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: 89 - 39

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

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: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125753
Quoting Neapolitan:
In other news, it's being reported that President Obama will kill the proposed Keystone XL pipeline later this afternoon. Score one for our kids and grandkids!
I have mixed emotions about that one!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In other news, it's being reported that President Obama will kill the proposed Keystone XL pipeline later this afternoon. Score one for our kids and grandkids!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting percylives:
The article stated that a 5 meter sea level rise will destroy in excess of $24 billion worth of property in the DC area.

If I could limit a 5 meter sea level rise to the DC area, I'd also make it happen tomorrow morning. That might get the blind and deaf legislators off their collective duffs before it becomes unavoidable worldwide. A worldwide 5 meter sea level rise will destroy civilization as we know it.
The last two links I posted were to peer-reviewed articles. The first two were not peer-reviewed, and that "5m" increase is obviously an editorial oversight. And then some. ;-) Either that, or the writer meant "$24 trillion", which would seem about right.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Global warming threatens China's advance
January 18, 2012 - 3:20PM


Global warming threatens China's march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods, says the government's latest assessment of climate change, projecting big shifts in how the nation feeds itself.

The warnings are carried in the government's "Second National Assessment Report on Climate Change," which sums up advancing scientific knowledge about the consequences and costs of global warming for China - the world's second biggest economy and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution.

Global warming fed by greenhouse gases from industry, transport and shifting land-use poses a long-term threat to China's prosperity, health and food output, says the report. With China's economy likely to rival the United States' in size in coming decades, that will trigger wider consequences.


"China faces extremely grim ecological and environmental conditions under the impact of continued global warming and changes to China's regional environment," says the 710-page report, officially published late last year but released for public sale only recently.

Even so, China's rising emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels, will begin to fall off only after about 2030, with big falls only after mid-century, says the report.
Assuming no measures to counter global warming, grain output in the world's most populous nation could fall from 5 to 20 percent by 2050, depending on whether a "fertilisation effect" from more carbon dioxide in the air offsets losses, says the report.

But that possible fall can be held in check by improved crop choice and farming practices, as well as increased irrigation and fertiliser use.
China is the world's biggest consumer of cereals and has increasingly turned to foreign suppliers of corn and soy beans.

The report was written by teams of scientists supervised by government officials, and follows up on a first assessment released in 2007. It does not set policy, but offers a basis of evidence and forecasts that will shape policy.

Water, either too much or too little, lies at the heart of how that warming could trip up China's budding prosperity.

Threat to food security

"Climate change will lead to severe imbalances in China's water resources within each year and across the years. In most areas, precipitation will be increasingly concentrated in the summer and autumn rainy seasons, and floods and droughts will become increasingly frequent," says the report.
"Without effective measures in response, by the latter part of the 21st century, climate change could still constitute a threat to our country's food security," it says.

Under one scenario of how global warming will affect water availability, by 2050 eight of mainland China's 31 provinces and provincial-status cities could face severe water shortages - meaning less than 500 cubic metres per resident - and another 10 could face less dire chronic shortages.

In low-lying coastal regions, rising seas will press up against big cities and export zones that have stood at the forefront of China's industrialisation.
China's efforts to protect vulnerable coastal areas with embankments are inadequate, says the report, noting their vulnerability to typhoons and flood tides that global warming could intensify.

There are sure to be shifts in Chinese crop patterns as well, says the report. More rice and other crops will probably grow in the northeast, thanks to warmer weather and possibly more rain. In the northwest cotton-growing region of Xinjiang, shrinking water availability could lead to a "marked decline in agricultural crop productivity".

China, with 1.34 billion people, already emits a quarter of the world's CO2, with the United States the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter.
China's emissions, which grew 10 percent in 2010 according to BP, are likely to start falling only after 2030, the report says. It says China's emissions reduction efforts up to 2020 will cost 10 trillion yuan ($1.5 trillion), including 5 trillion yuan for energy-saving technology and new and renewable energy.

Reuters




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125753
Quoting Neapolitan:
In this morning's happy climate news that you'll never read about over at WUWT:

--Our nation's capital is at risk from warming-induced sea-level rise Global warming-related sea level rise constitutes a major threat to the nation%u2019s capital, with the potential to inundate national monuments, museums, military bases, and parts of the Metro Rail system during the next several decades and beyond.

--


The article stated that a 5 meter sea level rise will destroy in excess of $24 billion worth of property in the DC area.

If I could limit a 5 meter sea level rise to the DC area, I'd also make it happen tomorrow morning. That might get the blind and deaf legislators off their collective duffs before it becomes unavoidable worldwide. A worldwide 5 meter sea level rise will destroy civilization as we know it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In this morning's happy climate news that you'll never read about over at WUWT:

--Our nation's capital is at risk from warming-induced sea-level rise Global warming-related sea level rise constitutes a major threat to the nation’s capital, with the potential to inundate national monuments, museums, military bases, and parts of the Metro Rail system during the next several decades and beyond.

--
China (as all other nations) faces "grim" risks from climate change. Global warming threatens China's march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods, says the government's latest assessment of climate change, projecting big shifts in how the nation feeds itself.

--Oceanic freshwater flux changes tend to amplify rather than suppress the global warming ...warm climate leads to an acceleration of [the] global water cycle which causes freshening in the high latitudes and salinification in the subtropics and midlatitudes.

Tropical ectotherms are heading for catastrophe even with modest predicted warming Although climate change models predict relatively modest increases in temperature in the tropics by the end of the century, recent analyses identify tropical ectotherms as the organisms most at risk from climate warming. Because metabolic rate in ectotherms increases exponentially with temperature, even a small rise in temperature poses a physiological threat to tropical ectotherms inhabiting an already hot environment.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting nymore:
I don't mean that in a disrespectful way but in a good way.


I took it in a good way. No problems here. Stay safe and take care. Let me know when you get a chance to read it all. Tomorrow is another day and this one is getting short.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Well,certainly entertainment has a value as well. Thank you, nymore.
I don't mean that in a disrespectful way but in a good way.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
Quoting nymore:
Even without reading your whole post I love talking to you about these things when I am away from my family it keeps me entertained I do enjoy it thank you sir


Well,certainly entertainment has a value as well. Thank you, nymore.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
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! ;-)
Even without reading your whole post I love talking to you about these things when I am away from my family it keeps me entertained I do enjoy it thank you sir
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
Quoting Ossqss:


LOL, how many did you correct that went beyond the quote?

I find your responses quite humorous. You deny that of which has already been admitted. Perhaps you have authored a paper on said subject?

So tell us what credentials do you espouse to justify your educated view?

Radicals are difficult to hire, but you know that already.

This blog was a bit of fun, but no longer is such. Too bad....

Quote: #45 "Ossqss, who I am I?"

Binary code :)
He has no credentials he once told me something about contractors coming to him for advice, when I asked what credentials he had and why they would come to him for advice nothing was offered. Also no credentials were produced even though I gave him several of mine. He just has an inflated ego and arrogance.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
Quoting Ossqss:


LOL, how many did you correct that went beyond the quote?

I find your responses quite humorous. You deny that of which has already been admitted. Perhaps you have authored a paper on said subject?

So tell us what credentials do you espouse to justify your educated view?

Radicals are difficult to hire, but you know that already.

This blog was a bit of fun, but no longer is such. Too bad....

Quote: #45 "Ossqss, who I am I?"

Binary code :)


LOL! I will accept that as an answer, as long as it not a zero value. I hate those divide by zero errors! ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Quoting nymore:
Rookie my point here is to point out problems in the theory of AGWT. 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. If you have a rock solid theory you should be able to tell me what will happen before it happens not after. That is called hindsight and that is always 20/20.

I also find it interesting that the PDO one of the biggest climate cycles was found not be any climate or weather scientist but by a Salmon researcher in I believe 1996, if you don't know all the pieces in the puzzle I find it hard to believe you can put all the pieces together. If you have not seen all these cycles fully from cycle to cycle and how they effect or interact with each other you are making at best a guess.

I used the story from the other night to make a point I believe you missed. The point being that any evidence against said theory was met with ridicule and trying to discredit the scientist making said claims. These actions were threatened with black balling and license revocation. Lets be frank the only thing any of us really have is our reputation in the field we are in without that you are nothing. The doctors like these scientists do not want their reputations sullied and will do anything to stop that from happening. If it can happen in the medical field what makes you think it can not happen in this case. What young or older scientist would want to go against this juggernaut when they know their career could be over. Power is never given up easily but rather most times it has to be taken.

BTW a good example of the most educated in world and not being the smartest would be the Deep Horizon blowout the problem was not solved by any engineer with years of education but by a regular PLUMBER who I am sure some here would look down on for not being the most educated. As I have always said being the most educated does not mean your the smartest person in the room.

Oh and your first answer was right you have felt those things but never actually touched them. The second one was a little trickier gravity does not kill eletromagnetism does.


You 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! ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Quoting Neapolitan:

Wow, nice job of calling out my paste job, Dick Tracy! Of course, it would have been even more amazing had I not signaled that I pasted the passage by encasing it in quote and italicizing it. But it's good to see your progress, slow that it might be. So keep at it!

Now, do you have anything profound to say in response to what I wrote? Or was that ad hominem pretty much all you had?


LOL, how many did you correct that went beyond the quote?

I find your responses quite humorous. You deny that of which has already been admitted. Perhaps you have authored a paper on said subject?

So tell us what credentials do you espouse to justify your educated view?

Radicals are difficult to hire, but you know that already.

This blog was a bit of fun, but no longer is such. Too bad....

Quote: #45 "Ossqss, who I am I?"

Binary code :)
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


You waste your energy attempting to convert the brainwashed Gaia worshipers. Their fixation with CO2 is cultish. I believe they are paid Soros employees.


Tell me does the gerbil in your head ever get off of his wheel?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Nice job cleaning up the cut and paste answer from another blog site reference page after you made some minor modifications. BTW, you need to finish your cleaning for you left an artifact of such. Let me highlight it for you so you can take credit for others work again. How funny !

Now you deny the decade long stagnation of your rapid temperature rise also. LOL


Wow, nice job of calling out my paste job, Dick Tracy! Of course, it would have been even more amazing had I not signaled that I pasted the passage by encasing it in quote and italicizing it. But it's good to see your progress, slow that it might be. So keep at it!

Now, do you have anything profound to say in response to what I wrote? Or was that ad hominem pretty much all you had?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting nymore:
Rookie my point here is to point out problems in the theory of AGWT. 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. If you have a rock solid theory you should be able to tell me what will happen before it happens not after. That is called hindsight and that is always 20/20.

I also find it interesting that the PDO one of the biggest climate cycles was found not be any climate or weather scientist but by a Salmon researcher in I believe 1996, if you don't know all the pieces in the puzzle I find it hard to believe you can put all the pieces together. If you have not seen all these cycles fully from cycle to cycle and how they effect or interact with each other you are making at best a guess.

I used the story from the other night to make a point I believe you missed. The point being that any evidence against said theory was met with ridicule and trying to discredit the scientist making said claims. These actions were threatened with black balling and license revocation. Lets be frank the only thing any of us really have is our reputation in the field we are in without that you are nothing. The doctors like these scientists do not want their reputations sullied and will do anything to stop that from happening. If it can happen in the medical field what makes you think it can not happen in this case. What young or older scientist would want to go against this juggernaut when they know their career could be over. Power is never given up easily but rather most times it has to be taken.

BTW a good example of the most educated in world and not being the smartest would be the Deep Horizon blowout the problem was not solved by any engineer with years of education but by a regular PLUMBER who I am sure some here would look down on for not being the most educated. As I have always said being the most educated does not mean your the smartest person in the room.

Oh and your first answer was right you have felt those things but never actually touched them. The second one was a little trickier gravity does not kill eletromagnetism does.


You waste your energy attempting to convert the brainwashed Gaia worshipers. Their fixation with CO2 is cultish. I believe they are paid Soros employees.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


All the other greenhouse gases you name are also released into the atmosphere by mankind's activities. Yes, just as with CO2, these will occur naturally in the environment. The problems begin to arise when we bump the natural cycles into more than what the environment was previously handling. We begin to overload the system. My primary concerns, with CO2, is the amount of which we release into the atmosphere. As the climate becomes warmer, due to our introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere, then this has a tendency to warm frozen methane from the tundras and sea floor. This previously trapped methane is released into the atmosphere adding to the problem that CO2 has helped to create. This becomes a self feeding mechanism and we are observing this happening now.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that there is simply too much atmosphere for us to have an impact on it. I suggest you look at some images from space of our planet. You have seen, I feel certain, satellite images of a forest fire from space and how much smoke is being put into the atmosphere from a single large fire. Now imagine, if you will, that atmospheric CO2 was actually visible to the unaided eye. What do you think we would see? Perhaps that is the problem. CO2 is an odorless, tasteless and invisible, to the unaided eye, gas.

I could use micrograms as a measurement of how much CO2 we emit into the atmosphere, if my intent was to "scare". I am just trying to have a somewhat scientific discussion and, for this purpose, using tons as a measurement suits the conversation quite well.

I am also somewhat amazed that you would bring up soot and even to the point that mankind's activities contribute so much soot into the environment. Another example that supports the AGWT. Anthropogenic, being the operative word.

Yes, the theory of gravity has some some flaws, just as the AGWT has some flaws. Both theories do describe quite well what we observe to be happening, irrespective of their flaws.

Now you wish to use just the observations of the doctors used in the study of the shaken baby syndrome? You wish to omit all of the other experts of various fields that were used in the study? Fine. Shall we now just use the findings of the climate scientists concerning the study of the AGWT? You would lose again. Man does play a part in the present climate change. I suspect, by your response, it is a much larger part than you are willing to give credit for. ... Let us say, for the sake of the debate, that you are correct about man playing a small role concerning the present climate change. Is it not our civic and moral duty to lessen our contributions towards this change?

I cannot give you any points on the first three questions since you did not take anything out of the equation concerning the AGWT. You have, in fact, helped to reinforce the theory. I know I said I would not award you any bonus points for #4 but, since your response was as good as anyone could give, I will award the huge amount of 50 points. Unfortunately, these are the points you have received and 50 points is not a passing grade.

No, sir, I did not see the show. I would like to see it. Other than the show's ability to show that there are flaws in any theory, then it serves no purpose towards discrediting the AGWT.

Are you going all philosophical on me now?

"Question for you. Have you ever really touched anything in the world, such as wood, sand, metal or anything else?" - Should you be referring to the physical sensation of touch, then the answer is, yes.

"Bonus Question: If I fall off a 50 story building what will kill me and why?" Good question. The good old hypothetical "cat in the box" form of question. We would never know with absolute certainty would we? Was it the fall or the sudden stop? Did he die before the fall and this is what initiated the fall? Did he have a massive heart attack on the way down? Did he hit any obstacles before he hit the ground? Did he die of extreme shock during the fall? Was he not going to die anyway during the time frame that begins with the start of the fall and the hitting the ground? - Pick one. Any one or a combination of could have been the cause of death. The time span would be too short to know the actual cause of death. - Yes, I know. The obvious answer is not always the correct answer. - Perhaps it was curiosity that actually killed the cat in the box?

I enjoy our conversation, nymore. We have actual conversations.






Ossqss, who I am I?
Rookie my point here is to point out problems in the theory of AGWT. 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. If you have a rock solid theory you should be able to tell me what will happen before it happens not after. That is called hindsight and that is always 20/20.

I also find it interesting that the PDO one of the biggest climate cycles was found not be any climate or weather scientist but by a Salmon researcher in I believe 1996, if you don't know all the pieces in the puzzle I find it hard to believe you can put all the pieces together. If you have not seen all these cycles fully from cycle to cycle and how they effect or interact with each other you are making at best a guess.

I used the story from the other night to make a point I believe you missed. The point being that any evidence against said theory was met with ridicule and trying to discredit the scientist making said claims. These actions were threatened with black balling and license revocation. Lets be frank the only thing any of us really have is our reputation in the field we are in without that you are nothing. The doctors like these scientists do not want their reputations sullied and will do anything to stop that from happening. If it can happen in the medical field what makes you think it can not happen in this case. What young or older scientist would want to go against this juggernaut when they know their career could be over. Power is never given up easily but rather most times it has to be taken.

BTW a good example of the most educated in world and not being the smartest would be the Deep Horizon blowout the problem was not solved by any engineer with years of education but by a regular PLUMBER who I am sure some here would look down on for not being the most educated. As I have always said being the most educated does not mean your the smartest person in the room.

Oh and your first answer was right you have felt those things but never actually touched them. The second one was a little trickier gravity does not kill eletromagnetism does.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
Quoting Neapolitan:
Monckton? Again? That nearly four-year-old piece is absolutely not a "peer-reviewed piece". it is, rather, nothing more than a letter to the editor, and for good reason: it's completely ridiculous. One look at the laughable graphs would tell anyone that. The primary problem with Monckton is this: he starts out from a political perspective, deciding he's against certain mitigation policies, then works backward from there in an effort to make the science fit his personal POV. It's sorta like someone declaring that they don't like hamburgers, then providing charts and graphs to prove that cattle don't exist. (Did you miss the disclaimer at the top of Monckton's letter? "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."")

In reference to the other paper, I assume you actually read it, so you couldn't have missed this from the paper's conclusion: "The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: %u201Cmost of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

Or this: " The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular, which cause sulfur emissions to decline while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to ris"

Or this: "Both of these effects, along with changes in natural variables must be examined explicitly by efforts to understand climate change and devise policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize %u201Cgreenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system"

So, in short, you gave us a "peer reviewed article" that wasn't, and an actual peer-reviewed article that validates AGWT. So--thanks?


Nice job cleaning up the cut and paste answer from another blog site reference page after you made some minor modifications. BTW, you need to finish your cleaning for you left an artifact of such. Let me highlight it for you so you can take credit for others work again. How funny !

Now you deny the decade+ long stagnation of your rapid temperature rise also. LOL

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
Quoting Neapolitan:

Oh, shocker. What, did you think he was gonna give up his lucrative denialist career by confessing? No, he was caught red-handed committing more dishonest anti-science--this time by omission--so he ran to little Anthony over at WUWT for comfort and consolation and a chance to plead his case.

Two truths: 1) The planet is warming, in large part due to our burning of fossil fuels. 2) Michaels is manipulative and dishonest.


You must be dreaming. Without data manipulation the planet is getting cooler. How can you really make an argument when there is no agreement on actual data? As a diversion, I wonder how long before supposed AGW will be blamed for this "tragedy":
Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Someone on this blog, who will remain nameless, has posted an accusation that Patrick Michaels is a "serial deleter of inconvenient data" (hmmm does Michael Mann come to mind). Mr. Michaels' response is linked below:

Link


Oh, shocker. What, did you think he was gonna give up his lucrative denialist career by confessing? No, he was caught red-handed committing more dishonest anti-science--this time by omission--so he ran to little Anthony over at WUWT for comfort and consolation and a chance to plead his case.

Two truths: 1) The planet is warming, in large part due to our burning of fossil fuels. 2) Michaels is manipulative and dishonest.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Someone on this blog, who will remain nameless, has posted an accusation that Patrick Michaels is a "serial deleter of inconvenient data" (hmmm does Michael Mann come to mind). Mr. Michaels' response is linked below:

Link

Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Amazing that you would say that the science defends itself. I guess you have finally realized that all of your attacks on the science have been in vain then?

Touche'?


Not pseudo-science as professed by Hansen et al.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


You certainly have blinders on. Are you still sniveling from last night? My point was that I don't have to defend science contradicting so-called "global warming." The science defends itself.


Amazing that you would say that the science defends itself. I guess you have finally realized that all of your attacks on the science have been in vain then?

Touche'?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Modesty. What an excellent quality.


You certainly have blinders on. Are you still sniveling from last night? My point was that I don't have to defend science contradicting so-called "global warming." The science defends itself.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Patrap:


Only a Fool can build a Fool's paradise, I didnt think the application line would be so Long...
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125753
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Nothing at all.


Modesty. What an excellent quality.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"I suppose defending pseudo-science requires much effort." - I do not know. How much effort do you put into it?


Nothing at all.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Pablum? Fool? I suppose defending pseudo-science requires much effort.


"I suppose defending pseudo-science requires much effort." - I do not know. How much effort do you put into it?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Quoting Neapolitan:

1) You put out one piece of denialist pablum after another. 2) Folks take the time to show you where your sources are wrong. 3) Without so much as a word of thanks or rebuttal, you immediately move on to yet another piece of denialist pablum.

You clearly aren't worth the effort. But I guess that makes me the fool for responding, huh?


Pablum? Fool? I suppose defending pseudo-science requires much effort.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Global cooling in Alaska. I guess that's weather not climate also:

Link


And the 646 high temperature records tied or bested last week in the Continental US verses the 24 low temperature records tied or bested is also weather.

Link

Weather does average to climate however.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Global cooling in Alaska. I guess that's weather not climate also:

Link

1) You put out one piece of denialist pablum after another. 2) Folks take the time to show you where your sources are wrong. 3) Without so much as a word of thanks or rebuttal, you immediately move on to yet another piece of denialist pablum.

You clearly aren't worth the effort. But I guess that makes me the fool for responding, huh?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Global cooling in Alaska. I guess that's weather not climate also:

Link


"I guess that's weather not climate also" - You're getting smarter, J.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Global cooling in Alaska. I guess that's weather not climate also:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Another warmist prediction gone wrong. Cooling in Antarctica.
Link

I suppose the folks who run that website hope--or know--that their handful of readers is gullible enough to not realize that the editorial comment--"Translation: increased CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf."--is absolutely not a part of the abstract. But a far larger and more important note, of course, is this: the article is talking about snowmelt, which all but the most gullible realize isn't the same as icemelt.

Do you?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting BeCoolOrBeCastOut:


Sure, everyone ought to be all for that as long as it's not taxpayer-subsidized, force them all to compete in a real free market rather than have government pick and choose the winners according to where their campaign donations originated. Whether it's the Big Oil who are massive welfare recipients,(meanwhile, 4 of the Big 5 major oil corporations actually support a global carbon tax that would disproportionately hurt the middle class, I have to keep repeating that fact over and over as Dubya would say, to catapult the propaganda until it sinks in) or if it's the crony-collectivists welfare queens at Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, the taxpayer subsidies need to end, let them all compete on a level playing field and let the best technology win.

I'll ignore your blatantly racist "welfare queen" remark, as we've come to expect that sort of knuckle-dragging garbage from certain people. Instead, I'll respond to your dragging Solyndra* and Evergreen back into the conversation: even the failure of every single alternative energy company that ever received a dime in federal loans (or loan guarantees) wouldn't change for one second the truth that A) alternative energies are increasingly competitive, and B) we absolutely must remove our hungry mouths from Big Oils, er, udders.

The whole every-man-for-himself thing doesn't really work anyway. It never has. Governments help pay for expensive and extensive R&D into aviation, spaceflight, weaponry, health, etc. And for that we can all be thankful.

* - One can see why some might still be prattling on about Solyndra; the jolly old Koch brothers have spent a whopping $6,000,000 trying their best to keep it in front of certain parts of the electorate.

Silly denialists...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
The CO2 volume produced by burning fossil fuels in the US during 1997 would have formed a layer 1.1 feet high over the entire continent if it just formed a layer on the surface (see Link below). All the other greenhouse gases are also important but our addiction to fossil fuels makes CO2 especially dangerous. Water vapor (another GHG) volume is very dependent on temperature so it is potentially a very large positive feedback on CO2-generated atmospheric temperature increase.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Another warmist prediction gone wrong. Cooling in Antarctica.
Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree, overwash12. We will get off of fossil fuels simply because they will price themselves out. One only has to look at oil futures to realize that every time the world, or even a regional, economy improves, the oil markets respond by increasing the price of the barrel. This effectively will stave off any long term economic growth. The dog watches, as we chase our own tail.

The question remains as to if we get off of fossil fuels soon enough. Soon enough to have an impact on our environment and soon enough to avert a complete economic collapse due to the ever escalating price of the barrel. ... When fuel becomes more expensive, so do the costs to transport the fuel. A double whammy at the pump?
Supposed to go up to $4+ by summer,which will hurt the summer vacation industry Again! I stay at home anyway burning up in this global warming thingy!LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BeCoolOrBeCastOut:


Sure, everyone ought to be all for that as long as it's not taxpayer-subsidized, force them all to compete in a real free market rather than have government pick and choose the winners according to where their campaign donations originated. Whether it's the Big Oil who are massive welfare recipients,(meanwhile, 4 of the Big 5 major oil corporations actually support a global carbon tax that would disproportionately hurt the middle class, I have to keep repeating that fact over and over as Dubya would say, to catapult the propaganda until it sinks in) or if it's the crony-collectivists welfare queens at Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, the taxpayer subsidies need to end, let them all compete on a level playing field and let the best technology win.
Oh Yeah,We need to get off of big government too!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
I say even if GW is not being caused by the relentless burning of fossil fuels,we should still fervently seek alternative energy sources. I think we can all agree to that,except the big oil companies. All the pollution that comes from gasoline is not good for the environment.


I agree, overwash12. We will get off of fossil fuels simply because they will price themselves out. One only has to look at oil futures to realize that every time the world, or even a regional, economy improves, the oil markets respond by increasing the price of the barrel. This effectively will stave off any long term economic growth. The dog watches, as we chase our own tail.

The question remains as to if we get off of fossil fuels soon enough. Soon enough to have an impact on our environment and soon enough to avert a complete economic collapse due to the ever escalating price of the barrel. ... When fuel becomes more expensive, so do the costs to transport the fuel. A double whammy at the pump?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
Quoting nymore:


1- Yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas along with Methane, Nitrogen Oxides, Water Vapor, Tropospheric Ozone and Fluorinated Gases such as HFC's, CFC's, PFC's and Sulfur Hexafluoride, why is it you only seem to have a problem with Co2. Is it because that is the only thing besides Methane you have heard of or been told? I think water vapor has a much larger hand in it than Co2

2- Yes humans do release tons worth but what percent of the total weight of the atmosphere would that be? Tons sounds like a lot but in actuality it is extremely extremely small. You should use the 30 or 40 trillion liters number or whatever it is that sounds much more scary which is the point your trying to make isn't it?
Didn't some report just come out about soot being a growing problem. Major soot producers, people who burn wood or animal excrement or other bio-mass for cooking or heat which number what 3 billion or more worldwide.

3- Physical observations were the very reasoning these doctors used and in many cases these observations seem to be correlation and not causation of the injuries. FWIW I do believe man does have a hand in the game, just not a large hand.

4- I don't think that can be quantified with any reasonable confidence or understanding.

Did you watch the show?

I never have ever said the whole theory is flawed to the point of being useless, just that it seems to have some big flaws. Example: Gravity while the whole theory is not worthless it has some substantial flaws.

Question for you. Have you ever really touched anything in the world, such as wood, sand, metal or anything else?

Bonus Question: If I fall off a 50 story building what will kill me and why?


All the other greenhouse gases you name are also released into the atmosphere by mankind's activities. Yes, just as with CO2, these will occur naturally in the environment. The problems begin to arise when we bump the natural cycles into more than what the environment was previously handling. We begin to overload the system. My primary concerns, with CO2, is the amount of which we release into the atmosphere. As the climate becomes warmer, due to our introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere, then this has a tendency to warm frozen methane from the tundras and sea floor. This previously trapped methane is released into the atmosphere adding to the problem that CO2 has helped to create. This becomes a self feeding mechanism and we are observing this happening now.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that there is simply too much atmosphere for us to have an impact on it. I suggest you look at some images from space of our planet. You have seen, I feel certain, satellite images of a forest fire from space and how much smoke is being put into the atmosphere from a single large fire. Now imagine, if you will, that atmospheric CO2 was actually visible to the unaided eye. What do you think we would see? Perhaps that is the problem. CO2 is an odorless, tasteless and invisible, to the unaided eye, gas.

I could use micrograms as a measurement of how much CO2 we emit into the atmosphere, if my intent was to "scare". I am just trying to have a somewhat scientific discussion and, for this purpose, using tons as a measurement suits the conversation quite well.

I am also somewhat amazed that you would bring up soot and even to the point that mankind's activities contribute so much soot into the environment. Another example that supports the AGWT. Anthropogenic, being the operative word.

Yes, the theory of gravity has some some flaws, just as the AGWT has some flaws. Both theories do describe quite well what we observe to be happening, irrespective of their flaws.

Now you wish to use just the observations of the doctors used in the study of the shaken baby syndrome? You wish to omit all of the other experts of various fields that were used in the study? Fine. Shall we now just use the findings of the climate scientists concerning the study of the AGWT? You would lose again. Man does play a part in the present climate change. I suspect, by your response, it is a much larger part than you are willing to give credit for. ... Let us say, for the sake of the debate, that you are correct about man playing a small role concerning the present climate change. Is it not our civic and moral duty to lessen our contributions towards this change?

I cannot give you any points on the first three questions since you did not take anything out of the equation concerning the AGWT. You have, in fact, helped to reinforce the theory. I know I said I would not award you any bonus points for #4 but, since your response was as good as anyone could give, I will award the huge amount of 50 points. Unfortunately, these are the points you have received and 50 points is not a passing grade.

No, sir, I did not see the show. I would like to see it. Other than the show's ability to show that there are flaws in any theory, then it serves no purpose towards discrediting the AGWT.

Are you going all philosophical on me now?

"Question for you. Have you ever really touched anything in the world, such as wood, sand, metal or anything else?" - Should you be referring to the physical sensation of touch, then the answer is, yes.

"Bonus Question: If I fall off a 50 story building what will kill me and why?" Good question. The good old hypothetical "cat in the box" form of question. We would never know with absolute certainty would we? Was it the fall or the sudden stop? Did he die before the fall and this is what initiated the fall? Did he have a massive heart attack on the way down? Did he hit any obstacles before he hit the ground? Did he die of extreme shock during the fall? Was he not going to die anyway during the time frame that begins with the start of the fall and the hitting the ground? - Pick one. Any one or a combination of could have been the cause of death. The time span would be too short to know the actual cause of death. - Yes, I know. The obvious answer is not always the correct answer. - Perhaps it was curiosity that actually killed the cat in the box?

I enjoy our conversation, nymore. We have actual conversations.






Ossqss, who I am I?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733
I say even if GW is not being caused by the relentless burning of fossil fuels,we should still fervently seek alternative energy sources. I think we can all agree to that,except the big oil companies. All the pollution that comes from gasoline is not good for the environment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The following is from realclimate.org. If you don't know, and know you don't know, this is a rather painless method of learning. Links are available on the realclimate website.

Almost 3000 non-science major undergraduates at the University of Chicago have taken PHSC13400, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, since Ray Pierrehumbert and I (David Archer) first developed it back in 1995. Since the publication of the textbook for the class in 2005 (and a much-cleaned-up 2nd edition now shipping), enrollment has gone through the roof, it’s all I’ve been able to teach the last few years, trying to keep up with demand. I hear it is the largest class on campus, with 4-500 students a year out of an annual class of only around 1400. Now the content of this class is being served to the internet world at large: Open Climate 101.

You can watch video lectures followed by quizzes to challenge and hopefully stimulate your understanding, and work your way through tutorials with interactive models and simple mathematical ideas. Actually all that stuff has been available for a long time, online or in the textbook, but now it’s packaged into an interactive assessing system, which admittedly lacks the personality and finesse of our graduate student teaching assistants, but I hope it’ll get the job done. You can work at your own pace, on your own time. You don’t get University of Chicago credit, but it’s free, and if you get to the end of it you can download a certificate of accomplishment with your name and a verification code, signed by me. I hope people find it useful.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Perhaps some "Peer Reviewed Papers" are in order?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/0 7/pnas-201102467.pdf

or here

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/m onckton.cfm

Don't worry, there is always the excuse of Sulfur and Scrubbers :)

Just another example of what we do not know...........

LOL, Oh the pain!
Monckton? Again? That nearly four-year-old piece is absolutely not a "peer-reviewed piece". it is, rather, nothing more than a letter to the editor, and for good reason: it's completely ridiculous. One look at the laughable graphs would tell anyone that. The primary problem with Monckton is this: he starts out from a political perspective, deciding he's against certain mitigation policies, then works backward from there in an effort to make the science fit his personal POV. It's sorta like someone declaring that they don't like hamburgers, then providing charts and graphs to prove that cattle don't exist. (Did you miss the disclaimer at the top of Monckton's letter? "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."")

In reference to the other paper, I assume you actually read it, so you couldn't have missed this from the paper's conclusion: "The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: %u201Cmost of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

Or this: " The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular, which cause sulfur emissions to decline while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to ris"

Or this: "Both of these effects, along with changes in natural variables must be examined explicitly by efforts to understand climate change and devise policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize %u201Cgreenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system"

So, in short, you gave us a "peer reviewed article" that wasn't, and an actual peer-reviewed article that validates AGWT. So--thanks?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
Quoting nymore:


1- Yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas along with Methane, Nitrogen Oxides, Water Vapor, Tropospheric Ozone and Fluorinated Gases such as HFC's, CFC's, PFC's and Sulfur Hexafluoride, why is it you only seem to have a problem with Co2. Is it because that is the only thing besides Methane you have heard of or been told? I think water vapor has a much larger hand in it than Co2

2- Yes humans do release tons worth but what percent of the total weight of the atmosphere would that be? Tons sounds like a lot but in actuality it is extremely extremely small. You should use the 30 or 40 trillion liters number or whatever it is that sounds much more scary which is the point your trying to make isn't it.
Didn't some report just come out about soot being a growing problem. Major soot producers people who burn wood or animal excrement or other bio-mass for cooking or heat, which number what 3 billion or more worldwide.

3- Physical observations were the very reasoning these doctors used and in many cases these observations seem to be correlation and not causation of the injuries. FWIW I do believe man does have a hand in the game, just not a large hand.

4- I don't think that can be quantified with any reasonable confidence or understanding.

Did you watch the show?

I never have ever said the whole theory is flawed to the point of being useless, just that it seems to have some big flaws. Example: Gravity while the whole theory is not worthless it has some substantial flaws.

Question for you. Have you ever really touched anything in the world, such as wood, sand, metal or anything else?

Bonus Question: If I fall off a 50 story building what will kill me and why?


So soot is a major problem even though it is much less concentration than CO2? Soot like black paint on a swimming pool to heat the water that 5000 times the amount of black paint? CO2 that is effectively 'black' to infrared?

If CO2 isn't causing the rise in temperatures, what is?

I have been up and down high rises many times. I have the foot prints on the ground and the roof to prove it. It is a natural cycle. If I jump off the roof, what will kill me is the inability of my natural flexibility to handle the acceleration.

Similarly, the world may have been hotter/colder. However those changes took place over 10s of thousands of years. This give species time to migrate, people to adjust, etc.. we as a species are much more able to move but now there are 7 billion of us. We depend on the natural ecosystem of the world to take care of use. If that ecosystem is destroyed, most of us perish.

A better analogy than jumping off a building is a spaceship that has landed on the edge of a cliff on Mars: wow, the space ship has been around the world, flew through space, etc.. But if it falls off the cliff, the environmental support system will be destroyed and the people inside the ship will die.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Let us go with your thought(?), nymore. We will even include experts "from many fields" and several countries. Let us say we throw in some cattle ranchers, soccer players, hockey players, baseball players, football players, hair stylists and even some actual scientists. Let us say the vast majority believe that the AGWT is a valid theory and a few think that it is flawed to the point of being a useless theory. ... Are you still with me? ... Now, let us say that the few were correct and that the AGWT is too flawed to be a valid theory. ... Still with me? OK, then how do we explain away the following?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2. Mankind's activities release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

3. Physical observations that support the AGWT.

4. Justin Bieber.

OK, #4 is for huge bonus points but, you do not get the bonus points if you cannot explain away the first three. Now, should you not be able to explain away the first three you will have shown us that you have yet been able to, "learn to learn". ... GO!


BTW - Leave Rick Perry's refusal to pardon those wrongfully incarcerated out of this.


1- Yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas along with Methane, Nitrogen Oxides, Water Vapor, Tropospheric Ozone and Fluorinated Gases such as HFC's, CFC's, PFC's and Sulfur Hexafluoride, why is it you only seem to have a problem with Co2. Is it because that is the only thing besides Methane you have heard of or been told? I think water vapor has a much larger hand in it than Co2

2- Yes humans do release tons worth but what percent of the total weight of the atmosphere would that be? Tons sounds like a lot but in actuality it is extremely extremely small. You should use the 30 or 40 trillion liters number or whatever it is that sounds much more scary which is the point your trying to make isn't it?
Didn't some report just come out about soot being a growing problem. Major soot producers, people who burn wood or animal excrement or other bio-mass for cooking or heat which number what 3 billion or more worldwide.

3- Physical observations were the very reasoning these doctors used and in many cases these observations seem to be correlation and not causation of the injuries. FWIW I do believe man does have a hand in the game, just not a large hand.

4- I don't think that can be quantified with any reasonable confidence or understanding.

Did you watch the show?

I never have ever said the whole theory is flawed to the point of being useless, just that it seems to have some big flaws. Example: Gravity while the whole theory is not worthless it has some substantial flaws.

Question for you. Have you ever really touched anything in the world, such as wood, sand, metal or anything else?

Bonus Question: If I fall off a 50 story building what will kill me and why?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
Quoting nymore:
I watched an interesting show last night on shaken baby syndrome that seems to mirror what the so called experts have to say about AGWT. The show was on CBC out of Canada which I know only ppl close to the border can receive. Anyway it went like this they interviewed experts from many fields from Canada, USA and Great Briton. The Head of the AMA pediatrics actually said this well If 400 professionals say it is right and one says it is wrong who should you believe. He would not even listen to the evidence against it and called anyone who challenged basically stupid. Example some leading experts in forensic pathology have evidence that say the theory is wrong and the believers have tried to have their licenses yanked and they were warned not to talk about it under threat of black balling. They also had infant bio mechanical engineers with dummies prove the point, and even had the strongest football players try and shake the dummies hard enough to create the injuries they said cause shaken baby deaths not one person could even come close to generating the required forces needed to cause such injuries. Still the Head of the AMA called them basically idiots even though his and the 400 people he was talking about were proven wrong. I also found it interesting that one of the scientists said this " When I make a hypothesis I try to prove it wrong not try to prove it right. If I can prove it wrong it is wrong". Has any Climate researcher ever tried to prove their theory wrong. If can use a proxy and watch the show I recommend it.


Let us go with your thought(?), nymore. We will even include experts "from many fields" and several countries. Let us say we throw in some cattle ranchers, soccer players, hockey players, baseball players, football players, hair stylists and even some actual scientists. Let us say the vast majority believe that the AGWT is a valid theory and a few think that it is flawed to the point of being a useless theory. ... Are you still with me? ... Now, let us say that the few were correct and that the AGWT is too flawed to be a valid theory. ... Still with me? OK, then how do we explain away the following?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2. Mankind's activities release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

3. Physical observations that support the AGWT.

4. Justin Bieber.

OK, #4 is for huge bonus points but, you do not get the bonus points if you cannot explain away the first three. Now, should you not be able to explain away the first three you will have shown us that you have yet been able to, "learn to learn". ... GO!


BTW - Leave Rick Perry's refusal to pardon those wrongfully incarcerated out of this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4733

Viewing: 89 - 39

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.