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
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.
A person may not be a climate scientist but, this does not mean their observations cannot contribute to the science. That is one of the beauties of it all. ... A person may not be an astronomer but, upon their first gaze through a telescope, sees an object that has not been observed before. They can even have this new object named after them. I think that is pretty cool!
Yes, a salmon researcher is not a climate scientist and neither am I. This does not mean that I cannot make an observation that would contribute to the science. I still would not be a climate scientist but, I may get honorable mention. ;-) The study of the climate is as broad as it needs to be to further the study.
BTW as I said earlier bio mechanical engineers have tested the theory and it does not hold up to their studies either. If a 325 pound lineman can not generate the forces needed I doubt you or I or your wife could generate them
Edited: One more thing the doctors claimed for some of this damage they have seen you would need to shake a baby for 5 minutes. If you want to test this theory go grab a 15 pound weight and shake it violently for 5 minutes, I bet you don't make it past 30 seconds
In this case, the defense team failed in their job by not bringing in the opposing opinions of the other doctors. The jury would have to decide which opinion to believe. Sad, but true. The squabbling, and even threats, between the doctors over their opposing opinions is really a moot point, once it is the jurors' hands. ... The doctors that would not accept the findings of the pathologists simply because it went against their theory will probably be scrutinized more in the future.
... When you are talking about "their theories" are you talking the theory of SBS or that SBS was the cause of death? Maybe this is what I am missing in what you are saying.
Added - Dude! Never underestimate my ability to shake 16 pounds for 5 minutes. ;-) I know I can shake my fat head for at least that long. LOL
Agreed.
OK, I got it. The theory that SBS was the cause of death.
That is one problem with the judicial system and that is the "expert" testimony is usually given more weight by jurors. Much as an eye witness will be given more weight over any other evidence. Still, it the best system we have and we have to go with it.
That is rather unfair that your edit took away using my head as the weight. ;-) Man! Now I am forced to agree with you! sigh LOL
I am going to call it a night, nymore. Once again, sir, it has been a pleasure. May we continue later?
Yikes. And here's some more artwork. The December anomaly is 14ppb higher than it was in 2010, meaning methane is up around 1854ppb:
And some of you still think this is all just part of a "natural" cycle? Really?
Count out $ 1 Trillion dollars in $1000 bills if you count 1 per second and take no sleep, food, or bathroom breaks.
Think about that when you read about our government debt.
Do you have any guess as to the percentage of the CH4 in your artwork (#111) that is now out-gassing naturally from Arctic soils, lakes, and the shallow Arctic Ocean bottom in the warming climate?
Do you have a handle on any research that might give a time frame as to when the natural CH4 release could reach such a volume that it would negate any CO2 reduction we could realistically implement?
Thanks in advance and for all you do.
Percentage-wise, the amount of methane from tropical sources is far larger than the amount from high-latitude sources. And there's very little chance of a runaway methane catastrophe due to a sudden huge release of high-latitude CH4 into the atmosphere. But then again, every little bit hurts.
As far as when we might reach the point that CO2 mitigation efforts would be fruitless due to the release of long-sequestered CH4, I don't think I've ever heard it broken down quite that way. I have seen various scientific speculations that talk of "tipping points" based on certain global temperatures or CO2 benchmarks, the idea being, of course, that once a tipping point is reached, there's not much we can do about it that is either technically feasible or financially viable. For instance, there are many calls to keep CO2 to under 350 ppm, a number we passed some years ago; there are other calls to hold temperatures to less than they are now, and so on.
I know that not so many years ago, climate scientists thought/hoped such tipping points would be decades into the future, but an increasing number believe they may lie just a few years ahead--if we haven't passed them already. :-\
The good news about methane is that, while it's far more potent a GhG than CO2, it doesn't hang around nearly as long--just a few years, in fact. The bad news is, however, that methane is converted to CO2 over time, and while that CO2 may not be as powerful as CH4, it will be "hanging around" for many years and decades to come.
I guess the bottom line is this: I didn't embed those graphs to indicate that methane would destroy us; I just wanted to show the incredible spike going on as I write this. While we need to keep a close eye on sequestered methane because of what it has the potential to do, lessening (then removing) anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is far and away the more important goal.
+1000
He is one of the most vilified men in the highly vilified field of climate science, yet Professor Michael Mann is surprisingly jolly. Despite being the focus of a brutal campaign orchestrated by the fossil-fuel industry and senior politicians within the US Republican Party, Mann's cheery stoicism is positively infectious.
"I've been the focus for attack by those who deny the reality of climate change for so long that it almost seems like forever," the professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University says. "I'm a reluctant public figure, but I have embraced the opportunity to communicate the science."
Mann became a chief target of the climate change contrarians for being the outspoken author of an iconic graph of global warming science known as the "hockey stick" – the most politicised graph in science, according to the journal Nature.It was the hockey stick that generated much of the opprobrium heaped upon climate scientists as a result of the "climategate" emails stolen from the University of East Anglia and leaked on to the internet two years ago. Indeed, many of the leaked emails were copies of correspondence between the UEA team in the UK and Mann and his colleagues in the US.
Mann believes the theft of the emails was not the work of a random hacker, but part of a sophisticated campaign. "It was a very successful, well-planned smear campaign intended ... to go directly at the trust the public had in scientists," he insists. "Even though they haven't solved the crime of who actually broke in, the entire apparatus for propelling this manufactured scandal on to the world stage was completely funded by the fossil-fuel front groups."
The hockey stick graph appeared to demonstrate how world temperatures had remained fairly steady for several hundred years before shooting up at the end of the 20th century, just like the straight blade jutting out from the shaft of an ice-hockey stick (the analogy doesn't quite work with a curved field hockey stick).
The original study was published in Nature in 1998. Within five years, Mann had become the focus of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the entire field of climate science by rubbishing the hockey stick – a term coined by a colleague rather than Mann himself. Republican Senator Jim Inhofe picked up the hockey stick to beat climate science, famously declaring in 2003 that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".
Mann became the target of Freedom of Information requests and was served with a subpoena by Republican Congressman Joe Barton demanding access to his correspondence. This was followed with a further subpoena from Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican Attorney General of Virginia, and yet more FOI requests from industry front-organisations, notably the American Tradition Institute.
Climate contrarians argued that Mann and his colleagues were concealing their research methods because they had something to hide. In reply, Mann insists that he has been as open as he can about data and methodology, but the aim of these requests has more to do with intimidation than openness. "What they are trying to do is to blur the distinction between private correspondence and scientific data and methods, which of course should be out there for other scientists to attempt to reproduce.
"I think it's intentional and malicious. It's intended to chill scientific discourse, to intimidate scientists working in areas that threaten these special interests," he says. "It's the icing on the cake if they can also get hold of any more private correspondence that they can mine and cherry pick. It's a win-win for them." Why an obscure graph published in a scientific journal should enrage so many people has been the subject of much internet conspiracy (or genuine scientific debate, depending on your point of view).
The original 1998 hockey stick study by Mann and his colleagues did in fact emphasise the tentative nature of estimating past temperatures before the invention of accurate thermometers.
Faced with a lack of formal temperature records before the 19th century, they attempted to use "proxy records", such as ice cores, tree rings and changes to coral reefs. Because of the nature of the approach, their graph showed large error bars, which were drawn even wider apart the further back in time they went.
Many, indeed most climate scientists have argued that the hockey-stick graph is not central to the case for the role of man-made pollution in exacerbating global warming, and the prospect of dangerous climate change. But it has nevertheless become the iconic smoking gun for both sides of the debate, showing either that we are living through unprecedented temperature increases, or that we are being duped by the biggest scientific hoax in history.
"When we first published our Nature article in 1998, we went back six centuries," Mann says. "A year later we published a follow-up going back 1,000 years with quite a few caveats. In fact, the caveats and uncertainties appeared in the title, and the abstract emphasised just how tentative this study was because of all the complicating issues.
"It's frustrating that to some extent all of that context had been lost and the result has been caricatured. Often the errors bars are stripped away, making it appear more definitive than it was ever intended."
But if the aim of the climate contrarians was to browbeat Mann and his ilk into submission, then it clearly hasn't worked. He is publishing his own book on the hockey stick controversy later this year and he shows every sign of continuing the battle. "Scientists have to recognise that they are in a street fight," he warns.
A popular target: What critics say...
"Dr Mann's hockey stick graph is based on suspect data. Others have shown that random numbers can be put into Mann's algorithm, and they always produce a hockey stick graph."
Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia's Attorney General who wants to prosecute Mann for fraud.
"How many more times does it need to be shredded and splintered before the eco zealots who gather to froth and foam at warmist sites like Real Climate accept that their flimsy theory has been falsified beyond credibility?"
James Dellingpole, Blogger on the hockey stick graph
A life in brief
Born 28 December 1965
Michael Mann: The climate scientist who the deniers have in their sights
He didn't court controversy, but is happy to make use of it
Education Undergraduate degrees in physics and applied maths, University of California at Berkeley, MS degree in physics, Yale University, PhD in geology & geophysics, Yale University.
Career In 1998 Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes compiled the "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures since 1400, based on analyses of ice cores, tree rings and other historical data, which showed a sharp rise in the late 20th century. A version of the graph in 1999 showing temperatures from 1000 featured prominently in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report in 2001.
Awards In 2007, Mann and hundreds of other scientists who contributed to the IPCC report were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Link
--Globally, 2011 was the 11th warmest year on record (held in check by La Nina).
--2011 was the second wettest year on record behind first-place 2010.
--2011 was the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average.
--Including 2011, all eleven years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011. (Another way to look at it: 2011 was the second coolest year of the 21st century, although tied with the second warmest year of the 20th century.)
--There were officially 14 billion-dollar climate disasters in 2011, with one more--the pre-Halloween Northeast snowstorm--still being analyzed.
I didn’t say that a salmon researcher is a climate scientist. You called him salmon researcher so I wrote salmon researcher after Dr. Hare's name so you would know that Dr. Hare is the man you said was a salmon researcher.
Dr Hare is a quantitative biologist and not a salmon researcher. For example, Dr. Hare is co-author to the report about Coastal and Marine Ecosystems & Global Climate Change
Professor Mantua is an atmospheric scientist and his research focuses on climate impacts on the water cycle, forests and aquatic ecosystems. His presentation about the impacts of climate change on water in the Northwest is worth seeing. 28 minutes.
Here’s little information about ecosystems and climate
His? Do you mean me? I'm not a 'he'. I’m a 'she'.
In reference to the tree fire, I'm not sure why you couldn't check this out yourself; the answer is as close as Google. But, no, the fire is still under investigation; there's been no further word that I've seen. If you hear otherwise, please feel free to share.
I see you are joining the "dump CO2, blame methane" crowd. It's obvious that CO2 can't be the culprit for nonexistent AGW.
Link
Did you miss the part where he said "I was noticing from Neapolitan's graphs of the RAPID and CONTINUED WARMING for the last decade." There isn't any!
Look RAPID to me. CONTINUED, too.
Link
There has been no warming for a decade or more. I see you had to go to the Sierra Activist (whoever they are) for your new CHERRY PICKED (unbiased I'm sure) graph as no other reputable organization agrees with you and you make fun of people who go to WUWT. Laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes. I now know for certain you do not understand the meaning of the word HYPOCRISY, you really should look it up.
You finished? Okay, good. Now, let me try this again: please decipher this sentence you wrote: "It seems from like 1984 to 1900 the level rose by nearly 100ppb in 5 years".
I see you got me, damn a typo is that the best you can do. Sadly it is
Sigh...
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
While average global temperature will still fluctuate from year to year, scientists focus on the decadal trend. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since the year 2000, as the Earth has experienced sustained higher temperatures than in any decade during the 20th century. As greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, scientists expect the long-term temperature increase to continue as well. (Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory, Robert Simmon)
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.
Never fear, below average global temps are here :)
That should not happen in an AGWT world. Let alone the Global Sea Ice data.......
Irony, the shackles of youth
You should really check out a few books on how climate works; I think you'd be absolutely amazed at what you might learn.
It's okay nymore. You didn't offended me.
FYI Joe Bastardi has tried that level but failed so the question is, will Bastardi ever learn? I don’t think so!
Bastardi… LOL!
Here is a presentation of the M3.2 Long Duration Event around Sunspot 1402 on Jan 19, 2012. Images + Movies by SDO, EVE and STEREO. This event produced a bright and partially Earth directed Coronal Mass Ejection.
www.solarham.com
OUCH!
It's changing the Atmosphere in a Terra Forming way.
In 20 years, there will be no Glaciers in Glacier National Park.
Food fer thought Globally.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators
Dont let me get too deep..
"These techniques, all of which could be implemented with current technology, provide practical benefits for food crops and human health that outweigh the costs in most cases, and simultaneously slow the rate of climate change"
#
# (-99.99 missing data; -1 no data for #daily means in month)
#
# decimal average interpolated trend #days
# date (season corr)
1958 3 1958.208 315.71 315.71 314.61 -1
2011 12 2011.958 391.80 391.80 392.66 31
Link
La Nina cooled the globe in 2011
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Updated 15h 59m ago
A strong La Niña lowered the world's average temperature last year to its second-coolest reading of the 2000s, federal scientists announced Thursday.
The release of the two primary climate data sets — from the National Climatic Data Center and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) — both show the Earth as much warmer than average, but not as warm as recent years have been.
How could it be with co2 at 393!!!!!
politics, not science.
RERCDB
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE COLD BAY AK
238 AM AKST TUE JAN 17 2012
...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE...
A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 4 DEG ABOVE ZERO WAS SET MONDAY, JANUARY
16TH, 2012 AT THE STATE AIRPORT IN COLD BAY. DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF
JANUARY 2 RECORD SNOWFALL EVENTS OCCURRED, AND A RECORD LOW MAXIMUM
TEMPERATURE WAS SET ON JANUARY 6TH WHERE THE HIGH STRUGGLED TO REACH
16 DEGREES ABOVE ZERO.
$$
DOLL JAN 12
NWS must be wrong, AGW is the the only factor, it must be getting hot.
Where is Mckibben, wow, silent. www.350.irrelevant
It can't based upon our current published and accepted physics. But if interested, this is quite the revealing read. It was worth the $5 in my opinion. Opened some eyes I am sure with 20 pages of reference material :)
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistake n-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. It surveys climate science research and writes a report about what it all means. This report is informally known as the Climate Bible.
Cited by governments around the world, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a United Nations report.
What most of us don't know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.
This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we've been told about the IPCC is true. "
Quote from below >
If you have not, you need to read it no matter your position.
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistake n-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q
It is about perceptive in the end.......
George Washington
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.
George Washington
Storm brings snow to Sahara Desert
BECHAR, Algeria - Snow fell Tuesday in the Sahara Desert in western Algeria.
A 24-hour cold spell brought snow and rain to the region.
Strong wind blew the snow across roads and buildings in the province of Bechar.
Meteorologists predicted a return of good weather Wednesday.
People who live in the region said the snow was good for the palm trees because it killed parasites.
Bechar is located in the northern Sahara, about 36 miles south of the Moroccan border.
(Copyright © 2012 NBC Universal, All Rights Reserved)
Wisdom with your weather report NEO>
Where is the brilliant Dr Hansen to explain this????
Oh, it just won't be in the news, how convenient!
I forgot, REGIONAL
Link
And here in VA, the robins have already arrived in the warmest winter I've known here since I arrived in 1983. So far we've not even gotten into the single digits and only under 20 twice. In my years here, I've seen winters when it was below freezing for a week and the lows were several degrees below zero. Two nights ago it was 56 on my backporch at 4 AM. That's a Louisiana winter, not VA.
Well, we have about two months left and maybe we'll get some cold yet. I sure hope so.
2011 was the second coolest year of this century so far--yet it tied the second warmest year of the previous century.
Did you get that? Let me repeat: because of the La Nina, 2011 was the second coolest year of the s1st century--yet it tied the second warmest year of last century.
When this century's "cold" years are hotter than last century's "hot" years, warming is going on. Period.
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index