Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:11 PM GMT on January 14, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

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

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: 139 - 89

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

This level may be easier for some of you to begin with.

FYI Joe Bastardi has tried that level but failed so the question is, will Bastardi ever learn? I don’t think so!

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting nymore:
Sorry if I offended you.

It's okay nymore. You didn't offended me.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
In case you missed this Link a public health researcher is concerned with two things not talked about, poverty and - "resource depletion and its accompanying dark shadow, climate change. We are running out of oil and depleting other stocks of fossil fuel, the burning of which transfers once-buried carbon to the ocean and air. In a few decades, we are likely to run short of phosphate, which is essential for fertilizer. We are thus damaging food security and, before too long, coastal infrastructure via sea-level rise. Growth in population size and ongoing consumerism will increase the challenges even further. Since prevention is the main thrust of public health, addressing these problems sooner would be better."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Never fear, below average global temps are here :)

That should not happen in an AGWT world. Let alone the Global Sea Ice data.......
No, that shouldn't happen in a denialist's fantasy world. Unfortunately, however, such a world exists only in the minds of a few cranks and quacks, and the planet grows warmer and warmer and warmer.

You should really check out a few books on how climate works; I think you'd be absolutely amazed at what you might learn.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting cyclonebuster:



Nit- Wits often do that. Are you not ashamed of yourself for allowing that to happen?
You know the best part about being me---------is I'm not you.

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Neapolitan:

Sigh...
Nothing to refute the facts I gave? I was right that was the best you could do.

Irony, the shackles of youth

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Neapolitan:

Sigh...


Never fear, below average global temps are here :)

That should not happen in an AGWT world. Let alone the Global Sea Ice data.......

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record


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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Go look at a the global instrument numbers which seem to start in 1984. Does that help you

I see you got me, damn a typo is that the best you can do. Sadly it is

Sigh...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting Xandra:

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'.
Sorry if I offended you.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Neapolitan:

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".
Go look at a the global instrument numbers which seem to start in 1984. Does that help you

I see you got me, damn a typo is that the best you can do. Sadly it is
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
You claim I do not know what cherry picking is but it sure seems for not knowing what it is I can point it out. You do not know geography worth a damn so let me help you out, now follow along closely. EPICA is taken from Antarctica, now this is well south of the equator some would say the bottom of the globe. Quick go check, do you see it? The graph which I was referring is from the Arctic well north of the equator, you know 70-90N now some would say the top of the globe, do you see it. If that was to hard to understand I can dumb it down for you just ask. In other words when I said Arctic it should have been a no brainer as to what I was talking about(speaking of first grade). I was looking at the global numbers. You know taken from instruments around the globe for my information.

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".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'm not sure what you mean by "It seems from like 1984 to 1900 the level rose by nearly 100ppb in 5 years." Care to clarify? At any rate, the point was to show how much methane has risen. Now, instead of throwing around terms you don't understand like "cherry-picking", can you please explain where you think I did that? I don't believe "cherry-picking" can apply to someone showing a graph that covers 800,000 years through the present.

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.
You claim I do not know what cherry picking is but it sure seems for not knowing what it is I can point it out. You do not know geography worth a damn so let me help you out, now follow along closely. EPICA is taken from Antarctica, now this is well south of the equator some would say the bottom of the globe. Quick go check, do you see it? The graph which I was referring to is from the Arctic well north of the equator, you know 70-90N now some would say the top of the globe, do you see it. If that was to hard to understand I can dumb it down for you just ask. In other words when I said Arctic it should have been a no brainer as to what I was talking about(speaking of first grade). I was looking at the global numbers. You know taken from instruments around the globe for my information.

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.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting JupiterKen:


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!
I guess he (and you) missed this, which has been posted too many times to count:

Uh-oh

Look RAPID to me. CONTINUED, too.

Link
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I see you are joining the "dump CO2, blame methane" crowd. It's obvious that CO2 can't be the culprit for nonexistent AGW.
If that's what you took away from my comment, your reading comprehension skills are even worse than I imagined. Have you considered remedial classes? Starting at, say, the first grade level? ;-)
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Global atmospheric temps are in free-fall. A post from everyone's favorite long-range forecaster:

Link
Yeah, the goofball posted the same thing over at WUWT ("We Use Wishful Thinking"). He'd have ever so much more credibility if he had the slightest understanding of climate. And how to interpret charts.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'm not sure what you mean by "It seems from like 1984 to 1900 the level rose by nearly 100ppb in 5 years." Care to clarify? At any rate, the point was to show how much methane has risen. Now, instead of throwing around terms you don't understand like "cherry-picking", can you please explain where you think I did that? I don't believe "cherry-picking" can apply to someone showing a graph that covers 800,000 years through the present.

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.


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!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Global atmospheric temps are in free-fall. A post from everyone's favorite long-range forecaster:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'm not sure what you mean by "It seems from like 1984 to 1900 the level rose by nearly 100ppb in 5 years." Care to clarify? At any rate, the point was to show how much methane has risen. Now, instead of throwing around terms you don't understand like "cherry-picking", can you please explain where you think I did that? I don't believe "cherry-picking" can apply to someone showing a graph that covers 800,000 years through the present.

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.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting nymore:
I was noticing from Neapolitan's graphs of the RAPID and CONTINUED WARMING for the last decade. Also nice cherry picked methane graph for the arctic. Would you care to show us the graphs from 1984 on for all measurements not just arctic. It seems from like 1984 to 1900 the level rose by nearly 100ppb in 5 years. Much more rapidly than any time since. Neo I still have not heard back on the cause of the Senator tree fire. Still arson?
I'm not sure what you mean by "It seems from like 1984 to 1900 the level rose by nearly 100ppb in 5 years." Care to clarify? At any rate, the point was to show how much methane has risen. Now, instead of throwing around terms you don't understand like "cherry-picking", can you please explain where you think I did that? I don't believe "cherry-picking" can apply to someone showing a graph that covers 800,000 years through the present.

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting nymore:
What I was saying is his definition is a little broad, sure everyone can contribute through observation but to call me or a salmon researcher a climate scientist is a little beyond common sense

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'.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
I was noticing from Neapolitan's graphs of the RAPID and CONTINUED WARMING for the last decade. Also nice cherry picked methane graph for the arctic. Would you care to show us the graphs from 1984 on for all measurements not just arctic. It seems from like 1984 to 1900 the level rose by nearly 100ppb in 5 years. Much more rapidly than any time since. Neo I still have not heard back on the cause of the Senator tree fire. Still arson?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
NOAA just released their December 2011 State of the Climate report and their Global Stats report. Highlights:

--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.

Uh-oh

Uh-oh
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
This solves the problems Michael Mann.





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
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Neapolitan:

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
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting percylives:
Neapolitan,

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Neapolitan,

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.

Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Want to know what you can do in 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 40 seconds?

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.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
First, a "hockey stick". In fact, two: the top one shows methane, and the bottom is CO2:

uh-oh

Yikes. And here's some more artwork. The December anomaly is 14ppb higher than it was in 2010, meaning methane is up around 1854ppb:

Uh-oh

And some of you still think this is all just part of a "natural" cycle? Really?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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?
yes sir and have a good evening
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Neo any word on that tree yet?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
I don't know if they failed. When sitting on a jury and some person comes to testify with alphabet soup behind their name you tend to give them credence. The theory that injuries were caused by SBS. I edited my last post please read the last paragraph


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?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting nymore:
I guess a very good example of this would be yesterday when I mentioned how a lightning strike could smolder in a tree for weeks. Neo dismissed it outright without ever testing it. Well we now know it was not arson as that was dismissed today. I never just throw away someones idea without testing it.


Agreed.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
I guess a very good example of this would be yesterday when I mentioned how a lightning strike could smolder in a tree for weeks. Neo dismissed it outright without ever testing it. Well we now know it was not arson as that was dismissed today. I never just throw away someones idea without testing it do to what I think I know.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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.
I don't know if they failed. When sitting on a jury and some person comes to testify with alphabet soup behind their name you tend to give them credence. The theory that injuries were caused by SBS. I edited my last post please read the last paragraph
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
The point is some of the fore most forensic pathologists did autopsies on these children and said it was not SBS but another condition yet these findings were not accepted by these high ranking doctors because it went against there theory. I guess what I am saying these doctors feel threatened by these findings and do not want them brought to the fore. They feel they themselves are beyond reproach and anyone questioning it is not believable. In their minds the science is settled end of story. Sound familiar?


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
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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.
The point is some of the fore most forensic pathologists did autopsies on these children and said it was not SBS but another condition yet these findings were not accepted by these high ranking doctors because it went against there theory. I guess what I am saying these doctors feel threatened by these findings and do not want them brought to the fore. They feel they themselves are beyond reproach and anyone questioning it is not believable. In their minds the science is settled end of story. Sound familiar?

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
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
I agree with your statement. What I was saying is his definition is a little broad, sure everyone can contribute through observation but to call me or a salmon researcher a climate scientist is a little beyond common sense


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting nymore:
Hello sir.

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.


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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
I agree with your statement. What I was saying is his definition is a little broad, sure everyone can contribute through observation but to call me or a salmon researcher a climate scientist is a little beyond common sense
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Patrap:
We have the will, money, Human Spirit, Drive, energy, mindset..to Create a better World.

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.


Right is correct~! :)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Why didn't the person who found it name it? It was found and named in 1997 by Hare a salmon researcher. I would have thought maybe Hanson or Mann. By your broad definition of climate science I could be in a branch of climate science working outside and having to learn or know how certain materials will behave or react to said climate.


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
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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.
Hello sir.

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.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
I do not hate the models, I hate the people who use them to say this will happen or that will happen and it does not happen your model used with the data you put in is incomplete and should not be used to make predictions.

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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Xandra:

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%u2019t 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 %u201DA Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production%u201D,

%u201DOur results add support to those of previous studies suggesting that the climatic regime shift of the late 1970%u2019s 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.%u2019s suggestion)--is a pan-Pacific phenomenon that also includes interdecadal climate variability in the tropical Pacific.%u201D

More research you will find here

And ecosystem-based science is a branch of climate science.
Why didn't the person who found it name it? It was found and named in 1997 by Hare a salmon researcher. I would have thought maybe Hanson or Mann. By your broad definition of climate science I could be in a branch of climate science working outside and having to learn or know how certain materials will behave or react to said climate.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Neapolitan any word yet on what caused or didn't cause the Senator tree fire yet?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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! ;-)
I do not hate the models, I hate the people who use them to say this will happen or that will happen and it does not happen your model used with the data you put in is incomplete and should not be used to make predictions.

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
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
A couple of examples scientists when not seeing the warming expected for the last decade look for the missing heat claim to have found it in the deep ocean, while this may be true it should have been known.

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,

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.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting BeCoolOrBeCastOut:



I take offense to you throwing around the word 'racist' so lightly, when that is a there is a lot of real racism in the world you do a disservice by using the word when it is unwarranted. I take that seriously, I won't demand an apology as some here would do, but I'm telling you right now- don't do that again, I've had enough of your race and gay-baiting tactics that you pull out when you can't honestly defend an issue, it's really easy to do.

snip

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
We have the will, money, Human Spirit, Drive, energy, mindset..to Create a better World.

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 139 - 89

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog 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.