Extreme Weather: Can we use predictions to plan?
Extreme Weather: Can we use predictions to plan?
Been on an unexpected hiatus and coming back slowly. Thanks to Angela and Jeff for a bit of cover. First I want to regain my blogging legs a little and return to my previous entry on Politics, Events, and the Weather. In that entry I mentioned that Representative Ralph Hall announced that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee will start an investigation into NOAA and whether or not NOAA is forming an “unauthorized” climate service. Many federal agencies have been operating without a current year budget for a long time. I say that so that I can include the whole name of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act that extends the Fiscal Year 2012 Continuing Resolution. If you want a good summary of budget information that includes climate and weather research then you might try this site. In the final negotiations for this Act, Congress prohibited NOAA from organizing existing resources to form a climate service.
Organizations such as the Reinsurance Association of American recognize the need to address climate change, and in fact they are taking action. Better collection, provision, and interpretation of climate information seem warranted, and that is the main purpose of the climate service reorganization.
At least implicitly, another call for better information comes from Congress - Representative Lynn Jenkins calls hearing on Missouri River Flooding. In 2011 there was an enormous flood of the Missouri River and many of its tributaries. This was one of several Billion Dollar Events during the summer of 2011 (see, Chris Burt, Weather.com, Earth and Sky).
In ClimateWatch Magazine there is a long article on the Missouri River Flood. As with many extreme events, several factors came together to cause this flood. There was large snowpack in both the Rocky Mountains and on the Plains in the Upper Missouri Basin. This was followed by heavy spring rains, that melted the snow yielding flows in May and June that equaled what is normally seen in the entire year. In this article there is also the description of the role of La Nina in the flood. La Nina is often described as the “negative” of El Nino. In the sense that El Nino is a warmer than average eastern Equatorial Pacific Ocean, La Nina is a cooler than average eastern Equatorial Pacific. It is well known that there are changes of weather patterns over the U.S. associated with El Nino and La Nina, but it is not so well known exactly what the impact of those changes might be.
This year we once again have a La Nina forming, and we have the prediction that it is highly likely that the event will persist and, perhaps, intensify. A question that arises is how can we better anticipate and plan for the consequences of the La Nina? Will we face another year of floods in the upper Missouri Valley? Will the drought continue in Texas? (Where I am collecting some El Nino – La Nina references.)
Figure 1. Characteristic position of wintertime jet streams during La Nina. From ClimateWatch Magazine: “The jet streams are high-altitude, racing rivers of air that can influence the path of storms as they track over North America from the Pacific Ocean. The jet streams meander and shift from day to day, but during La Niña events, they tend to follow paths that bring cold air and storms into the Upper Missouri River Basin. Map based on original graphics from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. Adapted by Richard Rivera & Hunter Allen.”
As a climate change blogger, I have some responsibility for bringing this blog a bit to climate change. Currently, I think a lot about how to use information from climate models. I argue that thinking about how we can use a 2011 La Nina prediction to assess the risk of 2012 Missouri River flood is a pretty good exercise. Compared to a 100 year projection, this is strong prediction. We need to understand how global models inform regional scales. We have a problem with complex interactions between different features of the Earth’s weather and climate. We learn how to work with people who have to assess risk and make decisions.
OK: Here is the link to the Montana Conservation District's website. And here is a quote from Montana farmer Buzz Mattelin’s testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Mattelin’s testimony is a remarkable summary and evaluation of the 2011 flood. Here’s one of Mattelin’s suggestions on how to improve the situation. He refers to the Corps, which is the Army Corps of Engineers who have the mission of managing the Missouri River.
“The Corps’ Annual Operating Plan (AOP) begins each new runoff year at a normal or average starting point when we rarely if ever have an average year. The Corps does a good job of incorporating mountain snowpack, plains snowpack, and short term precipitation into the AOP but falls short in using variables like soil moisture and climatic trends. Soil moisture data is readily available in weekly crop reports that rank soil moisture as short, adequate, or surplus. We should also look at El Nino and La Nina events. When you overlay past La Nina events with high runoff years in the Basin, there are definite correlations during the high runoff years in the 70’, 90’s and this year. Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO is another ocean temperature phenomenon that show promise as a predictor of precipitation on the Northern Plains. Incorporation of these types of variables into the AOP could significantly improve flood control.”
I will confess sitting in my office today talking about this problem, and we came pretty much to the same conclusion as Mattelin. Mattelin, many academic papers, and common sense say that if there are better forecasts, or perhaps more appropriately, longer lead times, then risk, damage, and cost can be reduced. We, the collective we, have much of the information that is required, but it is not all in one place. It is not all provided by a single agency. It is not integrated together towards a specific application like flooding in of the Missouri River. That service is not provided.
I am, let’s say, a minor participant in a project where over the next few months we will try to pull together this information and see if we can use this data better (initial link. If we can do it for a seasonal climate prediction, then we will learn to do it better for decadal climate projections. Stay tuned.
r
Here is a link to a new series on Green.TV on extreme weather. Let me know what you think.
And since people mentioned it ... Shearer and Rood on the media and extreme weather.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) today called on the United States intelligence community to join the British and others in rooting out the hackers who have stolen emails from climate scientists and released them in advance of two major climate negotiations, including the upcoming talks in Durban, South Africa.
"This is clearly an attempt to sabotage the international climate talks for a second time, and there has not been enough attention paid to who is responsible for these illegal acts," said Rep. Markey, who is the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and is the co-author of the only climate bill to pass a chamber of Congress.
"If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the Western world's intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators. And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice."
Exactly. It's time to bring these hackers and their supporters to justice.
Yeah, you can get that when you do the maths wrong. Like McIntyre. ;-)
The use of people creating handles to promote illegal drugs has increased since the invention of the internet.
As predicted
See Post # 1 here.
Navy Official Discusses Climate Change Investment Strategy
By Bob Freeman
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2010 – A number of recent strategic Defense Department documents have recognized that the changing climate may affect national security and military operations later in the century.
This is particularly true for the globally deployed U.S. Navy, and investments to address climate challenges may need to be made, the service’s oceanographer said in a June 18 “DoD Live” bloggers roundtable.
“We're going to have to fold these challenges into a tight fiscal budget,” acknowledged Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley, who also serves as director of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change. He explained that it is important not only to know what investments are right to meet future requirements, but also to know when to make them.
“We want to basically pace the threat,” Titley said. “We don't want to get into a tail chase over climate change, but at the same time, … we do not want to spend ahead of need, spending for things that may not be required for years or decades later.”
Titley explained that to define the scope of needed investments the Navy will conduct capabilities-based assessments, which he described as foundational studies to determine the requirements for such things as force structure, infrastructure, command and control and communications. “We're doing one of these capabilities-based assessments for climate change in general, and another one focused specifically on the Arctic,” he said.
Titley said the assessments were timed to coincide with the Navy's program objective memorandum for fiscal 2014. POMs are annual events in which critical decisions on the budget and investment spending are made. Titley said he believes the 2014 budget is where the first climate-change investments may potentially be made.
“One of the investments we're really going to have to think about in the next several decades is the impact of sea level rise on the Navy's infrastructure,” Titley said. “That includes our ports and piers in the continental United States, but we also need to think about bases we use in conjunction with our partners and allies overseas.”
As an example, Titley mentioned Diego Garcia, a small, low-lying island in the Indian Ocean that hosts a strategic airfield.
“The observations have shown us that through the 20th century, sea level rose by an average of two millimeters per year,” Titley said. “So that means over the course of the century, we had about 20 centimeters, or roughly eight inches, of sea level rise. The sea level rise we've seen in the first 10 years of the new century is already 50 percent greater than the average sea level rise in the 20th century.”
Titley explained that as the oceans get warmer, they expand and take up more space, causing the sea level to rise. In addition, the land-based ice that already is melting -- including mountain glaciers, the Greenland ice field, and even the western Antarctic ice sheet -- will add volume to the ocean. He acknowledged considerable uncertainty over the time line and extent of sea level rise, but he noted that leading climate scientists believe sea levels could rise as much as six feet by the end of the century.
“How probable is this?” Titley asked. “I'm not really sure right now, but I am sure there are significant consequences. We need to make sure, as time goes by, that we understand it, we have a plan, and we know what it will cost us to execute that plan.
“That's really one of the foundational elements the task force is going to pursue,” he added.
In response to a question on specific infrastructure upgrades, Titley noted that there is no single answer, and said scientists and engineers will need to work together with local communities, taking into account the specifics of every critical location, to determine what types of solutions will be needed.
“That is what our capabilities-based assessments will be tasked to figure out,” he said.
When asked whether naval bases were prepared for stronger and more intense hurricanes, Titley said that the impact a warming climate may have on tropical storm development is controversial and subject to much research. He explained that ocean warming is only one component of hurricane formation, and that other factors such as upper level wind shear may not support increased frequency and intensity.
“What I can tell you,” he said, “is that our regional commanders make sure their bases are prepared for severe hurricanes every year.”
Titley said it’s essential to improve predictive capabilities on a variety of time lines to provide reliable forecasts to decision makers. These predictions need to include weather and ocean forecasts in the near term, as well as climatological forecasts extending decades out, he added.
“In the past, many federal agencies tended to produce their own predictive models,” Titley said. He noted that he is engaging the leadership of other agencies to create partnerships that will ensure that the best minds in the nation are working collectively on solutions. These joint climate models could serve both military and civilian purposes, he said, recognizing that details regarding classification and security would need to be worked out.
“I believe that the time is right, and the leadership in many agencies is right, to work this at a national level,” he said, “to make sure the taxpayer money we put into these predictions give the absolute best return on our collective investment. We owe this to the American people.”
Titley said international partnerships also are important to dealing effectively with potential climate-change challenges, particularly in the Arctic. He mentioned that the Canadian navy had invited the United States to participate this year in its annual Operation Nanook polar exercise. U.S. participants will include a destroyer, a maritime patrol aircraft, and specialized ice diving units.
“This is a tremendous opportunity for several hundred of our sailors and officers to experience operating ships and aircraft well north of the Arctic Circle,” Titley said.
There is also a proposal to share lessons learned with the Danish navy, which has significant experience operating in the Arctic waters around its territory Greenland. In addition, Titley said, the Naval Research Laboratory is working with the Russian navy in the Kara Sea this summer, and there are current discussions with the International Hydrographic Organization to determine how to best work with regional partners in cooperative ocean-surveying operations.
“This is not meant to be all inclusive,” Titley said, “but it is an indication of progress in just the last couple of months towards opportunities to work with our international partners.”
Titley noted some other examples of progress in considering the strategic impact of climate change.
“Recently, the chief of naval operations signed out the Navy's Arctic strategic objectives,” he said, “and this gives everybody in the Navy a common frame of reference to understand what we are trying to achieve.”
He added that the Navy wants to ensure a “safe, stable, and secure Arctic.”
Titley said the main goal of Task Force Climate Change is to ensure the Navy is not taken by strategic surprise, and he expressed satisfaction that climate change is being considered in strategic war games and limited objective experiments. He described these as “thinking exercises” that examine various strategic scenarios to determine how to handle them, to evaluate whether the assets are available to handle them, and to identify shortfalls.
“Nobody knows what the future will entail,” Titley said, “but if you run a range of scenarios, and you see that there are common capabilities and capacities that you would need to answer those scenarios, then you can really inform a future budget debate.”
Biographies:
Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley
Related Sites:
"DoD Live" Bloggers Roundtabl
I understand your frustration, spbloom. I really do. The posts on this blog are a fairly accurate reflection of the conversations on the street.
I invite you to read Professor Rood's first paragraph. What does this tell you? What I gain from it is that no longer are the special interest groups that are wanting to maintain "the staus quo", deny, beyond all logic, the science and that AGWT is a hoax will be content with this alone. Now they want to also help assure that we do not even have the ability to test any further. Any conversations we have here, or on any renown scientific blog, will be purely for intellectual purposes only.
Post# 3, that I posted, shows my desires for the studies in better forecasting to be fruitful. While far too many have denied the Science behind AGWT, very few will be able to deny we need better forecasting to help survive the events that are yet to come. Even the ones that do not believe any warming is due to our actions. Even the ones that have no faith in models will be looking for better forecasting models, in the future. ... When some of the greatest minds, of the past 100 years, have warned us that we are on a path of destruction and have been ignored, why would anyone listen to me?
Yes, I agree. We could be having a much more in-depth conversation on the topic but, to what avail? This, at least, in regards to the first paragraph.
Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:
Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy
Torok/CSIRO:
[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change
Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.
The guys at UEA had the same result. Can they be math amateurs and we are changing our entire way of life because of them? The entire point of my post was that no matter what they fed into the model, they got the same result. The fraudulent hockey schtick. The emailers admitted as much.
That is complete nonsense. (I know what it's based upon and understand why you want to stick to vague assertion.)
And is that the same UEA that you denialists claim manipulates data? If so, why believe them now? Or why believe that they are suddenly competent? Maybe you have non-scientific reasons for doing so? ;)
"An ambulance pulls up behind you. You know it’s an ambulance because you can read AMBULANCE in your rear view mirror. But you can also read it when you look at the vehicle directly; because the human visual system has the ability to quickly correct complete inversions or left-right reversals of letters. In fact, a complete inversion is easier to read than letters that are rotated only partially.
This human ability to process complete inversions more quickly than just partial distortions, alas, lends itself to exploitation by ruthless propagandists who seek to create a chimerical world in which up is down, left is right, and good is smeared as evil.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the netherworld of attacks on climate scientists."
The scandal isn’t the emails, it’s the hacking.
Oooh! Look! Out of context quotes! Who could have foreseen such a tactic?! LOL
Out of context? you must be taking your talking points from the warmists. That's the typical line.
You use circular reasoning. Of course I don't believe UEA and the emails show why. The email were between UEA faculty and other warmist faculty. They were attempting to replicate Mann's hockey stick and emailed each other to say it could be done with any temperature data set. They said it was a load of bunk. Don't need any context to understand that.
What about NOAA's Hockey Stick? Still a Hockey Stick nonetheless!
On your hockey stick tunnels :)
Ya gotta love this guy. He exposed their bad science before most competent people really understood the deception. God rest his soul!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57 1100
From: CJohn L. Daly
To: Chick Keller
CC: . Dietze, mmaccrac, Michael E Mann, rbradley, wallace, Thomas Crowley, Phil Jones, McKitrick, Nigel Calder, John Christy, Jim Goodridge, Fred Singer, k.briffa
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
Dear Chick & all
[I think Chick Keller wrote:]
the first is Keith Briffas rather comprehensive treatment of getting climate variations from tree rings: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19 (2000) 87-105. It should deal with many of the questions people raise about using them to determine temperatures.
Take this from first principles.
A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or even hemispheric.
The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other. sunlight if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of course.
cloudiness more clouds, less sun, less ring.
pests/disease a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce photosynthesis
access to sunlight competition within a forest can disadvantage or advantage some trees.
moisture/rainfall a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a droughteven if theres a heat wave.
snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth temperature finally!
The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from the other environmental variables.
In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to other evidence which contradicts Mann%u2019s theory. The Idsos have produced more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has `unearthed even more.
Manns theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue. Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above.
The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad science. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case, only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.
Cheers
John Daly
John L. Daly
`Still Waiting For Greenhouse%u2019
Irrelevant to the indisputable logic he puts forth. Dance and redirect as you may. It just doesn't matter.
Surely he isn't from NOAA. So how can you trust him? LOL!
John Daly? Seriously? If you're going to quote a denialist at length, don't you think you should do better than one who a) speaks with logic, b) has at least some education in climate science, and c) hasn't been dead for nearly eight years?
It's not talking points. It's honesty. Without context, individual comments are meaningless. Posting such out of context comments is dishonest.
So, when UEA says something you believe supports you (or you can make it appear so), then UEA is trustworthy. But when they disagree (and you can't spin it) then they are dishonest frauds. Got it.
Good luck with that. LOL
Ah, I see. You are posting what you *wish* they said, rather than what they actually said. The Hockey Stick is alive and well and verified by other reconstructions. So even if UEA did claim it was bunk (which they didn't), then they would be wrong in light of those subsequent studies.
Ya gotta love him if one is a fan of empty rhetoric. But AGW is a scientific issue. It's highly unlikely that rhetorical tricks will change the laws of physics.
Do we need to pollute less and find better alternative energies? Of course. Do we need "scientist" to watch out for us and report whatever they think is happening? Of course. Should they be paid by the governments and the elitist who all have the same globalist agenda? Well, if they are, those WILL NOT be the ones I trust. After decades of being lied to about almost everything you can think of, why in the hell do you still trust these people when their agenda is posted on every damn wall. Then you find out that the "scientist" that found these numbers work for them and yet you still are not skeptic?
This is why our country is where we are today. Because people are too proud to admit to being wrong. It is ok, just come out and say it with me. SOMETHING VERY WRONG IS HAPPENING AND IT PISSES ME OFF THAT I AM BEING LIED TO! No matter what your stance is on this subject. YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. If anything else it is obvious that we must scratch it all and start over with the research! For me, it is enough that I know the Problem, Reaction, Solution game and the agenda and I will no longer be conned!
What more do you need to be skeptical of these arrogant a-holes? Millions are starving, there is poison in our food and water, lakes and oceans. Pollution is very real, but so is greed and so is ignorance. So you better be skeptical of any damn thing that fits this agenda and anything that comes from these corrupt Corporate dirt-bags and pawns.
INCLUDING DR. MASTERS! I have followed his tropical outlooks for years and really respected him, but for him to push this agenda is it! You claim to be a Dr., yet you push this garbage. I am sure this will make some happy but I will no longer subscribe and follow anyone who bows down and spews this warming garbage any longer. If you want to see the curruption stop then stop using this website. We will leave all these "scientist" alone on this page and let them debate each other on the 0.00001 degrees and 0.0000001 ft sea-level rise in the next 2.3 to 189 years. Let them pay the carbon taxes if they like, that will be plenty to save GE and Shell Co.. But if I don't want to hold my farts and believe the ones who are doing the mass polluting are the ones behind the whole climate change system for a Carbon Tax to fund a World Gov. I shouldn't have to pay a dime or do anything to fund this LIE!
Pollution--> BAD! Scientific LIES---BAD!
Weather Modification----> BAD! Link
Planned/Perceived Obsolescence-->BAD! Link
(Same who push the Planned Ob fund Carbon Taxes)
Skepticism----> Good
CLIMATE DICTATORSHIP OVER RECOURCES!
Then some are blaming the hackers? HAHAHAHAHAHA. When someone is spreading lies via newspapers, tv, word of mouth, it is the duty as a citizen to prove the lies that are killing, starving and stealing. Those should be the heroes. But only war mongers like Obama/Bush (same puppet) get the Nobel Peace Prize! Anyone condemning the hackers are idiots! They aren't hacking people's bank accounts or stealing ID's, they are proving the lies and corruption!
Ignorance is NOT strength, War is NOT Peace, Freedom is NOT Slavery and to hell with those who say it is, or deny the chance to question EVERYTHING! There is just way too much info out there to believe this crap. I just hope some are able to read this while they are out buying worthless crap with credit cards that only last 6 months before it hits the landfill. Oh but maybe tomorrow? Wait no... that is small business Saturday. Brought to you by whom? Oh yeah, American Express...HAHA. Don't use cash, use credit or layaway.
Peace, Love and the search for TRUTH!
Media-FAIL
Link
Huh?
lay off the dust! at least ease up on it
Watch the Arctic Ice it tells you the TRUTH.
: )
Watch global temperatures tell the truth.
The truth will be revealed in time.
Not too much longer. A decade or three, at most. Will probably take three before some will accept it.
Sure. It'll start cooling off any
daymonthyeardecadecentury now. I don't know how, but it's gonna happen. I have my fingers crossed and everything...I agree, seastep, that more tests need to be made and confirmed. This is what is being done. We simply cannot logically dismiss what has been observed and the knowledge we have gained, to date, while we observe further.
You do realize that you are wanting to perform your experiments in the wild and not under controlled lab conditions, do you not? This "experiment" will go wrong and there will not be any way available for us to shut down this "experiment".
As an analogy, let us say that your observations have shown a lake has become more acidic and that some of the aquatic life has shown signs of adverse effects. We can say that perhaps it is not the rising level of acidity in the lake that is causing this. Perhaps the lake's aquatic life is suffering the adverse effects because of something else. You want to test this theory and you conduct your tests while the lake's acidity level continues to climb. All the while you are aware that a rising acidity will eventually kill all of the aquatic life, in this lake. The only way to perform a proper test is to stop, or reverse, the rising acidic levels of the lake while you investigate other causes of the suffering of the aquatic life. This is how you want to perform your experiment. You desire to perform your tests on a global scale. ... What will you learn when you determine that the experiment cannot be stopped?
When you want to see if the baby's bathwater is too hot, you do not want to keep putting the baby in the bathwater after you have raised the temperature of the bathwater each time. Logic must prevail or there is no reason for logic.
At what level of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is our planet able to sustain without life on this planet suffering adverse effects? As yet, this is not clearly known. You, however, wish to find out the hard way. That, my friend, is not the logical approach to use. We DO know that there is a breaking point. Test this in a lab and not in the wild. ... Do you not understand the logic in this?
I challenge ANYONE to show that I am using failed logic in this. ANYONE! Should you not be able to do so then I STRONGLY suggest that you use your head for something other than a hat rack! We KNOW, for a FACT, that increasing our atmospheric levels of CO2 will have an detrimental effect on EVERYONE! When you perform a lab experiment and it goes horribly wrong, you have a bad day. When you perform your experiments in the wild and it goes horribly wrong, EVERYONE HAS A BAD DAY! QUIT WISHING TO PERFORM YOUR EXPERIMENTS IN THE WILD!
There are now 391 Giorni Days until the 2012 Winter Solstice.
Enjoy your Friday.
Bear in mind that many of your correspondents here expect to be dead in a few decades and are so self-centered that they really don't care what happens to future generations. The point is to grasp at any straw, no matter how absurd, to avoid the needed action. Many others, the real Joe Bastardi being an example, simply lack the imagination to conceive of a world much different than the one they grew up in. Others are just deranged in one way or another and like to spend time on the internet. Did I miss anyone?
The mark of the mature man is his ability to work brave, teaching all, every slave, how to replace coal-oil-gas-mineral-nuclear, unemployed-inflation, welfare-waste-war with Essene Birth-Control for very girl, Swiss 6000 year Universal Military Training UMT for full- employment, raising 1 trillion Israel-system trees, 2 million Dutch dikes, 3 Greek mirror- solars, 4 Hannibal windpower plants, 5 billion Amish-Amway-AT&T profitsharing jobs, 6 Milorganite plants, 76 million Planetemples teaching All-One-God-Faith, Austrian music, Babylon roof-gardens, California rain forests, China-bikes, Cartha-UMT, Catspaw sandals, compost tree, C02 bomber, the Moral ABC, cattle-lemon-Esperanto. Finn-jails, gasohol, German solar-Zeppelins, Health-meat-salt-soap-tape, jojoba-aloevera-chia-ginseng-garlic, Kibbutz, Nature Friends, patents, Swiss economy, Town-Without-Toothache, Patrick Henry teaches PHt's of USA-USSR H20 cwp, with 76 million battery-banks, powering every car-factory-farm-home-Milorganite-monorail! To teach healthy Hunza 150-year great life by God's Law, timing-teamwork-wisdom-power-mercy-love, uniting All-One above! Above! Know 41-4. Only hard work unites all! Scrolls: $10 for 10; $3 for 1, help unite all!
Oh, wait, sorry about that; when I get knocked for a loop, I can't seem to help but recite passages of text from Dr. Bronner's soap package.
But did the Mayans know about the tunnels? ;)
Er, there seems to be some sort of residue still covering your eyes. :)
Carbonic Acid levels in the Oceans also tell the TRUTH!
Lots of ACE out there still!
Nah! If they did they would still be here!
They are still here, I believe.
"We simply cannot logically dismiss what has been observed and the knowledge we have gained, to date, while we observe further."
- I agree.
"You do realize that you are wanting to perform your experiments in the wild and not under controlled lab conditions, do you not?"
- Yes, I do. It is the only way, unfortunately. And, actually, the best effort to date of attempting it under lab conditions doesn't show what you think will happen. But, as I said, I don't put a lot of credence in it as a true simulation. It is near impossible, if not impossible, to recreate the atmosphere in a lab setting.
"This "experiment" will go wrong and there will not be any way available for us to shut down this "experiment"."
- I disagree with your premise. No, I don't want to shut down the atmosphere. ;) Nor can we stop this experiment called climate. It will continue to change until the planet is gone. With or without man.
"As an analogy, let us say that your observations have shown a lake has become more acidic and that some of the aquatic life has shown signs of adverse effects. We can say that perhaps it is not the rising level of acidity in the lake that is causing this. Perhaps the lake's aquatic life is suffering the adverse effects because of something else. You want to test this theory and you conduct your tests while the lake's acidity level continues to climb. All the while you are aware that a rising acidity will eventually kill all of the aquatic life, in this lake. The only way to perform a proper test is to stop, or reverse, the rising acidic levels of the lake while you investigate other causes of the suffering of the aquatic life. This is how you want to perform your experiment. You desire to perform your tests on a global scale. ... What will you learn when you determine that the experiment cannot be stopped?"
- This analogy can be recreated in a lab.
"At what level of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is our planet able to sustain without life on this planet suffering adverse effects?"
- Very high. Just check the data during other periods when the planet was teeming with life.
"Do you not understand the logic in this?"
- I understand your logic perfectly.
Weren't the oceans supposed to be dead by now?
No, not dead. Just dying. And they are, sadly, well on the way.
Oh really?
Please do explain. Please explain to me why the largest funders of AGW are mega-corporation owned or government funded. Or how the end-game is a World Bank you pay your carbon taxes to. Or how humans are evil and the world needs to be de-populated.(Bill Gates TED conference to lower pop through vaccines)
Because what I got is this;
The science has been tampered with and just like any sport once the game has been tampered with there comes the penalty flag!
Well damnit, we are thowing flag after flag after flag but yet the IMF World Bank Carbon Tax is being slammed down our throats. Australia voted against it and now it just passed. All I am saying is that commen sense is screaming at us right now.
"Stop letting the wolf guard the damn hen house"
"Do not let the ones polluting the shit out of this world(be it nuclear, oil or co2 etc) be the ones that pass the laws to regulate themselves"
STOP FEEDING THE DAMN BEAST AND START OVER!
Obviously we are all split on this subject and all focusing on crooked ass studies will not help!
c02 levels have been higher before and they have been lower before.
Maybe it is c02, maybe it is cow dung, maybe it is the Cuban in the back of the bar eating seafood through a straw while kissing a white chick who has a horse tattoo.
WE DO NOT KNOW!!!!!!!!!!! AND TO PASS ABSOLUTE GAME CHANGING WORLDWIDE LAWS WITHOUT HAVING A GLOBAL GOVERMENT IS BULLSHIT AND IDIOTIC.
Now we have a Race war between the believers and the skeptics. Divide and conquer!
Emails
Forbes
I disagree. Nature is more resilient than some think. And the data backs it up. As time goes on it will become apparent. Time is not on your side. Hence, the rush, imo. No other explanation.
And, I do find it fascinating that, generally speaking, those that find it so fragile tend to have complete faith in Darwinism.
Adaptation is proven, yes. No question in my mind.
Inaction is also action. Not saving the planet while there is still a chance is also BS and idiotic.
You can't save the planet.
We should all be good stewards of nature. Didn't know there was a debate about that, because I don't know of anyone that thinks differently. Do you?
Modified: Just realized that wasn't your language. Sorry about that.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index