# Introduction - Models are not All Wet: Models, Water and Temperature (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:46 PM GMT on July 15, 2012

Introduction - Models are not All Wet: Models, Water and Temperature (2)

I am starting a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature.

A couple of entries ago, I wrote a somewhat muddled blog, Difference Between Night and Day. My major goal in that blog was to look at how water, especially water vapor, enters into the climate and climate change problem. I used some regional differences in climate, say Florida's and Arizona's, with the hope of suggesting that we have some intuition of how water vapor modifies regional climate. For example, due to the absence of water vapor, Arizona's extremes of daily temperature are larger than in a much wetter Florida.

This simple intuitive notion, however, quickly falls into complexity. It is the typical complexity of climate science, where the members of a set of simple physical processes combine in many different ways to produce a difficult-to-untangle knot of observations. I will come back to this later, but first, here are some of the other ideas I had in mind in that first blog.

At the end of that blog I referred to the paper by Kukla and Karl, 1993, Nighttime Warming and the Greenhouse Effect (from Rood’s Class Website). This paper investigates the observed decrease in the range between nighttime lows and daytime highs. At the writing of that paper in 1993, the models of 20 years ago did not simulate this observation especially well. How does one respond to fact that models don’t represent a particular observation? A common way to respond, sometimes put forward by commenters on this blog, is that the models fail to represent the observations; hence, the model is wrong, and to base any conclusions, actions or behavior on model results is grievous failure of reason.

I, of course, reject this conclusion. When I get the result that the model does not represent an observation especially well, then I take this as a piece of information that motivates further investigation. The scientific investigations of my career have been based on the process that we develop a model from a set of physical laws that are expressed as mathematical expressions. The physical laws and the construction of the original model are based in their most fundamental way on observations. If the model has been developed properly, then it offers an approximation of that observed behavior. If this is the case, then we have an experimental tool that can be used for further investigation. That investigation is motivated both by the shortcomings in the model’s ability to represent observations we already have and by new observations that come along. In this approach models evolve as a tool that help us explore and manage the complexity of the climate system. They also help guide our thinking about the future based on the projections that come from the models. Models are, therefore, devices to help us think; they do not provide the answer.

Another idea that I introduced in the Difference Between Night and Day was that large changes in the amount of water at the surface, for example, the Dust Bowl and irrigation in the Corn Belt, might have significant regional impacts on climate. The place I am going with this, ultimately, is the Midwest Warming Hole (2 MB if you click), and that requires thinking about water. The Midwest Warming Hole is an observed feature in the center of the United States that is not warming up as fast as the regions around it or as fast as the models predict. This is not a newly discovered feature, but it is a feature that I think takes on new interest as we think about this hot summer, the last hot summer, and how to use the observations today to think about the climate in the future and how to adapt to a warming climate. The Midwest Warming Hole, and the ability or inability to represent it in models, is also a great example to help people think about how to describe model uncertainty.

The last big theme that I want to follow from the original blog is the improvement of ways to discuss and understand the role of water – solid, liquid and vapor – in climate and climate change. I did a series Just Temperature ( one, two, three) which was motivated by the stunningly warm spring in 2012 in the continental United States and my thinking of extreme events as climate change case studies. The Just Temperature series used the fact that the warming of the Earth has become large enough that it is possible using temperature observations alone to make a compelling case the Earth is warming. But once we make it beyond that fact, we have to think about water to understand the complexity of both the spatial and temporal structure of the observed trends.

So here are three big themes that I want to organize around:

1) Doing science with models
2) Communicating the role of water in climate and climate change
3) Thinking about changes in land use and its impacts on water

These will be interspersed, of course, with some tangents to interesting subjects here and there. But those who know this blog know that eventually I get there.

r

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

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

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: 415 - 365

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

##### 415. climatologyhoax
7:12 PM GMT on August 01, 2012
 Earth is about 4.54 billion years,and your scientist show a graph of stats for approx. 120 yrs.Anybody, that has taken basic statistics would know that this sample is far to small to have any validity."Scientist say" what scientist? site your sources. Also, 97% of Climate scientist. Really, did you really think that I would not know that those stats are loaded to one side. But, good work. There are plenty of people out there that will take your for what you say.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 414. RevElvis
4:26 AM GMT on July 30, 2012
 What trees can teach us about fire and climate change Grist.orgI meet Tom Swetnam, director of the laboratory of tree-ring research at the University of Arizona in Tucson, on a Sunday morning because he’s leaving for Siberia in a few days and is otherwise totally booked. As part of the paleofire team that will be traveling to the “Alaska of Siberia, if you will” to study fire and climate, Swetnam will spend a few weeks immersed in the burn history — and possible future — of some of the largest forests on Earth.“We’re trying to understand fire, climate change, and carbon emissions out of Siberia because of the huge carbon pool contained there in the soil, permafrost, bogs, and forests,” says Swetnam, a sturdy middle-aged man with an outdoorsy white beard. “This giant pool of carbon is beginning to burn in a massive way — the amount of area burning in Siberia is startling.”
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 410. RevElvis
3:57 AM GMT on July 30, 2012
 Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 SecondsClimateCentral.org
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 409. RevElvis
3:25 AM GMT on July 30, 2012
 Chronic 2000-04 Drought, Worst in 800 Years, May Be the 'New NormalScienceDaily.comThe chronic drought that hit western North America from 2000 to 2004 left dying forests and depleted river basins in its wake and was the strongest in 800 years, scientists have concluded, but they say those conditions will become the "new normal" for most of the coming century.Such climatic extremes have increased as a result of global warming, a group of 10 researchers reported July 29 in Nature Geoscience. And as bad as conditions were during the 2000-04 drought, they may eventually be seen as the good old days.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 408. etxwx
2:56 AM GMT on July 30, 2012
 Quoting Birthmark:There is simply no there there in that paper.Complete waste of time.Good to hear you say that. I'm glad it wasn't just me... ;-)I had to chuckle at the "crowd sourcing" part of the press release...surely that is the highest standard in scientific research, right?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 407. Patrap
2:11 AM GMT on July 30, 2012
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 405. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:00 AM GMT on July 30, 2012
 Deleted
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 404. etxwx
12:10 AM GMT on July 30, 2012
 Carbon trading coming to Shanghai07-27-2012 10:52 BJT The platform will be based at the Shanghai Environment and Energy Exchange. The trials will involve 200 firms in 16 industries, such as steel, petrochemicals, non-ferrous metals, and power and six non-industrial fields, such as airlines, ports, airports and hotels.Scientists say these kinds of companies are responsible for approximately 110 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, or nearly half of the city’s annual emissions.Zheng Dawei, head of Investment Banking Dept.,SPD Bank, said, "Carbon emissions trading treats carbon credits as merchandise that can be bought and sold. The companies will first be given initial quotas for carbon emissions for free, by Shanghai’s NDRC. The quotas are based on their historical emissions data. Any surplus or shortage of credits can be adjusted through transactions in the carbon credit market. "Zheng says it’s imperative for China to establish a national carbon emissions trading market and then to join international efforts. China’s involvement in the international carbon market now is mostly through what’s known as the CDM, or Clean Development Mechanism. The way it works is that developed countries get a carbon reduction credit by investing in clean energy projects. But the CDM faces an uncertain future.Zheng said, "The Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to combat climate change, gave birth to the CDM. However, the first phase of the protocol is due to expire at the end of this year. I think that’s also one of the reasons why China has to start its own carbon market next year. "Beyond Shanghai, six other cities and provinces, Beijing, Tianjin, Shenzhen, Chongqing, and Guangdong and Hubei Provinces will be involved in the pilot project. And if all goes well, a nationwide system is scheduled to be in place by 2015. Zheng says that’s expected to help the national goal of a 17 percent reduction in carbon intensity by 2015.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 403. JohnLonergan
11:59 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Well, AW wanted blog reviews, they've started. The Stoat is underwhelmed:"So whatever it was had to be major, and it had to be timely. How thrilling! But, sigh, we are doomed to be disappointed: its just a paper preprint. All over the world scientists produce draft papers and send them off for peer review. Only dramah queens pimp them up like this. And what exactly was the urgency? Watts could easily have stuck the thing in an envelope to whatever journal, gone quietly off on holiday, and done the PR schitck when he came back. So all this tripe about “not something I can miss now and do later” is just tripe. Notice, BTW, that they haven’t even said where its going to be submitted. Which means that either they don’t know – which is crap – or they do know, but are embarrassed to say, because of the smallness of the journal. I suspect the latter."Dr. Victor Venema posts at the Stoat's:"As far as I can see the main novelty is that the weather station classification scheme of Leroy (2010) is better than Leroy (1999). It would have been more elegant if Watts had stated in his press release that the differences between stations of various qualities he found in the temperature trends are only visible in the raw data and not in the homogenized (adjusted) data."Link to Stoat.More from Dr. Venema Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 401. Neapolitan
10:29 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:Our bigger future concerns are if the Republicans hold the House (almost a certainty) and gain the Senate (possible) and the Presidency (a bigger battle, but a real possibility). Should this happen, then Watts has no noted play in any of this. They simply will not need him to undo the decades of scientific achievements and ecological gains of this nation. They will return this nation to the 1950's, if not the 1940's and all that the 40's entailed.Hmmm. Do you suppose that's what they mean when they chant "Take America Back!"?Anyway, speaking of Watts, a few weeks ago he had a breathless entry asking, "Coldest July in history for Anchorage?", explaining that month-to-date, the city was on its way to a record cold month.Not so fast there, silly boy.The average temperature so far this month in Anchorage has been 55.4 degrees. That's a full degree higher than the coldest July ever there (in 1920). If the official forecast for the last two days of the month pans out, Anchorage will end with a July average temperature of 55.6 degrees. Given that the July average for 2008 was 55.4, I wonder whether Watts will again suspend his vacation plans, only this time to loudly and breathlessly announce "Coldest July in four years for Anchorage!"
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 400. Some1Has2BtheRookie
10:05 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Deleted
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 398. Neapolitan
9:37 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting BobWallace:John Christy signed on to this paper. I thought him a soft-core denier. 'Twill be interesting to see how his reputation is 'adjusted' by all this.I'll give Anthony the benefit of the doubt and let knowledgeable people take a look at his paper. I don't have much hope for him, but let the process play.I would give Watts the benefit of the doubt, but the underhanded way he pulled this off is just wrong. He heard late in the week that the BEST results were forthcoming, so he quickly worked to unleash his silly little unfinished, un-reviewed, un-published "crowd-sourced" paper before the weekend was up, thereby accomplishing two things. One, it allows the lazy media to again say, "Two bits of climate news this weekend offset each other, meaning that the debate is just as heated as ever and scientists still don't know what's going on". And two, it allows Watts' to keep the gullible WattsBots on his site where they won't have their minds sullied by the scientific truth they'd otherwise find elsewhere.Nice one.John Christy is, of course, uber-denialist Roy Spencer's partner in slime. He may not be as vociferous as McIntyre or Spencer, but I don't know that I'd classify him as "soft-core", either.I've little no doubt that the Watts et al paper, if reviewed and published as-is, will be quickly debunked and discredited. A poorly-written, error-filled paper authored by a small handful of denialist bloggers and discredited scientists, supported only by the ideologically-driven work of several hundred obsequious blog readers, containing not much more than a few dozen paragraphs proclaiming most scientists stupid and/or fraudulent, and primarily citing Watts' earlier work as an authoritative source, simply won't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 397. JohnLonergan
9:30 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting Neapolitan:What a farce it already is. I've read the draft report, and can summarize its primary thesis thusly:"Everyone who works at NOAA, the NCDC, or the NWS is a lying liar. The readers of WUWT say so. Also, Al Gore is fat."The paper's author list alone is enough to send one into howls of laughter: Watts, Stephen McIntyre, and John Christy? Either Watts is so removed from reality that he thinks anyone other than his mouth-breathing sycophants will think the paper has science behind it, or he's so deceitful that he's hoping no one notices. (My money is on both.)I do find it helpful that at least he/they acknowledge that the nation is getting hotter. That's something, anyway...The fourth author listed, Evan Jones, doesn't inspire any confidence either. Google Scholar lists his professonal affiliation as: Evan JonesIntelliWeather, Chico, California, USA.IntelliWeather is Watts' weather service.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 396. BobWallace
9:05 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting OldLeatherneck:I decided to don my HAZMAT Suit and jump into the WUWT Septic System for a few minutes. To read the comments, you would think that Tony Watts had just parted the Red Sea thereby protecting the ignorance of the un-washed masses and the Millions \$\$\$ of his masters. What a Sock Puppet!!I'm anxious to read what Neapolitan will have to say about this........once he recovers from apoplexy.John Christy signed on to this paper. I thought him a soft-core denier. 'Twill be interesting to see how his reputation is 'adjusted' by all this.I'll give Anthony the benefit of the doubt and let knowledgeable people take a look at his paper. I don't have much hope for him, but let the process play.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 395. Neapolitan
9:01 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:This certainly shows that Anthony Watts can not be trusted to keep his word of accepting the BEST report, no matter what it finds. He has determined that the only way he can remain funded, through the donations of those that lack any critical thinking, is by going against his convictions to accept the findings of the BEST report. ... He does have those new solar panels to pay for. I wonder if the deniers of established science know they are paying for Anthony's new solar panels through their donations? OH!, the irony of it all!#392"I would not be surprised to see some "Congress Puppy" call a Hearing and use it as an opportunity to call NOAA on the carpet and accuse them of manipulating climate data." ... Expect Senator Inhofe to lead the way. Most assuredly if the Republicans gain the Senate in November. At the very least, NOAA will probably lose the majority of its funding. All in the name of fiscal responsibility. ... What a FARCE this will be!What a farce it already is. I've read the draft report, and can summarize its primary thesis thusly:"Everyone who works at NOAA, the NCDC, or the NWS is a lying liar. The readers of WUWT say so. Also, Al Gore is fat."The paper's author list alone is enough to send one into howls of laughter: Watts, Stephen McIntyre, and John Christy? Either Watts is so removed from reality that he thinks anyone other than his mouth-breathing sycophants will think the paper has science behind it, or he's so deceitful that he's hoping no one notices. (My money is on both.)I do find it helpful that at least he/they acknowledge that the nation is getting hotter. That's something, anyway...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 394. OldLeatherneck
8:49 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:This certainly shows that Anthony Watts can not be trusted to keep his word of accepting the BEST report, no matter what it finds. He has determined that the only way he can remain funded, through the donations of those that lack any critical thinking, is by going against his convictions to accept the findings of the BEST report. ... He does have those new solar panels to pay for. I wonder if the deniers of established science know they are paying for Anthony's new solar panels through their donations? OH!, the irony of it allI decided to don my HAZMAT Suit and jump into the WUWT Septic System for a few minutes. To read the comments, you would think that Tony Watts had just parted the Red Sea thereby protecting the ignorance of the un-washed masses and the Millions \$\$\$ of his masters. What a Sock Puppet!!I'm anxious to read what Neapolitan will have to say about this........once he recovers from apoplexy.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 393. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:33 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Deleted
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 392. OldLeatherneck
7:36 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting BobWallace:Well, it's going to be interesting to see how climate scientists review this piece of research.I'd expect first reviews to start appearing within 48 hours.Tony's Tap Dance....I would not be surprised to see some "Congress Puppy" call a Hearing and use it as an opportunity to call NOAA on the carpet and accuse them of manipulating climate data.The timing of this announcement is to deflect attention away from the BEST report, which is far more significant in the big picture.This was NOT good news!!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 391. BobWallace
7:25 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting etxwx:Here tis - no solarbiz and no puppies...just the same ole, same ole.WUWT PRESS RELEASE – July 29th, 2012 12PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEA reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.Continued here LinkWell, it's going to be interesting to see how climate scientists review this piece of research.I'd expect first reviews to start appearing within 48 hours.Tony's Tap Dance....
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 390. etxwx
7:17 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Here tis - no solarbiz and no puppies...just the same ole, same ole.WUWT PRESS RELEASE – July 29th, 2012 12PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEA reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.Continued here Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 389. BobWallace
6:42 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting OldLeatherneck:">Global Methane SourcesSource: U.S. Department of Energy's Methane Hydrates R&D Program.Found this chart from the DOE which was in the following article published by the USGS:Gas Hydrates and Climate Warming—Why a Methane Catastrophe Is UnlikelyMy only concern about the USGS article is that it is heavily dependant on the IPCC 2007 report.Agreed. Things are changing quickly and the IPCC tends to publish rather conservative statements - things that can get wide political consensus.Lots of good info - thanks.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 388. OldLeatherneck
6:31 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 ">Global Methane SourcesSource: U.S. Department of Energy's Methane Hydrates R&D Program.Found this chart from the DOE which was in the following article published by the USGS:Gas Hydrates and Climate Warming—Why a Methane Catastrophe Is UnlikelyMy only concern about the USGS article is that it is heavily dependant on the IPCC 2007 report.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 387. OldLeatherneck
5:55 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting BobWallace:The graph you posted shows northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere plus combined. The NG would not be Arctic-only, I would suspect.--eta: I dug around a bit for some history of natural gas fracking. I didn't find 'production per year' or 'new wells per year', but I did get the impression that drilling into the Marcellus Shale formation took off about the same time as methane levels jumped. Bob,I've hesitated posting these methane concentrations maps because the latest updates have changed the legend for the color scales. However, since you asked about the Marcellus Shale formation, I though I would go ahead and post the maps. You will note that there is no noticeable concentrations from that area of the US. The primary anthropogenic sources are, rice paddies, livestock and landfills in that order.The link to all Nortern Hemisphere CH4 concentrations since 2002 is here:NH CH4 Concentrations 2002-2012
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 386. BobWallace
5:44 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Found this...Natural Gas production in the US was declining steadily until 2005 into what many perceived as an irreversible trend with an implication of persistent shortages. Enter the knight in shining armor; horizontal resource drilling. Daily gas production increased from 51 bcfd in 2005 to an average of 66.2 bcfd (billion cubic feet per day) in 2011. Some months have even spiked above 70 bcfd. The natural gas rig count peaked at 1,600 in the summer of 2008. LinkLots of new wells created that extra supply and leakage during drilling is a problem. Large enough to show up on the graph? I don't know.--I started reading this piece because it's from Forbes (a fairly untrustworthy publication when it comes to clean energy and EVs). Forbes is predicting a movement from <\$2 per mcf to \$8 per. If that happens it should have a major impact on wind and solar installation. Right now renewables are meeting a lot of competition from very cheap natural gas. The good thing about that, new NG plants are replacing the least efficient (dirtiest) coal plants.If natural gas goes up in price, more wind and solar will come on line. NG use will decline and become less of a 24/365 provider and more of a way to fill in between wind and solar variable inputs.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 385. BobWallace
5:27 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting OldLeatherneck:In what I've read, there is no mention of oil/gas drilling being a significant source of methane emissions in the arctic. From Dr. Yurganov's Draft Report:The specific locations of these methaneemissions at the end of October, 2011, were(in descending order) %u25CF Laptev and Kara Seas%u25CF Baffin Bay%u25CF Barents Sea and Bering Strait%u25CF East Siberian Sea%u25CF In November: Chukchi Sea and Bering straitThe graph you posted shows northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere plus combined. The NG would not be Arctic-only, I would suspect.--eta: I dug around a bit for some history of natural gas fracking. I didn't find 'production per year' or 'new wells per year', but I did get the impression that drilling into the Marcellus Shale formation took off about the same time as methane levels jumped.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 384. OldLeatherneck
5:21 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting BobWallace:Have they teased apart the methane from Arctic melting and from new natural gas and oil wells?In what I've read, there is no mention of oil/gas drilling being a significant source of methane emissions in the arctic. From Dr. Yurganov's Draft Report:The specific locations of these methaneemissions at the end of October, 2011, were(in descending order) ● Laptev and Kara Seas● Baffin Bay● Barents Sea and Bering Strait● East Siberian Sea● In November: Chukchi Sea and Bering strait
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 383. BobWallace
5:08 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting OldLeatherneck:Wih the elevated SSTs in the Arctic Regions this year, we may have a longer melt season this year and slow ice recovery during October/November.There's another factor which may come into play. Warmer air temps mean more water vapor present to form clouds and clouds trap heat from being radiated away from the ocean surface.I'm sure not betting against a summer Arctic sea ice melt out in the next 4-5 years. Wouldn't be amazed to see it happen next year, the year after I'd be much less than amazed.We're watching the largest geological event to occur while man has walked the Earth?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 382. BobWallace
5:03 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting OldLeatherneck:Global Methane Anomalies 2002 - 2012Dr. Yurganov just updated this chart the other day, to include June 2012 data. This chart clearly shows the increasing methane emissions beginning in 2007/2008. This time frame is coincident with the dramatic sea ice changes in the arctic. In reading some of the material in a draft report by Dr. Yurganov, there is the implication that there is a correlation between temperature increases in the arctic regions and increases in methane releases.Have they teased apart the methane from Arctic melting and from new natural gas and oil wells?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 381. OldLeatherneck
4:51 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting BobWallace:2007 had a very heavy "weather" input. 2012 has not had the same weather extremes. That it has kept up with the 2007 melt speaks to how thin the ice has become over recent years.Wih the elevated SSTs in the Arctic Regions this year, we may have a longer melt season this year and slow ice recovery during October/November.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 380. OldLeatherneck
4:38 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Global Methane Anomalies 2002 - 2012Dr. Yurganov just updated this chart the other day, to include June 2012 data. This chart clearly shows the increasing methane emissions beginning in 2007/2008. This time frame is coincident with the dramatic sea ice changes in the arctic. In reading some of the material in a draft report by Dr. Yurganov, there is the implication that there is a correlation between temperature increases in the arctic regions and increases in methane releases.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 379. BobWallace
4:08 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 For an indication of what might happen in the coming month, here's a comparison of July 25, 2007 and August 25, 2007.Note that the July red 60% concentration ice largely vanished. Winds apparently compacted the remaining ice creating more 100% concentration areas. Some of the 80% concentration fell to 60%, thus leaving those areas more vulnerable to the last weeks of the melt.2007 had a very heavy "weather" input. 2012 has not had the same weather extremes. That it has kept up with the 2007 melt speaks to how thin the ice has become over recent years.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 378. BobWallace
3:23 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Chances are good for a new Arctic Sea Ice Extent record.2007 is the current record holder. Take a look at how the ice was on July 25, 2007 and the same date this year.There's much less "purple and lavender" 80% and 100% concentration. The light green and yellow ice should melt away in the next few days. The rest of the melt season is likely to wipe out much of the red. Additionally, the open water is going to be hotter than five years ago which should lead to a longer melt season.2011 is the record holder for sea ice volume. That record will almost certainly fall this year.BTW, most of the North West Passage is open. This year the ice, rather than be transported out in big chunks, largely melted in place. Temperatures in the area were very high for several days. It's possible that the NWP will open for non-icebreaker assisted ships before the Northern Passage.Shipping through the Northern started some weeks ago, but with icebreaker assistance. Did I report that Russia plans on shipping through the Northern Passage 12 months per year starting in 2018? In six years they figure that the ice will be so thin even in the coldest part of the year than they can cruise through it with hardened hulls.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 377. OldLeatherneck
2:54 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting BobWallace:Anthony, today's the day is it not? Noon? What time zone? If it's EST then I might get to enjoy his post with my morning coffee...I believe the time is about 12:00 PST.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 376. BobWallace
2:37 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting JohnLonergan:Dr. Muller's OP-ed doesn't add any new science; it merely corroborates what science already knows.This was quoted from Dr. Mann's FB page at Rabett Run:"Some additional thoughts about Muller and 'BEST':Muller's announcement last year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date w/ where the scientific community was in the the 1980s. His announcement this week that the warming can only be explained by human influences, brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s. At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years!"LinkWhile the BEST PROJECT may not be very important scientifcally, it may have some effects on policy and politics.I think it is very important for "political" reasons.Muller was arguably the most credible scientist on the denier side. And his undertaking to review the accumulated data was major, not some scribbling on the dinner napkin, he had a large team that worked for a long time.It knocks the pins out from under the argument that "some scientists disagree" when your leading guy grinds through the numbers and reports "Oops, we were wrong".The denier "experts" are more and more becoming non-scientists. --Anthony, today's the day is it not? Noon? What time zone? If it's EST then I might get to enjoy his post with my morning coffee...--eta: I put political in quotes because most of the stuff that comes from the denier side cannot be called science. They make most of their claims devoid of data or with distorted data. The strong claims from the denier camp then get used by political friends of fossil fuel industries to hamper our transition to clean energy and transportation.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 375. JohnLonergan
2:01 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Dr. Muller's OP-ed doesn't add any new science; it merely corroborates what science already knows.This was quoted from Dr. Mann's FB page at Rabett Run:"Some additional thoughts about Muller and 'BEST':Muller's announcement last year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date w/ where the scientific community was in the the 1980s. His announcement this week that the warming can only be explained by human influences, brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s. At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years!"LinkWhile the BEST PROJECT may not be very important scientifcally, it may have some effects on policy and politics.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 374. RevElvis
1:51 PM GMT on July 29, 2012
 The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - Richard MullerNY Times OpCALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. (BTW - Richard Muller is the director (Berkeley) of the Koch Bros. funded study)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 373. BobWallace
6:19 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Back to climate change...Here's a very good article about Greenland melting. Chock full of information and nice graphs.It's not good news....Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 372. BobWallace
5:44 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 371. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:37 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Deleted
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 370. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:30 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Deleted
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 369. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:26 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Deleted
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 368. Ossqss
5:25 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:Actually, ossqss, your little audio takes Obama out of context. He said that business does build the infrastructure that they use. They do not hire the teachers, build their own roads, ports, bridges or waterways. Businesses takes advantage of the infrastructure that governments built. Local, county, state and federal governments build the infrastructure and pay for the military, police, fire and teachers. The audio leaves this part of Obama's words out of the audio.Here is the full context of what he said:You try to defend the indefensible. I will not waste anymore time on such.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 367. Ossqss
5:19 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:Actually, the shepherd insinuated that we do not know anything about business. I told him I would pull up a chair and listen to what he has to say concerning how business works. He kicked his chair back and left the room. He has turned into quite the escape artist lately.I have my own Sole Proprietorship I have ran for the past 3 years. I pay taxes plus the self employment tax. Do you remember the servers and workstations I told you about? Trust me, "The Cloud" is not all it is cracked up to be. Looks good on paper. Lose your internet connection and your company employees spend their time playing Solitaire. Unless you like trying to use MS Word on your HTC EVO 4G smart phone. ;-)I hear that.. Just went through the DR discussion on "Missing Cloud" issues, and was met with a blank stare by everyone. Like it can never not work! I was not good with that.......If you base your whole business channel on the Cloud functioning, what do you do when it doesn't.....Watch out for Microsoft Surfacing again....it is coming. I will let you do your own homework on Office and Windows 8. Could be quite good. . . .
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 366. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:16 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Deleted
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
##### 365. BobWallace
5:03 AM GMT on July 29, 2012
 Quoting Ossqss:Did somebody say something about understanding business? How many of you actually run a business, right now, that reports taxes?Not me.I started my business long ago, built it up, sold it for enough money to never need to work again. Retired at the age of 44.(Actually I had three separate corporations. And paid a boat load of taxes.)Thanks for asking....
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 415 - 365

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