Models are Everywhere:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:56 PM GMT on July 30, 2012

Share this Blog
13
+

Models are Everywhere: Models, Water, and Temperature (3)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.0: I have written a number of entries over the years introducing the role of models in climate science (Uncertainty (Model Types), Predictable Arguments). You will also find in those entries links to a couple of chapters in books, where I have written introductions to atmospheric modeling for scientists. (most recently, standalone chapter). There are several websites that offer an introduction to climate modeling, for example, We Adapt, climateprediction.net, NASA Earth Observatory, and Koshland Science Museum. A discussion I particularly like is Spencer Weart’s Simple Models of Climate Change. My friends who are expert in education tell me, however, that models, modeling, and the use of models are among the most difficult concepts to both grasp and teach. Often people do not feel comfortable with models as a representation of real things or, in the case of climate, with the real world. The consequences of this discomfort for climate change are far reaching, ranging from challenging how to use the information from models to providing an easy way to grow the political arguments of selective doubt.

Looking at the online resources that introduce climate models, many of them start with words such as “theory,” “numerical,” “computer,” and “mathematical.” They talk about representing the “physics” of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice as “coupled systems.” There are different ways that “complexity” is discussed. I often state that climate models are a way to “manage the complexity” of the Earth’s climate or that they are a “comprehensive expression of our accumulated knowledge.” Others talk about complexity in way that comes across as the climate and climate models are complex, and hence, it takes scientists to understand models. I can even find online resources that say that the climate is so complex that it is unreasonable to imagine that humans can build credible climate models. This cloak of complexity is one I will try remove in the series.

When I think about models, the first thing that comes to mind is the half hull of ships that ship builders used to inform the design and building of their ships. Following that thought, there are the models of buildings and shopping centers that are tools of architects and urban planners. These models not only allow seeing how a new building might fit into the environment, but they also serve as a way to, for instance, identify traffic congestion because of placement of parking lots and to communicate the design in the designer’s mind to clients and the public. Another practical example of this form of model is the mockup of, say, the electrical and plumbing systems in a big building to see how things fit together. Similarly, when NASA builds a satellite, there are engineering mockups that are used in design and planning that serve as basic tools to guide thinking about the construction of a complex system and to communicate to others in the project.



Figure 1: Half hulls of boats, a type of model. From Halfhull.com.

This type of model fits into the definition of a work or structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. As described, these are often touchable, real constructions that look like little versions of the real thing. Professionals in the field might call them “toy models,” which is not in any way meant to convey that they are less than serious. Increasingly, these models are represented digitally, using computers, to provide three-dimensional video worlds that you can walk through (Rick Kaplan’s 1963 Mickey Mantle Homerun). All of the details mentioned in this paragraph will, ultimately, be related to climate models; however, the initial point I want to make is that models are everywhere in our world. Rather than models being abstract ideas that are alien, models are, in fact, quite intuitive. They are one of the devices that we use to help think about our complex world. And perhaps more simply, they help in the quick construction of a picnic bench that can sit firmly on the ground and hold up three 200-hundred-pound men.

Interesting Research: Changes in the Arctic: Steering of Storms - Often when we talk of the Earth warming, we talk about the average temperature of the surface of the Earth increasing. It has already been observed, and climate models predict that the Arctic will warm far more and far faster than this average temperature. This is often called “Arctic Amplification.” There are many consequences of the enhanced warming of the Arctic, such as vast changes in northern forests, thawing of the permafrost, and, potentially, the release of large amounts of storages of the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide. (WWF’s Arctic Feedbacks Review)

The specifics of the Earth’s climate are strongly related to the tilt of the Earth on its axis of rotation, the rate of rotation, the distribution of land and water, and the mountains on the land. It is because of these defining attributes of the Earth that we get different regional climate characteristics such as tropical and polar climate zones. In the United States, we mostly live in what atmospheric scientists call the middle latitudes. In the middle latitudes, storms are always working to even out the temperature differences between the tropics and the poles. As the climate warms, it is intuitive that the area of the tropics is likely to get larger, that is, tropical climates will extend closer to the poles. As mentioned above, there are already huge changes in the Arctic.

As the Arctic and tropics change, the jet streams change, and the characteristics of the storms that transport heat from the tropics to the polar region change. There is a very nice recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters by Francis and Vavrus, Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. If there is a simple takeaway message from this paper, it is that weather features such as storms are moving more slowly and often of greater amplitude. Amplitude? Middle latitude storms are waves and well modeled as waves, and the amplitude of the waves are increasing. The impact of these changes is that weather events are more persistent, leading to more extremes of weather: floods, droughts, heat waves, and cold spells. All of these impacts occur when the weather gets stuck in a particular pattern.

What I specifically like about this paper is how they bring the observations back to fundamental theories and models of atmospheric motion (Holton: Dynamical Meteorology). Dynamical meteorology is a mature field of science with its principles checked in weather forecasting, observational field studies, and numerical modeling. When observations and models and theory are combined in a way that paints a consistent picture, we develop a form of scientific investigation that identifies processes, isolates cause and effect, and help us understand the ingredients of the complexity of the Earth’s climate.

r


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: 127 - 77

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

Quoting JohnLonergan:
I watched the Senate hearing this morning. Christy didn’t mention the Watts paper in his spoken testimony, but Senator Boxer (D from CA, and chair) absolutely slammed him for referring to it in writing, asking him whether it was peer-reviewed and how could he be relying on one unreviewed paper, she trusted in the many reviewed papers that supported warming. Christy looked like he wanted to crawl somewhere and hide.

He didn't mention Watts' name, that is true. But it was obvious which paper he was talking about.

And wasn't that a nice take-down by Boxer? I smiled.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I watched the Senate hearing this morning. Christy didn’t mention the Watts paper in his spoken testimony, but Senator Boxer (D from CA, and chair) absolutely slammed him for referring to it in writing, asking him whether it was peer-reviewed and how could he be relying on one unreviewed paper, she trusted in the many reviewed papers that supported warming. Christy looked like he wanted to crawl somewhere and hide.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3995
Quoting Ossqss:


You provide an imageshack picture? LOL

Had enough of the same once again , out>>>


No, I provided data. It is in graphical form. You think it's wrong? Fine. I'll quote you here: "Prove it."

Christy lied. I don't blame you for bugging out on this one. It's too clear cut.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Prove what? That Christy had a nefarious purpose in his testimony? Delighted!

In his testimony, Christy unequivocally says that temperatures have been flat since 2001. Yet his own data set proves him wrong.



It is clear that even Christy's own UAH shows no flattening. In fact, it shows nothing since it is not even in the same zip code as statistical significance. Christy's own data proves his dishonesty before the US Senate.



You provide an imageshack picture? LOL

Had enough of the same once again , out>>>

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Quoting Ossqss:
How sad it is to see posts here Doc that have no clue.

That would happen much less often if you stopped posting.

Quoting Ossqss:
Nothing that I have placed on your blog is scientifically disputed. Why?

Because you've said only one thing that specifically needed to be disputed scientifically. I have done so above.

But do enjoy your drama! lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Soooo, the quotes from the IPCC document are wrong?

Show us how?

Think about it. You probably don't even realize it is JR you reference.

Didn't read. Don't care. Your attempt to take the spotlight off Christy fails.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Prove it.

Prove what? That Christy had a nefarious purpose in his testimony? Delighted!

In his testimony, Christy unequivocally says that temperatures have been flat since 2001. Yet his own data set proves him wrong.



It is clear that even Christy's own UAH shows no flattening. In fact, it shows nothing since it is not even in the same zip code as statistical significance. Christy's own data proves his dishonesty before the US Senate.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How sad it is to see posts here Doc that have no clue. Nothing that I have placed on your blog is scientifically disputed. Why?

Is it an ideology, or science that we don't yet fully understand, and yet compensate for robustly with nothing to back it up.

I can't disappoint Rookie :)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Quoting Birthmark:

I'm interested in nothing from Pielke. He simply doesn't know what he is doing and lacks the dignity to admit even when it is painfully obvious. (Links available upon request)

Although, I have to hand it to him, he did back away from Watts' non-paper with considerable speed and agility. lol

But even in the event that someone from the IPCC did mislead Congress, that doesn't excuse Christy's dissembling.


Soooo, the quotes from the IPCC document are wrong?

Show us how?

Think about it. You probably don't even realize it is JR you reference.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Quoting Birthmark:

I provided as much as Christy did. More, in fact, since I made no attempt to deceive. Christy did. Christy displayed a "climate extremes" graph that wasn't fradulent, however, it was calculated to mislead. IOW, it was babbling --but with a nefarious purpose. Christy cannot possibly believe that because more state all-time high records were set in the 30s than at any time since that that has anything to do with AGW. If he does believe that then he is incompetent.

Plain and simple.


Prove it.

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Scientists to Congress: This Summer's Extreme Weather Was Caused by Climate Change

TreeHugger.com

Scientists to Congress, testifying on the latest climate science: "It is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disaster is clear."

That's Christopher Field, a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institute for Science, according to the Guardian. "There is no doubt that climate has changed. There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the risks of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disaster."

Now, here's a prominent Congressmen responding to those climate scientists: "The global warming movement has completely collapsed."

That'd be Senator Jim Inhofe, still resolutely denying the possibility that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are trapping extra heat in the atmosphere and screwing with the earth's climate. He, and many other Congressmen, still maintain that climate science is either "unsettled" or even a "hoax." And they are running our government. One GOP congressman, Alabama's Jeff Sessions, went so far as to say he was "offended" by the climate scientists' testimony.


**note: Sen. Inhofe's home state of Oklahoma set records for triple-digit heat today (Wednesday 8/1/2012) WashingtonPost.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 30 Comments: 1078
Quoting Ossqss:
Perhaps you would be interested in the evaluation of some other testimony provided oh so recently ?

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress

Amazing is it not? Gnight>

I'm interested in nothing from Pielke. He simply doesn't know what he is doing and lacks the dignity to admit even when it is painfully obvious. (Links available upon request)

Although, I have to hand it to him, he did back away from Watts' non-paper with considerable speed and agility. lol

But even in the event that someone from the IPCC did mislead Congress, that doesn't excuse Christy's dissembling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


As expected, Nothin provided !

Here, start here and work your way into the real world.




I provided as much as Christy did. More, in fact, since I made no attempt to deceive. Christy did. Christy displayed a "climate extremes" graph that wasn't fradulent, however, it was calculated to mislead. IOW, it was babbling --but with a nefarious purpose. Christy cannot possibly believe that because more state all-time high records were set in the 30s than at any time since that that has anything to do with AGW. If he does believe that then he is incompetent.

Plain and simple.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Perhaps you would be interested in the evaluation of some other testimony provided oh so recently ?

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress

Amazing is it not? Gnight>
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Quoting Birthmark:

That's some mighty butt-hurt ya got goin' there.

The only thing I C&P'd was Christy's babbling. His first two babbles I answered with pertinent questions in an effort to tease some sort of substance out of the babble.

His third babble I answered with a fact. The "paper" to which he was referring was Watts' nonsense. I know that because I watched the testimony and he specifically cited it.

His fourth piece of babble is irrelevancy to any policy maker. Policy makers need not know the ins and outs. They need the pertinent facts, not the pertinent facts plus whatever drivel some crank scientist can dream up.

The last piece of babble is well refuted in the scientific literature. Use Google Scholar and enjoy the marvelous age that allows even laymen access to actual science.

But don't worry, I still respect Christy --not as scientist, of course, but as the King of Babble-lonia.


As expected, Nothin provided !

Here, start here and work your way into the real world.



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Quoting Ossqss:


I think we all would be interested in one shred of evidence that could possibly back up your rebuttal. Pick one of your many.

Please show us something more than opinion garnered from other sites that are still opinions.

It is interesting to view the prior posts and how many of the responses are very similar to tutored/pre-existing responses by some who actually know what they are talking about.

If you find that offensive, you have done it.

Cut and paste masters abound on this site and are growing (albeit not in a statistically significant manner).

Change a few words in each sentence and "poof" it is new and regurgitatable (is that a word?) post.

How sad!

How many folks actually post here on a regular basis anyhow?

On a better note, just remember, global warming is not a bad as you thought.

That is a good thing in the end/


That's some mighty butt-hurt ya got goin' there.

The only thing I C&P'd was Christy's babbling. His first two babbles I answered with pertinent questions in an effort to tease some sort of substance out of the babble.

His third babble I answered with a fact. The "paper" to which he was referring was Watts' nonsense. I know that because I watched the testimony and he specifically cited it.

His fourth piece of babble is irrelevancy to any policy maker. Policy makers need not know the ins and outs. They need the pertinent facts, not the pertinent facts plus whatever drivel some crank scientist can dream up.

The last piece of babble is well refuted in the scientific literature. Use Google Scholar and enjoy the marvelous age that allows even laymen access to actual science.

But don't worry, I still respect Christy --not as scientist, of course, but as the King of Babble-lonia.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Earth's Oceans and Other Ecosystems Still Absorbing About Half the Greenhouse Gases Emitted by People

"The uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and by ecosystems is expected to slow down gradually," Tans said. Oceans, for example, are already becoming more acidic as they absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air by human activities. "As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans," Tans said. "We just don't see a letup, globally, yet."

ScienceDaily.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 30 Comments: 1078
Quoting Birthmark:

Let me, a mere no one, show how bereft of substance Dr. Christy's testimony is.

"The recent extremes were exceeded in previous decades."
In what way? Temperature? Spatial extent? Temporal persistence? All of them? One of them? Two? Christy makes a meaningless statement. (He's probably cherrypicking one stat.)

"The average warming rate of 34 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations."
That's great? Is the difference statistically significant? If not, then so what? Weather still occurs.

"New discoveries explain part of the warming found in traditional surface temperature datasets."
He's referring to Watts' unpublished, un-peer-reviewed "paper" that has already been discredited convincingly. Even the alleged co-authors are backing away from this "evidence."

"Policymakers need to be aware of the full
range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for promoting significant increases to the cost of energy for the citizens."

No, policymakers need to know what is real and what is not.

"Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all."
This has been so discredited that more scientists expect the Great Pumpkin to bring them candy on Halloween than expect some real benefit from excess atmospheric CO2.

Christy should be ashamed of himself.

I am ashamed for him.


I think we all would be interested in one shred of evidence that could possibly back up your rebuttal. Pick one of your many.

Please show us something more than opinion garnered from other sites that are still opinions.

It is interesting to view the prior posts and how many of the responses are very similar to tutored/pre-existing responses by some who actually know what they are talking about.

If you find that offensive, you have done it.

Cut and paste masters abound on this site and are growing (albeit not in a statistically significant manner).

Change a few words in each sentence and "poof" it is new and regurgitatable (is that a word?) post.

How sad!

How many folks actually post here on a regular basis anyhow?

On a better note, just remember, global warming is not a bad as you thought.

That is a good thing in the end/

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


OK, I quit reading when I read this. -

"5. Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals.
More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is
a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. Rising CO2 emissions are,
therefore, one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a
marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and
industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation
and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and air pollution. Until
affordable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use
carbon as the main energy source as it does today."


This nearly equates to someone saying that all life needs water and therefore we all prosper with more water. Tell that to the numerous flood and drowning victims.


I've read similar tributes to the benefits of CO2 in Letters to the Editor in local newspapers. If more CO2 is beneficial to agriculture, why then are deserts worldwide expanding? Why won't we have a bumper crop of corn in the midwest of the US this year? DUH, did they ever think that lack of water and extreme heat far offset any added benifits of CO2.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 182
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4815
Quoting martinitony:
Interesting testimony

Let me, a mere no one, show how bereft of substance Dr. Christy's testimony is.

"The recent extremes were exceeded in previous decades."
In what way? Temperature? Spatial extent? Temporal persistence? All of them? One of them? Two? Christy makes a meaningless statement. (He's probably cherrypicking one stat.)

"The average warming rate of 34 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations."
That's great? Is the difference statistically significant? If not, then so what? Weather still occurs.

"New discoveries explain part of the warming found in traditional surface temperature datasets."
He's referring to Watts' unpublished, un-peer-reviewed "paper" that has already been discredited convincingly. Even the alleged co-authors are backing away from this "evidence."

"Policymakers need to be aware of the full
range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for promoting significant increases to the cost of energy for the citizens."

No, policymakers need to know what is real and what is not.

"Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all."
This has been so discredited that more scientists expect the Great Pumpkin to bring them candy on Halloween than expect some real benefit from excess atmospheric CO2.

Christy should be ashamed of himself.

I am ashamed for him.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Existing Solar Tech Could Power Entire US, Says National Renewable Energy Laboratory

"A new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory finds that solar holds more potential to generate more power (PDF) than any other clean energy source. The NREL broke things down into four groups: urban and rural utility-scale photovoltaics (giant solar plants, basically) as well as rooftop solar and concentrated mirror arrays. Between those technologies, which are all already on the market, the NREL reckons there's a proven potential for solar to hit a capacity of 200,000 gigawatts in the United States alone. For some perspective, 1 gigawatt is what a single nuclear power plant might generate, and it's more than most coal plants. A gigawatt of capacity is enough to power approximately 700,000 homes."

SlashDot.Org

NREL PDF

MotherBoard.vice.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 30 Comments: 1078
Interesting testimony
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tomorrow 6th place??? Enough already.............


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4815
NOAA, partners: Earth’s oceans and ecosystems still absorbing about half the greenhouse gases emitted by people

August 1, 2012

Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists published today in the journal Nature.

The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet’s oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.

“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere. However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely,” said NOAA’s Pieter Tans, a climate researcher with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., and co-author of the study. The University of Colorado’s Ashley Ballantyne is lead author.

Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by fossil fuel combustion but also by forest fires and some natural processes. The gas can also be pulled out of the atmosphere into the tissues of growing plants or absorbed by the waters of Earth’s oceans. A series of recent studies suggested that natural sinks of carbon dioxide might no longer be keeping up with the increasing rate of emissions. If that were to happen, it would cause a faster-than-expected rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and projected climate change impacts.

Ballantyne, Tans and their colleagues saw no faster-than-expected rise, however. Their estimate showed that overall, oceans and natural ecosystems continue to pull about half of people’s carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere. Since emissions of CO2 have increased substantially since 1960, Ballantyne said, "Earth is taking up twice as much CO2 today as it was 50 years ago."

The rest continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, where it is likely to accelerate global warming.

This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various ocean regions.

“Since we don’t know why or where this process is happening, we cannot count on it,” Tans said. “We need to identify what’s going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future CO2 levels and how climate change will progress in the future.”

Tans, Ballantyne and colleagues at the University of Colorado, including the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, dissected the long-term records of CO2 levels measured by NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at remote sites around the world, including the top of a mountain in Hawaii and the South Pole. Those CO2 levels reflect global averages of the greenhouse gas, which are affected by natural cycles as well as people’s activities.

The researchers also scrutinized national and international inventories or bookkeeping estimates of CO2 emissions by people and compared those to the increasing atmospheric levels of the gas.

“The uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and by ecosystems is expected to slow down gradually,” Tans said. Oceans, for example, are already becoming more acidic as they absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air by human activities. “As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans,” Tans said. “We just don’t see a letup, globally, yet."

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook, Twitter and our other social media channels.



Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
OUCH!!!!!!!


Earth's Oceans and Other Ecosystems Still Absorbing About Half the Greenhouse Gases Emitted by People

ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2012) — Earth's oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists published August 1 in the journal Nature.The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet's oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.

"Globally, these carbon dioxide 'sinks' have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere. However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely," said NOAA's Pieter Tans, a climate researcher with NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., and co-author of the study. The University of Colorado's Ashley Ballantyne is lead author.

Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by fossil fuel combustion but also by forest fires and some natural processes. The gas can also be pulled out of the atmosphere into the tissues of growing plants or absorbed by the waters of Earth's oceans. A series of recent studies suggested that natural sinks of carbon dioxide might no longer be keeping up with the increasing rate of emissions. If that were to happen, it would cause a faster-than-expected rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and projected climate change impacts.

Ballantyne, Tans and their colleagues saw no faster-than-expected rise, however. Their estimate showed that overall, oceans and natural ecosystems continue to pull about half of people's carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere. Since emissions of CO2 have increased substantially since 1960, Ballantyne said, "Earth is taking up twice as much CO2 today as it was 50 years ago."

The rest continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, where it is likely to accelerate global warming.

This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various ocean regions.

"Since we don't know why or where this process is happening, we cannot count on it," Tans said. "We need to identify what's going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future CO2 levels and how climate change will progress in the future."

Tans, Ballantyne and colleagues at the University of Colorado, including the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, dissected the long-term records of CO2 levels measured by NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at remote sites around the world, including the top of a mountain in Hawaii and the South Pole. Those CO2 levels reflect global averages of the greenhouse gas, which are affected by natural cycles as well as people's activities.

The researchers also scrutinized national and international inventories or bookkeeping estimates of CO2 emissions by people and compared those to the increasing atmospheric levels of the gas.

"The uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and by ecosystems is expected to slow down gradually," Tans said. Oceans, for example, are already becoming more acidic as they absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air by human activities. "As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans," Tans said. "We just don't see a letup, globally, yet."

Link

This prevents that...

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
New extent low.....You have to compare both images to see it is below 2007 and below 2011....





Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
Quoting theshepherd:
CB

Why hasn't NOAA supported your contraption?

Even if your toy worked, which it won't, and even if it was feasible to build, which it isn't,
did you ever stop and think what would happen to the cold water as soon as it exited the outlet?

Yep, it's going to immediately sink back down to a level above that from which it came. Weighing the carbon footprint of construction and maintenance of a few million of these, which is what it would take to have any effect at all even if it worked, which it won't, your idea if implemented, which it won't be, would accelerate the rate of global warming.

The only thing that's right about this utopian contrivance, is that you have the fish facing upstream waiting for sumpin' to drift by.

But, as I've said before, I do love that cute little yellow submarine.







Ask Dr. Hugh Willoughby if it will work to weaken a hurricane such as Andrew. As to what happens to the cold water as it exits the STATIONARY Tunnel? Dr. Willoughby said it quite eloquently... The vertical rise of the water in the tube is proportional to the exterior horizontal flow of water outside the tube. This means the cold water falls on top of the warm water below it thus mixing occurs and average SST is lowered on the top layer. However, you must remember that the temperature can also be regulated so as not to harm sea life via the set point given to TIC-026. Your few million quote in number is laughable. Comprende?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
Quoting Patrap:
government.

Rut-Roh.

You said the BAD word.

LOL

What can I say? I have a foul, foul mouth --even after brushing and flossing.

I'm also unafraid of government. Oops! I said it again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OldLeatherneck:
Looks like I missed a fun day yesterday....

I was called away yesterday, at the last minute, to be an election judge for the Texas Run-Off elections. Without being political all I will say about that experience is that Civilization may be more threatened by Texas Politics than Global Warming, Nuclear War, Resource Depletion and Mass Pandemics combined.

When I got home last night and logged on to my favorite blog (WU Climate Blog), I was amazed to notice ~50 new entries. It was fun to peruse the many lively, yet collegial and informative discussions. While I don't always concur with Bob Wallace's optimism, we need to have that sprarkplug to keep us focused on solutions rather than giving up in despair.

And then I had to read the last few posts regarding CBs incessant posting of his cartoon. All I can say is that some people never learn how to listen to their friends. So sad.

Now I have to catch up on today's events.






Ask Dr. Hugh Willoughby or Dr. Frank Marks if it is a Cartoon bucko............
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
government.

Rut-Roh.

You said the BAD word.

LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


Would you please spell that out some more?

I'll address the free market part once I have a better understanding of your point.

Spell what out? If you mean the ecological suicide, Easter Island immediately springs to mind.

As for the free market, it is structurally incapable of solving a problem like AGW unless there is a large push from government.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
U.S. drought: Half of all counties disaster areas

CBSnews.com

(AP) ST. LOUIS - Nearly 220 counties in a dozen drought-stricken states were added Wednesday to the U.S. government's list of natural disaster areas as the nation's agriculture chief unveiled new help for frustrated, cash-strapped farmers and ranchers grappling with extreme dryness and heat.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's addition of the 218 counties means that more than half of all U.S. counties - 1,584 in 32 states - have been designated primary disaster areas this growing season, the vast majority of them mired in a drought that's considered the worst in decades.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 30 Comments: 1078
Looks like I missed a fun day yesterday....

I was called away yesterday, at the last minute, to be an election judge for the Texas Run-Off elections. Without being political all I will say about that experience is that Civilization may be more threatened by Texas Politics than Global Warming, Nuclear War, Resource Depletion and Mass Pandemics combined.

When I got home last night and logged on to my favorite blog (WU Climate Blog), I was amazed to notice ~50 new entries. It was fun to peruse the many lively, yet collegial and informative discussions. While I don't always concur with Bob Wallace's optimism, we need to have that sprarkplug to keep us focused on solutions rather than giving up in despair.

And then I had to read the last few posts regarding CBs incessant posting of his cartoon. All I can say is that some people never learn how to listen to their friends. So sad.

Now I have to catch up on today's events.




Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 182
Quoting pintada:
And I thought all christians were evil ... Just goes to show that we mustn't generalize!

Hope is for the lazy: The challenge of our dead world


Powerful, Provoking, Prophetic & Prescient

Well worth the read. While I'm only a few hours away from Austin, where this sermon was preached just a few weeks ago, In my community there is not one church that would dare have something that provoking spoken from their pulpit.

Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 182
Quoting Birthmark:
Ecological suicide doesn't seem to be all that unusual, Bob. I can think of three or four case off the top of my head.

I am harder pressed to think of instances in which it was avoided. None at all come to mind that were avoided through the free market. I don't believe the free market can accomplish such a task -except accidentally, of course.


Would you please spell that out some more?

I'll address the free market part once I have a better understanding of your point.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Ecological suicide doesn't seem to be all that unusual, Bob. I can think of three or four case off the top of my head.

I am harder pressed to think of instances in which it was avoided. None at all come to mind that were avoided through the free market. I don't believe the free market can accomplish such a task -except accidentally, of course.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tropical Climate in the Antarctic: Palm Trees Once Thrived On Today’s Icy Coasts 52 Million Years Ago

ScienceDaily.com

Around 52 million years ago, the concentration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere was more than twice as high as today. “If the current CO2 emissions continue unabated due to the burning of fossil fuels, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, as they existed in the distant past, are likely to be achieved within a few hundred years”
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 30 Comments: 1078
Nea - would you please give some examples of what you're talking about here?

I've seen that through history mankind has taken the quick-fix approach to almost everything. And when there's been no quick fix--that is, when the only options are long-term and painful/inconvenient--we've chosen instead to simply do nothing, hoping against hope that subsequent generations would figure it out for us, and thus erase the memory of our stupidity

I've been trying to think of problems that we haven't at least attempted to fix. We've solved some problems such as smallpox. We've made major progress toward others. I'm not coming up with examples of problems shoved off on subsequent generations, some that we may leave to them, but none that we haven't addressed.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
I've said before that by the end of this decade global warming will be so...obvious that deniers will be laughed at

We are already working on transitioning off fossil fuels. And the rate of transition is accelerating.

We are taking a bit of a 'quick fix' by replacing coal with natural gas and by setting significantly higher gas mileage requirements. But those fixes are quick and don't significantly harm our progress in the long run. NG turbines fill the need for affordable storage which we don't yet have, more efficient ICEVs lower CO2 output while we develop better EV batteries.

When global warming is obvious to enough people in the US we'll put a tax on carbon, or whatever it takes to further speed the transition.

The coal-fired capacity expected to be retired over the next five years is more than four times greater than retirements performed during the preceding five-year period (6.5 gigawatts). Moreover, based on EIA data, the approximate 9 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity retirements expected to occur in 2012 will likely be the largest one-year amount in the nation's history. The record is, however, expected to be short-lived, as almost 10 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity are expected to retire in 2015.

Link

This might give you an idea of how fast renewables are accelerating...

WIND

In 2000, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its World Energy Outlook, predicting that non-hydro renewable energy would comprise 3 percent of global energy by 2020. That benchmark was reached in 2008.

In 2000, IEA projected that there would be 30 gigawatts of wind power worldwide by 2010, but the estimate was off by a factor of 7. Wind power produced 200 gigawatts in 2010, an investment of approximately $400 billion.

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that total U.S. wind power capacity could reach 10 gigawatts by 2010. The country reached that amount in 2006 and quadrupled between 2006 and 2010.

In 2000, the European Wind Energy Association predicted Europe would have 50 gigawatts of wind by 2010 and boosted that estimate to 75 two years later. Actually, 84 gigawatts of wind power were feeding into the European electric grid by 2012.

In 2000, IEA estimated that China would have 2 gigawatts of wind power installed by 2010. China reached 45 gigawatts by the end of 2010. The IEA projected that China wind power in 2020 would be 3.7 gigawatts, but most projections now exceed 150 gigawatts, or 40 times more.

SOLAR

In 2000, total installed global photovoltaic solar capacity was 1.5 gigawatts, and most of it was off-the-grid, like solar on NASA satellites or on cabins in the mountains or woods.

In 2002, a top industry analyst predicted an additional 1 gigawatt annual market by 2010. The annual market in 2010 was 17 times that at 17 gigawatts.

In 1996, the World Bank estimated 0.5 gigawatts of solar photovoltaic in China by 2020, but China reached almost double that mark — 900 megawatts — by 2010.


Link

The Chinese government has increased its planned installation of solar energy projects by 2015 from 5,000 megawatts to 21,000 megawatts. And at least one analyst expects the total to climb to more than 30,000 megawatts.


Link

China set number of five year goals for wind turbine installation. Each one was met early and a new, larger goal set.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
I wish I could be as optimistic as some here. I try to be. But it just isn't happening. I've seen that through history mankind has taken the quick-fix approach to almost everything. And when there's been no quick fix--that is, when the only options are long-term and painful/inconvenient--we've chosen instead to simply do nothing, hoping against hope that subsequent generations would figure it out for us, and thus erase the memory of our stupidity. As individuals, many of us are visionary, or at the very least we're able extrapolate from the present and see where we're headed. But on the whole, our species has evolved with a terminal combination of rampant amnesia, wanton procrastination, and magical thinking.

Anyway, Tamino had a nice blog post out today about the ho-huminess of both the BEST and Watts papers from last week (bottom line: one told us nothing we didn't already know, and the other told us nothing, period). He finished the post with the following:

Tell ya what I think.

The impact of global warming is getting clearer, and will soon be obvious even to the hard-core deniers. Arctic sea ice continues its death spiral. Sea level continues to rise. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continue to lose mass at an alarming pace, and glaciers worldwide keep shrinking. Species continue to migrate to higher latitudes and altitudes. We're also seeing more and more signs that the "man in the street" can’t ignore. Since the amazing heat wave in Europe in 2003, we’ve seen amazing heat waves in Australia, Russia, the USA (twice). We've seen enhanced drought and record-breaking floods. And to the statisticians at re-insurance giant Munich Re, the increase in weather-related disasters is both huge and certain. This is not normal — and it's not natural.

In other words, we're rapidly approaching the moment when denial is no longer possible for the sane. Those who want it not to be so are getting annoyed at nature's recurrent reminders, so they're getting more shrill and more desperate. Furthermore, the press is starting to realize that all those times that fake claims from fake skeptics were proved fake, is no accident. It's a pattern, one they should have heeded all along.

I've said before that by the end of this decade global warming will be so...obvious that deniers will be laughed at — at best. Perhaps I should revise the time scale for that prediction, because the obvious is knocking at the door....
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14078
cyclonebuster - If you've gotten tossed off multiple sites for continually posting your image/idea perhaps it's time for a bit of self reflection.

How about sitting down by yourself or with someone you trust and think out your approach? Apparently you've tried getting the world's attention hundreds (?) of times and been seen by tens/hundreds of thousands of eyes over the years. Some of them must have been intelligent, well-connected people. No one has taken up your idea and run with it for you.

Obviously continued posting in comment pages is not working.

All that you seem to be doing is irritating people.

You aren't currently irritating me, I put you on my very short 'ignore' list after our last exchange. (That's just to let you know I won't be seeing any reply you make to this comment.)

Good luck finding a new path....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting cyclonebuster:


LOOK
I have been here for many years and I am not going away. I know why and how stuff works....


I agree with you that climate change is a significant problem, but you don't have to spam this everywhere. You've already been banned by multiple forums for the same reason.

The reality is the best way to avoid the worst effects of climate change is to reduce carbon pollution, and to gradually phase it out with time & shift towards a carbon-free economy. Geoengineering should only be a last resort. It's an interesting thought, but there are just too many risks involved at this point. Tinkering with the environment, albeit unintentionally, is what has created the problem in the first place. Not to mention that your tunnels look like they wouldn't be too kind to the fish and other aquatic wildlife.
Member Since: September 8, 2011 Posts: 8 Comments: 251
And I thought all christians were evil ... Just goes to show that we mustn't generalize!

Link
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Birthmark I have been watching what you post and agree mostly with all that you have been saying. I am not here to sell my idea, I am here to learn more about my idea and discover more of what it/they can do. Computer modeling will verify what I have said about my idea. I would like Dr. Rood and his fine university to computer model them..........


Start with Comsol

It is a fairly decent modeling program. I would take a night class rather than purcahse it or see if a local makerspace has access. You'd probably get access for one semester as aprt of tuition and have live help learning it. It is a bit ideosyncratic.

However, if you learned it and made a successful model in comsol, it would open a lot of doors.

Good luck.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
CB

Why hasn't NOAA supported your contraption?

Even if your toy worked, which it won't, and even if it was feasible to build, which it isn't,
did you ever stop and think what would happen to the cold water as soon as it exited the outlet?

Yep, it's going to immediately sink back down to a level above that from which it came. Weighing the carbon footprint of construction and maintenance of a few million of these, which is what it would take to have any effect at all even if it worked, which it won't, your idea if implemented, which it won't be, would accelerate the rate of global warming.

The only thing that's right about this utopian contrivance, is that you have the fish facing upstream waiting for sumpin' to drift by.

But, as I've said before, I do love that cute little yellow submarine.





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
I don't want you to go away. (And even if I did, who cares? It's not my blog or my place to ask people to go away.)

I am respectfully *requesting* that you use a little discretion in your use of repetitive posting. I am merely pointing out that to others those posts begin to resemble spam. I realize that you might not (probably don't) agree.

You have every right to ignore my request if you like. No hard feelings if you do.


Birthmark I have been watching what you post and agree mostly with all that you have been saying. I am not here to sell my idea, I am here to learn more about my idea and discover more of what it/they can do. Computer modeling will verify what I have said about my idea. I would like Dr. Rood and his fine university to computer model them..........
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Look nothing is easy. It took years and years to engineer our way into this GHG mess without even knowing the consequences of it.Once we knew what we were doing to our climate with GHG's we just sat on our hands and did nothing about it. Now it is to late and we are now forced to engineer our way out of it. There is no better way to engineer our way out of this mess other than building these Tunnels. If you have have an idea lets here it and I will explain why this idea of mine is better.... Care to challenge me?

Wouldn't dream of it. I'm not qualified to analyze it. I humbly suggest that you follow Old Leatherneck's advice. His suggestions seemed logical and productive to me, if you want these things to have any chance of being constructed.

Seriously, I'm on your side. I fervently hope that you have designed a solution. Further, I hope you make metric butt-loads of money for your cleverness.

But none of that will happen as a result of posting it continually on this blog.

Good luck to you!

And with that, I'm finished with this discussion since it's OT.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I believe global warming is real. No doubt about it. However, I don’t think it’s catastrophic, or as bad as it’s been portrayed.'

- Anthony Watts

Has this guy been tracking Northern summertime Arctic Ice? If so I bet he will see how catastrophic that is?????

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
I don't want you to go away. (And even if I did, who cares? It's not my blog or my place to ask people to go away.)

I am respectfully *requesting* that you use a little discretion in your use of repetitive posting. I am merely pointing out that to others those posts begin to resemble spam. I realize that you might not (probably don't) agree.

You have every right to ignore my request if you like. No hard feelings if you do.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 127 - 77

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

Mostly Cloudy
45 °F
Mostly Cloudy

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.