Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:47 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)

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 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.

For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.

These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.

There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.

As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.


Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)

I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.

This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.

r


Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change

Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 213 - 163

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


One can only wonder as to how soon that 2007 will replace 1979 as the median level.


My estimate: 2012 will likely replace 2007 as our "Gosh, look at that year!". Right now it's looking like all three ice measurements - extent, area, and volume - will show new records.

We could even see new records set well sooner in the year than in past years. There are more 'bad for the ice' events lining up for the days ahead. (Of course that's weather and weather, unlike climate, is hard to predict.)

Stay tuned....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


There are many things which influence Sea Level Rise, which is the problem of trying to figure out how much is due to thermal expansion, melting glaciers, and other factors not related to climate change. You can not deny that Sea Level has dramatically slowed in the last few years (Boretti 2011).



This graph from the paper shows the deceleration in Sea Level Rise quite clearly.



The deceleration in the Sea Level Rise can clearly be seen in this chart.

Some scientists argue that 42% of the recent rise over the last 50 years is due to Ground water extraction, a significant portion not related to Climate Change. Natural Variability of the ocean also needs to be taken into consideration when determining the rate of Sea Level Rise (Meyssignac et. al 2012)

So as you can see, Sea Level Rise is much more complicated than simply assuming that a radiative forcing will cause a rise in Sea Level.

And Neapolitan, are you seriously trying to argue that the CMIP3 models were right, when the MEAN of the models overestimated the Global SST warming over the last 17 years by a factor of 6? Come on.
Wait--we were talking about heat, not sea level rise. But, okay, let's see:

First, I can't help but notice you've once again dipped into the Deep Ol' Well Of Denialism and chosen a paper that supports your, er, "skepticism".

Second, since Borreti heavily references the University of Colorado's SL measurements, allow me to go straight to the source and see whether that school shows that the rate of sea level rise is "actually reducing rather than increasing":

slr

Hmmm. Well, I suppose the case could be made that since the 60-day smoothed line is marginally below the black trendline that the rate of SLR is "reducing", but I'm not sure how Boretti looked at that and drew the nutty conclusion that "Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not the driven force for sea level rises".

Third, Boretti is an associate professor of engineering whose primary field of study appears to be fuel efficiency in diesel engines. That doesn't necessarily make him wrong, but it certainly makes one question his credentials in the field of climate science.

Fourth, Boretti is a known denialist, having previously expressed a very Watts-ian notion that the warming observed in, for instance, New Zealand is strictly a byproduct of UHI and the poor siting of measuring statements.

Sound familiar?

Now, I'm sure you'll come back and tell me I'm addressing the man and not the science, to which I will respond ahead of time: there is no science. No honest science, anyway. Can you please provide something credible from someone credible?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


The is the Arctic sea ice tell. How widely the ice is spread, how many holes there might be in the ice are not as critical as the amount of ice left.

Heat goes in. Ice melts. The less ice is there is, the quicker it all melts out during a summer soon coming to our world.

Don't be surprised if this black line makes a jag downward over the next few days. Stuff is melting.

And, notice, due to late season freezing the year actually started with more ice than last year. But that was thin ice and thin ice melts faster.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Neapolitan:
Globally, while the observed warming of the air has been slightly less than the average model simulation predicted, it is well within the envelope of all model simulations; Christy is simply living down to his crumbling reputation by pretending otherwise.

Far more importantly, however, he--and you--are talking only about air temperatures here, while this entire time, the oceans have continued to warm quite rapidly, as demonstrated by Church et al (2011). Since the oceans take in about 90% of the observed warming, for Christy to not mention that means he's either unaware of it--difficult to believe for a scientist at his level--or he's intentionally ignoring it, knowing that others will, too. The former is forgivable; the latter is not.

Again: what a weasel....


There are many things which influence Sea Level Rise, which is the problem of trying to figure out how much is due to thermal expansion, melting glaciers, and other factors not related to climate change. You can not deny that Sea Level has dramatically slowed in the last few years (Boretti 2011).



This graph from the paper shows the deceleration in Sea Level Rise quite clearly.



The deceleration in the Sea Level Rise can clearly be seen in this chart.

Some scientists argue that 42% of the recent rise over the last 50 years is due to Ground water extraction, a significant portion not related to Climate Change. Natural Variability of the ocean also needs to be taken into consideration when determining the rate of Sea Level Rise (Meyssignac et. al 2012)

So as you can see, Sea Level Rise is much more complicated than simply assuming that a radiative forcing will cause a rise in Sea Level.

And Neapolitan, are you seriously trying to argue that the CMIP3 models were right, when the MEAN of the models overestimated the Global SST warming over the last 17 years by a factor of 6? Come on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pintada:


Ya gotta love these fora. People who know a word, but have not read the rest of the thread. We are so used to trolls, that we jump down the throat of anyone and everyone. Don't worry, I'm pissed off too.

And yes, i've operated a GC Mass Spec ... Not recently. Its a tough way to make a modest living.

Love your comments and insights Daisy.

I was assuming the words "contrived controversy" were being applied to AGW. If they weren't, then I will apologize and admit that I jumped the gun. However, if it was being applied to AGW, it's a raw nerve dating back to the December 2009 IPCC convention and the concurrently convenient news story about the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia. Back then, the crime of hacking into a server was completely overlooked, and despite no scientific merit to the accusations of falsified data, denialists and conservative news outlets held aloft the cherry-picked e-mails like a holy chalice. The words "contrived controversy" were slung around about the entire discipline of climate change science; a completely fabricated story that hounds legitmate work on AGW today. So, again, if I took your words out of context, you have my apologies. If I took them as intended, then I take you to task on them.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 849
Quoting Neapolitan:
It's a correction, and acknowledged as such by DMI. It's interesting to note, however, that even with the revision applied, 2012 DMI extent is still at an all-time low for the date:

DMI

In the meantime, Arctic sea ice area is positioned to set a new record low minimum this year. In fact, it's practically unavoidable at this point.

C lick for larger image:
ice


Yep, it's likely that Arctic Sea Ice Area will set a new record low on Cryosphere Today, I still think it is questionable with regard to if Extent on the other datasets sets a new record low or not.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Not enough water in Mississippi River to float steamboat
Published: Friday, August 10, 2012, 9:20 AM





Catherine Threlkeld, The Times-Picayune
The Mississippi River is low on the levee in New Orleans. Upriver, the American Queen steamboat is docked in Memphis, unable to continue its trip because of low water.


MEMPHIS, Tenn. The American Queen steamboat is docked in Memphis, unable to paddle on down the Mississippi River because of low water.


A trip that began Aug. 3 at Louisville, Ky., was cut short well before the steamboat's destination of Vicksburg, Miss.

American Queen Steamboat Company's Tim Rubacky tells The Commercial Appeal navigation problems caused by sluggish river flow make it unwise for the Queen to go any further south than Helena, Ark. The decision to lay up at Memphis was made after talking with the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.

About 58 passengers remained aboard Thursday night. About 240 others went on to Vicksburg by bus.
Low water levels in the Mississippi are the result of a combination of high temperatures and lack of rain and snow further north of Memphis.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Well, there are multiple regions of the world that are either flat or cooling off in the last 17 years (that's the timeframe where Dr. Santer said would be enough for a new trend to be established).



South Pacific has cooled by about 0.1 Degrees C in a 17 year timeframe. Also note that the CMIP3 Mean predicted an increase in the Sea Surface Temperatures where there is no increase in Sea Surface Temperatures.

Seems like as if there are factors that the model mean is not accurately replicating, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, perhaps?

Or how about the Southern Ocean, which has cooled 0.2 Degrees C in a 17 year timeframe?



Completely disagreeing with the models as well.



Of course, overall on a 17 year timeframe, Globally, we are warming much slower than modeled. We have warmed a little over 0.05 Degrees C over the last 17 years, (though that may not even be statistically significant) and the models predicted that we should have warmed by a little less than 0.3 Degrees C. That's off by a factor of six.
Globally, while the observed warming of the air has been slightly less than the average model simulation predicted, it is well within the envelope of all model simulations; Christy is simply living down to his crumbling reputation by pretending otherwise.

Far more importantly, however, he--and you--are talking only about air temperatures here, while this entire time, the oceans have continued to warm quite rapidly, as demonstrated by Church et al (2011). Since the oceans take in about 90% of the observed warming, for Christy to not mention that means he's either unaware of it--difficult to believe for a scientist at his level--or he's intentionally ignoring it, knowing that others will, too. The former is forgivable; the latter is not.

Again: what a weasel....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
DMI is showing a suspect increase in Sea Ice over the last few days, leading me to question how much of the drop was actually due to melting.
It's a correction, and acknowledged as such by DMI. It's interesting to note, however, that even with the revision applied, 2012 DMI extent is still at an all-time low for the date:

DMI

In the meantime, Arctic sea ice area is positioned to set a new record low minimum this year. In fact, it's practically unavoidable at this point.

C lick for larger image:
ice
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

I highly recommend Western NC, where I am now. It is far enough south so that solar power is useful. There are many, many natural springs and creeks, so micro-hydro might well be an option. The ecology is complex with hundreds of species of trees and shrubs, so the probability of something surviving climate change is very. (Hopefully, it will be something useful.) There is a lot of game to be had if you want to hunt, fish to be caught, and outrageous amounts of nuts and berries that can be harvested.

My wife and I leased a place for a year that was about as remote as you'll get in the Eastern US to see if we would like the lifestyle. We did! Best place I ever lived, hands down. The slow internet, spotty phone and electrical service were well worth the quiet and beauty.

And the church thing? Don't worry about it. People out here have a tendency to mind their own business...which suits me perfectly.


Point taken.

It seems we all want to settle where we have familiar things.

When we first moved from the mountains to Phoenix in the 80's, getting used to the humidity took the longest. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
IJIS JAXA melt yesterday was revised to 75 K.

DMI is showing a suspect increase in Sea Ice over the last few days, leading me to question how much of the drop was actually due to melting.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Daisyworld:

Contrived... Wow. Now THAT'S an accusation. It must be fun for you to sling words around just to elicit a response from everyone. Tell me, pintada, have you ever operated a GC Mass Spec with an FID detector? Wondering why the background CO2 of your outdoor air samples jumped from 390 to 395 ppmv over only a few years? Have you ever operated an FTIR spectroscope, and wondered why you had to adjust for temperature when the gas cell is flooded with a GHG while the cell remains at standard atmospheric pressure? No? Well then, I guess you're free to use the word "contrived" out of context as much as you like.

For the rest of use who use our eyes and common sense, "contrived" is what Snowlover123 is doing: Changing the facts to fit their specific worldview, then speak with false authority about those new "facts" so that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they previously knew as fact. It also goes by another term: Propaganda.


Ya gotta love these fora. People who know a word, but have not read the rest of the thread. We are so used to trolls, that we jump down the throat of anyone and everyone. Don't worry, I'm pissed off too.

And yes, i've operated a GC Mass Spec ... Not recently. Its a tough way to make a modest living.

Love your comments and insights Daisy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Quoting Snowlover123:

"Other places like the Pacific Ocean have cooled over the last 15 years, but the overall global trend recently is that of no trend."


Prove it!!


Well, there are multiple regions of the world that are either flat or cooling off in the last 17 years (that's the timeframe where Dr. Santer said would be enough for a new trend to be established).



South Pacific has cooled by about 0.1 Degrees C in a 17 year timeframe. Also note that the CMIP3 Mean predicted an increase in the Sea Surface Temperatures where there is no increase in Sea Surface Temperatures.

Seems like as if there are factors that the model mean is not accurately replicating, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, perhaps?

Or how about the Southern Ocean, which has cooled 0.2 Degrees C in a 17 year timeframe?



Completely disagreeing with the models as well.



Of course, overall on a 17 year timeframe, Globally, we are warming much slower than modeled. We have warmed a little over 0.05 Degrees C over the last 17 years, (though that may not even be statistically significant) and the models predicted that we should have warmed by a little less than 0.3 Degrees C. That's off by a factor of six.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:
Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
"Misinforms" is an overly polite term here, I think. I've got nothing against decorum where an august body such as Congress is concerned, but in this case, I believe the headline writer would have been well warranted using the truer and more descriptive "Christy lies to Congress".

What a weasel.

This guy has fallen so far, and has distanced himself from reality to such an extent, that he knowingly based his testimony before Congress on a debunked, profoundly flawed, unpublished (and un-publishable) draft article authored by a TV weather reader with no formal education in the climate--or any other--sciences.

Incredible. And to think he still calls himself a scientist...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:

"Other places like the Pacific Ocean have cooled over the last 15 years, but the overall global trend recently is that of no trend."


Prove it!!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting Snowlover123:


Yes, Greenland has warmed overall, and over the last 12 years, not sure why you are addressing me when I never made such a claim otherwise. Other places like the Pacific Ocean have cooled over the last 15 years, but the overall global trend recently is that of no trend.

Really? Got any statistically valid evidence that the trend isn't up (or down) over that time period? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting OldLeatherneck:
Don't Look to Greenland for Cooling!!


Well yes, Greenland is a rather chilly place. But according to Dr. Box's data, going back 170 years (ATTN: SnowSURFER, that's enough data to be statistically significant!!). It's also important to note that the steepest slope on this chart is in the past 10-12 years. If I'm not mistaken, real climate scientists have informed us that the upper latitudes would warm much faster than at lower latitudes.


Yes, Greenland has warmed overall, and over the last 12 years, not sure why you are addressing me when I never made such a claim otherwise. Other places like the Pacific Ocean have cooled over the last 15 years, but the overall global trend recently is that of no trend.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Is that how you work, Snowlover? You just keep repeating a falsehood over and over until eventually you believe it, like Dorothy's mantra about no place being like home? You've given us ample evidence of that--"There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus..." But, try though you might, you'll just never be able to bend truth and reality to fit your biases, prejudices, and preconceived notions. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be--and the more value and credibility you'll have.


Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I should have said "this recent discussion" since Rookie thought it was pointless that we were discussing about the Doran and Zimmerman poll.

You misrepresented the question though. Any person can see that.

Then you throw another red herring by completely changing the subject. Peculiar.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OldLeatherneck:
Don't Look to Greenland for Cooling!!


Well yes, Greenland is a rather chilly place. But according to Dr. Box's data, going back 170 years (ATTN: SnowSURFER, that's enough data to be statistically significant!!). It's also important to note that the steepest slope on this chart is in the past 10-12 years. If I'm not mistaken, real climate scientists have informed us that the upper latitudes would warm much faster than at lower latitudes.



That looks like a hockey stick to me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pintada:


You and Birthmark have given him a platform and a (contrived) controversy. If you are doing it because you are bored, fine. However, if you think that your hard work and valuable time was well used ...

Sorry.

It is Dr. Rood who provides the platform. All posts here exist as his whim. I'm just another schmoe posting stuff on Dr. Rood's blog.

And I appreciate the opportunity.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting pintada:
I can't imagine being in the US Southeast. Maybe it is workable there, though i doubt it ... join a church right away!

I highly recommend Western NC, where I am now. It is far enough south so that solar power is useful. There are many, many natural springs and creeks, so micro-hydro might well be an option. The ecology is complex with hundreds of species of trees and shrubs, so the probability of something surviving climate change is very. (Hopefully, it will be something useful.) There is a lot of game to be had if you want to hunt, fish to be caught, and outrageous amounts of nuts and berries that can be harvested.

My wife and I leased a place for a year that was about as remote as you'll get in the Eastern US to see if we would like the lifestyle. We did! Best place I ever lived, hands down. The slow internet, spotty phone and electrical service were well worth the quiet and beauty.

And the church thing? Don't worry about it. People out here have a tendency to mind their own business...which suits me perfectly.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting pintada:


You and Birthmark have given him a platform and a (contrived) controversy. If you are doing it because you are bored, fine. However, if you think that your hard work and valuable time was well used ...

Sorry.

Contrived... Wow. Now THAT'S an accusation. It must be fun for you to sling words around just to elicit a response from everyone. Tell me, pintada, have you ever operated a GC Mass Spec with an FID detector? Wondering why the background CO2 of your outdoor air samples jumped from 390 to 395 ppmv over only a few years? Have you ever operated an FTIR spectroscope, and wondered why you had to adjust for temperature when the gas cell is flooded with a GHG while the cell remains at standard atmospheric pressure? No? Well then, I guess you're free to use the word "contrived" out of context as much as you like.

For the rest of use who use our eyes and common sense, "contrived" is what Snowlover123 is doing: Changing the facts to fit their specific worldview, then speak with false authority about those new "facts" so that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they previously knew as fact. It also goes by another term: Propaganda.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 849
Don't Look to Greenland for Cooling!!


Well yes, Greenland is a rather chilly place. But according to Dr. Box's data, going back 170 years (ATTN: SnowSURFER, that's enough data to be statistically significant!!). It's also important to note that the steepest slope on this chart is in the past 10-12 years. If I'm not mistaken, real climate scientists have informed us that the upper latitudes would warm much faster than at lower latitudes.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting pintada:


You and Birthmark have given him a platform and a (contrived) controversy. If you are doing it because you are bored, fine. However, if you think that your hard work and valuable time was well used ...

Sorry.
Wrong again, pintada.

First, we didn't "give him a platform" anymore than we gave you a platform.

Second, I don't do anything because I'm bored. Rather, I do believe my valuable time is well-spent; if I didn't, I wouldn't respond to people like Snowlover. Now, you seem to be assuming that my answers were for his benefit, but I'll let you in on a secret: they're not. They're instead for the many people who browse this forum yet never comment.

Third--and this hearkens back to an earlier comment where you suggested that I was suffering from cognitive dissonance--you made another erroneous assumption, that being that I must prefer cool and dry to hot and humid. And that's wrong; if it were true, I seriously doubt I'd be living in Florida.

Now, as someone asked you a few weeks back: do you have something constructive to add to the climate change debate? Or are you only here in an attempt to get your kicks by scoring points off of the regulars? If it's the latter, that's fine, but you'll probably improve yours odds of success if you just sit back and observe for awhile. Otherwise you'll just keeping bouncing off the walls...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Is that how you work, Snowlover? You just keep repeating a falsehood over and over until eventually you believe it, like Dorothy's mantra about no place being like home? You've given us ample evidence of that--"There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus..." But, try though you might, you'll just never be able to bend truth and reality to fit your biases, prejudices, and preconceived notions. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be--and the more value and credibility you'll have.


You and Birthmark have given him a platform and a (contrived) controversy. If you are doing it because you are bored, fine. However, if you think that your hard work and valuable time was well used ...

Sorry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Is that how you work, Snowlover? You just keep repeating a falsehood over and over until eventually you believe it, like Dorothy's mantra about no place being like home? You've given us ample evidence of that--"There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus..." But, try though you might, you'll just never be able to bend truth and reality to fit your biases, prejudices, and preconceived notions. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be--and the more value and credibility you'll have.


Unfortunately, that's how the denialists roll. Saturate any and all media forums by propagating repetitive statements, being ubiquitous, and being consistent with their message; repeating it over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 849
Quoting Snowlover123:


We are debating what the question of a poll means, because Neapolitan misrepresented what the poll's question actually asked the climate scientists. Had he not misrepresented the poll's question, we would not be having this discussion right now.
Is that how you work, Snowlover? You just keep repeating a falsehood over and over until eventually you believe it, like Dorothy's mantra about no place being like home? You've given us ample evidence of that--"There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus. There's been no warming since 1998. It's the sun, not CO2. There's no scientific consensus..." But, try though you might, you'll just never be able to bend truth and reality to fit your biases, prejudices, and preconceived notions. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be--and the more value and credibility you'll have.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
And then on a local note, here in the heart of Texas, we were able to election this same emminently qualified gentleman, in 2008, to the Headwater & Groundwater Commission for the Quadalupe River. Prior to the 2010 election, the local yokels found out that Gary was a Democrat......Oh God Forbid!

So we replaced a highly qualified academic, capable of advising foreign governments, with a true conservative whose only credentials were having "Tea Party" tattooed on his buttocks.


All will be well, Inshallah.


LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Aquifer Depletion in Saudi Arabia

When I was working in Saudi Arabia, in the early 80s, I heard that the Saudis were considering tapping a large ancient aquifer to use for irrigation. The intent was for Saudi Arabia to become self sufficient in the production of wheat. Little did I know that nearly 30 years later, I would meet one of the US advisors/consultants to the Saudis when they were considering agriculultural expansion in Saudi Arabia.

When I retired here, in the Hill Country of Texas, I met a gentleman who was a retired Professor of Agriculture (PhD) from the University of Minnesota. He had been part of the advisory/consultancy team working with the Saudis in the late 70s/early 80s. This team's final advice/warning to the Saudis was thus; "If you tap this aquifer, which took 10,000 years to fill, for irrigation purposes, it will be depleted within 25-30 years." Well, the Saudis tapped the aquifer, irrigated large swaths of desert, grew wheat for a few decades and now the aquifer is running dry and the Saudis are even more dependent on imports for wheat.

And then on a local note, here in the heart of Texas, we were able to election this same emminently qualified gentleman, in 2008, to the Headwater & Groundwater Commission for the Quadalupe River. Prior to the 2010 election, the local yokels found out that Gary was a Democrat......Oh God Forbid!

So we replaced a highly qualified academic, capable of advising foreign governments, with a true conservative whose only credentials were having "Tea Party" tattooed on his buttocks.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting BobWallace:


I find the people of Central and South America to be quite nice. There are a few places where one would not want to live due to high crime, but those areas are limited and mostly larger cities.

The US is one of the most dangerous places in the world.


I must simply plead ignorance in that regard.

Like i say, im committed to this little farm.

My sheriff will not be coveting my solar panels. Of course, when he retires ...

Many of the area farmers are much richer than i and present a prettier target for the desperate. Plus, knowledgable people tell me that my place is defensible.

I have a good well.

The sun shines EVERY day.

I'll stick here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pintada:
Replying to Bob in comment 175.

I would not want to leave the US. I don't speak anything but english and that poorly. Plus, i looked into leaving before i started my homestead and now, after 10 years of work, its too late.

I was thinking about Canada, but do the math, and you will find that generating your own power with solar (or doing solar thermal) just doesn't work up there.

The Pacific Northwest - yes, that makes a lot of sense.

South America - no, i dont think so. Here, i am the right color (i'm sorry, but thats just how things work), and will fit in if i keep my opinions to myself, and keep a low profile. In south america, any gringo will have (already has) a target on his back.

The above ignores the fact that in any country where there are already a large load of poor people, the social strife that is coming will be much worse much more quickly. The price of soy beans is already ~15/bushel if you can afford them, but in indonesia there are already people who must go without.

Rookie posted an article about the food shortages that have already started.

The richer your neighbors are now, the longer you and those that you are trying to help will be able to hold out.

I can't imagine being in the US Southeast. Maybe it is workable there, though i doubt it ... join a church right away!


I find the people of Central and South America to be quite nice. There are a few places where one would not want to live due to high crime, but those areas are limited and mostly larger cities.

The US is one of the most dangerous places in the world.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Replying to Bob in comment 175.

I would not want to leave the US. I don't speak anything but english and that poorly. Plus, i looked into leaving before i started my homestead and now, after 10 years of work, its too late.

I was thinking about Canada, but do the math, and you will find that generating your own power with solar (or doing solar thermal) just doesn't work up there.

The Pacific Northwest - yes, that makes a lot of sense.

South America - no, i dont think so. Here, i am the right color (i'm sorry, but thats just how things work), and will fit in if i keep my opinions to myself, and keep a low profile. In south america, any gringo will have (already has) a target on his back.

The above ignores the fact that in any country where there are already a large load of poor people, the social strife that is coming will be much worse much more quickly. The price of soy beans is already ~15/bushel if you can afford them, but in indonesia there are already people who must go without.

Rookie posted an article about the food shortages that have already started.

The richer your neighbors are now, the longer you and those that you are trying to help will be able to hold out.

I can't imagine being in the US Southeast. Maybe it is workable there, though i doubt it ... join a church right away!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:


David - please check your mail. Top of page.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting pintada:


No, man, I'm asking ... did i get the math right?


The math? Don't know, but are you aware of this site's predictions of temperature rise and precipitation as we go forward? Some of the sites also give snowfall predictions.

Upper left "CLIMATE" has a drop-down that includes "Local Climate". If you click on one of the weather station icons on the map you can see the upper/lower range temp predictions for that area. Click on "View This Station" in the first pop-up box.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Xandra:

Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress


They make up a bunch of excuses that the temperatures have fallen within the CMIP5 mean, when clearly, they haven't.

Why have we fallen out of the 1 sigma error range, if the observations supposedly are consistent with the modeled forecast by the CMIP5 mean?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


You may debate polls and what they signify all you wish to do so. However, this provides absolutely no evidence to a scientific discussion of AGW and what are the implications of AGW to our future generations. Argue the semantics all you wish (Lord knows that I have tried ;-)), but this brings absolutely nothing to the discussion. ... You are arguing merely for the sake of having an argument.


We are debating what the question of a poll means, because Neapolitan misrepresented what the poll's question actually asked the climate scientists. Had he not misrepresented the poll's question, we would not be having this discussion right now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just some thoughts on where life during the "slightly nasty" times of global warming might be spent.

I spent a few months in Costa Rica. All it takes is a visit to somewhere along the west coast, a trip through the highlands and on to the Caribbean coast to get a very good understanding of how altitude and the choice of ocean can make a huge difference.

The west coast, the Pacific coast is a lot like Southern California to me. Not terribly hot and fairly dry. Comfortable in the shade on a hot day.

The central highlands with the capital, San Jose, at 1,170 meters, 3,840 feet has a climate referred to as 'Eternal Spring'. Never hot, never cold, some rain in the rainy season, but (in my experience) short and sweet.

The east coast along the Caribbean is hot and humid.

You can go from warm/hot and dry to cool and not humid to hot and repressively humid in one day on public bus.

The highlands or along the Pacific coast with its colder ocean should be fine even with considerable warming. I'm guessing Panama would be about the same.

Ecuador, the same. Except that you can get higher, Quito is about 2,850 meters, 9,350 feet and there are places higher. Quito and other parts of that high valley are quite pleasant even though the equator runs only a few miles north of Quito.

In the US, should you want to stay, the best areas are likely to be along the Pacific Northwest Coast. Cooling input from the Pacific and models predict that annual average rainfall will stay roughly constant over the next few decades. New England might be the other place most livable.

If you look at predictions for how the jet stream is likely to behave it seems to me that anywhere in the center of the continent is not going to be pleasant.

Going toward the poles, possibly good. But then you've got very long winter nights, which some of us wouldn't enjoy.

Other parts of the world. Himalayas at some altitude. Close to the equator and plenty of area to move up as temps require. Mountainous areas of South America. Perhaps a mountainous island such as Bali.

That thinking make sense to others?
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Argue the semantics all you wish (Lord knows that I have tried ;-)), but this brings absolutely nothing to the discussion. ... You are arguing merely for the sake of having an argument.


He/she may also be arguing merely for the sake of getting a paycheck. When you look around at Heartland Institute, WUWT, FAUX News and AM Hate Radio, you have to come to the realization that "Denialism is more than just a Cottage Industry."
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting Snowlover123:

This graphic from Dr. John Christy's testimony also shows the Global Temperatures falling out of the CIMP5 one sigma error range.

Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
So a scientific survey that 97.4% of climate scientists who responded to that survey actually support AGWT is deemed by you (and Bastardi, and Watts) to be "utterly useless".

...However...

An informal survey of non-climate scientists showing that "only" 70% or so of respondents support that theory is considered to be the gold standard in research.

Got it. You know, your bias is so skewed that it's almost cute... ;-)



You really like to throw out a lot of red herrings and straw men, don't you?

You misrepresent what the poll question in the study actually asked, and then when someone corrects you, you try and deflect the fact that you had misrepresented the study's question.

Then you misrepresent the AMS survey by claiming that 70 percent agree that human activity is the cause of the warming when the value is actually 52 percent.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


A total and complete straw man of what the actual question actually said with regard to the 97% consensus figure. The question from where the 97% was derived from in the (non-peer reviewed) study did not ask about whether human activity is the dominant or primary cause of Climate Change. It asked about whether they thought that human activity is a significant contributing factor. In fact, I would answer yes if someone asked me if I thought human activity contributed significantly. From my calculations, human activity probably contributes a little less than 20% to the warming observed since the Maunder Minimum. This is a significant contributing factor, even though it is not a dominant factor.

So this poll is utterly useless, since many skeptics would answer yes to the question in which the 97% consensus figure comes from.
So a scientific survey that 97.4% of climate scientists who responded to that survey actually support AGWT is deemed by you (and Bastardi, and Watts) to be "utterly useless".

...However...

An informal survey of non-climate scientists showing that "only" 70% or so of respondents support that theory is considered to be the gold standard in research.

Got it. You know, your bias is so skewed that it's almost cute... ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
No, I made the claim--and reassert it now--that the vast majority of climate scientists ("vast" in this case being Doran's 97.4%) support the theory fact that humans are the primary cause of the observed warming of the past decades. If you and others of your ilk want to live in a fantasy world where there is "absolutely no consensus" on this issue, be my guest. But those of us who prefer reality know what's going on.


A total and complete straw man of what the actual question actually said with regard to the 97% consensus figure. The question from where the 97% was derived from in the (non-peer reviewed) study did not ask about whether human activity is the dominant or primary cause of Climate Change, as you had asserted that it did in your above post. It asked about whether they thought that human activity is a significant contributing factor to Global Warming. In fact, I would answer yes if someone asked me if I thought human activity contributed significantly. From my calculations, human activity probably contributes a little less than 20% to the warming observed since the Maunder Minimum. This is a significant contributing factor, even though it is not a dominant factor.

So this poll is utterly useless, since many skeptics would answer yes to the question in which the 97% consensus figure comes from.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Well, the difference is, of course, that the number of AGW supporters from the AMS survey consisted of not just climate scientists, but also scientists from fields other than climate and/or meteorology, and even TV weather readers, while the oft-repeated 97% figure from the Doran survey was taken from a group comprised entirely of practicing climate scientists. The former is like seeking opinions on heart surgery from not just heart surgeons, but gynecologists, dentists, and holistic healers, while the latter is like seeking opinions on heart surgery from only heart surgeons. Most people can spot the difference...


You're throwing a red herring. The question that sirmaelstorm asked did not pertain to whether the atmospheric scientists/meteorologists were climate scientists, but whether the sample size was large enough for the Doran and Zimmerman 2009 study.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 213 - 163

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog 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.