Colorado’s Big Flood: Arctic Oscillation (5)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:36 AM GMT on September 17, 2013

Share this Blog
26
+

Colorado’s Big Flood: Arctic Oscillation (5)

I am going to continue with my series on the Arctic Oscillation, but I am going to take a diversion. That’s why this one is labeled number 5 – numbers 3 and 4 will be forthcoming. The first two in the series have definitions of terms and references to more materials (link to number 1 and link to number 2). I will, ultimately, bring this flood back to climate change and the Arctic Oscillation discussion – I think with plausibility.

I am writing this at the time of a historic flood in Colorado (Denver Post Photos). This flood has been labeled a 100 year flood in Boulder (Boulder Creek) and a 500 year flood in Longmont (St. Vrain River). The geographical reach of the flood is large, reaching from Colorado Springs in the south to Fort Collins in the north, about 130 miles. This geographical span also distinguishes this flood as compared to, for example, the Big Thompson River flood of 1976. Chris Burt wrote a blog about the history of flash floods in Boulder. The last flood that rivals the 2013 flood was in 1894.

I live in Colorado and I have a sizable garden that leads me to doing all sorts of things in the ground. Once digging a hole three feet deep to find an old pipe, at about 18 inches, I ran across a layer of rounded, smooth rocks. A local, who I tend to believe, told me that this was the wash from the 1894 flood. That put me in mind of Death Valley where there are massive alluvial fans of similar rounded rocks at the mouth of every canyon. You walk in these rocks and there are times they have an almost fluid character; you sink into them a few inches. Death Valley is dry and it does not hold soil. So these deep accumulations of rocks are visible. If you think about the flash floods and the years needed to build the piles it is staggering. After running across this likely layer of the 1894 flood, I looked around, and indeed, one does see the same form of alluvial fans in Colorado, only they are covered with soil and plants.

The normal flow for Boulder Creek is around 200 cubic feet per second, and in the 2013 flood numbers closer to 5000 cubic feet per second were measured. In the town of Boulder, the most obvious damage was on the western side of town on the steep slopes of the Foothills. Further up into the mountains, where there is great devastation, are the scars of many forest fires of the past few years – again, extending from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins. In these places the ground, which is a combination of soil and plant and those smooth rocks, liquefies. The ground first saturates with water, then turns into a mixture of dirt, rock and water. This slurry turns into slides and gushers of heavy suffocating material. The ground under houses essentially melts, and houses join in the flow. Roads crumble, join the fluid along with cars. There is danger from being overwhelmed from above and undercut from below. People die.

As these slides of water, rock, and detritus of the forests and the city move down stream, the heavier material drops out and flotsam, dirt and water flows into the channels of the gullies, creeks and ditches. In places, like the city of Boulder, flood-control fortifications channel the flood, and then it spews and spreads as it gets to more open land in the plains.

Most people who come to Boulder and the cities and towns of the Front Range think of mountains. However, most of the people and buildings sit away from the mountains. Traveling east from the mountains there are first mesas, and it is not far before one is in the high plains. Towns such as Longmont view Long’s Peak; they don’t sit on Long’s Peak. Longmont, Loveland and many others are more of the plains than of the mountains. If you drive north and south just five miles from Boulder, the straight roads go up and down the mesas, no more than about 100 feet in elevation. Between the mesas are the wide valleys of Boulder Creek, Left Hand Creek and the St. Vrain River. These valleys are the historical flood plains, and in a flood like the 2013 flood, they fill up. In 2013 they are also full of farms and houses and towns. The creek channels and ditches are engineered to carry water where it is wanted, but in a flood like this, the type of flood that made this wide valley, the water and the suspended soil and the rolling rocks fill up the valley like it has for thousands of years.

As I write this most of the water has moved down to the South Platte River and a diminishing flood is pulsing north towards Nebraska and Omaha and the Missouri River. The Front Range of Colorado is wet and wounded. The air and ground feel and smell like the aftermath of a hurricane. There is a surge of rot as late summer fields start of compost. Today I found crushed crayfish a hundred yards from what I presume is their home in an irrigation ditch, giving a coastal fishy smell. There are clumps of sodden pink insulation. Plastic bags of rotting garbage.

Climate: With the Pakistan flood in 2010 I started climate case studies. From a weather point of view, there are some similarities with Pakistan. There is moist air coming from a warm southern ocean, there are high mountains, and there are high and low pressure systems steering a river of that moist air, warm over cold, up the mountains. As the air rises it rains. Because these weather patterns are stuck, persistent, the rain is relentless. From a point of view of scale, the geographical expanse, the Colorado flood is much smaller than the Pakistani flood. From a preparedness and infrastructure point of view, there is no comparison. The resilience of Boulder, Longmont, Estes Park and Lyons will prove much more robust than that of Peshawar. As a climate case study, this mix of geography, weather, built environment and resilience are all part of the mix.

But what of climate change? It is reasonable to pose that climate change is playing into the Colorado flood and its impacts in at least two ways. The first is a change of the land surface. There has been change in the forest due to drought. There has been change due to destruction of forest by pine beetles. A large amount of land has burned in the past few years. The fire season has been long, the fires intense.

The second possible impact of climate change is in the weather pattern that has caused the flood. Let’s step back a few months. In March of this year much of the region that has been flooded was in extreme and extended drought. Then in April, in quite a localized region, there was every week a record snowstorm, providing four feet of snow. The monsoonal rain was pretty regular during the summer, but we came into September below average precipitation by quite a bit. Tuesday a week ago, the predicted rain was said to be enough that we might get up to average. A little later that week it was the largest rain event ever. The one day total passed the previous record by a factor of two. A couple of days later we have the wettest year ever.

This pattern of rain is hard to ignore. Persistent patterns of weather, with weather systems moving from east to west. This is where I will make the link to climate change and the Arctic Oscillation.

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: 182 - 132

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

The article below describes the organized campaign to spread FUD and to discredit the upcoming IPCC report. All the usual suspects are involved, Science & Environmental Policy Project, Heartland Institute, The Cato Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, WTFUWT and the rest of the illiterati.

IPCC report: sceptic groups launch global anti-science campaign


Leading scientists will soon tell the world they're 95% certain that humans are driving global warming. Sceptics are busy trying to sow any doubt

Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming skepticism are doubling down on trying to discredit the next big report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they've been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public's mind before the report is published, with no end in sight.

"The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn't have all the science to make informed judgments," said Jim Lakely, a spokesman for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.

Heartland gained notoriety last year after running a billboard campaign comparing climate change believers to "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, which caused several corporate donors to withdraw support for the group.

The fifth assessment by the IPCC, the world's leading scientific advisory body on global warming, is expected to conclude with at least 95 percent certainty that human activities have caused most of earth's temperature rise since 1950, and will continue to do so in the future. That's up from a confidence level of 90 percent in 2007, the year the last assessment came out. The IPCC, which consists of thousands of scientists and reviewers from more than 100 countries, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore. Governments often use its periodic reviews of climate risks to set targets for reducing carbon emissions and other policies

Because the IPCC's conclusions are produced by a consensus process, they are inherently conservative.
...

...
>What Skeptics Are Doing
To try to shape coverage of the findings, the Heartland Institute released a 1,200-page report on Wednesday by the provocatively titled Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The 10-year-old coalition of "nongovernment scientists and scholars" disputes the reality of man-made climate change.

The new report, Climate Change Reconsidered II, "uses layman's language to present solid evidence that today's climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability," according to Robert Carter, a former marine geologist at Australia's James Cook University and a consultant to climate skeptic groups. "Real world observations tell us that the IPCC's speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring," he said in a news release.

The report rests its argument largely on the uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, a measure used by scientists to determine how global temperatures will change in response to carbon dioxide emissions. In short, it says the IPCC exaggerates the warming effect of CO2.

The report is the latest in the Heartland Institute's "Climate Change Reconsidered" series and the cornerstone of its campaign against the IPCC's fifth assessment. Heartland is aggressively pushing the report in op-eds, blogs and in articles in conservative newspapers and news stations. Among others, it has received coverage in the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph, The Washington Times and the UK's Daily Mail, in an article that had to be "significantly" changed due to errors.

Other groups participating in the report include the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a research and advocacy group founded by climate skeptic Fred Singer%u2014who is also the director of Heartland's Science and Environmental Policy Project%u2014and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an Arizona-based climate skeptic group partly funded by ExxonMobil.

Over the next few weeks, authors of the report will hold speaking events in New York City, Boston, Florida and St. Louis. A Washington, D.C. event will be co-sponsored with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. In early October, Singer and Carter will give talks in England, Germany and the Netherlands. Heartland will also release videos and podcasts on its website using content from the events.

Heartland isn't alone in taking pre-emptive swipes against the IPCC.

For months, The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. co-founded by Charles Koch, has been publishing a series of blog posts and op-eds by Pat Michaels, the organization's director for the Center for the Study of Science, challenging the new IPCC report. In recent weeks, this activity has increased significantly. He has written an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal and been a source for media outlets like Forbes.

Michaels said his dream outcome would be for the IPCC to acknowledge the scientific errors revealed by the skeptic community. "That's what a responsible organization would do, but it would also mean the end of the IPCC," Michaels said. "So it is understandable that they wouldn't commit professional suicide."

The popular skeptic website Watts Up With That has also picked apart leaked drafts of the report and is publishing multiple stories a day chronicling how the new IPCC report is filled with "dodgy statistics" and "serious frauds."
...


Sowing Doubt

For skeptics, keeping the debate alive is exactly the point.

Conservative groups known for attacking global warming science like Heartland, Heritage and Cato have received many millions of dollars from energy companies and sympathetic interests to cast doubt on the science of climate change and the need for policies to curb emissions.

They have had some successes. Climategate, the November 2009 hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, is the most notable case. Skeptic groups claimed the hacked emails showed evidence that scientists were overstating the human influence on climate change, and they received nationwide media attention for their accusation.

By helping to foster doubt about mainstream climate science, the organizations helped put the nail in the coffin of U.S. climate legislation in 2010 and reduce public confidence in climate scientists. Although six separate inquiries into the scandal exonerated researchers of wrongdoing, only 57 percent of Americans believed global warming was happening by the start of 2010, down from 71 percent in 2008, according to a Yale Project poll.

James Taylor, a senior environmental fellow with the Heartland Institute suggested they're hoping for similar results from this campaign.

"Climate change is a major political topic again," ever since President Obama made climate action a priority for this second term, said Taylor. "People are looking for a more centralist view. We're trying to give it to them."

Not Worried

Environmental activists and several scientists said they're not as worried as they might have been just a few years ago.

Cindy Baxter, a longtime climate campaigner, said she thinks climate skeptics "are getting more shrill, but getting less notice," because Americans are more convinced that global warming is real.

"Hurricane Sandy. Droughts. Flooding. Wildfires. People are feeling the effects of climate change. That makes it harder to deny," said Baxter, who is also a co-author of Greenpeace's new report Dealing in Doubt, which chronicles the history of climate skeptic campaigns. Polls say a larger majority of Americans from both parties see recent waves of deadly weather as a sign of climate change.,?




Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 174. yoboi:


Why did the leak the information early????


Propoganda, yoboi, propaganda.

Regardless of what the report says at this point, the pot's been stirred, and some people will 1) believe the propaganda w/out reading the report, 2) think the report is suspect, or 3) both. Regardless, those trying to obfuscate will have a victory of sorts. Again, in a way, the report won't matter to them or to some of those they've 'convinced' or swayed.

Some people will remember the pre-report 'press' more so than the report, unfortunately.

Every time I see someone yet again pulling out misinformation from the Daily Mail, this goes through my mind.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 149. Birthmark:

From the link: "Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries."

Yeah, that's some scandal. lol
Yes, the "massive cover-up" seems to be clear-thinking people insisting that scientific methods and standards be used in the IPCC report. Of course, doing so is anathema to the legions of thick-skulled denialists orbiting around Anthony Watts and the Koch Brothers...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
178. yoboi
Quoting 177. Birthmark:

Denialists are putting on the full-court press. They're desperate.


Here is what they are trying:



I hope the report is legit... I bet when it's released there will be all kinds of reporting....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 174. yoboi:


Why did the leak the information early????

Denialists are putting on the full-court press. They're desperate.


Here is what they are trying:
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 172. JohnLonergan:


I just spotted this at CarbonBrief

Climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

Leaked government comments on the draft IPCC report, due to be released next week, suggest intense debate over how the report will describe recent slower temperature rise. The Mail describes the comments (which aren't publicly available) as an attempt to "cover up the fact that the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years".
Mail Online


Now I'm sure it's a lie.

Gotta love those massive "cover-ups" involving freely-available data sources made public on a realtime basis.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3327
Quoting 174. yoboi:


Why did the leak the information early????


Now its contagious :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
174. yoboi
Quoting 152. Daisyworld:


What on Earth makes you write that? Where in the world would you get the notion they are "editing out" information? Why would you think there is malcontent in their motives? Did it EVER occur to you that maybe they're editing IN additional information? Or that they're trying to refine their data and findings so that they're easier to understand or to prevent misinterpretations in the media as has often happened?

To proceed forth with such mistrust of the IPCC is to promote fear-mongering and unwarranted accusation on the worst scale.


Why did the leak the information early????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
173. yoboi
Quoting 151. Daisyworld:


What on Earth makes you write that? Where in the world would you get the notion they are "editing out" information? Why would you think there is malcontent in their motives? Did it EVER occur to you that maybe they're editing IN additional information? Or that they're trying to refine their data and findings so that they're easier to understand or to prevent misinterpretations in the media as has often happened?

To proceed forth with such mistrust of the IPCC is to promote fear-mongering and unwarranted accusation on the worst scale.


then who leaked the information early????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 149. Birthmark:

From the link: "Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries."

Yeah, that's some scandal. lol


I just spotted this at CarbonBrief

Climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

Leaked government comments on the draft IPCC report, due to be released next week, suggest intense debate over how the report will describe recent slower temperature rise. The Mail describes the comments (which aren't publicly available) as an attempt to "cover up the fact that the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years".
Mail Online


Now I'm sure it's a lie.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Yikes.... excited about your post, Daisyworld? :)
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3327
170. yoboi
Daisy what post should I respond to first????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599


Quoting 167. Daisyworld:


What on Earth makes you write that? Where in the world would you get the notion they are "editing out" information? Why would you think there is malcontent in their motives? Did it EVER occur to you that maybe they're editing IN additional information? Or that they're trying to refine their data and findings so that they're easier to understand or to prevent misinterpretations in the media as has often happened?

To proceed forth with such mistrust of the IPCC is to promote fear-mongering and unwarranted accusation on the worst scale.


Now that's Spamming a post !

LMAO
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 149. Birthmark:

From the link: "Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries."

Yeah, that's some scandal. lol
Well, if it is from Faux News, my first inclination is that it's a lie.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Quoting 140. yoboi 5:17 PM GMT on September 20, 2013Until the IPPC report is out....that is what is avaliable....I wonder why it is taking so long to release the report.....makes me think they are editing out key information....:


What on Earth makes you write that? Where in the world would you get the notion they are "editing out" information? Why would you think there is malcontent in their motives? Did it EVER occur to you that maybe they're editing IN additional information? Or that they're trying to refine their data and findings so that they're easier to understand or to prevent misinterpretations in the media as has often happened?

To proceed forth with such mistrust of the IPCC is to promote fear-mongering and unwarranted accusation on the worst scale.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 880
Obama Takes On Coal With First-Ever Carbon Limits

The Obama administration will press ahead Friday with tough requirements for new coal-fired power plants, moving to impose for the first time strict limits on the pollution blamed for global warming.

The proposal would help reshape where Americans get electricity, away from a coal-dependent past into a future fired by cleaner sources of energy. It's also a key step in President Barack Obama's global warming plans, because it would help end what he called "the limitless dumping of carbon pollution" from power plants.

Although the proposed rule won't immediately affect plants already operating, it eventually would force the government to limit emissions from the existing power plant fleet, which accounts for a third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Obama has given the Environmental Protection Agency until next summer to propose those regulations.

The EPA provided The Associated Press with details of the proposal prior to the official announcement, which was expected Friday morning. The public will have a chance to comment on the rule before it becomes final.

more at HuffingtonPost.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 963
Quoting 148. yoboi:



well this was just posted on Dr M blog...


Link

From the link: "Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries."

Yeah, that's some scandal. lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
148. yoboi
Quoting 146. Birthmark:

You're free to think whatever pleases you. However, I'd wait for a fact before jumping to conclusions. Here's one now: "23 Sep - 26 Sep
12th Session of WG I and 36th Session of IPCC (approval and acceptance of WGI AR5)
(Stockholm, Sweden )"



well this was just posted on Dr M blog...


Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 144. JohnLonergan:
Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming

LOL! Well worth the read!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 140. yoboi:



Until the IPPC report is out....that is what is avaliable....I wonder why it is taking so long to release the report.....makes me think they are editing out key information....

You're free to think whatever pleases you. However, I'd wait for a fact before jumping to conclusions. Here's one now: "23 Sep - 26 Sep
12th Session of WG I and 36th Session of IPCC (approval and acceptance of WGI AR5)
(Stockholm, Sweden )"
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 128. Neapolitan:
Nearly every single thing Bennett wrote that isn't a direct quote from someone who knows more than he is incorrect, has been debunked and disproved, is an outright lie, or is based on a lethal combination of profound ignorance and deeply-rooted idiocy.

So what else you got?


I'd say anything Bennet says or writes is a combination of malevolence, wilful ignorance and idiocy.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Dr. Barry Bickmore's critique of Roy Spencer’s "The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists."

Dr. Bickmore wrote three posts on his blog critiquing Spencer' 2010 book and his simle climate model(curve fitting). His posts are linked below:

Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1

Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2

Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3


Part1 and Part2 are summarised below:

Summary of Part 1: In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research. This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing” due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on. Instead, Spencer believes most climate change is caused by chaotic, natural variations in cloud cover. He and a colleague published a peer-reviewed paper in which they used a simple climate model to show that these chaotic variations could cause patterns in satellite data that would lead climatologists to believe the climate is significantly more sensitive to external forcing than it really is. Spencer admits, however, that his results may only apply to very short timescales. Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.
and

Summary of Part 2: Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles). The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.


and summary of Part3

Summary of Part 3: Roy Spencer posits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is linked to chaotic variations in global cloud cover over multi-decadal timescales, and thus has been the major driver of climate change over the 20th century. To test this hypothesis, he fit the output of a simple climate model, driven by the PDO, to temperature anomaly data for the 20th century. He found he could obtain a reasonable fit, but to do so he had to use five (he says four) adjustable parameters. The values he obtained for these parameters fit well with his overall hypothesis, but in fact, other values that are both more physically plausible and go against his hypothesis would give equally good results. Spencer only reported the values that agreed with his hypothesis, however. Roy Spencer has established a clear track record of throwing out acutely insufficient evidence for his ideas, and then complaining that his colleagues are intellectually lazy and biased when they are not immediately convinced.


After Dr. Bickmore completed Part3 the following was added:

[UPDATE: Arthur Smith has now done the full mathematical proof for what I showed by playing around with MATLAB. UPDATED UPDATE: Arthur went on to show that, given the mathematical form of Spencer's model, he would have to start his model at ∆To = negative a few trillion degrees in 1000 A.D. to have his model produce a suitable anomaly in 1900 to adequately fit the 20th century data. Ok, so if you keep reading down into the comments, it turns out that there are other ways (that aren't physically impossible) to drive the model and get the proper starting point for the 20th century, but they are still wildly improbable, and there's no evidence for anything like that.]



Link to Arthur Smith's write up:

Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Utah isn't very safe or green...



Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I have been boycotting the blog with posts, but some days the level of stupid is just to much..........

Delaying.............a calendar and schedule that covers not just months but years. Yet, "they are delaying and doing last minute changes, and slight of hand"

now back to boycotting.....

http://www.ipcc.ch/scripts/_calendar_template.php ?wg=8Link

Calendar: 2013 for IPCC Overview
Date Description and Venue Documents/Links
4 Jan - 4 Jan 16th Meeting of the IPCC Executive Committee
(WebEx)



7 Jan - 3 Feb NGGIP - Expert Review on "2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol”



8 Jan - 10 Jan NGGIP - "2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands" Second Science Meeting
(Freising, Germany)



13 Jan - 19 Jan WGI - AR5 4th Lead Author Meeting
(Hobart, Australia)



21 Jan - 23 Jan WG II - AR5 Regional Context Session for the contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, “Climate Change 2013: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
(San Francisco, CA, USA)



11 Feb - 7 Apr NGGIP - Government/Expert Review on "2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands”



25 Feb - 22 Apr WG III - Second Order Draft of AR5 - Government and Expert Review



27 Feb - 27 Feb 17th Meeting of the IPCC Executive Committee
(Geneva, Switzerland)



28 Feb - 1 Mar 46th Session of the IPCC Bureau
(WMO, Geneva, Switzerland)



5 Mar - 8 Mar NGGIP - 3rd Lead Author Meeting on the "2013 Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol"
(Oslo, Norway)



29 Mar - 24 May WG II - Second Order Draft of AR5 - Government and Expert Review
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 139. Naga5000:
Snip


What a sad world we live in when the general populace lacks the ability to read. There fixed it for you.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
140. yoboi
Quoting 139. Naga5000:
How many times do we have to see that article brought up? Instead of posting "garbage journalism" you just start reading actual papers and reports and start spreading those around? I think its simply due to the fact that it's much easier for people to understand some "journalist's" take on the subject than getting an ounce of scientific literacy so they have the ability to read it for themselves. What a sad world we live in when the general populace lacks the ability to read a scientific paper.



Until the IPPC report is out....that is what is avaliable....I wonder why it is taking so long to release the report.....makes me think they are editing out key information....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
How many times do we have to see that article brought up? Instead of posting "garbage journalism" you just start reading actual papers and reports and start spreading those around? I think its simply due to the fact that it's much easier for people to understand some "journalist's" take on the subject than getting an ounce of scientific literacy so they have the ability to read it for themselves. What a sad world we live in when the general populace lacks the ability to read a scientific paper.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
Quoting 126. MisterPerfect:
What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up

Thank goodness science is determined by non-expert, public vote. We can just opine the climate change away!
"You've always had the power to get rid of the climate change. Just click your heels together 3 times... "
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3327
137. yoboi
I thought the IPPC report would be out by now.....could they be editing out some of the findings???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2599
Quoting 134. SteveDa1:
It seems to me that a fairly large percentage of the population bases their understanding of climate change on year-to-year fluctuations. That's why polls are so different from one year to the next. It seems they are unable to question the impulse they receive from large deviations from the mean... This change needs to be disregarded in the polls because well, quite frankly, their opinions are worthless.

I would like to see how these people fare in the stock market...


They do not recognize overall trends just the immediate ones... Fox News is ignorant and reports on the short term trends all the time...... Cherrypickers....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 126.

That's a particularly ironic post to read after the one directly above it. A near-perfect QED.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
It seems to me that a fairly large percentage of the population bases their understanding of climate change on year-to-year fluctuations. That's why polls are so different from one year to the next. It seems they are unable to question the impulse they receive from large deviations from the mean... This change needs to be disregarded in the polls because well, quite frankly, their opinions are worthless.

I would like to see how these people fare in the stock market...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 128. Neapolitan:
Nearly every single thing Bennett wrote that isn't a direct quote from someone who knows more than he is incorrect, has been debunked and disproved, is an outright lie, or is based on a lethal combination of profound ignorance and deeply-rooted idiocy.

So what else you got?


Yes! He has a new gene they found in an ancient human subspecies during an archeological dig.... They named the new human sub species "Homostupidocus Erectus" and call the new gene "The Stupid Gene". The archeologists are amazed the gene has been passed on to modern day humans and still exists today given that natural selection should have weeded this gene out of the gene pool over the millennia..... Scientists say many of the traits such as lies, profound ignorance and deeply rooted idiocy are tell tail signs of having the gene.... They say Neanderthal was more of a thinker....

.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 126. MisterPerfect:

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report shows scientists are being forced to "recognise reality".

He said: "blah blah blah blah..."

FYI, Roy Spencer is a crank with a major persecution complex...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 182 - 132

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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.

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.