Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)
Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)
Back in November I wrote an entry on whether or not we could use the prediction that we would have La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 to anticipate, for example, whether or not there would be a another historic flood in the Upper Missouri River. A little personal micro history: During August of 2011, I was at a meeting of a panel which is writing a report on climate modeling. That meeting included climate-savvy water managers talking about the information from climate models they might find usable. During the meeting on the news, there was the story that seasonal forecasts predicted there would La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 ( Climate Prediction Center Monthly Outlook). I asked people at the meeting how they would use this information in their planning for 2012. To be fair, this question was out of the blue, but I had this idea that this seasonal prediction was definitive information when compared with the information that comes from century-long projections from climate models. The century long climate predictions might provide information that some characteristics of El Nino and La Nina will change. With adequate analysis of this information, interpretation of the information, and then guidance or translation of this information, then informed decisions about, for example, reservoir design might be made. But I was curious, given a forecast for a particular season, what would you do?
I have introduced a lot of terms in that paragraph. I will define some of them.
First for those who need information on El Nino and La Nina, these are names given to two parts of an oscillation observed in the tropical Pacific Ocean. In the El Nino phase, the eastern Pacific, off of Peru for instance, is warm. La Nina is the opposite, the eastern tropical Pacific is cold. This is our best known example of behavior where the atmosphere and ocean behave in concert together – and we have proven that we can predict it. (NOAA LaNina Page, El Nino @ Wikipedia) We have known for some time that these changes in the Pacific cause or influence preferential weather patterns in other parts of the world. This excites people about being able to do seasonal prediction. In this case there is some oceanic forcing of the weather – or perhaps, when the ocean is considered part of the weather prediction problem, there is information about what the weather might be like for a particular season in a particular place. Concretely, for example, when there is an El Nino, people who worry about floods in California go on high alert (for example).
Translation and guidance - There is a lot of information that comes out of a weather and climate model. All practitioners of modeling know that you can’t simply read off the temperature in Des Moines 9 months from now, much less 90 years in advance. But there is the real possibility that there is usable information in the models if 1) we understand the mechanisms that are responsible for, say, stream flow in the Iowa River, and 2) we have an understanding of the ability or inability of the model to represent those mechanisms. That is, if we can find the right knowledge, often a matter of finding the right people, then we can put together this knowledge in a way that is usable. This is what I mean by translation. It is the translation of knowledge from one discipline expert to another in a way that makes that knowledge usable. That is, to provide guidance. (Lemos and Rood on Useful and Usable)
OK – going down that path I introduced another term that I think demands more explanation. Mechanisms – when we look at a specific event like the 2011 Missouri River flood, we look for what factors come together to cause the flood. In the article that was referenced in the November blog, it was pointed out that there was an extraordinary snow cover on the Great Plains, and then a lot of rain on that snow, that caused melting, and collectively the accumulation of a lot of water that had to go downstream. So in this case, by mechanisms I mean what caused the event to happen. Perhaps the most important mechanisms that a climate model must represent to be usable for regional problems are those mechanisms that provide water to that region.
I am never quite sure if my style of writing is clarifying or just more confusing, but I get enough positive feedback that I think I clarify points for some – so I hope that the way I laid out this basic information makes sense. One more term - What I want to do is to translate information from observational studies and model predictions and make that information usable by someone. From my teaching the last 7 years, I have concluded that it is this translation of information that is the most essential missing ingredient in the usability of climate knowledge. There is a LOT of information and knowledge, but it is not easy to use.
So in this entry, I want to start the process of information translation. I warn in advance that this is a hazardous path. I am going to look at a few papers, in sub-disciplines of weather and climate, in which I am not expert. Hence, I am likely to make some mistakes, and I am hoping that doing this in public, motivates corrections of those mistakes. I take off down this path, because another thing I have discovered in the past seven years is that people who are not consummate experts in a subject are analyzing information and solving problems all over the world. And, I presume to imagine that I am more expert than most, and I presume to believe people when they tell me that I am reasonably good at translating information across discipline interfaces.
So I all start the analysis– and this is not irrelevant. I flew over a swath of the Great Plains last week, and I was struck by the lack of snow. I read Jeff Master’s blog on the extreme state of the Arctic Oscillation. At the beginning of every problem I collect information. This information inventory process is essential. With a little luck, you will find information that when all brought together can be synthesized into a solution strategy or at least contribute to informed decision making. In fact, I have tried to structure a template to problem solving for a project I am involved in, and it is here at glisaclimate.org. (What’s a GLISA?) I collected together a bunch of references that I thought might inform my translation. What, I am going to do now is extract the information from some of these references.
The first paper I am going to look at is by Bunkers et al. from the Journal of Climate in 1996. I chose this paper for a couple of reasons. First, a lot has been written that 2011 Missouri River flood had a La Nina influence. And, thinking about floods, one usually thinks about did it rain a lot? This paper is something of a sanity check, do we see changes in the rain in the Missouri River basin due to La Nina?
Bunkers et al. paper focuses on the “Northern Plains,” which is approximately North and South Dakota. The Missouri River and the Red River of the North are important drainages for these states, and they were in historic flood in 2011. The authors look at data as far back as the late 1800s. That is about as long as any record that we have in the United States. The short story of their findings is that they find that during El Nino, there is significantly enhanced precipitation in the months April through October that follow the onset of the El Nino. For the La Nina phase they find significantly less precipitation for the months May through August following the onset of La Nina. However, we cannot stop with the conclusion, El Nino = wet, La Nina = dry. El Nino and La Nina are often viewed as 2 year long events, and in the second year following the onset of El Nino it is usually a bit wetter than in years with neither an El Nino or a La Nina, but during April and May of that second year it is drier than average. The second year following the onset of the La Nina, it is in general dry. There is also temperature information in the paper, but I am going to keep my focus on precipitation for now.
Let’s recall the problem we are trying to address; namely, 2011 was a La Nina year with a huge flood on the Missouri River, and another La Nina is predicted for 2012, will we have a similar flood? One of the first things it makes sense to look at is the precipitation in the Missouri River basin. This paper looks at part of the Missouri River basin, and area where there were floods, and at least as far as La Nina is concerned we would expect less, not more, spring time precipitation. This seems contradictory to our 2011 experience.
Returning to the Bunker’s et al. paper, there are years when the relation described above did not hold. Bunker’s et al. extract seemingly robust signals, but there are exceptions to the rule. The exception to the rule requires us to consider the mechanisms that might be in play for a given year. We arrive therefore, at a problem of tailoring the information for a particular application. The relation that Bunkers et al. derived between El Nino / La Nina and precipitation in North and South Dakota is quite strong. So if you look at a climate model and it tells you that there will be more or less intense El Nino and La Nina cycles a century from now, the long-term water planner for Fargo might be able to anticipate the water system needed for her grand children. The statistical information might be enough – might, it requires more thought. For a particular season, however, we can’t use this information in isolation. It is just part of the portfolio.
So we have a sanity check that tells us that, indeed, there is documented variability of precipitation in the Missouri River basin, correlated with La Nina. But, at first blush, the La Nina variability in this region is towards drier conditions. We also, know, that what determines a flood is far more complex than “it rains a lot.” So while looking at the paper above gives us some good information, it motivates me to step back and think about all of the pieces – or mechanisms – that might work in concert to produce a flood. And it motivates me to seek whether or not such events are happenstance, or whether we can use our knowledge to anticipate, better, such extreme events. This series of blogs will go on for a while.
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.”
Pilot Project on La Nina and the Missouri River Basin.
Link to webinars.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
Link
I'll ignore your blatantly racist "welfare queen" remark, as we've come to expect that sort of knuckle-dragging garbage from certain people. Instead, I'll respond to your dragging Solyndra* and Evergreen back into the conversation: even the failure of every single alternative energy company that ever received a dime in federal loans (or loan guarantees) wouldn't change for one second the truth that A) alternative energies are increasingly competitive, and B) we absolutely must remove our hungry mouths from Big Oils, er, udders.
The whole every-man-for-himself thing doesn't really work anyway. It never has. Governments help pay for expensive and extensive R&D into aviation, spaceflight, weaponry, health, etc. And for that we can all be thankful.
* - One can see why some might still be prattling on about Solyndra; the jolly old Koch brothers have spent a whopping $6,000,000 trying their best to keep it in front of certain parts of the electorate.
Silly denialists...
I suppose the folks who run that website hope--or know--that their handful of readers is gullible enough to not realize that the editorial comment--"Translation: increased CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf."--is absolutely not a part of the abstract. But a far larger and more important note, of course, is this: the article is talking about snowmelt, which all but the most gullible realize isn't the same as icemelt.
Do you?
Link
"I guess that's weather not climate also" - You're getting smarter, J.
1) You put out one piece of denialist pablum after another. 2) Folks take the time to show you where your sources are wrong. 3) Without so much as a word of thanks or rebuttal, you immediately move on to yet another piece of denialist pablum.
You clearly aren't worth the effort. But I guess that makes me the fool for responding, huh?
And the 646 high temperature records tied or bested last week in the Continental US verses the 24 low temperature records tied or bested is also weather.
Link
Weather does average to climate however.
Pablum? Fool? I suppose defending pseudo-science requires much effort.
"I suppose defending pseudo-science requires much effort." - I do not know. How much effort do you put into it?
Nothing at all.
Modesty. What an excellent quality.
You certainly have blinders on. Are you still sniveling from last night? My point was that I don't have to defend science contradicting so-called "global warming." The science defends itself.
Amazing that you would say that the science defends itself. I guess you have finally realized that all of your attacks on the science have been in vain then?
Touche'?
Not pseudo-science as professed by Hansen et al.
Link
Oh, shocker. What, did you think he was gonna give up his lucrative denialist career by confessing? No, he was caught red-handed committing more dishonest anti-science--this time by omission--so he ran to little Anthony over at WUWT for comfort and consolation and a chance to plead his case.
Two truths: 1) The planet is warming, in large part due to our burning of fossil fuels. 2) Michaels is manipulative and dishonest.
You must be dreaming. Without data manipulation the planet is getting cooler. How can you really make an argument when there is no agreement on actual data? As a diversion, I wonder how long before supposed AGW will be blamed for this "tragedy":
Link
Nice job cleaning up the cut and paste answer from another blog site reference page after you made some minor modifications. BTW, you need to finish your cleaning for you left an artifact of such. Let me highlight it for you so you can take credit for others work again. How funny !
Now you deny the decade+ long stagnation of your rapid temperature rise also. LOL
I also find it interesting that the PDO one of the biggest climate cycles was found not be any climate or weather scientist but by a Salmon researcher in I believe 1996, if you don't know all the pieces in the puzzle I find it hard to believe you can put all the pieces together. If you have not seen all these cycles fully from cycle to cycle and how they effect or interact with each other you are making at best a guess.
I used the story from the other night to make a point I believe you missed. The point being that any evidence against said theory was met with ridicule and trying to discredit the scientist making said claims. These actions were threatened with black balling and license revocation. Lets be frank the only thing any of us really have is our reputation in the field we are in without that you are nothing. The doctors like these scientists do not want their reputations sullied and will do anything to stop that from happening. If it can happen in the medical field what makes you think it can not happen in this case. What young or older scientist would want to go against this juggernaut when they know their career could be over. Power is never given up easily but rather most times it has to be taken.
BTW a good example of the most educated in world and not being the smartest would be the Deep Horizon blowout the problem was not solved by any engineer with years of education but by a regular PLUMBER who I am sure some here would look down on for not being the most educated. As I have always said being the most educated does not mean your the smartest person in the room.
Oh and your first answer was right you have felt those things but never actually touched them. The second one was a little trickier gravity does not kill eletromagnetism does.
You waste your energy attempting to convert the brainwashed Gaia worshipers. Their fixation with CO2 is cultish. I believe they are paid Soros employees.
Wow, nice job of calling out my paste job, Dick Tracy! Of course, it would have been even more amazing had I not signaled that I pasted the passage by encasing it in quote and italicizing it. But it's good to see your progress, slow that it might be. So keep at it!
Now, do you have anything profound to say in response to what I wrote? Or was that ad hominem pretty much all you had?
Tell me does the gerbil in your head ever get off of his wheel?
LOL, how many did you correct that went beyond the quote?
I find your responses quite humorous. You deny that of which has already been admitted. Perhaps you have authored a paper on said subject?
So tell us what credentials do you espouse to justify your educated view?
Radicals are difficult to hire, but you know that already.
This blog was a bit of fun, but no longer is such. Too bad....
Quote: #45 "Ossqss, who I am I?"
Binary code :)
You are a most able debater, nymore. This is why I enjoy our conversations. We can both learn and neither of us believes we possess all of the answers. We toss ideas at each and listen to the feedback. Thank you!
Your first paragraph leads me to think that you are too fixated on model accuracy. Models almost always fail and this is why they need to be tweaked as new data is gained. Models, at best, can show probabilities based upon the known data. These probabilities are expressed in percentages as to how much confidence is placed in that probability. Any time that a model does not reflect the observations then the model programers know they are missing some data. You seem to be upset that they had to go looking for the missing heat that the models showed a probability of being there. I am more upset that they actually found the missing heat. I would have preferred that the model was wrong in this probability. ... You need to remember that models do not show absolutes. Models show probabilities expressed in percentages. Also a failure of a model is not a failure of a theory. Observations, not models, will confirm or disprove the theory.
Your second paragraph makes some good points. Should we know all that is to be known about any single subject then there would not need to be a theory based on the subject. No testing would be required. Science tests theory based on what the theory states should be observed when tested. Sir Isacc Newton's Theory of Gravity was based on his observations. He had to explain what he was seeing and introduced his theory with very little knowledge as to how it all worked. Albert Einstein expanded Newton's theory even further to better explain what is being observed. Even with Einstein tweaking Newton's theory, Isacc's main theory of gravity is still holds today. Although Einstein's theory explains very well what is observed with very large objects, it starts to fall apart with very small objects. Still, the theory is a sound theory, it just does not explain everything that is observed at the very small level.
I may have missed your point that you bring up in your third paragraph. You are concerned with doctors threatening other doctors in order to keep their medical opinions valid. Well their opinions are either valid or they are not. Observations will determine the validity of the opinion. Now, for an experiment, let us test the doctors's theory that shaken baby syndrome is a myth. All we need are the laws of motion, a child's wagon and a small rubber ball. Remember, an object at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon by an external force. An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an external force. Let us test this theory. Place the rubber ball into a the child's wagon. While the wagon remains at rest, so does the ball. What happens to the ball when you start moving the wagon? The ball starts moving but, it does not instantly do so. Friction starts the ball moving with the wagon. Now place the ball at the front of the wagon. With both the ball and wagon at rest, jerk the wagon forward as fast as you can. What happens to the ball? For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. The ball gets slammed into the back of the wagon. Now start jerking the wagon back and forth. What happens to the ball? OK, the human brain, inside the human skull, does not have the freedom of movement that a ball inside a wagon does. The brain, however, is not attached to the skull. The brain "floats", if you will, inside the skull. Now, picture a football player violently shaking a child. What do you imagine happens to the brain of the child? The doctors's opinions will either stand or fall based upon the observations no matter if the other doctors threaten them for their opinions. The same is true for scientist. Opposing theories will either stand or fall based upon the observations, no matter any threats that the scientists cast towards towards each other. The more correct theory will prevail. What happens to the opposing theory? It is either invalidated or it is tweaked to more accurately reflect the observations.
Your fourth paragraph is an interesting one. Smart people will have the less educated and less smart to ask them questions concerning their ideas. Why? They are obviously smarter than the ones asking the questions. The reason is the less learned are more apt to ask the "stupid" questions that they themselves would not think of asking. There have been many, "I did not think of that" moments because of this. No matter how much you know, you can always learn from the less knowledgeable, if you are willing to listen. ... Perhaps this why everyone asks me questions? hmmmmmm
Gravity sucks! I would rather be killed by the electromagnetism! ;-)
LOL! I will accept that as an answer, as long as it not a zero value. I hate those divide by zero errors! ;-)
Well,certainly entertainment has a value as well. Thank you, nymore.
I took it in a good way. No problems here. Stay safe and take care. Let me know when you get a chance to read it all. Tomorrow is another day and this one is getting short.
--Our nation's capital is at risk from warming-induced sea-level rise Global warming-related sea level rise constitutes a major threat to the nation’s capital, with the potential to inundate national monuments, museums, military bases, and parts of the Metro Rail system during the next several decades and beyond.
--China (as all other nations) faces "grim" risks from climate change. Global warming threatens China's march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods, says the government's latest assessment of climate change, projecting big shifts in how the nation feeds itself.
--Oceanic freshwater flux changes tend to amplify rather than suppress the global warming ...warm climate leads to an acceleration of [the] global water cycle which causes freshening in the high latitudes and salinification in the subtropics and midlatitudes.
Tropical ectotherms are heading for catastrophe even with modest predicted warming Although climate change models predict relatively modest increases in temperature in the tropics by the end of the century, recent analyses identify tropical ectotherms as the organisms most at risk from climate warming. Because metabolic rate in ectotherms increases exponentially with temperature, even a small rise in temperature poses a physiological threat to tropical ectotherms inhabiting an already hot environment.
January 18, 2012 - 3:20PM
Global warming threatens China's march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods, says the government's latest assessment of climate change, projecting big shifts in how the nation feeds itself.
The warnings are carried in the government's "Second National Assessment Report on Climate Change," which sums up advancing scientific knowledge about the consequences and costs of global warming for China - the world's second biggest economy and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution.
Global warming fed by greenhouse gases from industry, transport and shifting land-use poses a long-term threat to China's prosperity, health and food output, says the report. With China's economy likely to rival the United States' in size in coming decades, that will trigger wider consequences.
"China faces extremely grim ecological and environmental conditions under the impact of continued global warming and changes to China's regional environment," says the 710-page report, officially published late last year but released for public sale only recently.
Even so, China's rising emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels, will begin to fall off only after about 2030, with big falls only after mid-century, says the report.
Assuming no measures to counter global warming, grain output in the world's most populous nation could fall from 5 to 20 percent by 2050, depending on whether a "fertilisation effect" from more carbon dioxide in the air offsets losses, says the report.
But that possible fall can be held in check by improved crop choice and farming practices, as well as increased irrigation and fertiliser use.
China is the world's biggest consumer of cereals and has increasingly turned to foreign suppliers of corn and soy beans.
The report was written by teams of scientists supervised by government officials, and follows up on a first assessment released in 2007. It does not set policy, but offers a basis of evidence and forecasts that will shape policy.
Water, either too much or too little, lies at the heart of how that warming could trip up China's budding prosperity.
Threat to food security
"Climate change will lead to severe imbalances in China's water resources within each year and across the years. In most areas, precipitation will be increasingly concentrated in the summer and autumn rainy seasons, and floods and droughts will become increasingly frequent," says the report.
"Without effective measures in response, by the latter part of the 21st century, climate change could still constitute a threat to our country's food security," it says.
Under one scenario of how global warming will affect water availability, by 2050 eight of mainland China's 31 provinces and provincial-status cities could face severe water shortages - meaning less than 500 cubic metres per resident - and another 10 could face less dire chronic shortages.
In low-lying coastal regions, rising seas will press up against big cities and export zones that have stood at the forefront of China's industrialisation.
China's efforts to protect vulnerable coastal areas with embankments are inadequate, says the report, noting their vulnerability to typhoons and flood tides that global warming could intensify.
There are sure to be shifts in Chinese crop patterns as well, says the report. More rice and other crops will probably grow in the northeast, thanks to warmer weather and possibly more rain. In the northwest cotton-growing region of Xinjiang, shrinking water availability could lead to a "marked decline in agricultural crop productivity".
China, with 1.34 billion people, already emits a quarter of the world's CO2, with the United States the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter.
China's emissions, which grew 10 percent in 2010 according to BP, are likely to start falling only after 2030, the report says. It says China's emissions reduction efforts up to 2020 will cost 10 trillion yuan ($1.5 trillion), including 5 trillion yuan for energy-saving technology and new and renewable energy.
Reuters
That is what is occurring here, on the internet, Globally.
You must look at it.
It is so.
We are connected as never before and it is we who now can change the World for better.
That what we can do, being right, is what we should do.
1) The term "welfare queen" is a pejorative term describing "...a low-income woman, usually of African-American ancestry, who is accused of having children as a way of increasing her welfare payments." But you know that; Ronny Raygun popularized it.
On a larger note, why not discontinue using derogatory terms such as "limp-wristed" and "welfare queen" altogether? They serve no purpose other than to make the user seem dumb and mean and bigoted.
2) You've included more false equivalance with the subsidies thing. That is, not all government aide os the same. Not even close. The government guaranteeing a loan for a promising alternative energy technology is no where near the same as that same government giving dozens as times as much money to the most profitable, highest-polluting corporations in the most profitable, highest-polluting industry the world has ever seen. The former is necessary to drive required technical change; the latter is to pay for more Cayman golf outings for Big Energy fat cats.
3) For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with the image you posted. Man and chimps evolved from a common ancestor; man learned to walk fully upright; man learned to use tools, starting with the rudimentary (a stick) and working up to the complex (a jackhammer); and, finally, man is now using hgih technology to serve his needs. So I'm not sure why you label it "de-evolution"; that would be a term better applied to, say, internet trolls with multiple handles. (You know what I mean.*) So, no, I didn't flag your comment for the image; if I did flag the comment containing it, it was for your habit of including profanity or some such.
* - Question mark intentionally omitted.
Scientists have long known that the overwhelming majority of human-caused warming was expected to go into the oceans so I'm a little bit curious, which source has made you think otherwise?
Dr. Steven R. Hare - the Salmon researcher - didn’t found the PDO. The pattern was already known by other scientists, but it was 1996 it got the name PDO.
It was a suggestion from Dr Hare who was a co-author to a reasearch about salmon production and climate pattern. Lead author was Professor Nate Mantua.
Abstract from the report ”A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production”,
”Our results add support to those of previous studies suggesting that the climatic regime shift of the late 1970’s is not unique in the century-long instrumental climate record, nor in the record of North Pacific salmon production. In fact, we find that signatures of a recurring pattern of interdecadal climate variability are widespread and detectable in a variety of Pacific basin climate and ecological systems. This climate pattern--hereafter referred to as the Pacific (inter) Decadal Oscillation, or PDO (following coauthor S.R.H.’s suggestion)--is a pan-Pacific phenomenon that also includes interdecadal climate variability in the tropical Pacific.”
More research you will find here
And ecosystem-based science is a branch of climate science.
Example I have a model that says my airplane will fly and the plane keeps crashing. I tell you models are not perfect. The next time my plane flies but then the wind starts blowing and the plane crashes. Once again I tell you the same thing. Question on the next flight are you going to fly with me or are you going to have some doubts about me and the model?
The point of the doctor was he and his panel did not even want the opinion of others to see the light of day. I agree the brain does basically float but what the bio mechanical study showed was even some of the strongest people could only generate 16 or 17 percent of the force required to break these blood vessels, if the child's head struck something that generated 50 times the force of just shaking or way more than enough. Though no outward injuries were noticed such as bruises, neck or soft tissue damage. You could see in his eyes he knew the original theory was wrong and still failed to admit it
Hi, nymore.
You never know what a new model is going to show until you run the model. Should someone suggest that they know what a new model will show before it is ran is making an assumption they should not be making. Now, if the model run does not show what the observations show, then the model needs to be adjusted. This is done by trying to figure what the model missed in its run and try to find that data that incorporates the missing data into the model. ... Xandra has already explained this but, let us go with what you said about the missing heat that the climate model said should be there. The heat was there, just in the oceans. The model did not miss anything. ...... Never be a test pilot for a "model only" run of the plane.
The shaken baby syndrome has been confirmed through observations. No matter what tests any doctors do on any test dummies, real observations on real babies confirm that the shaken baby syndrome is real and it kills. Does this mean that anytime a baby gets shaken that it will suffer brain damage or death? No, but real life observations have shown that this is very possible to be the outcome.
This is rudimentary but, explains what happens fairly well.
I agree the climate models will never be perfect. I just think it is a little premature to use something that says what temps will be 30, 50 or 100 years from now, when you know they have such a large error rate.
The SBS link you provided is good but subscribes to what they believe the theory is. They know the force it takes to tear these vessels in healthy people (babies) and the forces generated by shaking alone are not sufficient. The babies like I said earlier showed no signs of trauma to the neck, soft tissue, bruising or anything else. Although the same type of injuries are seen in people with sleep apnea and other conditions where a lack of oxygen to the brain exist. They had a set of twins on the show one died and it was said to be SBS and one of the parents went to jail, the other baby was taken away and still kept showing signs of SBS although this whole time it was in state control. I am not saying it can never happen but most of these cases seem not to hold up.
Exactly! The idea is to know all of the workings of the climate that we can learn. A lot of this is already known though Chemistry and The Laws of Physics. Newton's Laws of Motion are known. We know that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. We know that certain gases will trap heat in our atmosphere and some of these gases are more efficient at doing this than are other gases. What we do not know is, everything there is to know about our climate. So, even a Salmon fisherman can make a contribution towards our knowledge of climate. Even an ice core can expand our knowledge on what conditions existed in the past that drove the climate. ... We also know the Laws of Thermodynamics and this is why Xandra knows that the oceans are the heat sinks and not the atmosphere. This is why when the Arctic Ocean loses it ice covering that more heat will be absorbed than is when the water has an ice covering. (Dark vs light colors)
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Right is correct~! :)
Models have errors and this is why models are not used to show absolutes. Models are used to show probabilities. Some models have shown large errors and some have been rather accurate. Models are a tool and tools get refined as needed.
Is every suspected case of SBS actually due to shaking? I agree, probably not. There are other medical conditions, as you have pointed out, that will show the same symptoms as SBS. An autopsy and some biopsies should be able to determine if existing medical conditions were the result of death or if it was actually SBS. We still need to rely on the person performing the autopsy and biopsies and their proficiency and efficiency to perform these tasks. Should the case go to court, then we have to rely on the judicial system to get it right. We all know innocent people have been imprisoned, and even put to death, for crimes they did not commit. As fallible as it may be, it is the best we have and usually works quite well.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index