrane all the puddle will go through the roof. He replied, Naw, I've already done one hole in a puddle and there was no problem..... unbelievable. Trashed two secerataries and all of their office stuff...

Anyway, that said, there are lots of relatively cheap ways to do garden roofs and they are growing in popularity. For example, http://brooklynroofgarden.com/

I admit that some of the examples are paid for by rich people who want a garden rather than being financial self sufficient. But other examples are businesses that make a profit with rooftop gardening.

There are hundreds of more examples and it is common (at least more and more common) in Europe. I don't know how the systems work because i didn't build them. But it's really nice to see goats grazing on roofs. Or see roofs that provide their own shade and shed thier leaves in the winter. Like all solutions, they won't work everywhere and I don't think they are needed everywhere but they will work in a lot of places.

T

>>> And electric bikes in Minnasota will work! I think there is this huge problem with America and new ideas, despite being the land of innovation. If you told the citizens in Mineapolis that it wouldn't work, they would have bikes out and working this winter. It's just a matter of wanting it to work instead of sitting your butt complaining.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
30th place for lowest extent now.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
How many of you want more summer ice for the polar bears?


Polar bear cubs die as ice melts, swims get longer
5 of 11 moms that swam long distances lost cubs, study finds

WASHINGTON %u2014 Polar bear cubs forced to swim long distances with their mothers as their icy Arctic habitat melts appear to have a higher mortality rate than cubs that didn't have to swim as far, a new study reports.

Polar bears hunt, feed and give birth on ice or on land, and are not naturally aquatic creatures. Previous reports have noted individual animals swimming hundreds of miles to reach ice platforms or land, but this is one of the first to show these swims pose a greater risk to polar bear young.

"Climate change is pulling the sea ice out from under polar bears' feet, forcing some to swim longer distances to find food and habitat," said Geoff York of World Wildlife Fund, a co-author of the study.

York said this was the first time these long swims had been quantitatively measured, filling a gap in the historical background on this iconic Arctic species.

To gather data, researchers used satellites and tracked 68 polar bear females equipped with GPS collars over six years, from 2004 through 2009, to find occasions when these bears swam more than 30 miles at a time.

There were 50 long-distance swims over those six years, involving 20 polar bears, ranging in distance up to 426 miles and in duration up to 12.7 days, according to the scientific paper.

At the time the collars were put on, 11 of the polar bears that swam long distances had young cubs; five of those polar bear mothers lost their cubs during the swim, representing a 45 percent mortality rate, the study found.
Advertise | AdChoices

Cubs that didn't have to swim long distances with their mothers had an 18 percent mortality rate, the study said.

"They're a lot like us," York said. "They can't close off their nasal passages in rough waters. So for old bears or young bears alike, if they're out in open water and a storm hits, they're going to have a tough time surviving."

Two factors make it even harder for polar bear cubs to weather long periods in Arctic waters, said Steve Amstrup, a former scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey and now chief scientist at Polar Bears International, a conservation group.

"Young bears don't have very much fat and therefore they aren't very well insulated and cannot cope with being in cold water for very long," Amstrup said.

Only on msnbc.com
Murdoch's legal, financial woes escalate
Budget stalemate has already hurt the economy
First Thoughts: Debt deal holding pattern?
He's back! Sheen returning to TV with new show
Rocket venture makes new deal with NASA
Opinion: Stem cell clinics ripping off patients
When science enters the kitchen

Because they are leaner than their parents, Amstrup said, "they probably aren't as buoyant (as adult polar bears) so in rough water they'll have more difficulty keeping their heads above water.

The Bush administration listed polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because of the decrease in their Arctic ice habitat. That decision survived a legal challenge last month, and this month, Canada listed polar bears as a species at risk.

The Arctic is warming faster than lower latitudes due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the melting of sea ice in summer accelerates the warming effect.

Arctic sea ice extent %u2014 the area covered by sea ice %u2014 in June was the second lowest in the satellite record since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Lead author Anthony Pagano of the U.S. Geological Society was presenting the study on Tuesday at the International Bear Association Conference in Ottawa, Canada.

The study is being published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology.

Link






Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting Ossqss:


Thanks, you did what I could not with respect to coding them! ~ Think about it :)

I hat smart phones __ out


How old them smart phones?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I think computers have a better grip of it than we do. They can tell us which way to tweak it.


Thanks, you did what I could not with respect to coding them! ~ Think about it :)

I hat smart phones __ out
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


I have to assume that is a rhetorical question :)

I think we all feel strongly on this subject for it is "us" that is at risk, any way you look at it. I just find it presumptuous for anyone to think we have any kind of grip on Mother Nature's "Nature" ~~ L8R>>>





I think computers have a better grip of it than we do. They can tell us which way to tweak it.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Seems the World of Science is still a mystery meat to some.

LoL


Pass da Liver Pate will yas, and da tabasco too.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In closing for the evening, I'd like to leave you all something to ponder, this snippet from an article in today's Christian Science Monitor about the great and knowledgeable Dr. Naomi Oreskes and her ongoing battle against the anti-science pro-pollution crowd:

"...Oreskes offers a simple message backed by extensive documentation: There is no scientific debate over climate change. None, zero, zip. 'The science is stable, the science is real, and there's no reason to doubt climate change,' she says."

Good night...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Neapolitan:

Please forgive me any typos; I'm still laughing as I write this, so I may mess up a little:

Did you seriously just ridicule a graphic I posted, then follow that up by linking to some of Master Denialist Pielke's anti-science gibberish?

Really? I mean, really?!

You know, if you do that a few more times, I'll be able to call Comcast and have them drop Comedy Central... ;-)

In a nutshell (which is, to be honest, pretty much where anything from Pielke comes from), here's his conclusion:

1) Models are bad. Unless they indicate cooling. But none of them do. So models are bad.

2) Regardless of what other scientists see, Pielke refuses to agree with them. And if he and he alone doesn't see something, it simply doesn't exist..

3) The oceans are absorbing so much heat that they're keeping the planet from warming. Which is to say: warming is proof of cooling.


A public service announcement ~ :P



Gnight>>>>>
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:


I don't know why you waste you energy responding to him (although I do the same thing). The more the data are scrutinized, the more we now know that they are being manipulated along the lines of Obama's birth certificate. All the experts are now saying it's a fraud, and a third-rate fraud at that.

Oh, I think you omitted a few parts in that last sentence. Here, allow me to "truthify" it (my edits in boldface):

"All the experts --that is, renowned climate experts such as Glenn Beck, James Inhofe, one-time small market TV weatherman Anthony Watts, and my senile 98-year-old grandmother-- are now saying it's a fraud, and a third-rate fraud at that."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting cat5hurricane:

That's another one ripped straight out of the MichaelSTL archives. Seen it a dozen times.

It doesn't do anything for me. The earth has seen far greater amounts of C02 in the atmosphere than anything experienced today.

What is it with your obsession with MichaelSTL? Well, nevermind; that's between you and him, I suppose.

Anyway, as to your comment, "The earth has seen far greater amounts of C02 in the atmosphere than anything experienced today," I would have to ask this: so what? The earth used to be a molten ball of metallic rock long, long ago, but that doesn't mean a repeat of that would be so great, does it?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Ossqss:


Please don't post items like this picture as gospel.

This is the link from your pic.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/ 07/Temps.gif

C'mon, you can do better than that. Even the graphic's you post from the SkepticalScience handbook are better. Did you upload it yourself or what? Gheeze!

Edit, have a taste out of the box. Thanks to R.P.Sr.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/ new-paper-importance-of-the-deep-ocean-for-estimat ing-decadal-changes-in-earths-radiation-balance-by -palmer-et-al-2011/

Please forgive me any typos; I'm still laughing as I write this, so I may mess up a little:

Did you seriously just ridicule a graphic I posted, then follow that up by linking to some of Master Denialist Pielke's anti-science gibberish?

Really? I mean, really?!

You know, if you do that a few more times, I'll be able to call Comcast and have them drop Comedy Central... ;-)

In a nutshell (which is, to be honest, pretty much where anything from Pielke comes from), here's his conclusion:

1) Models are bad. Unless they indicate cooling. But none of them do. So models are bad.

2) Regardless of what other scientists see, Pielke refuses to agree with them. And if he and he alone doesn't see something, it simply doesn't exist..

3) The oceans are absorbing so much heat that they're keeping the planet from warming. Which is to say: warming is proof of cooling.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting JBastardi:


I don't know why you waste you energy responding to him (although I do the same thing). The more the data are scrutinized, the more we now know that they are being manipulated along the lines of Obama's birth certificate. All the experts are now saying it's a fraud, and a third-rate fraud at that.


I have to assume that is a rhetorical question :)

I think we all feel strongly on this subject for it is "us" that is at risk, any way you look at it. I just find it presumptuous for anyone to think we have any kind of grip on Mother Nature's "Nature" ~~ L8R>>>



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

That's another one ripped straight out of the MichaelSTL archives. Seen it a dozen times.

It doesn't do anything for me. The earth has seen far greater amounts of C02 in the atmosphere than anything experienced today.


That is the problem with posting opinion with nothing behind it.

Here is another I have held off posting from R.P.Sr.

Think about it~

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/ perpetuating-the-climate-science-communitys-inappr opriate-model-centered-reality/

Net/Net!

"The bottom line is that vast amounts of money has been spent (and much more is planned to be spent) on model simulations that are not rooted in adequate comparisons with real world data."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Please don't post items like this picture as gospel.

This is the link from your pic.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/ 07/Temps.gif

C'mon, you can do better than that. Even the graphic's you post from the SkepticalScience handbook are better. Did you upload it yourself or what? Gheeze!

Edit, have a taste out of the box. Thanks to R.P.Sr.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/ new-paper-importance-of-the-deep-ocean-for-estimat ing-decadal-changes-in-earths-radiation-balance-by -palmer-et-al-2011/


I don't know why you waste you energy responding to him (although I do the same thing). The more the data are scrutinized, the more we now know that they are being manipulated along the lines of Obama's birth certificate. All the experts are now saying it's a fraud, and a third-rate fraud at that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Beside spitting your monitor everywhere, at least you got the right Monday dinner!
(A NOLA native, myself.)


I miss my red beans and rice. Haven't had any for a year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Please don't post items like this picture as gospel.

This is the link from your pic.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/ 07/Temps.gif

C'mon, you can do better than that. Even the graphic's you post from the SkepticalScience handbook are better. Did you upload it yourself or what? Gheeze!

That's another one ripped straight out of the MichaelSTL archives. Seen it a dozen times.

It doesn't do anything for me. The earth has seen far greater amounts of C02 in the atmosphere than anything experienced today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

I suppose if my entire world view were collapsing around my ears, I too might very well descend into petty insults and name-calling, so your comment is understandable. Still, can you please refrain from such incivilities in the future, at least in the public forum? If you can't, I'll be forced to put you in ignore. Thanks.

Now, on to your other comment: "There has been no warming over the last 15 years and that is simply the truth and no scientist or climatologist argues that." That statement is, of course, completely false, as the following graphic shows:

Uh-oh


Please don't post items like this picture as gospel.

This is the link from your pic.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/ 07/Temps.gif

C'mon, you can do better than that. Even the graphic's you post from the SkepticalScience handbook are better. Did you upload it yourself or what? Gheeze!

Edit, have a taste out of the box. Thanks to R.P.Sr.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/ new-paper-importance-of-the-deep-ocean-for-estimat ing-decadal-changes-in-earths-radiation-balance-by -palmer-et-al-2011/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:


ROFLMAO
OK smarty pants...come over here and clean the red beans and rice off my monitor that I just spit everywhere :)))
Beside spitting your monitor everywhere, at least you got the right Monday dinner!
(A NOLA native, myself.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Been gone recently and my whole life as just gotten happier but I see some posts that I felt like I needed to make a small statement.

So FoxNews lies? OK (don't care)

But the government doesn't lie?? (do care)

Cause they do and you people take what they say as The Gospel. Unreal

sigh
Member Since: May 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting JBastardi:


I wouldn't get my facts about climate from Forbes, and neither should you post a "Mother Jones" opinion as anything more than mythology.

Perhaps. But there is one major difference: the Mother Jones piece was an acknowledged opinion piece containing actual science, while the Forbes piece was an opinion piece masquerading as science.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Neapolitan:

Maybe. But you want to know another dead giveaway? Lying through one's teeth about the scientific facts--as Forbes' Patrick Daniels has obviously done. Again.


I wouldn't get my facts about climate from Forbes, and neither should you post a "Mother Jones" opinion as anything more than mythology.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

I suppose if my entire world view were collapsing around my ears, I too might very well descend into petty insults and name-calling, so your comment is understandable. Still, can you please refrain from such incivilities in the future, at least in the public forum? If you can't, I'll be forced to put you in ignore. Thanks.

Now, on to your other comment: "There has been no warming over the last 15 years and that is simply the truth and no scientist or climatologist argues that." That statement is, of course, completely false, as the following graphic shows:

Uh-oh


If he would have said the period between 1900-1910 and 1930-1940 showed cooling and 1960-1970 showed no warming then he would have been correct. But he didn't so therefore he is wrong. NOAA AND NASA both prove him wrong.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting theshepherd:


ROFLMAO
OK smarty pants...come over here and clean the red beans and rice off my monitor that I just spit everywhere :)))

You just spit your monitor everywhere? ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting martinitony:


Simply put, you are a liar and you know it. The truth is simply the truth and you know that too. There has been no warming over the last 15 years and that is simply the truth and no scientist or climatologist argues that. Only you, a preposterous propagandist argues that. You're really quite disgusting.

I suppose if my entire world view were collapsing around my ears, I too might very well descend into petty insults and name-calling, so your comment is understandable. Still, can you please refrain from such incivilities in the future, at least in the public forum? If you can't, I'll be forced to put you in ignore. Thanks.

Now, on to your other comment: "There has been no warming over the last 15 years and that is simply the truth and no scientist or climatologist argues that." That statement is, of course, completely false, as the following graphic shows:

Uh-oh
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Who said that?


I DID. LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting atmoaggie:
? Is it required that large people work on the issue for some reason?
;-)


ROFLMAO
OK smarty pants...come over here and clean the red beans and rice off my monitor that I just spit everywhere :)))
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


I always wonder if anyone reads my comments. Ok, sometimes but I don't get much feedback. Since you quoted the last sentence, I will believe at least you read to the last sentence. Thank you.

I agree with you about batteries. It's not my field so I can't really comment intelligently about prospects but i agree it is the bottleneck.

However, there are lots of other solutions that could be implimented right away. My favorite, electric bikes and real bike lanes in cities, is the most bang for the buck.

Imagine a city where all traffic (except ambulances, cranes, etc) was stopped otuside the city. Everyone gets on a bike/electric bike and comes into the city. Nice quiet fresh air, no congestion (compared to cars), no parking problems, better quality of life, much lower health costs (I can provide studies on this actually), more space for trees and grass even.

The problem is that everyone screams "i have the right to a car!" or that the various industries pay Mr Politician or lobbyists to find reasons, real or emotional (as in that is just a plot for liberals to take away your rights!) to convince people it shouldn't be done. i wish some mayor and town council somewhere would say: "We are doing this and the heck with the concequences". Just try it, work on it, get it right and I think it will spread.

Other ideas: roof top trees and gardens, telecommuting (already mentioned), hydroponic vegtable factories, slow channel evaporation schemes, wind poweered condensation units (for some places in the world), plus hundreds of others.


Pshaw...didn't think I read a brother PADI diver's post, huh???

A bicycle only city ain't gonna happen. However, if tax incentives or other perks were offered to those who could "Prove" they biked to work, then maybe the bike traffic would increase...but I'll bet ya a cold beer and a bag of Fritos that it wouldn't make a drop in the polution bucket.

Having spent 37 years in the Construction Industry, half residential and half commercial, I can speak to the roof-top garden thingy. :)

It's a wonderfull, though expensive, concept that has been around at least since I was a long haired vegetarian surfer back in the 60s wearing love beads, chasing flower girls and drinking Boones Farm wine. I love it. And it's a beatifull option for owners that can afford it and willing to maintain it. I've always thought partially "underground" construction was even a super idea.

"However" and I repeat "however" I've noticed in the past decade that owners were more and more interested in "value engineering" on their projects. In other words, "Where can you cut my costs"? Couple that with with our ass-dragging economy one can expect even more value engineering in the future.. In my humble opinion I don't see anyone over the age of 50 maybe even 45 seeing a return to the construction industry that will see monies relax to the point that such amenities will be a viable option outside of Dubai or a few fat-cat municipalities or money-laden private groups. Maybe a handfull, but nowhere near what you or I like to see.

Certainly the "Limited" warranties are there for a "prorated materials only guarantee" with the underlying fabric, but someone has to pay to remove the fauna and topsoils, get down to the fabric, repair it and then put it all back in place as it was. I can attest that finding a leak in a membrane is painfully labor intensive at best and what you'll wind up with is the membrane manufacturer sending you a $30 repair patch while you just paid $5,000 for a crew of men to uncover and then replace things as they were. Not to mention water damage to the rooms and tenant property below. Owners and Architects know this. Heck, most Mall owners don't even want a planter on the ground floor let alone one on their roof.

What I'm getting at is that while there are hundreds of ways to design something with a multitude of forward thinking concepts, you're only looking at one in a million projects worldwide adopting such ideas.

I know you dislike the word "feasible", but when was the last time you sat down with an owner on a 65 million dollar project and accused him of being a p_ _sy, as you mentioned in your post 502, for not seeing things your way? Are you going to accuse him of being a Fox News, GOP brainwashed fool??? Not me, brother.

I have no idea what you do for a living or how old you are, but my guess is you and some of the others who post here don't have a clue what you're talking about or the reality of the mechanisms that drive this economy.

Blogging does not an expert make.
It's all about experience.

Hate to be so callous, but sometimes you just have to make an impression.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Seriously you think FOXNEWS knows more about C02 and how it effects climate than NOAA or NASA? LOL!

Who said that?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:
I will say I see certain posters link articles from the Huffington Post and then in the same breath cry and whine about how Fox is so biased and far from the truth.

That right there sometimes says it all. When I see that, I don't have to post anything because the behavior and mentality of that poster says it all.

One word: biased.

Yes, Neo, that's you I'm talking about.


Seriously you think FOXNEWS knows more about C02 and how it effects climate than NOAA or NASA? LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
I will say I see certain posters link articles from the Huffington Post and then in the same breath cry and whine about how Fox is so biased and far from the truth.

That right there sometimes says it all. When I see that, I don't have to post anything because the behavior and mentality of that poster says it all.

One word: biased.

Yes, Neo, that's you I'm talking about.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Thanks. I've been keeping up with the abnormal and dangerous extremes both here in the U.S. and elsewhere. Just wait until temps in the Carolinas hit 105 this weekend...

And, no, nothing bashful; I absentmindedly quoted myself instead of modifying my comment. It happens...

No problem. I do it too. Yeah, that Carolina heat won't be pretty.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Oh, don't be bashful. I know you had something to say. Why retract it?

Hey, 84 degree dewpoint with a 130 degree heat index reading in Newton, IA at the moment.

Yes. 130 heat index reading. Thought you might like that.

Thanks. I've been keeping up with the abnormal and dangerous extremes both here in the U.S. and elsewhere. Just wait until temps in the Carolinas hit 105 this weekend...

And, no, nothing bashful; I absentmindedly quoted myself instead of modifying my comment. It happens...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Neapolitan:
.

Oh, don't be bashful. I know you had something to say. Why retract it?

Hey, 84 degree dewpoint with a 130 degree heat index reading in Newton, IA at the moment.

Yes. 130 heat index reading. Thought you might like that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Rising Oceans: Too Late to Turn the Tide?


"As a result, even if we stopped greenhouse gas emissions right now, the Earth would keep warming, the oceans would keep warming, the ice sheets would keep shrinking, and sea levels would keep rising for a long time," he explained.

They are absorbing most of that heat, but they lag behind. Especially the large ice sheets are not in equilibrium with global climate," McKay added. "

Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the UA's Institute of the Environment and a professor with joint appointments in the department of geosciences and atmospheric sciences, said: "This study marks the strongest case yet made that humans -- by warming the atmosphere and oceans -- are pushing the Earth's climate toward the threshold where we will likely be committed to four to six or even more meters of sea level rise in coming centuries."

Overpeck, who is McKay's doctoral advisor and a co-author of the study, added: "Unless we dramatically curb global warming, we are in for centuries of sea level rise at a rate of up to three feet per century, with the bulk of the water coming from the melting of the great polar ice sheets -- both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets."

According to the authors, the new results imply that 4.1 to 5.8 meters, or 13.5 to 19 feet, of sea level rise during the Last Interglacial period was derived from the Antarctic Ice Sheet, "reemphasizing the concern that both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets may be more sensitive to warming temperatures than widely thought."

"The central question we asked was, 'What are the warmest 5,000 years we can find for all these records, and what was the corresponding sea level rise during that time?'" McKay said.

Evidence for elevated sea levels is scattered all around the globe, he added. On Barbados and the Bahamas, for example, notches cut by waves into the rock six or more meters above the present shoreline have been dated to being 125,000 years old.

"Based on previous studies, we know that the sea level during the Last Interglacial was up to 8.5 meters higher than today," McKay explained.

"We already knew that the vast majority came from the melting of the large ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, but how much could the expansion of seawater have added to that?"

Given that sea surface temperatures were about 0.7 degrees warmer than today, the team calculated that even if the warmer temperatures reached all the way down to 2,000 meters depth -- more than 6,500 feet, which is highly unlikely -- expansion would have accounted for no more than 40 centimeters, less than a foot and a half.

"That means almost all of the substantial sea level rise in the Last Interglacial must have come from the large ice sheets, with only a small contribution from melted mountain glaciers and small ice caps," McKay said.

According to co-author Bette Otto-Bliesner, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., getting the same estimate of the role ocean expansion played on sea level rise increases confidence in the data and the climate models.

"The models allow us to attribute changes we observe in the paleoclimate record to the physical mechanisms that caused those changes," Otto-Bliesner said. "This helps tremendously in being able to distinguish mere correlations from cause-and-effect relationships."

The authors cautioned that past evidence is not a prediction of the future, mostly because global temperatures during the Last Interglacial were driven by changes in Earth's orbit around the sun. However, current global warming is driven by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting JBastardi:


Everyone is a denier if they don't toe the warmist line.

Maybe. But you want to know another dead giveaway? Lying through one's teeth about the scientific facts--as Forbes' Patrick Daniels has obviously done. Again.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
And bingo perhaps more earthquakes due more head pressure on tectonic plates spread over a very large area.






June 28, 2011




Ice loss fattening the Earth

The Earth is getting thicker around the middle due to ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, says a new study by researchers from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Check out the GRACE Gravity Map Image gallery.

%u201CIf you imagine the Earth is like a soccer ball and you push down on the North Pole it would bulge out at its %u2018equator%u2019,%u201D said CIRES Fellow Steve Nerem, coauthor of the study with CIRES Fellow John Wahr. %u201CThat%u2019s what it looks like %u2014a bit like a slightly squished ball.%u201D We refer to the size of that bulge as the Earth%u2019s %u2018oblateness.%u2019%u201D

As the Earth%u2019s shape changes so does its gravity field, a variable that can be measured from satellites, Nerem said. Data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)%u2014twin satellites launched in 2002 that make detailed measurements of Earth's gravity field to monitor changes in ice mass, the amount of water in the ocean and losses in continental water %u2014enabled Nerem and Wahr to test a theory that the ice loss was changing the oblateness.

Using the GRACE values for ice loss in Greenland and Anarctica, the scientists predicted how that ice loss has changed the Earth%u2019s oblateness since 2002, and their calculations agreed with the changes recorded by laser ranging measurements from a variety of different satellites. %u201CWe found that Greenland and Antarctica cause most of this change,%u201D Nerem said. Their results are currently in press in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

From the time scientists first began measuring the Earth%u2019s shape, they%u2019ve noted it%u2019s not a perfect sphere, Nerem said. The spinning of the planet means, just like any non-rigid spinning object, material tends to move out to the equator. %u201CThere is more mass along the equator than there is at the poles.%u201D

Most of the time the scientists have been taking measurements of its shape the Earth has been changing from this elliptical, or oblate shape, to a rounder one as it readjusts to the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago, Nerem said. Since the downward pressure of land-based ice has reduced as the ice melted, the land underneath has %u201Crebounded%u201D causing the Earth to become more spherical, he said.

In the mid-1990s that trend changed, however, as the planet appeared to start flattening out again, Nerem said. Puzzled by this observation, the scientific community came up with theories as to why this might be the case. %u201CBut a lot of it was speculation, albeit informed speculation,%u201D he said.

That was until the launching of the GRACE satellite mission. Using the high-resolution GRACE dataset Nerem and Wahr were able to conduct their experiment confirming the relationship between ice mass loss and the shape of the Earth. But this Nerem says is only a starting point. %u201CPeople have started to suggest that the melting in Greenland and Antarctica have started to affect the Earth%u2019s rotation,%u201D Nerem said. %u201CThat is another thing to think about.%u201D

The study was supported by two separate National Aeronautics and Space Administration GRACE Science Team investigations and a Jet Propulsion Laboratory GRACE MEASURES contract. It will be published online in a future edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

Contacts:



Link




Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting Neapolitan:

Thanks. I clicked on the link hoping to learn more about CO2, in spite of the fact that the family-run group behind the site--the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change"--was listed by Mother Jones Magazine as No.8 on its "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" website.

Guess what: I wasn't disappointed! In fact, I learned a whole bunch about CO2 I've never read in any real science literature!

For instance, did you know that CO2 is good for plants, therefore even if it were to rocket to a million parts-per-million, plants would still thrive?! I also found that despite what I may have learned from other science sources, there's no link between rising CO2 levels and warming; Arctic Sea ice isn't melting; the climate isn't changing; corals and other sea life aren't affected by warming or environmental acidification; Big Energy should be praised, not vilified, for the decades of very beneficial CO2 it's created; and from their first birthday onward, children should actually spend at least an hour each day directly inhaling the emissions from the exhaust pipe of a running automobile! Okay, I made that last one up, but forgive me; after visiting the site, I am so excited about the prospects of even more CO2, Mankind's Very Bestest Buddy And Trace Gas Ever!!!

You know, you'd think that a website run by an organization that keeps its funding sources secret but that has in the past taken money from Big Energy (judging by what they said before they went silent) would be full of lies, distortions of the truth, factual errors, and debunked anti-science nonsense. Wouldn't you think that, too?


You can't get much farther left than Mother Jones except Pravda. Everyone is a denier if they don't toe the warmist line.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Everything you wanted to know about C02 and more:

Link

Thanks. I clicked on the link hoping to learn more about CO2, in spite of the fact that the family-run group behind the site--the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change"--was listed by Mother Jones Magazine as No.8 on its "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" website.

Guess what: I wasn't disappointed! In fact, I learned a whole bunch about CO2 I've never read in any real science literature!

For instance, did you know that CO2 is good for plants, therefore even if it were to rocket to a million parts-per-million, plants would still thrive?! I also found that despite what I may have learned from other science sources, there's no link between rising CO2 levels and warming; Arctic Sea ice isn't melting; the climate isn't changing; corals and other sea life aren't affected by warming or environmental acidification; Big Energy should be praised, not vilified, for the decades of very beneficial CO2 it's created; and from their first birthday onward, children should actually spend at least an hour each day directly inhaling the emissions from the exhaust pipe of a running automobile! Okay, I made that last one up, but forgive me; after visiting the site, I am so excited about the prospects of even more CO2, Mankind's Very Bestest Buddy And Trace Gas Ever!!!

You know, you'd think that a website run by an organization that keeps its funding sources secret but that has in the past taken money from Big Energy (judging by what they said before they went silent) would be full of lies, distortions of the truth, factual errors, and debunked anti-science nonsense. Wouldn't you think that, too?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting martinitony:
Easy Read

It's actually funny how many times we have been wrong about cooling and warming models. I think you can take either side of this issue and form a model that fits.

I politely responded to this yesterday, and was predictably attacked by a frustrated user. (No surprise there.) Anyway, I ran across this piece today that will let that attacker know that I'm not alone:

More Climate Bad Science at Forbes: Hiding the Energy Imbalance of the Planet

The writer of that piece stated pretty much what I said about it: "I am not going to go into the detail of why his specific arguments in his opinion piece are wrong, self-serving, or serious misinterpretations of good, peer-reviewed science. Why? Because his fundamental premise-- his initial rhetorical question -- is wrong. Very simply, the Earth has warmed over the past 15 years. Significantly.

Uh-oh
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Purple- commercial roofs are not made from wood or wood construction but from metal bar joist and corrugated metal
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Everything you wanted to know about C02 and more:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
? Is it required that large people work on the issue for some reason?
;-)

Oh. Whoops. Fixed. Thanks.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Neapolitan- Roofing industry groups and contractors came to a computer programmer, writer and blogger for your vast knowledge in their industry which you have no experience. Sir I am not calling you a liar but lets just say you lie a lot. I would not believe you if you walked in wet from outside a told me it was raining.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Just imagine going to Minneapolis and St. Paul in the winter parking your car out in the suburbs and taking a bike 30 miles downtown at 20 below F. Just imagine the goods you can haul on your bike from the grocery or home improvement center. Just imagine all the grains and corn you can grow in a hydro system or roof top garden. Imagine charging your electric vehicle in only 5 minutes if you can find 440 volt outlets giving 230 plus amps. even then still takes 45 minutes. Jack wagon Billy had his harness on when he fell he survived the fall only to suffocate in the harness because his wife and kids could not retrieve him in time
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Both passages almost open.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Still at record lows here right?

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413




Bringing green roofs to a whole new level...

Hydrotech's Garden Roof® Assembly allows the design professional to transform virtually any flat or sloped roof into a landscaped environment. Designed as a lightweight, low profile system, the Garden Roof Assembly can be safely installed on roof and plaza decks not engineered to handle the heavy load requirements of a traditional green roof. And because the assembly incorporates Hydrotech's Monolithic Membrane 6125®, a proven roofing/waterproofing membrane, the building owner can be assured of a water-tight structure.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 565 - 515

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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.