Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things
Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things
I found out this week at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union that my friend Jerry Mahlman died in late November. Jerry was a climate scientist, and for many years, the Director of the Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory. Here is the announcement of his death, which includes a paragraph about his science life. Here is Rick Piltz's, Remembering Jerry Mahlman.
In 2003 Jerry and I hatched a plan to road trip to Big Bend National Park. Jerry liked to “bushwhack” across desolate places, and in the Lower 48, Big Bend National Park is about as remote and desolate as it gets. Big Bend is also home to a huge variety of wildlife. The wildlife is there not only because it is protected desolation, but also because its climate straddles the edge of the tropics. This means birds, and birds could be the noble goal of any Jerry adventure.
The retired Jerry set out to planning. Another flavor of road trip brought me to his house in Longmont, Colorado, and Jerry had collected a set of suitably obscure information about the places in the Larry McMurtry world through which we would venture. There would be counties where there might be 4 rooms for those passing through – identify such opportunity in advance. Jerry had descriptions that required us to pay attention to the juniper trees on the side of road at the curve 31 miles from the U.S. highway intersection. Beyond the juniper, there would be pull out and a path, and down that path, a gully, and in that gully, the footprint of a dinosaur.
The week before we were on our way, Jerry had his stroke. The rational, though perhaps without fully thinking it through – the rational Jerry called me to explain that despite the type and severity of a stroke that normally killed more than 99% of the time, he was certain that by the time I arrived in three days, he would be ready to go. He had tested his readiness, by standing and walking. Though he was dizzied and tired by more than a few steps, he was certain that by the time we arrived in Big Bend his recovery would be adequate. As a precaution we would limit our exposure to steep trails and sheer cliffs.
That trip never happened. After recovery and therapy Jerry and I did take a set of road trips into the easy hinterlands of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. We would frequently pass through Fort Collins, and he would talk about his time with Janet during graduate school. On one of the trips beyond Colorado’s Moose Viewing Capital, Walden, we happened upon a “nature” trail on, probably, Bureau of Land Management leased land. The nature trail was maintained by an oil interest, and had signs that talked about the natural warming caused by carbon dioxide, and how the oil industry removed carbon dioxide from the air, pumping it into to the ground to release, safely, more oil to be pumped. Recycling carbon dioxide.
In his backyard Jerry kept something of a rock garden, perhaps more in the style of corralled rocks than, say, the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco. In 2008 with Jerry’s short-term memory loss starting to become prominent, we set out to Capulin Volcano National Monument in New Mexico. The noble goal was large round rocks spewed from a volcano. We hiked in the National Monument, and collected large round rocks from a rancher’s field, and then set off through the dirt roads of northern New Mexico and southeastern Colorado. We drove the entire length of the Dry Cimarron River, wandering onto roadside rock crumbles and into easy gullies. We crossed the grasslands, through the windmills and settlements that are relics from the Dust Bowl. We visited dimly lit, small-town museums that were housed in repurposed general stores and gas stations. We tried to use, whenever possible, Colorado Highway 71, which ran north into Nebraska to his hometown of Crawford, and beyond to Janet’s hometown of Hot Springs, South Dakota.
Jerry Mahlman in a gully of the Dry Cimarron River, New Mexico, 2008
Our last trip was in 2009 - too early for a last trip, but lives get complicated. It was October. We started up over mountains in Wyoming, but the roads were closed to our demure vehicle. So we hiked Vedauwoo Rocks, and then we went down a barren Wyoming road that had remained solidly anchored in Jerry’s memory. We ate at a Chinese restaurant, in a town that met the required criterion of at least two Chinese restaurants – to assure some quality from competition. The hot and sour soup passed muster. The Scoville Scale was unchallenged.
From that common place where it was understood that is was OK to be Ricky, not Richard – to Jerry.
ricky
Jerry Mahlman at Vedawoo, Wyoming, 2009
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
[...]
So it devolves to this now, Nymore? An eye-for-an-eye? From the looks of it, that's the road you went down here. Need you be reminded that YOU cast the first brick in this commentary? See comment #10 if you need a reminder (and enjoy your own helping of crow with that). Neapolitan may have resorted to the admonished practice of abrasive labelling, but I see his tactics as reactionary rather than instigative. From my experience, he's more than willing to be civil when you show reasonably reflective thinking in your comments, and don't post pejorative fallacies of logic intended to misinform other readers.
You, unfortunately, along with a handful of anti-scientific propagandists who stalk this forum (Ossqss, Iceagecoming, NeapolianFan, Yoboi, or whoever else wishes to claim false victory), choose to engage in petitio principii and sophism to argue minutia unrelated to the topic at hand, trampling on the foundations of information literacy (not to mention someone else's in memoriam) in the process.
For that alone, I have zero respect for your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, you've opened yourself up to Neapolitan's wrath (or Birthmark's, or Rookie's) long ago, and deserve whatever tit-for-tat dialog you heap upon yourself. I reject your claims of ad hominem, and instead, condemn your arguments to the Gehenna of tu quoque.
Now you're just blabbering. We'll go back to the original question - do you have any evidence that Michael Mann lied in the Accuweather interview. Telling me what you think some unnamed person said is meaningless. Give us a link to your supposed evidence so we can give it a fair look. Failing that, it's just you saying stuff. Again and again and again.....
Try the data from 1997 - present via Hadcrut 4 and see the statistical proof for yourself.
Next>
Ah, so you accept evidence that isn't statistically significant. Therefore, you don't know what evidence means or what it's for. Either that, or you're trying to sell a steaming pile.
The data you cite is incapable of supporting any conclusion in any meaningful way.
Didn't say imaginary, I said unnamed. Again, big difference.
Only you can reveal the name of the unnamed individual to which you were referring. Unless, of course, they really were a figment of your imagination; in which case they really are imaginary and then, of course, all bets are off.
BTW - still waiting to the links that would substantiate you libelous accusation that Michael Mann is a liar. Barring that, we'll wait for your apology.
- Sandy had a minimum central pressure of 946 mb when it made landfall, which was the second-lowest pressure of any storm to come ashore north of Cape Hatteras, N.C. Only the Hurricane of 1938 had a lower air pressure reading at landfall that far north, which was 941 mb. In general, the lower the air pressure the stronger the storm
Do you want the source you won't like it Climate Central
and another source
Facts of the 1938 Hurricane (Francis, 1998)
Peak Steady Winds - 121 mph
Peak Gust - 186 mph at Blue Hill Observatory, MA.
Lowest Pressure - 27.94 in (946.2 mb) at Bellport, NY
Peak Storm Surge - 17 ft. above normal high tide (RI)
Peak Wave Heights - 50 ft. at Gloucester, MA
Deaths - 700 (600 in New England)
Homeless - 63,000
Homes, Buildings Destroyed - 8,900
Boats Lost - 3,300
Trees Destroyed - 2 Billion (approx.)
Cost - $620 million (1938)
So Sandy Never beat it
Again, if you don't provide a link or specific citation, it's just more of you saying stuff. Again and again and again...
I guess you need to apologize
You didn't post a link, there was nothing for me to check. Question is, why won't you post links? Obvious answer, of course, is that you've got something to hide.
Now go to the sources yourself and check them. then come back here and apologize
Well if you are actually typing about the evidence. The statistical significance of the trend from 1997 to now is within the margin of error. That means no statistically significant change in temperature over the last 16 years has occurred.
That's the fact. The MET office even published this information.
Barking up the wrong tree again
The lowest pressure at the time of landfall occurred on the south side of Long Island, at Bellport, where a reading of 27.94 inches was recorded. Other low pressures included 28.00 inches in Middletown, Connecticut and 28.04 inches in Hartford, Connecticut. Source NWS Boston Mass.
I would have to guess it was more powerful south of Ny and North of Hatteras. Not that it matters though
What sources? Again, you didn't provide a link so there's nothing for me to check.
Question is, why won't you provide links?
The one in post 216 is so easy to find a blind dog could do it. If three separate sources won't do, even when one of them is a pro global warming site, I don't know what will
Now I will wait for an apology from you
Got a link to that? 'Cause here's what I'm looking at:
So, let's see what you've got. Perhaps you're talking about the Daily Fail nonsense? If so, Tamino has already dispensed with that nonsense: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperatur e -analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/
Dude, you make the the accusation, the onus is on you to back it up. Obviously you can't do that. So sad, too bad.
Such is life.
Sorry, but I can't see where you've provided a link to that information. Hate to break it to you but just because you think it's so don't make it so.
Put up or shut up.
Link
If you don't believe the NWS, Ask and I will go back and find the rest.
I'll be waiting for that apology
Yep, "Not Found". Why am I not surprised. You ever figure it out, just let me know.
The very first sentence of the article - "The heat wave that struck western Russia in summer 2010, killing 55,000 people, broke July temperatures records and caused $15 billion in damage."
That's a link to information about the '38 hurricane - nothing about Sandy. Sorry Dude, but I've reached the end of my patience with you, you're now on your own.
Final note, there are consequences from everything you say or do. Hope you're good with that.
I cannot tell you how they arrived at that number either. I will try to find out how they arrived at the number.
Now apologize or prove Sandy had a lower pressure for either type of storm.
Check post 224 for sandy vs 1938 (Source Climate Central)
I will be waiting
Just for fun here you go another link which includes sandy VS hurricane 1938 Low pressure
Site won't link so I will just type it
icyclone.com/now/2012/oct/30-octorber-2012.html
but here is the part that matters
Central Pressure. Sandy's estimated landfall pressure of 946 mb in New Jersey was very low but not quite as low as the landfall pressure of the Long Island Express Hurrricane of 1938. In the 1938 storm, Bellport, NY, reported 946 mb however, reanalysis suggests the actual central pressure was 941 mb. Given this, 1938 is still king by a solid margin.
You have been PWNED
LOL, you present an imageshack graphic from a web site and a blog post, and I give you a reference that is legitimate. Hadcrut4 data. No more time wasted here>
Science is a "Policy of Truth"
Remember that!
Gnight
You gave nothing but your opinion and a claim.
I provided the data that demonstrates both your claim and your opinion to be wrong. I don't blame you from running -your nonsense has been exposed for the rubbish it is.
I almost forgot this to reply to this. Here is my reply
"
Science FTW!
From Australian Red Cross:
World Disasters Report: 2010 death toll highest in decade
...The deadliest disasters were the Haiti earthquake (more than 220,000 deaths) and an extraordinary heatwave in Russia (more than 55,000 deaths)...
According to the report, the heatwave in Russia led to 55,736 deaths.
Anyone who argues that the planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 or so years is not talking to me any longer. You have activated the "ignore" button. Just wanted to let you know. Get educated or talk to yourself.
what kind of adult does this? it's like sitting in the back of a funeral arguing loudly about football.
dr. mahlman was dr. rood's friend and he felt the need to honor him with this post. at least have the basic decency to take it somewhere else, just for a day.
there's more than enough of that in literally every other thread on this site.
give it a rest just once, out of basic respect. come on, people.
I think I would pay to view the debate could be a money spinner for WU/TWC ..and will be ordering beer popcorn and chips it would entertaining ...
The following is from your NWS link about the Great New England Hurricane of 1938:
"The lowest pressure at the time of landfall occurred on the south side of Long Island, at Bellport, where a reading of 27.94 inches was recorded. Other low pressures included 28.00 inches in Middletown, Connecticut and 28.04 inches in Hartford, Connecticut."
27.94 inches of mercury is equal to 946 millibars - same as Sandy, if I'm not mistaken. Which, of course, would mean Sandy made landfall with the lowest central pressure recorded north of Cape Hatteras.
Sort of what Dr. Mann said, isn't it?
Site won't link so I will just type it
icyclone.com/now/2012/oct/30-octorber-2012.html
but here is the part that matters
Central Pressure. Sandy's estimated landfall pressure of 946 mb in New Jersey was very low but not quite as low as the landfall pressure of the Long Island Express Hurrricane of 1938. In the 1938 storm, Bellport, NY, reported 946 mb however, reanalysis suggests the actual central pressure was 941 mb. Given this, 1938 is still king by a solid margin.
Here is another Link
Here is the part that matters in the previous link
Air Pressure Records:
- Sandy had a minimum central pressure of 946 mb when it made landfall, which was the second-lowest pressure of any storm to come ashore north of Cape Hatteras, N.C. Only the Hurricane of 1938 had a lower air pressure reading at landfall that far north, which was 941 mb. In general, the lower the air pressure, the stronger the storm
After reanalysis it does not seem so
Sandy 946 mb and the 1938 hurricane 941 mb
I'm guessing that most of the AWG/CC denialists here (and anti storm-naming WU participants) are mostly young, determined and pedantic arguers, but not well versed in the tactics of true debate. They generally display little or no ability to comprehend complex and nuanced science, and rant and rave endlessly over trivial factoids that are not very important in the big picture. Whether or not Superstorm Sandy or the storm of 1938 had the lowest sea-level barometric pressure, or whether one particular source of some of Neapolitan's information is funded by a particular organization is not significant to the overall science of AGW/CC. These are just Fox News style tactics used to obfuscate, mislead and call attention away from more important discussions.
Lets look at what I posted on Dr Masters blog shall we
Here is post number 126
126. nymore 1:48 PM CST on December 19, 2012 3
Not that I actually care that they name storms just be honest with yourself it is done more for marketing than anything else. Just like us who live in the tundra (as they say) have done it as a joke for decades
Action: Quote | Modify Comment
NOTICE THE WORD MARKETING
Do you have anymore lies
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index