Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)
Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)
Back in November I wrote an entry on whether or not we could use the prediction that we would have La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 to anticipate, for example, whether or not there would be a another historic flood in the Upper Missouri River. A little personal micro history: During August of 2011, I was at a meeting of a panel which is writing a report on climate modeling. That meeting included climate-savvy water managers talking about the information from climate models they might find usable. During the meeting on the news, there was the story that seasonal forecasts predicted there would La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 ( Climate Prediction Center Monthly Outlook). I asked people at the meeting how they would use this information in their planning for 2012. To be fair, this question was out of the blue, but I had this idea that this seasonal prediction was definitive information when compared with the information that comes from century-long projections from climate models. The century long climate predictions might provide information that some characteristics of El Nino and La Nina will change. With adequate analysis of this information, interpretation of the information, and then guidance or translation of this information, then informed decisions about, for example, reservoir design might be made. But I was curious, given a forecast for a particular season, what would you do?
I have introduced a lot of terms in that paragraph. I will define some of them.
First for those who need information on El Nino and La Nina, these are names given to two parts of an oscillation observed in the tropical Pacific Ocean. In the El Nino phase, the eastern Pacific, off of Peru for instance, is warm. La Nina is the opposite, the eastern tropical Pacific is cold. This is our best known example of behavior where the atmosphere and ocean behave in concert together – and we have proven that we can predict it. (NOAA LaNina Page, El Nino @ Wikipedia) We have known for some time that these changes in the Pacific cause or influence preferential weather patterns in other parts of the world. This excites people about being able to do seasonal prediction. In this case there is some oceanic forcing of the weather – or perhaps, when the ocean is considered part of the weather prediction problem, there is information about what the weather might be like for a particular season in a particular place. Concretely, for example, when there is an El Nino, people who worry about floods in California go on high alert (for example).
Translation and guidance - There is a lot of information that comes out of a weather and climate model. All practitioners of modeling know that you can’t simply read off the temperature in Des Moines 9 months from now, much less 90 years in advance. But there is the real possibility that there is usable information in the models if 1) we understand the mechanisms that are responsible for, say, stream flow in the Iowa River, and 2) we have an understanding of the ability or inability of the model to represent those mechanisms. That is, if we can find the right knowledge, often a matter of finding the right people, then we can put together this knowledge in a way that is usable. This is what I mean by translation. It is the translation of knowledge from one discipline expert to another in a way that makes that knowledge usable. That is, to provide guidance. (Lemos and Rood on Useful and Usable)
OK – going down that path I introduced another term that I think demands more explanation. Mechanisms – when we look at a specific event like the 2011 Missouri River flood, we look for what factors come together to cause the flood. In the article that was referenced in the November blog, it was pointed out that there was an extraordinary snow cover on the Great Plains, and then a lot of rain on that snow, that caused melting, and collectively the accumulation of a lot of water that had to go downstream. So in this case, by mechanisms I mean what caused the event to happen. Perhaps the most important mechanisms that a climate model must represent to be usable for regional problems are those mechanisms that provide water to that region.
I am never quite sure if my style of writing is clarifying or just more confusing, but I get enough positive feedback that I think I clarify points for some – so I hope that the way I laid out this basic information makes sense. One more term - What I want to do is to translate information from observational studies and model predictions and make that information usable by someone. From my teaching the last 7 years, I have concluded that it is this translation of information that is the most essential missing ingredient in the usability of climate knowledge. There is a LOT of information and knowledge, but it is not easy to use.
So in this entry, I want to start the process of information translation. I warn in advance that this is a hazardous path. I am going to look at a few papers, in sub-disciplines of weather and climate, in which I am not expert. Hence, I am likely to make some mistakes, and I am hoping that doing this in public, motivates corrections of those mistakes. I take off down this path, because another thing I have discovered in the past seven years is that people who are not consummate experts in a subject are analyzing information and solving problems all over the world. And, I presume to imagine that I am more expert than most, and I presume to believe people when they tell me that I am reasonably good at translating information across discipline interfaces.
So I all start the analysis– and this is not irrelevant. I flew over a swath of the Great Plains last week, and I was struck by the lack of snow. I read Jeff Master’s blog on the extreme state of the Arctic Oscillation. At the beginning of every problem I collect information. This information inventory process is essential. With a little luck, you will find information that when all brought together can be synthesized into a solution strategy or at least contribute to informed decision making. In fact, I have tried to structure a template to problem solving for a project I am involved in, and it is here at glisaclimate.org. (What’s a GLISA?) I collected together a bunch of references that I thought might inform my translation. What, I am going to do now is extract the information from some of these references.
The first paper I am going to look at is by Bunkers et al. from the Journal of Climate in 1996. I chose this paper for a couple of reasons. First, a lot has been written that 2011 Missouri River flood had a La Nina influence. And, thinking about floods, one usually thinks about did it rain a lot? This paper is something of a sanity check, do we see changes in the rain in the Missouri River basin due to La Nina?
Bunkers et al. paper focuses on the “Northern Plains,” which is approximately North and South Dakota. The Missouri River and the Red River of the North are important drainages for these states, and they were in historic flood in 2011. The authors look at data as far back as the late 1800s. That is about as long as any record that we have in the United States. The short story of their findings is that they find that during El Nino, there is significantly enhanced precipitation in the months April through October that follow the onset of the El Nino. For the La Nina phase they find significantly less precipitation for the months May through August following the onset of La Nina. However, we cannot stop with the conclusion, El Nino = wet, La Nina = dry. El Nino and La Nina are often viewed as 2 year long events, and in the second year following the onset of El Nino it is usually a bit wetter than in years with neither an El Nino or a La Nina, but during April and May of that second year it is drier than average. The second year following the onset of the La Nina, it is in general dry. There is also temperature information in the paper, but I am going to keep my focus on precipitation for now.
Let’s recall the problem we are trying to address; namely, 2011 was a La Nina year with a huge flood on the Missouri River, and another La Nina is predicted for 2012, will we have a similar flood? One of the first things it makes sense to look at is the precipitation in the Missouri River basin. This paper looks at part of the Missouri River basin, and area where there were floods, and at least as far as La Nina is concerned we would expect less, not more, spring time precipitation. This seems contradictory to our 2011 experience.
Returning to the Bunker’s et al. paper, there are years when the relation described above did not hold. Bunker’s et al. extract seemingly robust signals, but there are exceptions to the rule. The exception to the rule requires us to consider the mechanisms that might be in play for a given year. We arrive therefore, at a problem of tailoring the information for a particular application. The relation that Bunkers et al. derived between El Nino / La Nina and precipitation in North and South Dakota is quite strong. So if you look at a climate model and it tells you that there will be more or less intense El Nino and La Nina cycles a century from now, the long-term water planner for Fargo might be able to anticipate the water system needed for her grand children. The statistical information might be enough – might, it requires more thought. For a particular season, however, we can’t use this information in isolation. It is just part of the portfolio.
So we have a sanity check that tells us that, indeed, there is documented variability of precipitation in the Missouri River basin, correlated with La Nina. But, at first blush, the La Nina variability in this region is towards drier conditions. We also, know, that what determines a flood is far more complex than “it rains a lot.” So while looking at the paper above gives us some good information, it motivates me to step back and think about all of the pieces – or mechanisms – that might work in concert to produce a flood. And it motivates me to seek whether or not such events are happenstance, or whether we can use our knowledge to anticipate, better, such extreme events. This series of blogs will go on for a while.
Figure 1. Characteristic position of wintertime jet streams during La Nina. From ClimateWatch Magazine: “The jet streams are high-altitude, racing rivers of air that can influence the path of storms as they track over North America from the Pacific Ocean. The jet streams meander and shift from day to day, but during La Niña events, they tend to follow paths that bring cold air and storms into the Upper Missouri River Basin. Map based on original graphics from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. Adapted by Richard Rivera & Hunter Allen.”
Pilot Project on La Nina and the Missouri River Basin.
Link to webinars.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
2011 was the second coolest year of this century so far--yet it tied the second warmest year of the previous century.
Did you get that? Let me repeat: because of the La Nina, 2011 was the second coolest year of the s1st century--yet it tied the second warmest year of last century.
When this century's "cold" years are hotter than last century's "hot" years, warming is going on. Period.
Ha! And yet the single youngest member of the IPCC authoring committee is a dyed-in-the-wool denialist. You're right; how could this happen?
Ah,,,,, I see you have not substantiated you claims once again.
Consistency in deception must be a virtue for your type. It is what it is..... like GISS
Extended version for your viewing distraction :)
Sorry, fellow, I'm having a rough time with this one. It's right up there with CIA operatives directing the airliners into the WTC towers with joy sticks or the staged Apollo moon landings. A lot of folks believe that stuff too.
The IPCC report is scrutinized (sanitized?) by virtually every government in the world before it's released. After the 2007 release, the fossil fuel drones re-scrubbed it for an additional six months and the only thing they came up with was the mistake about the rate of melting of the Himalayan glaciers. Like they would have missed "the teenager". Yeah, right.
Besides throw out the IPCC, throw out every model, even throw out your local weather man if you disagree with him. Look around, go into the woods, and fields. When you've been around as long as so of us and you begin to experience the Louisiana winters of your youth in the mountains of Virginia you don't need all the paperwork. Big things are changing and logic says, "Sooner or later this change is going to get us around the neck. Be ready or have a real bad day."
"Nine of the ten hottest years on record have been since 2000." Link
Link
My link:
Link
Please tell us you weren't gullible enough to be fooled by that ridiculous scatter plot--or if you were, that you were diligent enough to go to the source, then add up all the year-to-year changes (I'll save you some time: the sum is 0.6569 C--exactly the change climate scientists have been claiming all along), or create your own plot (I did it; it looks precisely like every other credible temperature chart I've seen).
Here's a quick exercise: notice the blue 10-year average line on that chart. Then notice how much more of it is above the zero line than below it. That's your warming.
For all of you warmists out there (Neapolitan), who truly believe that we can forecast climate when we can't predict the weather two days in advance, here is a list of climate variables that affect climate. The weather in my area hasn't been predicted correctly one day in the past month. With the largest supercomputer in the world, one could not account for all of these supposed variables in climate "science." Climate science, at best, is feel-good theory. For example, just look at our hurricane prediction record.
Link
Weather ≠ climate. Even after all this time, little Anthony hasn't figured that out yet? What a doofus...
Neither have the Bastardis. Joe and J.
NASA and NOAA are wonderful references if you want adjustments.
You didn't even read the magnitude of variables included in this fraud called "global warming science."
Do you actually believe, even with your large cranium, that we have any inking about what will happen with the climate a decade from now? If you do, you must be seriously clairvoyant, because none of Holy Gospel "climatologists" do, as is clearly evident from their email.
You forgot to mention what is known:
1. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas.
2. Mankind's activities emits tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, on a daily basis.
3. Current Observations.
Yep on two accounts. Give us a bit more detail please...
What is the % of CO2 contribution by man per year?
What is the % of C02 as a part of the total atmosphere ?
Bonus question..... How accurate are the climate models,,,,,,, How well did that regression testing go?
This stuff can only happen in Hollywood, or on the internet :)
Good evening, Ossqss. Should I quote another, I would say that you need to, "learn to learn".
The percentage of man's CO2 contributions to the atmosphere is rather irrelevant, unless that percentage is 0 or less than 0. We are observing a climate change due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. When we add to that amount, we are part of the problem. When one considers all of the tons of CO2 we add to the atmosphere, then this cannot be considered as a trivial amount.
I suggest you do the math, if you wish to know the percentage of CO2 as a whole of the total atmosphere. The current level of CO2 is approximately 393 ppm. What is that as a percentage? Does this give you some idea of how potent a greenhouse gas that CO2 is?
The model inaccuracies are less important than the observations we see. Models were never designed to give values in absolutes. Observations show the absolutes. Do you deny the observations?
None of the casinos can predict what the next hand will be in an honest game of blackjack. Yet casinos are good at making money off blackjack.
I'm truly sorry you (and a few others on here) lack understanding.
If you were to ask me what the global mean temperature will be in January, 2022, I could give you only a ballpark estimate. Here's a prediction: absent a thermonuclear war, a colossal volcano eruption, or the impact of a large comet/asteroid, the planet will be significantly warmer than it is today; sea levels will be higher; droughts will be deeper and more widespread; extreme weather events will become a commonplace; some nations will already be falling apart at the seams; and while some denialists will have been forced to let go of their unscientific stance--maybe even some of you--there'll still be many around declaring that nothing's changed. And I'm sure Bastardi and Watts will be proclaiming the start of an imminent ice age at any second now...
Again, I'll ignore the ad hominem--though I do appreciate your recognition of my large and knowledgeable brain. ;-)
Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange). Note that the numbers provided in this summary post are best estimates from each paper. For the sake of simplicity we have not included error bars, but we have provided links to the original research for those who would like to see the uncertainty ranges in each estimate.
There are many more charts and graphs at the source article, but the one here pretty much tells the story. Bottom line: it's warming when it should be cooling off, and it's because of us.
Record Cold Continues in Siberia
By Bob Woodruff (@bobwoodruff)
I R K U T S K, Russia, Jan. 22
Winter in Siberia is usually spectacular and always very cold.
But this winter has been relentless. Week after week, temperatures have been dipping to 50 below zero. Siberians are accustomed to the cold, but they were completely unprepared for temperatures this low.
Not surprisingly, the hospital in the city of Irkutsk is overwhelmed. In just one week, the cold killed 17 people, and doctors amputated the limbs of at least 70 others who suffered severe frostbite. Pausing for just a short period of time could prove extremely dangerous — one man who stopped to fix his car had to have both his hands and feet amputated because of frostbite.
Some aid has been sent — the American Red Cross recently came to Siberia bearing more than 40,000 pounds of food.
But still, in cities and villages across Siberia, heating systems are breaking down. People are warming themselves around outdoor fires, and frozen pipes have forced others to get their water from community wells.
Corruption Makes Matters Worse
In truth, Siberia should be one of the richest places on Earth. Underneath its frozen ground, there are massive resources of oil, gas platinum, nickel, and gold. But everywhere you look, there's poverty. That's because corrupt businessmen and government officials are siphoning much of the wealth generated in Siberia out of the country. While Russia's infrastructure falls apart, the corrupt are getting rich.
One example is the Cherimkovsky coal mine, the third most productive mine in the country. Sixty percent of it has been privatized, and no one is taking responsibility for the town. Vitaly Muzhakov works at the mine, and he says his apartment is very cold. In his neighborhood, the aging steam pipes have burst, and ice has nearly sealed up the apartment windows.
Link
I don't think there is any association with the occupier movement here.
So are you saying that CO2 leads temperature rise as opposed to the historic information that shows temperature rise leads to increased levels of CO2 ?
So in your world it is a linear relationship? Should not the temperatures be higher than 1.4 degrees over 160 years of (very questionable) land based records based upon your thinking? Should not the temperature never stop rising as it had for over a decade just recently ?
Well, I am out for a week or so on business. Try to save the world for me while I am gone.
Here is something that has saved the world several times prior, no kidding! :)
Ossqss, I hope that you have a safe trip.
What my thinking is does not come into play with climate change. Climate change is not dictated by what anyone thinks it should be or what or its cause is. What do the observations show us?
What do the laws of Physics tell us?
What does Chemistry tell us?
What does simple logic tell us?
When you introduce tons, on a daily basis, of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere there is no logical reason to expect that there will not be a reaction to this.
Rest assured, Ossqss, that I will try to do more "to save the world" than what you display that you will do. But, that is just the way it is, isn't it?
Almost 3000 non-science major undergraduates at the University of Chicago have taken PHSC13400, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, since Ray Pierrehumbert and I (David Archer) first developed it back in 1995. Since the publication of the textbook for the class in 2005 (and a much-cleaned-up 2nd edition now shipping), enrollment has gone through the roof, it’s all I’ve been able to teach the last few years, trying to keep up with demand. I hear it is the largest class on campus, with 4-500 students a year out of an annual class of only around 1400. Now the content of this class is being served to the internet world at large: Open Climate 101.
You can watch video lectures followed by quizzes to challenge and hopefully stimulate your understanding, and work your way through tutorials with interactive models and simple mathematical ideas. Actually all that stuff has been available for a long time, online or in the textbook, but now it’s packaged into an interactive assessing system, which admittedly lacks the personality and finesse of our graduate student teaching assistants, but I hope it’ll get the job done. You can work at your own pace, on your own time. You don’t get University of Chicago credit, but it’s free, and if you get to the end of it you can download a certificate of accomplishment with your name and a verification code, signed by me. I hope people find it useful.
Thank you very much for posting (#175) the video about saving the world. I am studying prehistory among other things and you would not believe how well some parts of the video fit into my studies. Furthermore, it answered several of the very basic questions of how and why man gave up the relatively easy life of the hunter-gatherer to work harder in agricultural endeavors. I recommend that everyone take the time to watch this video.
Just exactly what makes you the expert? Many disagree with you. There were no ad-hominems in my post.
Quote from Anthony 'justthefactswuwt' Watts,
...The goals of this exercise include; To gain a bigger picture understanding and perspective of Earth’s climate system...
Anthony Watts asking for help to better understand Earth's Climate System. LOL
What Is a Climate Model?
…There are various types of climate models. Some focus on certain things that affect climate such as the atmosphere or the oceans. Models that look at few variables of the climate system may be simple enough to run on a personal computer. Other models take into account many factors of the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere to model the entire Earth system. They take into account the interactions and feedbacks between these different parts of the planet. Earth is a complex place and so many of these models are very complex too. They include so many math calculations that they must be run on supercomputers, which can do the calculations quickly. All climate models must make some assumptions about how the Earth works, but in general, the more complex a model, the more factors it takes into account, and the fewer assumptions it makes. At the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), researchers work with complex models of the Earth's climate system. Their Community Climate System Model is so complex that it requires about three trillion math calculations to simulate a single day on planet Earth. It can take thousands of hours for the supercomputer to run the model. The model output, typically many gigabytes large, is analyzed by researchers and compared with other model results and with observations and measurement data…
23 January 12 00:19 ET
Public trust in government has suffered a severe breakdown across the world, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer.
Governments have been blamed for the financial and political chaos of 2011.
In 17 of 25 countries surveyed governments are now trusted to do what is right by less than half those questioned.
Overall trust in government fell by nine percentage points to 43%.
Trust in business also fell, from 56% to 53%.
Although businesses saw less severe declines in trust, countries at the heart of the eurozone saw sharper decreases.
Businesses in Spain, France and Germany saw trust decline by 21, 20 and 18 percentage points respectively.
China was the only country to see a significant rise in trust in businesses, up from 61% to 71%.
Trusting 'me'
Richard Edelman, president and CEO of Edelman, said: "Business is now better placed than governments to lead the way out of the trust crisis".
"But the balance must change so that business is seen both as a force for good and an engine for profit."
Alongside these steep declines in trust in institutions such as governments or businesses, the survey highlights a dramatic switch in those whom people say they now trust.
A "person like me" is now one of the top three credible sources, said those surveyed, only trailing academics and technical experts.
Social networking, microblogging and content-sharing sites saw the most dramatic percentage rises as trusted sources of information, jumping by 88%, 86% and 75%.
Despite these gains, traditional media and online search engines are still the most trusted sources of information for general news and information, says the survey.
Edelman's 2012 trust Barometer was released in the run-up to this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, where it will be presented in more detail.
Edelman's online survey sampled 25,000 respondents among the general population, with an over-sample of 5,600 "informed" people from the upper end of society - college-educated, with household income in the top quarter - across 25 countries.
Link
I wonder how that plays in D.C.
The Gallup organization has been studying the American attitude toward the federal government for the past 40 years, yet their latest poll results have entered a new realm. In looking at data dating back all the way to 1971, at no time has the distrust of governmental institutions and elected leaders been lower than it is today.
According to their September 2011 survey, 81% of those sampled (9/8-11; 1,017 adults; released 9/26) say they are dissatisfied with the way they are being governed, a record high for the 40 years that they have been testing such feelings and attitudes. Only 19% responded favorably to this question. The numbers began this seriously downward trend at the beginning of 2007 when the ratio was 31:67% positive to negative. Right after the 2010 election, the results improved to 44:56%, but then retreated soon after. The only other era in modern political history when the trust numbers even approached the current levels was during Watergate and the Nixon resignation back in 1974. But, even then, the macro ratings were still better than they are today. At that time, 26% of the survey respondents reported being satisfied with the way they were being governed versus 66% who were dissatisfied.
Beginning in 1982, the negativity of the Watergate era dissipated and the number of respondents expressing confidence in the federal government reached parity with those who were dissatisfied. By the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s second term in 1984, the trust factor ventured into strongly positive territory (55:37%) and continued this consistent pattern all through the Reagan (second term), Bush, and Clinton presidencies, all the way to the conclusion of George W. Bush’s first term, and never varied by more than a few percentage points. By the middle of the second Bush term, however, the public attitude toward government deteriorated and the trust factor has yet to rebound. In fact, now three-quarters of the way through President Obama’s first term, public trust in government has cratered to an almost unanimous negative impression.
Famine sparks suicide rumors among Mexico's Tarahumara
By msnbc.com staff and news services
Mexicans are rushing aid to Tarahumara communities in the remote northern mountains after a local official announced — apparently falsely — that dozens of the Indians had killed themselves because they couldn't feed their children due to severe cold weather.
Authorities say that even though suicide rumors are false, the food crisis is real.
The indigenous Tarahumara, famed for their long-distance running ability, have been hit by a long drought and record freeze.
Rafael Gonzalez, spokesman for the Mexican Red Cross, said "we consider this a food emergency." Last year, the Red Cross made two expeditions into the mountains to bring food, but this year there will be three, the latest delivery consisting of 270 metric tons of food and 5,000 blankets. The government says it has also sent millions of dollars in aid.
Gonzalez shares most Mexicans' respect for the Tarahumara, noting "these are people who walk five or six hours to get to aid deliveries." But he has not heard of a single report of any of the estimated 250,000 Tarahumara committing suicide because of famine.
Nor has the Rev. Guadalupe Gasca, a Jesuit priest whose oversees the Clinica Teresita in the Tarahumara mountain town of Creel, Chihuahua. The Indians, whose life is a constant struggle to wring food out of scraggly corn plots on steep mountain slopes, don't give up easily.
"We (Jesuits) have a history of almost 400 years working in this area, and we can say that in the Tarahumaras' world view, suicide is not an option."
But Gasca notes that in 2011, his clinic did treat 250 Tarahumara children for malnutrition, including 25 severe cases. One 3-year-old girl died of it.
Gasca also blames the food crisis on the drought and cold.
http://silviavinas.tumblr.com/
Lots of posts from you lately, but not much room for response. Well, I'm making room here. Starting with the most recent first:
#182 - Yes, the ongoing extreme drought in Mexico is a tragedy in the making. Just wait until GW-induced famines starts pushing a larger and larger percentage of that nation's 200 million inhabitants our way--while we're facing out own extremely serious set of problems.
#181 - Trust in government has definitely eroded. In the United States, there are several reasons, one of them being the amount of corporate money being allowed to dictate policy, capped by the insanely destructive Citizens United ruling. What's really telling is that, while you note that "...three-quarters of the way through President Obama’s first term, public trust in government has cratered to an almost unanimous negative impression", by far and away the part of government least trused and liked is the GOP-controlled House.
#173 - There have been many recent studies on this. In a nutshell, the warming of the Arctic is allowing for much greater October snowfall across Siberia. In turn, that snowfall allows for deeper cold to build up during the dark and short winter months. IOW, much hotter springs, summers, and autumns (as we've seen there), but colder winters.
#148 - Again, even with the cooling effects of a strong La Nina, 2011 still managed 9th place in the last 130 or so years. That is, 120 years have been cooler. And as I wrote earlier, the truly fascinating fact to me is that 2011 was warmer than 98 of the years in last century--yet still one of the coolest years this century.
PART I
97 - the number of new daily low temperature records that have been set so far this year* in the United States.(link)
1,980 - the number of new daily high temperature records that have been set so far this year* in the United States.(link)
42 - the number of days in the last 42* in the United States during which new daily high temperature records outnumbered new daily low temperature records.(link)
1 - the number of months in 2011 in which new daily low temperature records outnumbered new daily high temperature records.(link)
11 - the number of months in 2011 in which new daily high temperature records outnumbered new daily low temperature records.(link)
100 - the number of days in 2011 during which the temperature in both San Angelo and Wichita Falls, Texas, reached 100 degrees or higher.The previous records at those locations were, respectively, 60 and 79.(link)
6 - the number of days Amarillo, Texas, reaches 100 degrees in an average year.(link)
50 - the number of days Amarillo reached 100 degrees or higher in 2011.(link)
113 - the high temperature in Ft. Smith, Arkansas on August 2, 2011, the city's all-time record high.(link)
115 - the high temperature in Ft. Smith on August 3.(link)
88.9 - the average temperature for Oklahoma in July, 2011, the single warmest month for any state during any month. Ever.(link)
0 - the number of summers in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana that were hotter than 2011's.(link)
0 - the number of years in Texas that were drier than 2011.(link)
0 - the number of years in Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, or Pennsylvania that were wetter than 2011.(link)
62 - the high temperature in Marshall, Minnesota, on January 5, 2012. Several other stations in the state also reached 60 or higher that day, the first in state history during which any temperatures reached at least 60 in the first week of January.(link)
0.6% - the relative humidity in Las Vegas on June 17, 2011. The dewpoint depression—the difference between the air temperature (107) and the dewpoint (-22)—was 129 degrees, a record for that city.(link)
107 - the low temperature at Khasab Airport in Oman on June 27, 2011, the world's all-time warmest low temperature record.(link)
9.9 - the temperature at the South Pole on Christmas Day, 2011, the warmest temperature ever recorded there. The record low for that station was -117.(link)
156,293 - the number of acres that burned in New Mexico's Las Conchas fire in July 2011, the largest fire ever in that state.(link)
538,049 - the number of acres that burned in Arizona's Wallow fire in 2011, the largest fire ever in that state.(link)
3,914,178 - the number of acres that burned in Texas in 2011, by far the most ever for that state.(link)
3 - of the three biggest tornado outbreaks in United States history, how many took place in a five-week span during April and May, 2011.(link)
199 - the number of confirmed tornadoes in the Southeastern U.S. on April 27, 2011, the most on record for any single day.(link)
343 - the number of confirmed tornadoes in the United States from April 25–28, 2011, the most on record for any single outbreak.(link)
758 - the number of confirmed tornadoes in the United States during April 2011, the most on record for any single month. The previous record was 542.(link)
12 - the number of named Atlantic tropical storms or hurricanes that formed from August 12 to September 24, 2011.(link)
27 - the number of new all-time national high temperature records set across the globe over the last two years.(link) (link)
1 - the number of new all-time national low temperature records set over the last two years.(link) (link)
1 - the number of years in the 21st century that have been cooler than the La Niña-stabilised year of 2011.(link)
97 - the number of years in the 20th century that were cooler than the La Niña-stabilised year of 2011.(link)
0 - the number of years with a La Niña present that were warmer globally than 2011.(link)
35 - the number of years that have passed since the annual global temperature was below the 20th century average.(link)
322 - the number of months that have passed since the mean global temperature was below the average(link)
14 - the number of weather disasters causing at least $1 billion in damage in the United States during 2011. (One more event may be included after an analysis is completed.)(link)
$55,000,000,000 - the approximate cost of damage caused by those 14 disasters.(link)
30,000,000,000 - approximate amount in metric tons of manmade CO2 emitted into the environment each year across the globe.(link)
950 - approximate amount in metric tons of CO2 emitted each second.(link)
300 - approximate maximum atmospheric CO2 in parts per million (ppm) over the past 800,000 years, and up to about 1850.(link)
315.97 - atmospheric CO2 in 1959 in ppm.(link)
391.57 - atmospheric CO2 in 2011 in ppm.(link)
97 - the percentage of actively-publishing climate scientists who agree that human activity is a "significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".(link)
0 - of 928 peer-reviewed climate science papers published between 1993 and 2003, the number that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic.(link)
50+ - the number of nationally or internationally recognized scientific bodies that agree with the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change theory.(link)
0 - the number of nationally or internationally recognized scientific bodies that disagree with the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change theory.(link)
8 - the number of expert investigative commitees that looked into the so-called "Climategate" scandal, in which stolen emails were cherry-picked to make it appear as though climate scientists were involved in an ongoing fraud.(link)
0 - the number of those commitees that found evidence of fraud.(link)
$102,850,000,000 - total profits (not revenue) announced by the big 5 oil companies for just the first three quarters of 2011 (final quarter numbers won't be available for a week.)(link)
$594,000,000,000 - total amount in direct and indirect government fossil fuel subsidies over the past 60 years.(link)
90% - the share of U.S. government energy subsidies that go to support either fossil fuels (70%) or nuclear energy (20%).(link)
10% - the share of U.S. government energy subsidies that go to support renewable energy(link)
1 minute, 3.4 seconds - the average amount of time each day the three evening broadcast news programs devoted to covering climate change in 2008.(link)
5.3 seconds - the average amount of time each day the three evening broadcast news programs devoted to covering climate change in 2011.(link)
* -through January 20
But whose counting? Seriously great job on this Neap really amazing when you pull it apart just how out of sync the last few years have been.
If you don't like fossil fuel based electricity than we better start building nukes as the ones we have will be worn out in the next 20 to 40 years.
First Solar profit margin= 19.5%
Exxon Mobil profit margin= 9.75%
So who is ripping off who
You I and every other Human has been Hoodwinked, ..programmed with conflict from the day you were born to the day you die.
The Veil is lifting and what you will find on the other side...
Is your worst fear, and greatest Hope.
There are now 332 day's until the Winter Solstice.
Enjoy your evening.
And I see some on here still do not know the difference between 70% and 10%.
Sigh...
Which is better for life?
Good evening, nymore.
Profit margin is one, somewhat unrealistic way, to look at how a company is doing. A price drop, on a company's product, will have an effect on a company's profit margin as will a price increase, on that company's profit margin.
Why do we not take a look at a company from a different perspective? We will use Exxon/Mobile as the example and we will use ROI, or Return of Investment:
1. What do you imagine is Exxon/Mobile's ROI for professional lobbyist to gain government subsidies?
2. What do you imagine is Exxon/Mobile's ROI for professional lobbyist to confuse the facts concerning the AGWT?
3. What do you imagine is Exxon/Mobile's ROI for professional lobbyist to restrict regulations on their industry?
Exxon/Mobile sells gasoline, as one of their products. We need gasoline and so we pay what we must for a gallon of gasoline. Why is this, nymore? How much ROI of investment do you think Exxon/Mobile gets trying to assure that there are no other viable energy sources available to us, until they can control these alternatives as well? Solar panels, however, are an option that no one needs to purchase to be able to go to work, take their children to school, to travel, to buy groceries and a real myriad of things to just live in today's world. Should I sell 1,000,000,000 barrels of oil a day and make $1 profit off of each barrel, how much money do they make in a day? Now we have a solar panel company that sells 1,000 solar panels a day with a profit of $300.00 each. Which company do you think brings in the most money on a daily basis?
When the price of the barrel drops, oil producing countries will curtail production and create a false low supply. When the economy begins to show signs of improving, speculators will create a false demand for oil. Are you able to think of another market that is as manipulated as the oil market is? How many non vital markets would be able to do this and not be abandoned by the consumers? Milk? Coffee? Tea? Beef? Chicken? Sodas?
When you get right down to it, nymore, you may as well compare Exxon/Mobile with an umbrella manufacturer.
Link
PREVENTS THIS.
Major Study of Ocean Acidification Helps Scientists Evaluate Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide On Marine Life
ScienceDaily (Jan. 23, 2012) — Might a penguin's next meal be affected by the exhaust from your tailpipe? The answer may be yes, when you add your exhaust fumes to the total amount of carbon dioxide lofted into the atmosphere by humans since the industrial revolution. One-third of that carbon dioxide is absorbed by the world's oceans, making them more acidic and affecting marine life.A UC Santa Barbara marine scientist and a team of 18 other researchers have reported results of the broadest worldwide study of ocean acidification to date. Acidification is known to be a direct result of the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists used sensors developed at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego to measure the acidity of 15 ocean locations, including seawater in the Antarctic, and in temperate and tropical waters.
As oceans become more acidic, with a lower pH, marine organisms are stressed and entire ecosystems are affected, according to the scientists. Gretchen E. Hofmann, an eco-physiologist and professor in UCSB's Department of Ecology, Evolution & Marine Biology, is lead author of the recent article in PLoS ONE that describes the research.
"We were able to illustrate how parts of the world's oceans currently have different pH, and thus how they might respond to climate changes in the future," said Hofmann. "The sensors allowed us to capture that." The sensors recorded at least 30 days of continuous pH values in each area of the study.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, human activities have accelerated the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide mixes with water. The two molecules combine to become carbonic acid, making seawater more acidic. As billions of molecules combine and go through this process, the overall pH of the oceans decreases, causing ocean acidification.
Acidification limits the amount of carbonate forms that are needed by marine invertebrates, such as coral, urchins, snails, and shellfish, to make their skeletons. As the concentration of carbonates decreases in acidified water, it is harder to make a shell. And, the structures of some organisms may dissolve when water chemistry becomes too unfavorable.
"The emerging pH data from sensors allows us to design lab experiments that have a present-day environmental context," said Hofmann. "The experiments will allow us to see how organisms are adapted now, and how they might respond to climate change in the future." Hofmann researched the Antarctic, where she has worked extensively, as well as an area of coral reefs around the South Pacific island of Moorea, where UCSB has a Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) project. She also studied the coastal waters of Santa Barbara, in conjunction with UCSB's Santa Barbara Coastal LTER. The research team provided 30 days of pH data from other ocean areas around the world.
The researchers found that, in some places such as Antarctica and the Line Islands of the South Pacific, the range of pH variance is much more limited than in areas of the California coast that are subject to large vertical movements of water, known as upwellings. In some of the study areas, the researchers found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation. Other areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of this century.
"This study is important for identifying the complexity of the ocean acidification problem around the globe," said co-author Jennifer Smith, a marine biologist with Scripps. "Our data show such huge variability in seawater pH, both within and across marine ecosystems, making global predictions of the impacts of ocean acidification a big challenge."
Todd Martz, a marine chemistry researcher at Scripps, developed the sensor. "When I arrived at Scripps, we re-engineered my prototype design, and since then I have not been able to keep up with all of the requests for sensors," said Martz. "Because every sensor used in this study was built at Scripps, I was in a unique position to assimilate a number of datasets, collected independently by researchers who otherwise would not have been in communication with each other. Each time someone deployed a sensor, they would send me the data, and eventually it became clear that a synthesis should be done to cross-compare this diverse collection of measurements." Hoffman worked with Martz to put together the research team to create that synthesis.
The team noted that the Scripps sensors, called "SeaFET" and "SeapHOx," allow researchers to continuously and autonomously monitor pH from remote parts of the world, providing important baselines from which scientists can monitor future changes caused by ocean acidification.
Despite surveying 15 different ocean regions, the authors noted that they only made observations on coastal surface oceans, and that more study is needed in deeper ocean regions farther away from land.
Hofmann is the director of the Center for the Study of Ocean Acidification and Ocean Change, a UC multi-campus initiative. Hofmann participated in writing a report on ocean acidification while on the National Research Council's Ocean Acidification Committee, and she is currently participating as a lead author on the National Climate Assessment. Hofmann is a member of the National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs Advisory Panel, and she is an Aldo Leopold Fellow.
In addition to Hofmann, Martz, and Smith, co-authors include Emily B. Rivest and Pauline Yu of UCSB; Uwe Send, Lisa Levin, Yuichiro Takeshita, Nichole N. Price, Brittany Peterson, and Christina A. Frieder of Scripps; Paul Matson and Kenneth Johnson of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute; Fiorenza Micheli and Kristy Kroeker of Stanford University; Adina Paytan and Elizabeth Derse Crook of UC Santa Cruz; and Maria Cristina Gambi of Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn in Naples, Italy.
Funding for instrument development and related field work came from several sources, including the National Science Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the University of California, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, the WWW Foundation, Scott and Karin Wilson, the Rhodes family, and NOAA.
Link
The surface temperature anomaly for the region extending from 64N to 90N, from 1880 through 2011, in degrees Centigrade above or below the temperature during the 1951-1980 base period. Temperatures have risen substantially since 1880 and the rate of increase has been especially rapid since the late 1970s. Source: WWF, using data from NASA.
Annual global surface temperature anomalies, 2011. The largest and most extensive warming (indicated in shades of red) was concentrated in the Arctic. Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
And this comprises what percent of the total earth area?
Link
prevents this.
This is not an answer for you but, at what percent of area do you need to see to become concerned? Also, how much do the anomalies have to be before you become concerned?
Viewing: 151 - 201
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index