We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

Another flooding mega-disaster: Sri Lanka recovers from extreme flooding

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:14 PM GMT on January 19, 2011

At least 43 are dead and thousands still in refugee camps due to extreme flooding in eastern Sri Lanka caused by record monsoon rains. According to the United Nations, the rains in recent weeks in Sri Lanka have been the heaviest in nearly 100 years of record keeping, and the flood that resulted was a 1-in-100 year event, according to The U.N. Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System. Rainfall at Batticaloa, Sri Lanka, during the 42-day period December 1 - January 12 was 1606 mm (63"), which is about how much rain the station usually receives in an entire year (1651 mm, or 65".) Sri Lanka's previous most devastating flooding disaster was the 2004 tsunami, but as The Economist commented, "in terms of the numbers of people displaced and farmland inundated, the floods have been even more devastating than the tsunami of December 2004." Damage estimates start at $500 million, and much of Sri Lanka's agriculture has been severely damaged by the disaster. Also of concern is the large number of land mines from the recent Sri Lanka civil war that may have been unearthed by the floods. Water is also a major concern in the flood-hit area, as fighting between government forces and Tamil Tigers rebels from mid-2007 to May 2009 damaged or destroyed almost all of the water facilities.


Figure 1. A family affected by the 2011 Sri Lanka floods braves the flood waters. Image credit: United Nations.

Sri Lanka is now the fifth nation in the past six month to suffer a flooding disaster unprecedented in its history. As I reported in a previous post, the other four mega-impact floods--the July 2010 Pakistan floods, the December - January Queensland Australia floods, the November 2010 Colombia floods, and the January 2011 Rio de Janeiro floods--were all accompanied by an atmosphere laden with moisture, due, in part, due to sea surface temperatures over nearby ocean areas that were the 2nd or 3rd warmest on record. However, that was not the case for the Sri Lanka floods. Ocean temperatures during December 2010 were 0.2°C below average in the 5x5 degree square of ocean adjoining the island (5N - 10N, 80E - 85E). The floods appear to be due to the normal monsoon rains that typically affect the region this time of year, enhanced by the strong La Niña event occurring in the Eastern Pacific.


Figure 2. Satellite-estimated precipitation over Sri Lanka for January 3 - 9. Up to 18 inches (525 mm) fell over eastern Sri Lanka. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.

Jeff Masters


The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

You be able to leave comments on this blog.

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

Viewing: 207 - 157

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Quoting RipplinH2O:
I believe what you're calling "exasperation" is actually just "lack of art". Scientists with multiple degrees and dozens of years of experience and numerous publications in their field, yet do not possess the "art" of people skills to convey their message is a manner acceptable to their audience are, at best, on a equal plane with failed TV weathermen, half-term Alaska governors, and talk radio hosts who lack the science of the former. People skills get air time. Sound science gets published and peer reviewed in a medium explored by proveyers of the science but not the audience of air time. As we have discussed before, if one lacks the art, the science becomes instantly obsolete.

I disagree. Not every scientist is a PR pro, nor wants to be one; some are happy to work behind the scenes doing the very best they can in their respective fields and getting credit when it's due. Remember: not every person needs to be a Watts or a Palin or a Beck--and the world surely doesn't need every person to be that, either. And good thing: there'd be no time for science if scientists spent all their time making the cable news circuit.

I'll admit that the science can seem obsolete to the more gullible members of our society; that explains in large part why AGW denialism has taken hold so strongly, and why the silly myth of Creationism refuses to go away. But science is what it is; it doesn't care whether we believe it or not. The earth has been orbiting the sun for eons, even while most believed it to be the other way around.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html


Great. That worked.

I read the article. The article was written 3 years ago and has not had any support from the climate science community since that time. I am not an scientist. I am very much interested in astronomy and a BIG fan of the late Carl Sagan's work as that of Neil deGrasse Tyson. Both of these men have stated that if Mars and Venus shared the same orbit as does the Earth, then Mars would still be much colder and Venus would still be much warmer than is the Earth. They attribute this to the atmospheres of each planet. Mars has a thin atmosphere that does not block much of the Sun's heat nor does it trap much of the heat from escaping back into space. This would explain why solar variances has more of an impact on Mars that it does on Earth. Venus, on the other hand, has a much thicker atmosphere than does the Earth and is largely CO2 and contains clouds of sulfuric acid. AKA - greenhouse gases. Venus's atmosphere traps are very high amount the solar energy it receives. A small variance in the Sun's energy level would not be as drastic on Venus's climate as it would be on Mars. Both men have stated that if you wish to understand how much an atmosphere plays in a planet's ability to trap solar heat when they occupy the same orbit then you have to look no further than our own moon. How does our own moon's temperature compare with the Earth's temperature?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm

As I have said. I am not a scientist. I can not think of a single reason why the explanation by these two men would be without scientific merit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:
"The floods appear to be due to the normal monsoon rains that typically affect the region this time of year, enhanced by the strong La Nia event occurring in the Eastern Pacific.

That is unlikely. There is nothing monsoonal about normal northeast trade winds. In January, the monsoon trough is located south of the equator near 10S, as the monsoonal northwesterlies in the Indian Ocean collide with the southeasterly trade winds in the Southern hemisphere.

January Climatological Surface Winds:


NOAA ESRL NCEP Reanalysis

Also, the normal precipitation pattern for January clearly shows the axis of monsoonal rains well south of Sri Lanka. That is not to say that they don't get rain in January, but it is not from the monsoon, which is in the southern hemisphere at this time of year.

January Climatological Precipitation:


JRA-25 Climatology Atlas


Yes, January is not one of the highest rainfall months.
Monthly Averages for Colombo, Sri Lanka
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:
Another reason it seems like disasters are getting worse is because of the damn population. It's common sense the more people, the more infrastructure, the more land is taken up. Therefore there is more damage because of more houses/buildings/property! more deaths because of more people crammed on the planet and more to witness weather events that normally would of never been known how bad it was because in the old days there was NOBODY AROUND TO SEE IT! and NO INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NATURE TO DESTROY!


That's certainly the case in some areas.

Man has always put settlements near bodies of water (rivers, lakes, oceans), for several weasons - water, food, and transportation.

More people, denser population in established cities.

Just seeing pictures of some of the river valleys in Brazil - years ago referenced to today - shows that the recurring floods are causing more damage because of the rising population levels.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

I believe what you're calling "arrogance" is actually just "exasperation". After all, if you were a scientist with multiple degrees and dozens of years of experience and numerous publications in your field, yet had to watch failed TV weathermen, half-term Alaska governors, and talk radio hosts get more air time than you where science in your field was being discussed, wouldn't you be exasperated, too?
I believe what you're calling "exasperation" is actually just "lack of art". Scientists with multiple degrees and dozens of years of experience and numerous publications in their field, yet do not possess the "art" of people skills to convey their message is a manner acceptable to their audience are, at best, on a equal plane with failed TV weathermen, half-term Alaska governors, and talk radio hosts who lack the science of the former. People skills get air time. Sound science gets published and peer reviewed in a medium explored by proveyers of the science but not the audience of air time. As we have discussed before, if one lacks the art, the science becomes instantly obsolete...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Are you implying something insidious about Dr Masters' air pollution work at Ford?

Message: The funding source doesn't automatically mean anything about the science conducted.

According to sourcewatch, Exxon funds a lot of diverse groups. Are they all to be discarded?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil_funding_recipients
I happen to know that the "Stanford GCEP", associated with the DOE GCEP program is very much AGW-leaning, too. Funds undergrads and grads in climate projects.

The argument you guys are using, here, is right there with saying that 97% of unemployed people support expanding unemployment benefits or 97% of climatologists, blah, blah, blah...

And in the next breath, needling someone about accusations of conspiracy among climatologists.


While I agree with your sentiment, SPPI is not like GCEP in anyway.

They don't mention their funding sources, or affiliations, nor publish their data and methodology in the manner expected with peer review. The also have no peer reviewed research (as in, peers not associated with SPPI). They are not backed by any recognized science organizations, or NOAA, or NASA, or ECMWF, etc. .

Exxon and other large corporations are more transparent than SPPI, and they publish their research in science journals. I actually trust a company like Exxon MORE because I CAN see how they got their results.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMixon:
Absolutely - the condescending attitude among the pro-AGW scientists is understandable given the "climate" of the debate (pun intended).  That said, it's not helpful.  It's much easier to get someone to see your point of view if you've built a foundation of mutual respect.  Both sides are guilty of damaging the discussion with emotionally-charged statements.  The less you resort to derision and name-calling, the more effective your argument.  I'm just sayin'...


Dave

 


There's truth in what you say. But not all scientists are in it for the PR; they're not all in it to puff up their resumes. Some are in it both because they care about the planet and because they're proud of their life's work and want others to recognize their achievements. When they're ignored in favor of corporate/political shills, I can certainly see why they'd be upset. They may be scientists, but they're also humans who just want to be respected for who they are and what they've done.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Pretty good analogy--though if we're the ones causing the dog to itch, we've only ourselves to blame...
EXACTLY my point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"The floods appear to be due to the normal monsoon rains that typically affect the region this time of year, enhanced by the strong La Niña event occurring in the Eastern Pacific.

That is unlikely. There is nothing monsoonal about normal northeast trade winds. In January, the monsoon trough is located south of the equator near 10S, as the monsoonal northwesterlies in the Indian Ocean collide with the southeasterly trade winds in the Southern hemisphere.

January Climatological Surface Winds:


NOAA ESRL NCEP Reanalysis

Also, the normal precipitation pattern for January clearly shows the axis of monsoonal rains well south of Sri Lanka. That is not to say that they don't get rain in January, but it is not from the monsoon, which is in the southern hemisphere at this time of year.

January Climatological Precipitation:


JRA-25 Climatology Atlas
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Masters - were the Brazilian and Australian floods really "unprecedented" meteorologically? I think I've read that Brisbane experienced a much higher flood back in 1893, and that Brazil has experienced plenty of other deadly summer flash floods like this one.

Now, I would not be surprised if they are "unprecedented" in terms of economic cost... just because those countries are wealthier today, so more property/livelihood is destroyed by a similar disaster. But I didn't get the impression they were "unprecedented" physically or meteorologically.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Absolutely - the condescending attitude among the pro-AGW scientists is understandable given the "climate" of the debate (pun intended).  That said, it's not helpful.  It's much easier to get someone to see your point of view if you've built a foundation of mutual respect.  Both sides are guilty of damaging the discussion with emotionally-charged statements.  The less you resort to derision and name-calling, the more effective your argument.  I'm just sayin'...


Dave

 
Quoting Neapolitan:

I believe what you're calling "arrogance" is actually just "exasperation". After all, if you were a scientist with multiple degrees and dozens of years of experience and numerous publications in your field, yet had to watch failed TV weathermen, half-term Alaska governors, and talk radio hosts get more air time than you where science in your field was being discussed, wouldn't you be exasperated, too?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
No, personally. This scientist couldn't care less about a popularity contest. Never have, never will.

Others citing your work is the measure of their work's significance that most of us seek. (A citation in someone else's new work, thus accepting the work and further building upon it).


In my experience, a lot of scientists are primadonna's and have serious behaviour problems due to the lonely and competitive nature of science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

I believe what you're calling "arrogance" is actually just "exasperation". After all, if you were a scientist with multiple degrees and dozens of years of experience and numerous publications in your field, yet had to watch failed TV weathermen, half-term Alaska governors, and talk radio hosts get more air time than you where science in your field was being discussed, wouldn't you be exasperated, too?
No, personally. This scientist couldn't care less about a popularity contest. Never have, never will.

Others citing your work is the measure of their work's significance that most of us seek. (A citation in someone else's new work, thus accepting the work and further building upon it).

L8R
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:

www.thenewamerican.com/.../2871-are-the-ice-caps-melting he head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, Anastasios Tsonis, supports Latif%u2019s findings with further evidence showing that global temperatures depend largely on oceanic %u201Cmulti-decadal oscillations,%u201D or MDOs. Tsonis does not deny human activities can contribute to rising temperatures, but he disagrees they can affect climate in any significant way. In an interview with the U.K.%u2019sDaily Mail, Tsonis explained that the latest MDO warm mode has brought on the global-warming hysteria of the past few years. Recalling ice-age predictions made in the 1970s, he said, %u201CPerhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.%u201D

So what explains Arctic ice loss in the face of a cooling Earth? Oceanographer Jane Eert attributes much of it to shifting winds she blames on climate change. She says the winds have exported %u201Cenormous amounts of ice%u201D from the area. Yet she made the amazing assertion:

The guys who are running the long-term climate models have a tough problem. They%u2019re looking at really long time scales, and as a result they can%u2019t look at a lot of details for each year.In order to get the results before you die, you have to fudge some things.[Emphasis added.] And what they fudge is the small-scale stuff. But it turns out that probably the small-scale stuff is important, and fudging it gives you wrong answers.

Her %u201Cfudging%u201D remark is particularly troubling in light of the Climategate scandal in which hundreds of e-mails pirated from a computer server at a leading research unit in England implicated many renowned scientists in fraudulently reporting data to favor their own climate-change agenda. In one of the messages, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said, %u201CThe fact is that we can%u2019t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can%u2019t.%u201D Does this mean recent declines in Arctic summer ice are merely being exploited by scientists who have otherwise been unable to prove the efficacy of their climate models? Just how many wrong answers has their %u201Cfudging%u201D produced?



Pssst...that whole "Climategate" thing was proven by multiple independent investigative bodies to be a phony, manufactured "scandal" based on out-of-context misinterpretations of some illegally stolen emails. Just so you know...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Off to bed,work 3rd shift,keep up the good work Neo and thanks got2b
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
I sense a considerable amount of arrogance among climatologists. They seem to be inflicted with that condition that JF was posting about a few days ago.

I believe what you're calling "arrogance" is actually just "exasperation". After all, if you were a scientist with multiple degrees and dozens of years of experience and numerous publications in your field, yet had to watch failed TV weathermen, half-term Alaska governors, and talk radio hosts get more air time than you where science in your field was being discussed, wouldn't you be exasperated, too?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
I don't think that's it, at all.

I do think they are loosening the strict rules of science to interpretation in order to allow more "science" inclusive of only-modeled and words such as "may", "might", "could", "possibly", etc. Look for those words in, say, a purely atmo physics paper. Not there.

Also, I am certain that many climos do actually believe what they say. That doesn't make it so...

Lastly, I am of the opinion that many are accepting as fact, what could only be described as inference based on incomplete, circumstantial data. And they are doing so on the premise that we know all there is to know about climate, variability, natural and unnatural positive and negative forcings. Far from the truth. I sense a considerable amount of arrogance among climatologists. They seem to be inflicted with that condition that JF was posting about a few days ago.
I agree that there is some degree of self-fulfilling prophecies and arrogance going on with climate science. At the same time, there is *something* going on.

Personally, I judge data independently, and couch many of my judgements based on the knowledge that everything doesn't add up 100%.
Many anti-AGW proponents see the whole debate in black and white. If scientists have falsified some data, that must mean ALL of it is bad, and the whole theory is a farce.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
is Pensacola near the 10 Highway?


Goes about 2 blocks from my house. :)

(a hug sounds good)

off to work I go
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

www.thenewamerican.com/.../2871-are-the-ice-caps-melting  he head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, Anastasios Tsonis, supports Latif’s findings with further evidence showing that global temperatures depend largely on oceanic “multi-decadal oscillations,” or MDOs. Tsonis does not deny human activities can contribute to rising temperatures, but he disagrees they can affect climate in any significant way. In an interview with the U.K.’s Daily Mail, Tsonis explained that the latest MDO warm mode has brought on the global-warming hysteria of the past few years. Recalling ice-age predictions made in the 1970s, he said, “Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.”

So what explains Arctic ice loss in the face of a cooling Earth? Oceanographer Jane Eert attributes much of it to shifting winds she blames on climate change. She says the winds have exported “enormous amounts of ice” from the area. Yet she made the amazing assertion:

The guys who are running the long-term climate models have a tough problem. They’re looking at really long time scales, and as a result they can’t look at a lot of details for each year. In order to get the results before you die, you have to fudge some things. [Emphasis added.] And what they fudge is the small-scale stuff. But it turns out that probably the small-scale stuff is important, and fudging it gives you wrong answers.

Her “fudging” remark is particularly troubling in light of the Climategate scandal in which hundreds of e-mails pirated from a computer server at a leading research unit in England implicated many renowned scientists in fraudulently reporting data to favor their own climate-change agenda. In one of the messages, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Does this mean recent declines in Arctic summer ice are merely being exploited by scientists who have otherwise been unable to prove the efficacy of their climate models? Just how many wrong answers has their “fudging” produced?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
187. Skyepony (Mod)
81.1F here in Melbourne, FL. Beautiful...

The sun..today.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
The tired, illogical argument that AGW scientists are doing it for the money doesn't pass the sniff test.

What does it smell like? can you post a scratch-n-sniff?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Abdussamatov's peers, such as they are, say that his theories don't fit the observations. As respected climate physicist Charles Long responded when asked about assertional that solar fluctuations are causing the earth to warm: "That's nuts. It doesn't make physical sense that that's the case."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
CRU calculated 2010, including December
1. 1998 0,548
2. 2005 0,482
3. 2003 0,475
4. 2010 0,475
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks for making this point, Jeff.  The tired, illogical argument that AGW scientists are doing it for the money doesn't pass the sniff test.  I worked at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research in Colorado and the scientists I know personally who went on to work for extractive resource companies (oil, coal, etc) make TONS more money than the few climate scientists I know.  I mean... TONS more.  Those who suggest that scientists "skew" data in order to support AGW theories because there's money in it have obviously never tried to pay a mortgage on climate research grants...



Quoting jeffs713:


Ok, so scientists can get a lot of grant money and research funding if they falsify data to show warming. They will get a heck of a lot more from the denier side if they falsify data to show cooling. There goes that motive. In any "crime", there has to be a motive. Yes, there is insanity, but the chances having a small subset of scientists all insane in the same manner is minute, to say the least.

So whats their motive for falsifying data?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

I'd say in many cases it does. Here, knock yourself out.

At any rate, Stanford's GCEP isn't "GW-leaning"; it's a project bankrolled by ExxonMobil (and other Big Energy corporations) to find alternate sources of energy with fewer emissions. It's a great start, to be sure, but funding it only means Exxon knows it's about to have its back pushed against the wall soon, and it wants to be sure to have an out. Again, that's good--but in the meantime the company is doing all that it can to be sure lies and disinformation are spread. It's kinda like an alcoholic attending an AA meeting because he know he needs help, but slipping off to the bathroom a half-dozen times during that meeting to have a little nip of cheap gin from his pocket flask...
Hah. Well, when I was in it, this GCEP had a Stanford group. (I should have looked for multiple acronym matches, I guess)

This is what the GCEP I thought I was talking about does (and what I did in the program):
"The Climate Sciences Program includes process research and modeling efforts to (1) improve understanding of factors affecting the Earth's radiant-energy balance; (2) predict accurately any global and regional climate change induced by increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols and greenhouse gases; (3) quantify sources and sinks of energy-related greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide; and (4) improve the scientific basis for assessing both the potential consequences of climatic changes, including the potential ecological, social, and economic implications of human-induced climatic changes caused by increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the benefits and costs of alternative response options."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jeffs713:
Here is one thing that gets me about "falsified" data. If evidence has been so blatantly falsified, then where is the non-falsified data? And what motive do they have?

Ok, so scientists can get a lot of grant money and research funding if they falsify data to show warming. They will get a heck of a lot more from the denier side if they falsify data to show cooling. There goes that motive. In any "crime", there has to be a motive. Yes, there is insanity, but the chances having a small subset of scientists all insane in the same manner is minute, to say the least.

So whats their motive for falsifying data?
I don't think that's it, at all.

I do think they are loosening the strict rules of science to interpretation in order to allow more "science" inclusive of only-modeled and words such as "may", "might", "could", "possibly", etc. Look for those words in, say, a purely atmo physics paper. Not there.

Also, I am certain that many climos do actually believe what they say. That doesn't make it so...

Lastly, I am of the opinion that many are accepting as fact, what could only be described as inference based on incomplete, circumstantial data. And they are doing so on the premise that we know all there is to know about climate, variability, natural and unnatural positive and negative forcings. Far from the truth. I sense a considerable amount of arrogance among climatologists. They seem to be inflicted with that condition that JF was posting about a few days ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Message: The funding source doesn't automatically mean anything about the science conducted.

I'd say in many cases it does. Here, knock yourself out.

At any rate, Stanford's GCEP isn't "GW-leaning"; it's a project bankrolled by ExxonMobil (and other Big Energy corporations) to find alternate sources of energy with fewer emissions. It's a great start, to be sure, but funding it only means Exxon knows it's about to have its back pushed against the wall soon, and it wants to be sure to have an out. Again, that's good--but in the meantime the company is doing all that it can to be sure lies and disinformation are spread. It's kinda like an alcoholic attending an AA meeting because he know he needs help, but slipping off to the bathroom a half-dozen times during that meeting to have a little nip of cheap gin from his pocket flask...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41518 Climate shifts can occur in mere months.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Are you implying something insidious about Dr Masters' air pollution work at Ford?

Message: The funding source doesn't automatically mean anything about the science conducted.

According to sourcewatch, Exxon funds a lot of diverse groups. Are they all to be discarded?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil_funding_recipients
I happen to know that the "Stanford GCEP", associated with the DOE GCEP program is very much AGW-leaning, too. Funds undergrads and grads in climate projects.

The argument you guys are using, here, is right there with saying that 97% of unemployed people support expanding unemployment benefits or 97% of climatologists, blah, blah, blah...

And in the next breath, needling someone about accusations of conspiracy among climatologists.

Ok, my example stunk. What I was trying to say is that SPPI is not an unbiased source, and their motives are far from altruistic. Most corporations are not interested in doing something that goes against their corporate goals, or would reduce their profits. Exxon Mobil funding studies to reduce gas consumption is not in line with increasing demand (and therefore profits). Ford doing research on reducing air pollution *is* in line with their goals, due to government regulations and increasing demand for less-polluting (and usually more efficient by proxy) cars.

Most successful companies are not in the habit of paying for research that will shoot them in the foot later. Its bad business.

As for needling people about conspiracy theories... they are a pet peeve. Most conspiracy theories are based on heresay, ancedotal evidence, and incomplete facts. That isn't to say all conspriacy theories are baseless - just a majority of them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
post 174.... COOL..... can we make a pitstop to visit a certain dashboard cowman and his family? I owe him a big hug.....

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
is Pensacola near the 10 Highway?
...a short 9 miles down I-110
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Evidently you have downloaded the article (web page) to your hard drive. Go to the directory you downloaded the file to and launch the html file. Now you can copy the url address and paste it into your comment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is one thing that gets me about "falsified" data. If evidence has been so blatantly falsified, then where is the non-falsified data? And what motive do they have?

Ok, so scientists can get a lot of grant money and research funding if they falsify data to show warming. They will get a heck of a lot more from the denier side if they falsify data to show cooling. There goes that motive. In any "crime", there has to be a motive. Yes, there is insanity, but the chances having a small subset of scientists all insane in the same manner is minute, to say the least.

So whats their motive for falsifying data?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
171. Skyepony (Mod)
Blob NE of Fiji..click pic for loop.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Yes, yes it was.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/HurricaneKatrina/comment.html?entrynum=17
Take a look at the evidence. I have compiled a growing pile of evidence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
is Pensacola near the 10 Highway?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HurricaneKatrina:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1348000/Mammoth-Japanese-scientists-resurrect-extinc t- giant-frozen-DNA-5-years.html
"The Kyoto University researchers are planning an expedition to the Siberian permafrost this summer in search of a flash-frozen specimen still rich in DNA." The day After Tomorrow wasn't so far off was it.
Yes, yes it was.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
You are trying to link to a file on your hard drive?
no,apparently I'm not doing something right,its on national geographic's website
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jeffs713:

Exactly. I was just about to post the same thing. SPPI posting "research" is like Exxon Mobil posting how to save gas in your car.
Are you implying something insidious about Dr Masters' air pollution work at Ford?

Message: The funding source doesn't automatically mean anything about the science conducted.

According to sourcewatch, Exxon funds a lot of diverse groups. Are they all to be discarded?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil_funding_recipients
I happen to know that the "Stanford GCEP", associated with the DOE GCEP program is very much AGW-leaning, too. Funds undergrads and grads in climate projects.

The argument you guys are using, here, is right there with saying that 97% of unemployed people support expanding unemployment benefits or 97% of climatologists, blah, blah, blah...

And in the next breath, needling someone about accusations of conspiracy among climatologists.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
Really? You moving to this neck of the woods? Wave on the way by! :)

hopefully, I can do better than that.... might just drop in on dashboard cowman!!!

:)


:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1348000/Mammoth-Japanese-scientists-resurrect-extinct- giant-frozen-DNA-5-years.html
"The Kyoto University researchers are planning an expedition to the Siberian permafrost this summer in search of a flash-frozen specimen still rich in DNA." The day After Tomorrow wasn't so far off was it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Really? You moving to this neck of the woods? Wave on the way by! :)

hopefully, I can do better than that.... might just drop in on dashboard cowman!!!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You are trying to link to a file on your hard drive?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
There is not evidence that anyone but deniers falsify data.




I guess you don't know the definition of 'Disclaimer'.

Wow they taut you reel gud where you come frum.


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
like I said, Keeper, you're a peach...

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:



Thats on your C: drive... can't see that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
thanks Keeper..... you're a peach...

;)


that's why I'm relocating to Florida this year....I'd rather deal with a hurricane....some advance notice would be a welcome change....
let me know where in fla i will let ya know when the cane is heading to your front door
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 207 - 157

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Category 6™

About

Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Labrador ice