Simply Uncertain

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:10 AM GMT on February 21, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.



Figure 1: From 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year 2100

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

r

Old Entry on Uncertainty and Definition of Model Types

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 268 - 218

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Quoting NeapolitanFan:


He's still there because there because AGW frauds protect their own. He hasn't made one prediction that has been fulfilled. Pretty good for government work, I suppose.


Your laughable!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Hansen is the epitome of incorrect forecasts, bogus science and the like. He also makes a lot of money perpetuating the AGW fraud.


If he is so fraudulent then why is he still there after all these years? That should tell you something! He doesn't data as you do!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Not up to par? As in not validating your desire to see Arctic icemelt as you've been fond of posting for years? My agenda is to show objective data, and NOAA data ain't it. I've spoken with former NOAA employees. One of them worked for NOAA for 35 years. They, without exception, told me that NOAA dictated their official positions on so-called "climate change." If they deviated one iota from the government mantra, they might as well had kissed their careers good-bye. Now that's what I call using the scientific method.


Tell that to Hansen he is still there isn't he!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
Virginia high court rejects case against Climatologist!

Link

Virginia's AG spent two years (of taxpayer time & money) persecuting Michael Mann under the "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act".

I don't brake for trolls !
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


NSIDC

Saturday, March 3, 2012:
Daily Image Update









Laginappe
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134697
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


How original. You mean the Norwegian arctic ice site isn't correct? Or maybe it isn't correct because it doesn't support your doom and gloom.


It isn't quite up to par with NOAA data. With that said, why do you certain data points along the graph to spread your misinformation? What is your agenda here?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134697
Quoting Seawall:


A very honest reply, and thank you for it. Actually, I'm not sure where I stand on the Venus issue, nor the entire Global Warming, or lack of, or increase of said subject. I do respect Atmoaggie and hold him in the highest regard as he a very intelligent person with the education to back it up. I pretty much respect everyone here, or try to. Good info to be found, if you know where, and who to seek it from. I'm not a denialist, nor am I on the other side of the fence; I guess you can say I ride the middle of it. My biggest problem is when I joined Master's blog, it was Tropical Weather, and Severe weather, during the "off season." Since then, Master's has changed the blog to offer more of his own opinions on AGW. And, that is his opinion. You just shouldn't change in the middle of the stream. I realize you are a newbie here, relatively speaking. You cannot recall when the site was not full of the AGW talk because you weren't here, or either you weren't posting. I do think, however, you grabbed the AGW talk by the horns, and ran with it, and added to the comments. You didn't help the situation much. (Or, maybe you did, in Master's opinion.) It's not about AGW that was presented to me a long time ago, it was about tropical, and severe weather. People were posting maps and charts ALL over the place, even in the off season. Now, not so much. I don't come here to cause problems; I'm NOT a troll, and I would hope that you could see that. I don't have your post numbers, but I've got you beat by a long shot by my membership date.
To me, it was more important today to watch the radar... and the cape values... and the surface maps.... as we watched so many people die over the tri state area. Watching the radar as so many people lost their homes.... their lives... and everything. It was really horrible, and the real damage will dawn with the morning hours.
If you have anything to teach to anyone, please let me know. I don't require your AGW lectures, and sometimes you take the tone that tells me "I am better than you and everyone else".... and you might not mean to do that, but that's the tone I take from you. But if you have ANYTHING at all to offer to someone regarding Tropical Systems, and severe weather, I'm certainly open to your suggestions.


Seawall, I really appreciate posts like this one that you have posted. You used a cool, even tone to express your points.

I too am a fan of Atmoaggie's tropical posts. He is among the best with what he posts and very informative concerning the tropical systems and their dynamics. I have spent time on his blog, as a lurker, to learn more about what is happening in the tropics. He comes across as being well educated, very knowledgeable, detests any personal attacks and stays above the usual fray. The only time he shows any questionable conduct is when the discussion moves to climate change. He has strong opinions on this subject and his enthusiasm to not talk about climate change will sometimes belittle his knowledge, education and demeanor. What I find most strange about his stance on climate change is that the AGWT is a valid theory and is quite worthy of scientific consideration and he does not seem to give it any scientific consideration. After all, there is no other competing theory that better explains the physical observations we are seeing now. Since the AGWT can help explain what will possibly happen with the tropical systems. I would think that his quest for knowledge, and to better understand the tropical systems, that he would take a serious look at the AGWT to see if it helps to explain what he may be confused with concerning the tropical systems. When a tropical system behaves differently than what we may expect it to do, I find it somewhat disingenuous to say that somethings are just like that. I would think that his natural and scientific curiosity would lead him to explore why somethings behave as they do. I would think that he would have to at least examine the possibility that the AGWT helps to explain what he may be unsure of concerning the behavior of a tropical system.

Atmoaggie did not also explain that Venus's atmospheric pressure only modestly explains why Venus's surface temperature is so much higher than Earth's. He also cannot account for Venus's orbit being closer to the Sun than is Earth's orbit to explain the additional heat we see on Venus's surface. Without the explanation of Venus's greenhouse gases, we cannot account for all the surface temperature we observe on Venus's surface. He also did not account for the fact that Venus has lost the ability to absorb these greenhouse gases from its atmosphere due to the extra heat at the surface. Venus is a prime example of an irreversible, run away greenhouse effect. Will Earth ever reach that point due to AGW alone? No. We will have long been gone before this could happen.

Atmoaggie leaves me with a question for me to ponder. I know his great disgust with even a modest discussion concerning the AGWT and climate change. Why did he visit Professor Rood's blog and, more importantly, why did he bother to even make any posts on this blog? I will say that he did offer to us an excellent example of one the dynamics of a planet's climate. He did give us an example of how higher atmospheric pressures create higher surface temperatures. This example, however, does not do anything to strengthen or minimize the AGWT here on Earth. Our atmospheric pressures have not seen a sudden increase or fall that would help to explain any climate change we have experienced here on Earth. Certainly we have seen some anomalies of high pressure systems just as we have seen some anomalies of low pressure systems. What I have not seen is any trends towards a higher or lower atmospheric pressures that would help to explain any climate changes that have been observed. So why, I must ask, did Atmoaggie even bother making his posts here? Should I be allowed to speculate here, I would be lead to believe that his posts were only intended to lead to more confusion concerning the AGWT and not to offer any knowledge as to why we are observing the climate changes that we do observe here on Earth. I may speculate even further that he posted here with the encouragement of others here to do so. I just do not envision Atmoaggie suddenly feeling a compulsion to do so on his own. ... I could be wrong.

This brings us to yesterday's posts concerning the AGWT on Dr. Master's blog. There was a LOT of severe weather events to be observed over the past two days. I, as you, would have rather seen any discussions of any possible effects from AGW on these weather events to have been done in a post discussion of these weather events. However, there was a question raised, possibly by a troll, if AGW was a factor in what we were seeing yesterday. A resounding No!, was given in response to the question. Well, we both know what happened from there. All in all, I thought that the AGW discussions were few and brief. I believe that should the initial response to the question had been that we should leave this topic to post storm discussions, instead of a, No!, then the following posts on the topic would probably have not occurred. The question was legitimate, if not also provocative, and any person seeking to satisfy their own intellectual curiosity concerning this would not have responded with a simple, No! Really, this only opens the door to further responses. The AGWT is a valid scientific theory that should be further utilized to help to explain some of the weather events we endure. Do you not agree?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4948
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Arctic ice at seven year high. Ouch!




Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
251. cyclonebuster
5:16 PM GMT on March 03, 2012
.


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
250. Neapolitan
4:50 PM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Arctic ice at seven year high. Ouch!

Arctic ice extent two standard deviations below the long-term average. Ouch! ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14495
249. Patrap
4:37 PM GMT on March 03, 2012
Arctic Sea Ice Continues Decline, Hits 2nd-Lowest Level

Last month the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the summertime sea ice cover narrowly avoided a new record low.


NASA satellite data reveals how this year's minimum sea ice extent, reached on Sept. 9 as depicted here, declined to a level far smaller than the 30-year average (in yellow) and opened up Northwest Passage shipping lanes (in red). (Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio)

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and shrinks each summer as the sun rises higher in the northern sky. Each year the Arctic sea ice reaches its annual minimum extent in September. It hit a record low in 2007.

The near-record ice-melt followed higher-than-average summer temperatures, but without the unusual weather conditions that contributed to the extreme melt of 2007. "Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were not as conducive to ice loss this year, but the melt still neared 2007 levels," said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. "This probably reflects loss of multiyear ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas as well as other factors that are making the ice more vulnerable."

Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said the continued low minimum sea ice levels fits into the large-scale decline pattern that scientists have watched unfold over the past three decades.

"The sea ice is not only declining, the pace of the decline is becoming more drastic," Comiso said. "The older, thicker ice is declining faster than the rest, making for a more vulnerable perennial ice cover."
While the sea ice extent did not dip below the 2007 record, the sea ice area as measured by the microwave radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite did drop slightly lower than 2007 levels for about 10 days in early September, Comiso said. Sea ice "area" differs from extent in that it equals the actual surface area covered by ice, while extent includes any area where ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean.

Arctic sea ice extent on Sept. 9, the lowest point this year, was 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). Averaged over the month of September, ice extent was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). This places 2011 as the second lowest ice extent both for the daily minimum extent and the monthly average. Ice extent was 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

This summer's low ice extent continued the downward trend seen over the last 30 years, which scientists attribute largely to warming temperatures caused by climate change. Data show that Arctic sea ice has been declining both in extent and thickness. Since 1979, September Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 12 percent per decade.

"The oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic continues to decline, especially in the Beaufort Sea and the Canada Basin," NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve said. "This appears to be an important driver for the low sea ice conditions over the past few summers."

Climate models have suggested that the Arctic could lose almost all of its summer ice cover by 2100, but in recent years, ice extent has declined faster than the models predicted.

NASA monitors and studies changing sea ice conditions in both the Arctic and Antarctic with a variety of spaceborne and airborne research capabilities. This month NASA resumes Operation IceBridge, a multi-year series of flights over sea ice and ice sheets at both poles. This fall's campaign will be based out of Punta Arenas, Chile, and make flights over Antarctica. NASA also continues work toward launching ICESat-2 in 2016, which will continue its predecessor's crucial laser altimetry observations of ice cover from space.


Patrick Lynch
NASA's Earth Science News Team
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134697
248. Neapolitan
4:36 PM GMT on March 03, 2012
Great news! The American justice system--and clear thinking, and scientific honesty--has prevailed, while denialism has lost yet another round:
Va. Supreme Court tosses Cuccinelli’s case against former U-Va. climate change researcher

The Virginia Supreme Court said Friday that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II does not have the authority to demand records related to a former University of Virginia climate researcher’s work.

In 2010, Cuccinelli (R), a global warming skeptic, issued a civil investigative demand, essentially a subpoena, for documents from the state’s flagship university.

He sought five grant applications prepared by former professor Michael Mann and all e-mails between Mann and his research assistants, secretaries and 39 other scientists from across the country.

But a judge dismissed the subpoena. Cuccinelli then filed a new, more specific demand pertaining to just one $214,700 state grant, but he also appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

In an unusual step, U-Va. hired its own attorney and fought back, arguing that the demand exceeds Cuccinelli's authority under state law and intrudes on the rights of professors to pursue academic inquiry free from political pressure.

Mann’s work has long been under attack by global warming skeptics, particularly after references to a statistical “trick” Mann used in his research surfaced in a series of leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Mann and others have said the e-mail was taken out of context.

Some of his methodologies have been criticized by other scientists, but several inquires have concluded that there was no evidence that Mann engaged in efforts to falsify or suppress data.
Now will Cuccinelli finally end his frivolous, taxpayer-funded, time-wasting, ideologically-driven witch hunt?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14495
247. Patrap
4:33 PM GMT on March 03, 2012

Bromine explosion on March 13, 2008 across the western Northwest Territories in Canada looking toward the Mackenzie Mountains at the horizon, which prevented the bromine from crossing over into Alaska. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Bremen

NASA Finds Sea Ice Driving Arctic Air Pollutants

PASADENA, Calif. – Drastic reductions in Arctic sea ice in the last decade may be intensifying the chemical release of bromine into the atmosphere, resulting in ground-level ozone depletion and the deposit of toxic mercury in the Arctic, according to a new NASA-led study.

The connection between changes in the Arctic Ocean's ice cover and bromine chemical processes is determined by the interaction between the salt in sea ice, frigid temperatures and sunlight. When these mix, the salty ice releases bromine into the air and starts a cascade of chemical reactions called a "bromine explosion." These reactions rapidly create more molecules of bromine monoxide in the atmosphere. Bromine then reacts with a gaseous form of mercury, turning it into a pollutant that falls to Earth's surface.

Bromine also can remove ozone from the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere. Despite ozone's beneficial role blocking harmful radiation in the stratosphere, ozone is a pollutant in the ground-level troposphere.

A team from the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., produced the study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres. The team combined data from six NASA, European Space Agency and Canadian Space Agency satellites; field observations and a model of how air moves in the atmosphere to link Arctic sea ice changes to bromine explosions over the Beaufort Sea, extending to the Amundsen Gulf in the Canadian Arctic.

"Shrinking summer sea ice has drawn much attention to exploiting Arctic resources and improving maritime trading routes," Nghiem said. "But the change in sea ice composition also has impacts on the environment. Changing conditions in the Arctic might increase bromine explosions in the future."

The study was undertaken to better understand the fundamental nature of bromine explosions, which first were observed in the Canadian Arctic more than two decades ago. The team of scientists wanted to find if the explosions occur in the troposphere or higher in the stratosphere.

Nghiem's team used the topography of mountain ranges in Alaska and Canada as a "ruler" to measure the altitude at which the explosions took place. In the spring of 2008, satellites detected increased concentrations of bromine, which were associated with a decrease of gaseous mercury and ozone. After the researchers verified the satellite observations with field measurements, they used an atmospheric model to study how the wind transported the bromine plumes across the Arctic.

The model, together with satellite observations, showed the Alaskan Brooks Range and the Canadian Richardson and Mackenzie mountains stopped bromine from moving into Alaska's interior. Since most of these mountains are lower than 6,560 feet (2,000 meters), the researchers determined the bromine explosion was confined to the lower troposphere.

"If the bromine explosion had been in the stratosphere, 5 miles [8 kilometers] or higher above the ground, the mountains would not have been able to stop it and the bromine would have been transported inland," Nghiem said.

After the researchers found that bromine explosions occur in the lowest level of the atmosphere, they could relate their origin to sources on the surface. Their model, tracing air rising from the salty ice, tied the bromine releases to recent changes in Arctic sea ice that have led to a much saltier sea ice surface.

In March 2008, the extent of year-round perennial sea ice eclipsed the 50-year record low set in March 2007, shrinking by 386,100 square miles (one million square kilometers) -- an area the size of Texas and Arizona combined. Seasonal ice, which forms over the winter when seawater freezes, now occupies the space of the lost perennial ice. This younger ice is much saltier than its older counterpart because it has not had time to undergo processes that drain its sea salts. It also contains more frost flowers -- clumps of ice crystals up to four times saltier than ocean waters -- providing more salt sources to fuel bromine releases.

Nghiem said if sea ice continues to be dominated by younger saltier ice, and Arctic extreme cold spells occur more often, bromine explosions are likely to increase in the future.

Nghiem is leading an Arctic field campaign this month that will provide new insights into bromine explosions and their impacts. NASA's Bromine, Ozone, and Mercury Experiment (BROMEX) involves international contributions by more than 20 organizations. The new studies will complement those of a previously conducted NASA field campaign, Arctic Research of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS), which is providing scientists with valuable data for studies of bromine.

This study was funded by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the International Polar Year Program, Environment Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada, the European Space Agency, the State of Bremen, the German Aerospace Center, and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.

For more information about NASA programs, visit: http://www.nasa.gov .

JPL is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134697
244. martinitony
1:41 PM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting Patrap:
Countdown 13.0.0.0.0.

Today is Friday, the 2. March 2012
The 13th Baktun begins at Friday, the 21. December 2012

294 days remaining!

1871706 days counted since the zero-date (11th August 3114 B.C., gregorian calendar)

The actual date in the mayan Longcount and the Tzolkin/Haab-Calendar:


12
Baktun
19
Katun
19
Tun
3
Uinal
6
Kin
9
Cimi
14
Kayab





December 21 is my birthday. Nothing special ever happens on my birthday. I don't expect anything different this time.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
243. Seawall
7:59 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Coupla things:

--Yes, I and others plus some comments more than others, but that's only because some comments are more deserving of plusses than are others. I don't plus spam, I don't plus aimless trolling, I don't plus vile and threatening comments, and, mainly, I don't plus comments that are simple denialist rehashings of the same tired and debunked tropes we've all heard a thousand times. But that's not to say I minus them, or report them. I haven't kept track, but I'd imagine that I've used the minus button no more than 30 times in, say, the last six months, and then only in conjunction with the report button; that's because hitting the minus ensures the comment will stay hidden when I reload the page but before the comment is removed. I do know from long experience that others indiscriminately press the flag and report buttons simply because they disagree with what the commenter wrote, but that's just childish, IMHO. (Also, FWIW, I do on occasion plus particularly poignant comments from those on the other side. I have in the past plussed comments from atmo, and maelstrom, and Oss, and barefoot, and, yes, even you. Keep it above the waist, keep it relevant, keep it honest, and keep it though-provoking, and I may just do that.)

--Yes, I believe Admins can see all blog activity, but not being one myself here, nor ever having been one here, I really have no idea.

Now, what are your own thoughts and feelings on the Venusian heat? Do you believe it's primarily/only from adiabatic processes as atmo claimed? Is it primarily/only from a greenhouse effect as Rookie claimed? Or is it something else (i.e., heat from the planet's core being unable to escape to space) as others have claimed? And as a follow-up: what relevance does it have with what's going on on Earth?


A very honest reply, and thank you for it. Actually, I'm not sure where I stand on the Venus issue, nor the entire Global Warming, or lack of, or increase of said subject. I do respect Atmoaggie and hold him in the highest regard as he a very intelligent person with the education to back it up. I pretty much respect everyone here, or try to. Good info to be found, if you know where, and who to seek it from. I'm not a denialist, nor am I on the other side of the fence; I guess you can say I ride the middle of it. My biggest problem is when I joined Master's blog, it was Tropical Weather, and Severe weather, during the "off season." Since then, Master's has changed the blog to offer more of his own opinions on AGW. And, that is his opinion. You just shouldn't change in the middle of the stream. I realize you are a newbie here, relatively speaking. You cannot recall when the site was not full of the AGW talk because you weren't here, or either you weren't posting. I do think, however, you grabbed the AGW talk by the horns, and ran with it, and added to the comments. You didn't help the situation much. (Or, maybe you did, in Master's opinion.) It's not about AGW that was presented to me a long time ago, it was about tropical, and severe weather. People were posting maps and charts ALL over the place, even in the off season. Now, not so much. I don't come here to cause problems; I'm NOT a troll, and I would hope that you could see that. I don't have your post numbers, but I've got you beat by a long shot by my membership date.
To me, it was more important today to watch the radar... and the cape values... and the surface maps.... as we watched so many people die over the tri state area. Watching the radar as so many people lost their homes.... their lives... and everything. It was really horrible, and the real damage will dawn with the morning hours.
If you have anything to teach to anyone, please let me know. I don't require your AGW lectures, and sometimes you take the tone that tells me "I am better than you and everyone else".... and you might not mean to do that, but that's the tone I take from you. But if you have ANYTHING at all to offer to someone regarding Tropical Systems, and severe weather, I'm certainly open to your suggestions.
Member Since: September 8, 2001 Posts: 1 Comments: 401
242. cyclonebuster
5:44 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
--Parts of NSW in Australia are seeing their heaviest rainfall in at least 100 years.

--The previous single-day record for March tornadoes was 59. The SPC is reporting 94 as of now. Even if there are no more reported, and even if, say, 30% of those reported are later rejected, today will easily be the most tornadic day ever recorded in March. And it came, of course, two whole days after a previous outbreak.

--As some have noted, the Earth's oceans may very well be acidifying at the fastest rate in 300,000,000 years. Three. Hundred. Million. Years. It's acidifying so fast, in fact, that our ability to feed ourselves is going to be greatly imperiled.

I just wanted to list those few coincidences. I wouldn't worry about them, or even give them a second thought. I'm sure it's all part of a natural cycle...


These prevent all of that above Neapolitan:

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
241. Patrap
4:55 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
Countdown 13.0.0.0.0.

Today is Friday, the 2. March 2012
The 13th Baktun begins at Friday, the 21. December 2012

294 days remaining!

1871706 days counted since the zero-date (11th August 3114 B.C., gregorian calendar)

The actual date in the mayan Longcount and the Tzolkin/Haab-Calendar:


12
Baktun
19
Katun
19
Tun
3
Uinal
6
Kin
9
Cimi
14
Kayab



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134697
239. Neapolitan
4:51 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
--Parts of NSW in Australia are seeing their heaviest rainfall in at least 100 years.

--The previous single-day record for March tornadoes was 59. The SPC is reporting 94 as of now. Even if there are no more reported, and even if, say, 30% of those reported are later rejected, today will easily be the most tornadic day ever recorded in March. And it came, of course, two whole days after a previous outbreak.

--As some have noted, the Earth's oceans may very well be acidifying at the fastest rate in 300,000,000 years. Three. Hundred. Million. Years. It's acidifying so fast, in fact, that our ability to feed ourselves is going to be greatly imperiled.

I just wanted to list those few coincidences. I wouldn't worry about them, or even give them a second thought. I'm sure it's all part of a natural cycle...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14495
238. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:19 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Ah yes, how appropriate it is when one shows how ideologically based perception can be confining eh?

How is that ID doing? .

The others parts are obvious to all that pay attention :)

I hope you don't mind if I pray for you......







Hello, Ossqss. How have you been doing?

You do realize that your entire post could be turned right back to you, are you not? Including the MC Hammer music video.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4948
237. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:17 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 210



Maybe...The Nobel Foundation's criteria for awards aren't exactly that impressive anymore; perhaps a low budget indie film portraying my point would suffice.

Seriously though, isn't it common sense that variation over a 150-year time period would naturally be greater than that of a longer time period of 5000 years. Do you not see the point that I was making?


Should it be true that our burning of fossil fuels began in earnest some 5,000 years ago, then it would be common sense to look at the data for more than just 150 years or for any shorter period. We should look at the data over the past 5,000 years to see what impact the burning of fossil fuels has had on the global climate, if we had starting burning fossil fuels then. Common sense should also dictate that we look at the data over the past 150 years, the beginning of our burning of fossil fuels, as opposed to just any 10 years of data from these 150 years.

What are we really trying to ascertain here? Is it not to see what impact the burning of fossil fuels has had on our global climate? Let us say that we had complete data of our global climate and a full understanding of this data for the past 1,000,000,000 years. Should we try to incorporate this data into our attempt to ascertain the impact of our burning of fossil fuels when have only been doing so for 150 years? Should we do so, then we must filter out all of the forcing for a global climate change that occurred over that 1,000,000,000 year period. What purpose would this serve? Certainly we would benefit from knowing all of the forcing that had impacted our global climate before. This information should only be used as points of reference and not as a determination of what is happening with our global climate today. This is true, unless the past events are also events that are occurring today and at a rate as to have caused the past global climate changes.

Since what we are really trying to ascertain is how much our burning of fossil fuels has impacted our global climate, then we should only be concerned with the time period just prior to our doing so. We have been burning fossil fuels for about 150 years. We should then look back to see what the climate was 150 years prior to our burning of fossil fuels. This would give a good starting point to see how our burning of fossil fuels has impacted our climate. Looking at time periods before this would be just so much noise. Unless these is something from before this time period that is effecting our global climate now, it has no real relevance on any global climate change we are witnessing now.

Let us employ a little more common sense. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that greenhouse gases, in sufficient quantities, will cause a warming of our global climate. We know that our burning of fossil fuels releases tons per day of CO2 into our atmosphere. We know that a warming global climate will begin to trigger other processes, such as the releasing of previously frozen methane into our atmosphere. We know that methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2. We know that a warming global climate will lead to ice loss. We know that ice loss will cause the loss of reflective surfaces with dark and more heat absorbing surfaces. Use your common sense and see if you are able to explain to me how our burning of fossil fuels will not have an appreciable impact on the warming of our global climate?

Yes, I know. There will be some that will miss the point of what I am making here.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4948
236. Neapolitan
4:17 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting Barefootontherocks:


LOL. Apples and oranges and you know it.

I laugh also at your thinly-veiled attempt to intimidate me. 'Bye now. Have a nice day.
:)
Huh? I asked you an honest, open, balanced, fair, and relevant question. If you didn't care to comment, a simple "I don't have an answer" would have been more polite.

Sigh...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14495
235. Ossqss
3:04 AM GMT on March 03, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Ah, yes. The Black Knight. How appropriate that you would choose this video. No matter what is happening, no matter all of the evidence presented before him, the Black Knight simply denies that anything has happened at all. He will, at best, admit that it is just a minor problem and that nothing should be made of it. I believe that you have very well explained the problem, with your little video. Those that would deny what is obviously taking place. Thank you, for making this point so obvious to anyone that is paying attention.


Ah yes, how appropriate it is when one shows how ideologically based perception can be confining eh?

How is that ID doing? .

The others parts are obvious to all that pay attention :)

I hope you don't mind if I pray for you......





Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
234. greentortuloni
6:51 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 219


The data is the supporting evidence of the hypothesis that "X is making/did make the ocean more acidic". If the data comparison is inappropriate it cannot support the hypothesis very well, even if it "makes sense". That would be overlooking the problems with the comparison simply because it validates the answer you were looking for, something that seems to occur quite often in this field.

The idea that the recent 150-year change is an "enormous spike" is assuming that over no similar period in the past (150-year period or similar) exhibited a similar "spike". Showing that it didn't over a 5000 year period does not show that at all. It is certainly possible that there were shorter time periods within that the 5000-year one where changes were greater than the recent changes, until temporally precise data can be found to show otherwise.

The "cold front" argument isn't valid here, in my opinion. You can certainly measure temperatures accurate precisely enough to determine if a cold front has passed. Using the "cold front" analogy to the original acidification argument, it would be like as if you could only measure temperatures as a week average because of temporal precision limitations, and you tried to argue that a cold front did not pass because two weeks exhibited the same overall average temperature.

The average proxy-derived pH change value (even assuming that proxy is good enough, which we're glossing over for this argument) is not precise enough to state that recent 150-year pH change is unmatched, unless specific shorter time periods on the scale of 150 years can be measured for comparison.

This is way I see it, at least--especially given the scope of the original claim. Fastest shift in 300 million years? Seriously? I bet we can't even get a good 100,000 year average for global ocean pH that far back. How many proxy points would that be based on geographically I wonder?

Edited


The point of my post was that your conclusion in bold is not a valid statistical statement. It's like kriging when searching for gold: there is no way that a set of data samples from boreholes can eliminate the possibility of a gold bearing vein, but in the absence of a changing geological structure the statistical treatment is assumed to be valid.

In the case of CO2, you state that are possible gaps in the data but don't provide an evidence/hypothesis about a physical structure, you only state that it could be true, essentially it is a deus ex-machina hypothesis. On the other hand, it is easy to demonstrate that dissolving CO2 into seawater does raise its acidity (lower its ph).
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
233. cyclonebuster
6:25 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Did you read the very first sentence of the abstract?

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing at an accelerating rate, primarily due to fossil fuel combustion and land use change."

Perhaps the second sentence is also noteworthy?

"A substantial fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is absorbed by the oceans, resulting in a reduction of seawater pH."

Are we to ignore the third sentence of the abstract?

"Continued acidification may over time have profound effects on marine biota and biogeochemical cycles."

The rest of the abstract does, indeed, discuss the short duration of actual measurements and the accounting for other possible factors concerning the acidification. What it does not do is dismiss the obvious. The obvious is the first three sentences of the abstract.

I am beginning to see that those that would deny the AGWT are starting to do so with articles that actually show support for the AGWT. This is simply because the validity of the AGWT is becoming very apparent to all that have even a basic understanding of the science. Those that still deny the science are merely questioning what? I am not sure. It is going to happen, but when is an uncertainty? It is going to happen, but is it going to be that bad? It is going to happen, but natural cycles have already happened before? ( To this I would say, our activities of burning fossil fuels are not part of the natural cycles. ) Take a close look at all of the physical observations from around the world and you will have good answers to these questions. Unless, of course, you think that ancient aliens left a huge canister of CO2 laying around that was set to release its contents about now. Even if this were true, it does not omit what we are doing ourselves.


It is called cherry picking information to support your cause!

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
232. sirmaelstrom
4:59 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
№ 219
Quoting greentortuloni:


Pretty disingeneous. Of course short term reuslts have greater variability.. in the mathematical truism sense of variability. That is basic statistics. I didn't read the article but in a situation like this you look for causes and system dynamics.

Without a returning force with an acceleration equal to the acceleration of the phenomena (acceleration in 2nd order sense), the data makes a lot of sense. For example, the sediments can reduce acidity to a certain extent. However the rate of reduction is much less than the contribution from C02 entering into solution. So what mechanism in the past would have handled a similarly enourmous spike in acidity? Maybe a spike from some one-off event could be handled over time but clearly, CO2 is not a one-off event since our rate pf production accelerates.

Your argument is like observing a cold front moving through and then arguing that it is not a change in weather because the measurements made over the last 7 days were only taken every hour and that theoretically it is possible that all the temperatures dipped similarly in one of those hour gaps. Yeah, theoretically you are right: it is mathematically possible, or rather impossible to eliminate that possibility. But what is the mechanism by which the temperature would ahve dipped and then returned? In the case of global warming we have a mechanism that is well studied and well forecast. To say an alternative is theoretically possible without mentioning what it is is just amathematical truism designed to give the denialists some sort of intellectual straw hut to hide inside in order to pretend the wolf doesn't exist.


The data is the supporting evidence of the hypothesis that "X is making/did make the ocean more acidic". If the data comparison is inappropriate it cannot support the hypothesis very well, even if it "makes sense". That would be overlooking the problems with the comparison simply because it validates the answer you were looking for, something that seems to occur quite often in this field.

The idea that the recent 150-year change is an "enormous spike" is assuming that over no similar period in the past (150-year period or similar) exhibited a similar "spike". Showing that it didn't over a 5000 year period does not show that at all. It is certainly possible that there were shorter time periods within that the 5000-year one where changes were greater than the recent changes, until temporally precise data can be found to show otherwise.

The "cold front" argument isn't valid here, in my opinion. You can certainly measure temperatures accurate precisely enough to determine if a cold front has passed. Using the "cold front" analogy to the original acidification argument, it would be like as if you could only measure temperatures as a week average because of temporal precision limitations, and you tried to argue that a cold front did not pass because two weeks exhibited the same overall average temperature.

The average proxy-derived pH change value (even assuming that proxy is good enough, which we're glossing over for this argument) is not precise enough to state that recent 150-year pH change is unmatched, unless specific shorter time periods on the scale of 150 years can be measured for comparison.

This is way I see it, at least--especially given the scope of the original claim. Fastest shift in 300 million years? Seriously? I bet we can't even get a good 100,000 year average for global ocean pH that far back. How many proxy points would that be based on geographically I wonder?

Edited
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
230. sirmaelstrom
4:36 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
№ 210

Quoting Neapolitan:
Wow, that was quick! Can I assume you're busy writing a rebuttal paper at this very minute in response to the idiots who wrote that article? Please do hurry; you will no doubt knock them out of their shoes with your statements about their science being "meaningless", "invalid", and that you "seriously doubt" their findings. I sense a trip to Stockholm! ;-)


Maybe...The Nobel Foundation's criteria for awards aren't exactly that impressive anymore; perhaps a low budget indie film portraying my point would suffice.

Seriously though, isn't it common sense that variation over a 150-year time period would naturally be greater than that of a longer time period of 5000 years. Do you not see the point that I was making?
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
229. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:32 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:
Link

19 year variability in ocean ph is "virtually indistinguishable"


Did you read the very first sentence of the abstract?

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing at an accelerating rate, primarily due to fossil fuel combustion and land use change."

Perhaps the second sentence is also noteworthy?

"A substantial fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is absorbed by the oceans, resulting in a reduction of seawater pH."

Are we to ignore the third sentence of the abstract?

"Continued acidification may over time have profound effects on marine biota and biogeochemical cycles."

The rest of the abstract does, indeed, discuss the short duration of actual measurements and the accounting for other possible factors concerning the acidification. What it does not do is dismiss the obvious. The obvious is the first three sentences of the abstract.

I am beginning to see that those that would deny the AGWT are starting to do so with articles that actually show support for the AGWT. This is simply because the validity of the AGWT is becoming very apparent to all that have even a basic understanding of the science. Those that still deny the science are merely questioning what? I am not sure. It is going to happen, but when is an uncertainty? It is going to happen, but is it going to be that bad? It is going to happen, but natural cycles have already happened before? ( To this I would say, our activities of burning fossil fuels are not part of the natural cycles. ) Take a close look at all of the physical observations from around the world and you will have good answers to these questions. Unless, of course, you think that ancient aliens left a huge canister of CO2 laying around that was set to release its contents about now. Even if this were true, it does not omit what we are doing ourselves.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4948
228. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:59 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Really? Can you point us to the non-referenced study from this site you took the text from?

a href="http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/oceans-acidic-shift-may-be-fastest-in-300-m illion-years/"

You can substantiate what the scientists say with peer reviewed stuff, Can't you ?

Reminds me of the "Black Knight Sketch" LOL



Ah, yes. The Black Knight. How appropriate that you would choose this video. No matter what is happening, no matter all of the evidence presented before him, the Black Knight simply denies that anything has happened at all. He will, at best, admit that it is just a minor problem and that nothing should be made of it. I believe that you have very well explained the problem, with your little video. Those that would deny what is obviously taking place. Thank you, for making this point so obvious to anyone that is paying attention.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4948
227. cyclonebuster
1:54 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:
Link

19 year variability in ocean ph is "virtually indistinguishable"


Contributed by David M. Karl, June 8, 2009 (received for review April 10, 2009)

Old Hat Old news!Not world wide only in North Central Pacific. I love your cherry picking. See this in North Central Pacific NOAA says otherwise:



Y'all with me yet??????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????



Link


Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem

Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside %u2014 the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION.
Mission statement

To understand the changing chemistry of the oceans and the impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems. Our observations of key physical, chemical, and biological parameters support NOAA's overall efforts to predict how marine ecosystems will respond and to develop management strategies for adapting to the consequences of ocean acidification.

Oceanographers in our group have been studying how CO2 emissions affect the ocean system for more than three decades and continue to monitor ocean acidification in all the world%u2019s oceans from coral reef ecosystems to deep North Pacific waters. Our group collects several types of carbon measurements throughout the world%u2019s oceans. We participate in large-scale research cruises across ocean basins and along coastlines at regular intervals to study how ocean chemistry is changing through time.

We also make measurements of the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in the surface water of the world%u2019s oceans using automated analytical systems on moorings and underway platforms. We are currently in the process of adding pH, oxygen, chlorophyll, and turbidity sensors to our existing moored and underway systems to more accurately and precisely study the changes associated with ocean acidification.




These prevents the above:



Y'all with me yet??????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20768
226. Barefootontherocks
1:50 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Equally fair for yearly or decadal comparison purposes would be to eliminate all tornado ratings prior to 1973, as those were rated retroactively often based on no more than newspaper articles or anecdotal reports. (I saw one older after-tornado photo that claimed F5 damage, yet there were multiple standing brick walls in the center of the image; I would seriously doubt that rating.)


LOL. Apples and oranges and you know it.

I laugh also at your thinly-veiled attempt to intimidate me. 'Bye now. Have a nice day.
:)
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 163 Comments: 20711
225. JupiterKen
12:26 PM GMT on March 02, 2012
Link

19 year variability in ocean ph is "virtually indistinguishable"
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
224. Xandra
11:58 AM GMT on March 02, 2012
William D. Nordhaus, a professor of economics at Yale University, has reviewed the arguments 16 skeptic scientists recently argued in The Wall Street Journal.

This resulted in a long but very readable text in The New York Review of Books.

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1851
223. Neapolitan
11:44 AM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting Seawall:


Neapolitan, I didn't come here to plus or minus comments unfairly. If you'll take just a brief second to look around at your own plussing, and Ms. Colon's plussing, I'm sure you will find that some tend to plus other comments more than some. It's just the natural way of joining with "like" minds if you wish.

I visit these blogs daily to seek weather and climate knowledge, and I've learned a lot, but NONE from you. Can you see my blog activity as an ADMIN? If so, please post it for the world to see.

I'm very glad to see you've used the term "we" so lightly. I take it that means you "speak" for this group, the entire forum, as a matter of fact. Just goes to prove your number of posts carries great value for some, but for me, not so much. I'm not saying you are not knowledgeable about Climate Change; you apparently have great resources available to copy and paste. I do question your knowledge about weather in general, and especially Tropical Weather, and you might be challenged in the upcoming months.
I wish you nothing but the best.
Coupla things:

--Yes, I and others plus some comments more than others, but that's only because some comments are more deserving of plusses than are others. I don't plus spam, I don't plus aimless trolling, I don't plus vile and threatening comments, and, mainly, I don't plus comments that are simple denialist rehashings of the same tired and debunked tropes we've all heard a thousand times. But that's not to say I minus them, or report them. I haven't kept track, but I'd imagine that I've used the minus button no more than 30 times in, say, the last six months, and then only in conjunction with the report button; that's because hitting the minus ensures the comment will stay hidden when I reload the page but before the comment is removed. I do know from long experience that others indiscriminately press the flag and report buttons simply because they disagree with what the commenter wrote, but that's just childish, IMHO. (Also, FWIW, I do on occasion plus particularly poignant comments from those on the other side. I have in the past plussed comments from atmo, and maelstrom, and Oss, and barefoot, and, yes, even you. Keep it above the waist, keep it relevant, keep it honest, and keep it though-provoking, and I may just do that.)

--Yes, I believe Admins can see all blog activity, but not being one myself here, nor ever having been one here, I really have no idea.

Now, what are your own thoughts and feelings on the Venusian heat? Do you believe it's primarily/only from adiabatic processes as atmo claimed? Is it primarily/only from a greenhouse effect as Rookie claimed? Or is it something else (i.e., heat from the planet's core being unable to escape to space) as others have claimed? And as a follow-up: what relevance does it have with what's going on on Earth?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14495
222. Neapolitan
11:40 AM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Something I learned today... 62% of U.S. tornadoes that occurred between 2000-2010 were EF 0. I think it would be interesting to eliminate EF0 from the count. After all, that's not much worse that a strong, say 57 mph, wind gust. Wonder what the tor stats over the past half century would look like without all these EF0's in the mix.
Equally fair for yearly or decadal comparison purposes would be to eliminate all tornado ratings prior to 1973, as those were rated retroactively often based on no more than newspaper articles or anecdotal reports. (I saw one older after-tornado photo that claimed F5 damage, yet there were multiple standing brick walls in the center of the image; I would seriously doubt that rating.)

As for the rest of your comment, by all means continue to "flag" anything you feel violates community standards, even those that actually don't. But you should know that doing so only hurts your own "karma". And a question: in the interests of fairness, did you indeed "flag" atmo's comment #187?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14495
221. greentortuloni
9:37 AM GMT on March 02, 2012
Climate change is raising the risk of diseases such as Schmallenberg in the UK and northern Europe, say scientists.

Schmallenberg virus affects sheep and cattle, and is probably carried by midges. It was identified in Germany last year, and in the UK in January.

Until 1990, Europe's midge-borne viral diseases were found only in Spain and Portugal; but two have emerged within the last six years in northern Europe.

Experts say the path of Schmallenberg is currently impossible to predict.

Schmallenberg virus - named after the German town where it was first identified - causes fever and diarrhoea in adult animals, but they recover.

However, infection during a critical stage of pregnancy leads to lambs and calves being born with deformation of limbs, spine or brain. Many are stillborn.

Currently it has been found on 83 farms in the UK, mainly in the southeast.
Unpredictable future

The next few months will almost certainly see the birth of more affected lambs and calves resulting from infections their mothers picked up last year, as farms progressively further north go through the calving season.

But after that, it could "burn itself out" or become a regular threat - or anywhere in between, according to leading scientists speaking at a briefing in London.

"There are these two scenarios," said Matthew Baylis from the Institute of Infection and Global Health at Liverpool University.

"The key question is whether the virus will be picked up by the vector (midges) from the calves and lambs that will be born later in the spring, after the midge season starts."

If that happens, he said, more cows and sheep will be infected, with problems emerging next year when they give birth.

But the path is very hard to predict as so little is known about a virus that was only idenfitied a few months ago.

"There is the possibility it will simply die out, but I think that would be too good to be true," said Peter Mertens from the Institute for Animal Health in Surrey.

"There's a lot of virus about, and I think it's quite likely it won't simply go away in one year.

"Is Culicoides (the midge) the only means of spread, or is there something else on a local level - fecal-oral spread, or aerosol (airborne) spread?

"We don't know."
Vaccination needed?

One part of the puzzle that scientists have put together is the influence of climate change on the risks of midge-borne viral diseases.

A higher temperature means an increase in the number of midges, and that they feed more often. It also allows the virus to develop faster.

Using weather and climate models as well as information on the biology of viruses and midges, Prof Baylis's research group showed that recent climatic change in northern Europe has significantly increased the risk of viral midge-borne diseases.

"Temperature changes in Europe which to most of us have felt relatively small have in our model led to a large increase in the risk of viral midge-borne diseases," he said.

The modelling results, he said, reflected what has actually happened across the continent.

"Culicoides infections were first detected in Europe in the 1920s, but only in Spain and Portugal and on the eastern borders, around Turkey," he said.

"Then in 1998 we saw cases in Italy. Bluetongue then emerged in northern Europe in 2006/7, and now we have Schmallenberg."

The modelling suggests other similar diseases should be expected in future, said Prof Mertens, adding: "The doors are open."

Schmallenberg appears to pose no threat to humans, according to monitoring by the Netherlands government health agency.

It appears that currently, little can be done to curb the spread of Schmallenberg if it does emerge as a persistent threat for farmers.

Animals could be sheltered inside during the critical period of their pregancy. Prof Baylis's team has shown this reduces the number of midges, but does not offer complete protection.

Australian farmers, combating a similar virus, have developed regimes whereby female cows that have not previously been infected are made pregnant before the insect season begins.

When they do become infected later in the year, their calves do not suffer, and the cows subsequently become immune.

There is no realistic way to control midge numbers, said Prof Mertens.

Vaccine manufacturers, meanwhile, are working on a vaccine for Schmallenberg, which would take about 18 months to develop.

But given all the things we do not know about the virus, said Prof Mertens, it was not yet proven that vaccination was needed.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
220. greentortuloni
8:51 AM GMT on March 02, 2012
More non obvious results from [global warming] changing ecosystems:

(Reuters) - Significant declines in perennial Arctic sea ice over the past decade may be intensifying a chemical reaction that leads to deposits of toxic mercury, a NASA-led study showed on Thursday.

The study found that thick, perennial Arctic sea ice was being replaced by a thinner and saltier ice that releases bromine into the air when it interacts with sunlight and cold, said Son Nghiem, a NASA researcher at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.

That in turn triggers a chemical reaction called a "bromine explosion" that turns gaseous mercury in the atmosphere into a toxic pollutant that falls on snow, land and ice and can accumulate in fish, said Nghiem, lead author of the study.

"Shrinking summer sea ice has drawn much attention to exploiting Arctic resources and improving maritime trading routes," Nghiem said.

"But the change in sea ice composition also has impacts on the environment," he said. "Changing conditions in the Arctic might increase bromine explosions in the future.

Nghiem said the released bromine can also remove ozone from the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere.

Though much of the attention on Arctic sea ice has focused on summer sea ice cover, the NASA-led study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, examined perennial sea ice during winter and the transition into spring.

Nghiem said scientists were still trying to determine why the Arctic had lost an estimated one million square kilometers of perennial sea ice over the last 10 years, saying it could be due to a change in wind patterns over that time period.

In March 2008, the extent of year-round perennial sea ice set a 50-year low, shrinking by an area the size of Texas and Arizona combined, according to NASA. It has been replaced by younger, seasonal sea ice that is saltier because it has not undergone the processes that wash out its salts.

The study was conducted by a team from the United States, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom and combined data from six NASA, European Space Agency and Canadian Space Agency satellites as well as field observations and a model.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
219. greentortuloni
8:42 AM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 206


It's meaningless to compare rate of change over a short-term such as 150 years to a long term such as 5000 years--in general, the shorter period will tend to exhibit more variability potentially. I also seriously doubt that there is any proxy for pH that has a good enough temporal resolution to enable us to rule out any 150-year period of the last 300 million years exhibiting changes that far exceed what we have seen from 1850-2000.

No "breaking" anything here, just an invalid comparison.

Of course, the title does use the word "may", so I guess it really doesn't say anything anyway.

I'm also wondering how many, if any, pH measurements go back 150 years; they're probably mixing proxy data with actual measurements again I guess...




Pretty disingeneous. Of course short term reuslts have greater variability.. in the mathematical truism sense of variability. That is basic statistics. I didn't read the article but in a situation like this you look for causes and system dynamics.

Without a returning force with an acceleration equal to the acceleration of the phenonmena (acceleration in 2nd order sense), the data makes a lot of sense. For example, the sediments can reduce acidity to a certain extent. However the rate of reduction is much less than the contribution from C02 entering into solution. So what mechanism in the past would have handled a similarly enourmous spike in acidity? Maybe a spike from some one-off event could be handled over time but clearly, CO2 is not a one-off event since our rate pf production accelerates.

Your argument is like observing a cold front moving through and then arguing that it is not a change in weather because the measurements made over the last 7 days were only taken every hour and that theoretically it is possible that all the temperatures dipped similarly in one of those hour gaps. Yeah, theoretically you are right: it is mathematically possible, or rather impossible to eliminate that possibility. But what is the mechanism by which the temperature would ahve dipped and then returned? In the case of global warming we have a mechanism that is well studied and well forecast. To say an alternative is theoretically possible without mentioning what it is is just amathematical truism designed to give the denialists some sort of intellectual straw hut to hide inside in order to pretend the wolf doesn't exist.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
218. Seawall
5:56 AM GMT on March 02, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Ah, the bunker trolls have been busy, I see. "Let us all go to Dr. Rood's blog forum and frantically mash the report and minus buttons on that comment made by Neapolitan until it disappears! Because that will prove beyond all doubt that climate change isn't happening!" (Don't any of you find it even the least bit ironic that my response to a comment about how we minus denialist posts here was disappeared by denialists minusing it, while the denialist comment to which I was responding is still here?)

Anyway, to the matter at hand, I'll summarize it thusly: lapse rate determines the gradient of the distribution of heat through an atmosphere; it is not itself the source of heat. Capisce?

On a personal note: Atmo (and the rest of you bunkerites), I think we'd be happy to have you here if you'd stick to engaging in intellectually honest dialog, even if from a skeptical perspective. But if you come merely to engage in trollish behavior--to which you, atmo, have admitted--the bunker is probably the best place for you.



Neapolitan, I didn't come here to plus or minus comments unfairly. If you'll take just a brief second to look around at your own plussing, and Ms. Colon's plussing, I'm sure you will find that some tend to plus other comments more than some. It's just the natural way of joining with "like" minds if you wish.

I visit these blogs daily to seek weather and climate knowledge, and I've learned a lot, but NONE from you. Can you see my blog activity as an ADMIN? If so, please post it for the world to see.

I'm very glad to see you've used the term "we" so lightly. I take it that means you "speak" for this group, the entire forum, as a matter of fact. Just goes to prove your number of posts carries great value for some, but for me, not so much. I'm not saying you are not knowledgeable about Climate Change; you apparently have great resources available to copy and paste. I do question your knowledge about weather in general, and especially Tropical Weather, and you might be challenged in the upcoming months.
I wish you nothing but the best.
Member Since: September 8, 2001 Posts: 1 Comments: 401

Viewing: 268 - 218

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
62 °F
Scattered Clouds

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.