Extreme Weather: Can we use predictions to plan?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 1:23 AM GMT on November 22, 2011

Share this Blog
13
+

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

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: 59 - 9

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

Quoting JBastardi:


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? ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Yeah, you can get that when you do the maths wrong. Like McIntyre. ;-)


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.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
From James Dellingpole (Can't wait for the spins from the warmists on this one):

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.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting spbloom:
It's interesting how very little anyone has to say about the subject matter of the post. Indeed, that seems to be typical here, but it's more striking for this post given the subject matter.


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
Also,, the Powers at the DoD are well entrenched in preparing for the Climate ahead.






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

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
Im involved in Disaster Response and Mgt in 2 Orgs and I can say easily that they are planning for more trouble downstream.

As predicted


See Post # 1 here.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
Quoting PurpleDrank:
Hello fellow deniers, warmists, lunatics, etc.

The abrupt warming around the world seems to have increased since the invention of the internet.



The use of people creating handles to promote illegal drugs has increased since the invention of the internet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Mikey Mann's hockey stick "reconstruction" remains the same no matter what the temperature input just as Steve McIntyre said years ago. It's also admitted by the climategate guys:

Link

Yeah, you can get that when you do the maths wrong. Like McIntyre. ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Markey: Who Is Trying to Sabotage International Climate Talks?

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.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Mikey Mann's hockey stick "reconstruction" remains the same no matter what the temperature input just as Steve McIntyre said years ago. It's also admitted by the climategate guys:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting overwash12:
Maybe all the co2 in the air is the only thing keeping the Earth from going into an ice age. Just a thought,nothing more.


That's not a maybe. The type of global climate associated with varying levels of CO2 is quite well-known from paleoclimate studies. At this point we've probably added enough CO2 to prevent the next ice age (glaciation) from occurring when it would have, i.e. in about 40,000 years.

Take away *all* the CO2 at once (not physically possible, fortunately) and the Earth would freeze over entirely. Interestingly, such a "snowball" state (still with some CO2, although not much) has happened in the very distant past. The last one ended about 650 million years ago. A repeat is no longer possible (due to the warmer sun and the biosphere), but the consequences of our present course of action may make our descendants, and perhaps even some of us, wish otherwise.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
Quoting Skyepony:
Cambridge University is now predicting 2015 as the year of the first Arctic sea ice free summer..


This is last year's news, although I'm confident Prof. Wadhams still thinks the projection is good. I'd be a little less confident than he's quoted to be regarding 2015 specifically, but the research he's relying on (from the U.S. Navy's sea ice modeler) actually says 2016 plus or minus 3 years. Soon enough.

Re the icebreakers, as summer sea ice disappears there's actually a greater need for them, as more and more ships try to transit the Arctic.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
It's interesting how very little anyone has to say about the subject matter of the post. Indeed, that seems to be typical here, but it's more striking for this post given the subject matter.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
Quoting overwash12:
Watched them on modern marvels(I believe),they can break through ice 1 meter thick!


They are impressive. They are amazing to watch in action.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


No, I do not think they over built their fleet of ice breakers. The Arctic will still have winters and and the Arctic will still freeze during the winter months.
Watched them on modern marvels(I believe),they can break through ice 1 meter thick!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting overwash12:
I guess Russia overbuilt theseLink


No, I do not think they over built their fleet of ice breakers. The Arctic will still have winters and and the Arctic will still freeze during the winter months.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
Quoting PurpleDrank:
Hello fellow deniers, warmists, lunatics, etc.

The abrupt warming around the world seems to have increased since the invention of the internet.



That is not quite correct, PurpleDrank. The Internet has caused an abrupt awareness, among the masses, that we are seeing an abrupt warming. This would be a more correct statement.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
I guess Russia overbuilt theseLink
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Maybe all the co2 in the air is the only thing keeping the Earth from going into an ice age. Just a thought,nothing more.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting Skyepony:
Cambridge University is now predicting 2015 as the year of the first Arctic sea ice free summer..

I'll buy that. Next year should be very telling; the huge recent losses of multi-year ice is gonna make massive summer melts in '12, '13, and so on far easier. Of course, there'll be those desperately shouting that "We've only been measuring ice since 1979; who's to say the Arctic wasn't ice-free in, for example, the 1950s?" or "So what? Antarctic ice is growing!!!". But we've come to expect that. And at any rate, they'll do that until they realize that Big Oil is beginning to plunder the newly iceless Arctic; then they'll come around, I'm sure. :-\
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
39. Skyepony (Mod)
Cambridge University is now predicting 2015 as the year of the first Arctic sea ice free summer..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hello fellow deniers, warmists, lunatics, etc.

The abrupt warming around the world seems to have increased since the invention of the internet.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherhistorian:


That radical eco-nut magazine, "The Economist", recently published this article:

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360

Just more foolish nonsense from the Koch brothers who financed this study?

"That radical eco-nut magazine, 'The Economist'" ;-)

I've been wondering these past few weeks what the Kochs think about the BEST project's corroboration of warming, then all the other news stories showing continued validation of AGWT. Oh, how I'd love to be a fly on the wall in some of the closed-door meetings...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
The denialosphere has gone utterly orgasmic about this second release of, by their own admission--cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes. I thought WUWT was going to vibrate apart at the seams yesterday.

Silly denialists.

It remains to be see whether the major media will again fail to do their jobs as they did after the first release and, instead of doing some actual research, simply repeat the Koch Brothers talking points they've been given. If so, they can expect harsher recriminations from the world of science.

There's a great piece in The Australian about this entire subject:

There is a real climategate out there

Remember "climategate"? The illegal hack of personal emails released just before the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 that some columnists pronounced to be the (approximately 132nd) "final nail in the coffin" of global warming?

Remember the "errors" in the IPCC’s 2007 report? "Amazongate", "Himalayagate", and so on?

What has happened to "climategate"?

What’s happened is this.

First, the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee exonerated the scientist at the centre of the tempest, Professor Phil Jones, finding he has "no case to answer" and that his reputation "remains intact."

Then Lord Oxburgh (former chairman of Shell-UK) and his panel likewise exonerated the researchers, finding their "work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation" are "not valid."

Another enquiry, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, found the scientists’ "rigour and honesty" to be beyond doubt.

Two enquiries by his university also cleared Professor Michael Mann – who presented the first of now innumerable "hockey stick" graphs – of all allegations.

Ultimately the (conservative) UK Government concluded "the information contained in the illegally-disclosed emails does not provide any evidence to discredit … anthropogenic climate change."

Not one, not two, but by now nine vindications.
- - - - - - - - - -
[But] there are too many real climategates that must not escape attention.

First, there was another batch of private emails posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a "think" tank notorious even by American standards. Those emails — yes, a second hack — revealed the real climategate by being truthful, with one scientist stating: "Those who deny the biophysical facts of the world would deny … gravity" and "we’re not in a gentlepersons' debate, we’re in a street fight against … merciless enemies. Colleagues … are getting threatened with prosecution by … [US Senator James M.] Inhofe."

That is the second real climategate: the McCarthyite attempts by Senator Inhofe to criminalise climate scientists — attempts to criminalise those who, 35 years ago, predicted the temperature rise by century’s end to within 1/10th of a degree.

This is no isolated incident: Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, has launched several frivolous lawsuits — despite losing an earlier one — against the University of Virginia in what the Washington Post called a "war on the freedom of academic inquiry"". And Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman evoked Pastor Niemoeller’s cry against the erosion of humanity under the Nazis: "First, they came for the climate scientists…".

The real climategate involves active censorship within NASA by Bush appointees, which the agency’s Inspector General later found to have "reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science".

The real climategate involves Bush White House staff replacing assessments of the National Academy of Sciences with a discredited paper by two individuals with no expertise in climatology. This paper, funded by the American Petroleum Institute, was so flawed its appearance in a peer-reviewed journal led to the resignation in protest by three editors and the publisher’s unprecedented acknowledgement of mishandling.
- - - - - - - - - -
In Canada, the real media climategate involves the ongoing list of defamatory articles by the "National Post." The tabloid is finally being sued by Professor Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria.

In Australia, the real media climategate involves the national daily newspaper, whose misrepresentations of science are legendary and, sadly ongoing.


I heard someone liken this whole thing to "that part in a western where the bank robber, knowing he's lost the gunfight, grabs the nearest child and heads for the door, using her as a human shield." Fitting analogy, if you ask me.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Quoting spbloom:


And smarter farms, as opposed to the dumber ones we seem to prefer.


You shouldn't post stuff like that on open wiebsites. This is a good idea and works to help the planet. I think that is neutral.

However, it opposes big business. Posting something like that alerts the new tea party / republicans that the goernment is trying to do something that takes away profit from the huge multinationals. Sure as bears poop in the forest, someone like JB will see a new lobbying oportunity and the tea party will see a new contribution possibility and soon it will be outlawed.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting JBastardi:
Take a gander at some of these emails. You can't explain away that deception:

Link


Why is it that when you or your heros (Kock, Watts, etc.) lie, distort the truth, etc. you don't seem to care.

Why don't you set forth an objective criteria then we keep a tally of lies published?

You'll find that your posts, the posts of your heros and those of Oss fall far more on the side of lies than any scientists do.

s'matter? scared?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting JBastardi:


Science? These emails demonstrate fabrications, exclusions, and outright lying by these so-called "scientists." Perhaps you should read them before you speak. These people are the leaders of the field. Most everything we assume about climate "science" is garnered from them. They are a bunch of frauds bent on pushing ideology.


That radical eco-nut magazine, "The Economist", recently published this article:

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360

Just more foolish nonsense from the Koch brothers who financed this study?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:


The IPCCs new paper will state that there will be climate stagnation for the next 20-30 years.


No, it won't. You are misinformed.

Quoting JBastardi:


As if they would know what will happen beyond that. Does that statement appear to demonstrate that temperatures are increasing? Observations have shown no measurable temperature increase globally for more than ten years. About what observations are you speaking?


See? I told you were misinformed. (Actually, you have been informed that ten years is insufficient to separate the signal of climate from the noise of weather. But, hey, you got a story to push, so to hell with reality, right? LOL)

Of course, it has warmed in the last ten years (according to GISTEMP). But the warming is not statistically significant. Nor should it be expected to be statistically significant over such a short time period. Why you engage in this deception is a mystery known only to yourself, though others might hazard a guess. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:


Same lack of substance or relevance.
Same wishful thinking by denialists.

Meanwhile, the observations keep supporting the science. Presumably, Nature itself is in the scam, right? LOL


The IPCCs new paper will state that there will be climate (temperature) stagnation for the next 20-30 years. As if they would know what will happen beyond that. Does that statement appear to demonstrate that temperatures are increasing? Observations have shown no measurable temperature increase globally for more than ten years. About what observations are you speaking?
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting JBastardi:


Same lack of substance or relevance.
Same wishful thinking by denialists.

Meanwhile, the observations keep supporting the science. Presumably, Nature itself is in the scam, right? LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting Ossqss:


We have no clue at this point. Which is my point!

Do some regression testing to see for yourself :)

out>

No clue at all? There are no constraints on how much warming or cooling clouds have caused in the current warming? I mean, is it possible physically that without clouds we would be 300C warmer or 600C cooler than present?

I find that hard to believe.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Cloud formation is indeed a problem for the models at this point. No model is perfect --and that doesn't just apply to climate science, as I'm sure you know. So pointing out something that is a problem is legitimate.

However, what isn't legitimate is any implication that because we can't model everything that means we can't model anything. Climate models work pretty well --some better than others, of course.

Just for the hell of it, tell me, just how much of the current warming do you think is due to cloud formation? Are clouds a positive feedback, a negative feedback, or neutral climatically? On what science do you base your answer?


We have no clue at this point. Which is my point!

Do some regression testing to see for yourself :)

out>
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting Ossqss:


Tell me how the climate models handle cloud formation and or even an easier answer, , , , how they have done in review with respect to observations?

Yup, pitiful on any scale.

That is what you all push down our throats every day and it does not carry any verifiable legitimacy.

Check it before you sink in the quicksand.

L8R >.>>>>>>



Cloud formation is indeed a problem for the models at this point. No model is perfect --and that doesn't just apply to climate science, as I'm sure you know. So pointing out something that is a problem is legitimate.

However, what isn't legitimate is any implication that because we can't model everything that means we can't model anything. Climate models work pretty well --some better than others, of course.

Just for the hell of it, tell me, just how much of the current warming do you think is due to cloud formation? Are clouds a positive feedback, a negative feedback, or neutral climatically? On what science do you base your answer?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Translation: Ya got nuttin'.

Noted.


Tell me how the climate models handle cloud formation and or even an easier answer, , , , how they have done in review with respect to observations?

Yup, pitiful on any scale.

That is what you all push down our throats every day and it does not carry any verifiable legitimacy.

Check it before you sink in the quicksand.

L8R >.>>>>>>


Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting JBastardi:


Science? These emails demonstrate fabrications, exclusions, and outright lying by these so-called "scientists." Perhaps you should read them before you speak. These people are the leaders of the field. Most everything we assume about climate "science" is garnered from them. They are a bunch of frauds bent on pushing ideology.

So much FUD! Should we call you "Elmer?" LOL

Howsa about you produce some actual evidence of:

-fabrications
-exclusions
-outright lying?

Got anything beside assertion?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


LOL, segmenting the impacts of indoctrination is a good thing for all to see. The infection becomes obvious..........




Translation: Ya got nuttin'.

Noted.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
One of the emails has Phil Jones stating the the US Dept. of Energy is complicit in hiding temperature station data.


Evidence? No offense, but I'm not content to take your word for it.

Emissions have increased six percent in this year alone which is greater than any time in the past. Temperatures have been stagnant. If GHGs were directly correlated with temperature increase, don't you think we would have seen a pronounced increase? How do you explain the discrepancy? I'm sure you'll find a way.

Math is the way. You work out how much temperatures "should have risen" and get back to me. If you can't do that, then you have no basis for forming any opinion.

If you do manage to work through the math, then we can talk about natural variability on a yearly time scale. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Feel free to let me know the minute something relevant appears in any of these emails. (Difficulty: facts and quotes should be fully in context)

Further note that the following aren't relevant:
- one or more climatologists are mean
- one of more climatologists disparage denialists
- one or more climatologists don't want to cooperate with harassing FOIA requests (since virtually all data was online even prior to Slimategate I)
- one or more climatologists had gas (unless it was the direct result of fossil fuel consumption)
- one or more climatologists confess to murder (though such confessions should be reported to the police, they have no bearing on the science)

Happy hunting!


LOL, segmenting the impacts of indoctrination is a good thing for all to see. The infection becomes obvious..........



It is no longer tolerable, period.

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting Birthmark:

Feel free to let me know the minute something relevant appears in any of these emails. (Difficulty: facts and quotes should be fully in context)

Further note that the following aren't relevant:
- one or more climatologists are mean
- one of more climatologists disparage denialists
- one or more climatologists don't want to cooperate with harassing FOIA requests (since virtually all data was online even prior to Slimategate I)
- one or more climatologists had gas (unless it was the direct result of fossil fuel consumption)
- one or more climatologists confess to murder (though such confessions should be reported to the police, they have no bearing on the science)

Happy hunting!


Science? These emails demonstrate fabrications, exclusions, and outright lying by these so-called "scientists." Perhaps you should read them before you speak. These people are the leaders of the field. Most everything we assume about climate "science" is garnered from them. They are a bunch of frauds bent on pushing ideology.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting Ossqss:


Perhaps some should pay attention to that of which they provide over the internet.

Scary eh?

Simply sends a message to incorporate policy that dictates an old saying......

If you always tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said.

The science is explaining shortfalls.

I feel a Dr. Smith moment, but will not post it.

How long do you think it will take to crack the password on the rest?

Fun for the holidays.






Feel free to let me know the minute something relevant appears in any of these emails. (Difficulty: facts and quotes should be fully in context)

Further note that the following aren't relevant:
- one or more climatologists are mean
- one of more climatologists disparage denialists
- one or more climatologists don't want to cooperate with harassing FOIA requests (since virtually all data was online even prior to Slimategate I)
- one or more climatologists had gas (unless it was the direct result of fossil fuel consumption)
- one or more climatologists confess to murder (though such confessions should be reported to the police, they have no bearing on the science)

Happy hunting!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:


Snort! LOL!

Keep trying. I'm sure there will be some out of context quote that can be used to climate scientists look bad to some.

However, I fail to see how such antics stop the GHG properties of CO2? Little help?


One of the emails has Phil Jones stating the the US Dept. of Energy is complicit in hiding temperature station data. That, in itself, is unethical and probably illegal. They work for us.

Emissions have increased six percent in this year alone which is greater than any time in the past. Temperatures have been stagnant. If GHGs were directly correlated with temperature increase, don't you think we would have seen a pronounced increase? How do you explain the discrepancy? I'm sure you'll find a way.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting Birthmark:


Snort! LOL!

Keep trying. I'm sure there will be some out of context quote that can be used to climate scientists look bad to some.

However, I fail to see how such antics stop the GHG properties of CO2? Little help?


Perhaps some should pay attention to that of which they provide over the internet.

Scary eh?

Simply sends a message to incorporate policy that dictates an old saying......

If you always tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said.

The science is explaining shortfalls.

I feel a Dr. Smith moment, but will not post it.

How long do you think it will take to crack the password on the rest?

Fun for the holidays.



Well, maybe not





Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting JBastardi:
Climategate 2.0! Someone released more UEA email. 5000 of them. They are better than the first batch. Haven't had much time to read many of them yet, but some of them demonstrate that the warmists are more interested in outcome than science. Link


Snort! LOL!

Keep trying. I'm sure there will be some out of context quote that can be used to climate scientists look bad to some.

However, I fail to see how such antics stop the GHG properties of CO2? Little help?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I've also read that the individual, "FOIA," has over 200k more emails ready to be released. All he has to do is provide the password. The speculation is that he is blackmailing the climategaters into resigning or he will release the email.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting JBastardi:
Take a gander at some of these emails. You can't explain away that deception:

Link





LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Take a gander at some of these emails. You can't explain away that deception:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Tunnels prevent this!

Link


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Quoting JBastardi:
Climategate 2.0! Someone released more UEA email. 5000 of them. They are better than the first batch. Haven't had much time to read many of them yet, but some of them demonstrate that the warmists are more interested in outcome than science. Link


Yes if outcome = cooler planet then you are correct.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
Climategate 2.0! Someone released more UEA email. 5000 of them. They are better than the first batch. Haven't had much time to read many of them yet, but some of them demonstrate that the warmists are more interested in outcome than science. Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403

Viewing: 59 - 9

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

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
54 °F
Scattered Clouds