Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:11 PM GMT on January 14, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

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

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

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

Viewing: 239 - 189

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

Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA)!

SWIPA
SWIPA Executive Summary Report



December 2011 AIRS CH4



compare it with December 2010



AIRS, the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder on NASA's Aqua Satellite

Daily Earth Maps from AIRS

Aqua and the Afternoon Constellation - The A-Train


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Patrap:
Timewave Zero 2012 %u2013 Terence McKenna

We are on the brink of possibilities that will make us literally unrecognizable to ourselves and those possibilities will be realized, not in the next thousand years but in the next 20 years because the acceleration of invention and novelty and information transfer is at this point so rapid%u2026
One of the biggest Illegal (hardcore) drug advocates on the planet. Lets go take some DMT and 'shrooms. What a good example for the kids on this site.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Who on here is willing to go live like the early settlers? Making almost everything from scratch and living off what they grew in the summer and hunting wild game. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it! Well,that would be the only way to stop big oil from making profits!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Timewave Zero 2012 – Terence McKenna

We are on the brink of possibilities that will make us literally unrecognizable to ourselves and those possibilities will be realized, not in the next thousand years but in the next 20 years because the acceleration of invention and novelty and information transfer is at this point so rapid…
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting greentortuloni:


Uh, miss the point much? A 'great company' is still a company. These problems you mention are local problems. that doesn't mean the companies are good morally or that the problems are acceptable but they are still local problems. Exxon et al are in an industry to destroy the earth. I am absolutly sure that Exxon has all the other problems mentioned above in addition to the earth destroying one.
I would like to hire you to work endless hours for 50 cents day with no benefits in a very polluted plant. When someone asks why you make so little and the working conditions are terrible I will tell them you are a local problem. When can I expect you to start? Screw everybody else as long as it is not me and I get my iPad. Is this your thinking? Sounds exactly like what you accuse Exxon of doing. Like I have mentioned before look up hypocrite. Do you have any proof to make the claims against Exxon of using slave or child labor or paying substandard wages?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Patrap:


Very interesting Patrap. Thanks.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting nymore:
I forgot the lovely people at Apple using slave labor at Foxxconn and I am sure they make sure all the toxic metals used to manufacture their products are cleaned up properly. Apples profit margin somewhere around 23%. I can the same for the next three companies you mention. Nike busted using child labor for basically no pay, Boeing there business is burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, that is great for the planet huh.


Uh, miss the point much? A 'great company' is still a company. These problems you mention are local problems. that doesn't mean the companies are good morally or that the problems are acceptable but they are still local problems. Exxon et al are in an industry to destroy the earth. I am absolutly sure that Exxon has all the other problems mentioned above in addition to the earth destroying one.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Predictions: checking where weather predictions come from:
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/26/imaginary-frien ds/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Exxon is not evil because it makes a profit. Exxon, to some degree, can be a victim of the oil cartels and speculators as well. Usually, however, they benefit far better than the consumer at the pump. Exxon's driving force is to make profits for the share holders. Corporations, by law, must maximize the profits for the share holders. This will force them to try to discredit anything that would show they do harm. ... They do a very good job of this.

ROI is dependent upon how much money you put up and how much money is returned back to you. Some companies will show a much greater ROI by putting up far less money than other entities that seek a common goal. You each acquire the same benefits even though one has put up much less money than the other to obtain the goal. The only real problem is to assure that enough overall money is given to obtain the goal. The company that put up the least amount of money may actually benefit even more than the company that put up the largest amount of money.

Speculation could be seriously curtailed simply by requiring a 20% delivery of what they buy.

You are correct, nymore. I could set myself up to where I do not need to buy gas simply by going all electric. I am still effected by rising fossil fuel prices because EVERYTHING is shipped. I see price increases simply because shipping costs go up and I pay more at the store. So, until enough of the billions of other people go electric, the fossil fuel industry OWNS us.
Hello sir

Until technology can come up with a better way to store power you will always use fossil fuels to generate power as there is no way now to provide base power load with green energy. We could build nukes to solve these problems
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
The ROI would be the same for Exxon as any other company that does the same thing I am sure. You also do not need gas, you can buy an electric car, electric mower and on and on. I just want to get this straight because Exxon sells more for a cheaper profit margin they are bad? Wanna stop speculators make them take full delivery at time of purchase. Problem solved


Exxon is not evil because it makes a profit. Exxon, to some degree, can be a victim of the oil cartels and speculators as well. Usually, however, they benefit far better than the consumer at the pump. Exxon's driving force is to make profits for the share holders. Corporations, by law, must maximize the profits for the share holders. This will force them to try to discredit anything that would show they do harm. ... They do a very good job of this.

ROI is dependent upon how much money you put up and how much money is returned back to you. Some companies will show a much greater ROI by putting up far less money than other entities that seek a common goal. You each acquire the same benefits even though one has put up much less money than the other to obtain the goal. The only real problem is to assure that enough overall money is given to obtain the goal. The company that put up the least amount of money may actually benefit even more than the company that put up the largest amount of money.

Speculation could be seriously curtailed simply by requiring a 20% delivery of what they buy.

You are correct, nymore. I could set myself up to where I do not need to buy gas simply by going all electric. I am still effected by rising fossil fuel prices because EVERYTHING is shipped. I see price increases simply because shipping costs go up and I pay more at the store. So, until enough of the billions of other people go electric, the fossil fuel industry OWNS us.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you claiming satellites aren't used to measure temperature at the poles? It's not clear what you may have read over at WUWT--that site, after all, is chock-full of utter nonsense--but satellites have been providing complete spatial coverage of both poles since the early 1980s.

Again, denialists can't have it both ways, claiming that station data are wrong because of siting*, calibration, sparsity of coverage, etc., while also claiming that satellite data are wrong because of--well, who knows why. So I repeat: which is it?

* - And, no, doofuses like Anthony Watts can't blame station data at the poles on air conditioners, asphalt runways, the urban heat island effect, and so on. Maybe Inuit hunting fires? The hot breath of polar bears? Baby penguins playing a prank?
Satellites do not cover above 85N or below 85S degrees. If they did why did you use a graph from DMI for arctic temps derived from a model?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting greentortuloni:


No, if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, no one would care about Exxon (et al). They would be a great company. Similarly, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer and lung disease, no one would care. They would all be in the same class as all the other large companies that distribute goods and make a profit, from Apple to Samsung to Boeing to Nike.

Unfortunatly, Oil is destroying the world and not only do they not care, they are actively trying to use disinformation, bribes to politicians (PACs, etc. in America) and unfair business practices to prevent the rise of competitors.

If, Exxon looked at the data and said, "yes CO2 is a problem, we are sorry, we didn't know but now we do and we will change", I would be a big fan of theirs. However, they can't do that and so they continue with the public campaigns of disinformation, etc. that asre so sucked up by a percentage of the population. That is the problem.
I forgot the lovely people at Apple using slave labor at Foxxconn and I am sure they make sure all the toxic metals used to manufacture their products are cleaned up properly. Apples profit margin somewhere around 23%. I can the same for the next three companies you mention. Nike busted using child labor for basically no pay, Boeing there business is burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, that is great for the planet huh.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
I breifly browsed thru a few comments regarding "denialist". My intention is not to offend any of these folks who may be reading this. As some folks stated these denialists claim scientist both exggerate & don't know how to read the data. This comes from a majority of individuals whom place religion above all else. Many are the same people who believe the earths 6000 yrs old which quite frankly is retarded to even think that. As I said in my other comments we are all free to believe as wish & despite my less then polite remarks all opinions either way should be respected. I personally am inclined to believe in God; however despite being raised jewish don't practice or subscribe to any forms of organized religion. I believe jesus christ existed but i dont believe he was anything other then ordinary man whom gained notorioty & fame in his time for being outspoken taking on the roman empire. I believe much of the bible such as moses also existed & many of the stories told probably happened; however overtime these stories were exagerated & became myths as they were passed down over the many centuries; therefore i dont believe in any the stories of humans walking on water, parting a sea ect.. My reasons for believing in God is due to a large amount of what i consider "circumstantial" evidence. I just dont believe all this happened merely by "chance" I can point to several events in my personal life that just went beyond mere chance. Now being that said the scientist in me must also note there is NO actual physical evidence to prove Gods existance. I personally believe the true concept of what we call God is not how most of us grew up to perceive..as this old man, with white hair & a white beard, dressed in a long white robe carrying a baton rather actual existance is far beyond any human & even extraterrestial alien comprehension. I don't believe were meant to know. I know this was a bit off topic but i got carried away whenever i read these religious zealots interpretation of God & religion. Keep this in mind...more people have been murdered in the name of organized religion then anything else..thats messed up. Ok going forward Il be more intersted in analyzing the data from this abnormally mild winter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ciao kzjcht92, welcome to the blog.

Thanks for your input. I disagree a little with you about whether we should be doing something or not but before we get to that point.... a gift:

a pair of paragraphs

<p> </p>

<p> </p>


a brace of breaks:

<br> <br>



hmm... much harder than I actually though to do that :)
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Having just joined the discussion in this forum I havent had a chance to review the many comments of others as well as the hard data shown in some detail as to the reason for the very mild winter thus far. I reside in just outside detroit, mi while Ive seen many mild winters over the years in addition to several with very little in the way of snow I must say i cant recall so many 50+degree days in both december & january. A 50 or 60 degree day in the middle of winter isn't overly unusual; however the number we've had is not merely unusual its been almost the norm as opposed to sub-freezing (32&below)should be the norm. Climatologically late january, early febuary is typically the coldest period of the winter here in michigan; furthermore even in some of the mildest winters in past I dont ever recall an extended period of sub 30 degree weather that freezes all the inland lakes to the point of relative thickness for ice-fishing, skating & other on lake activities. Im not into ice-fishing & regardless how cold its been or thick ice appears some of these folks I see each winter driving their vehicles out int the middle of lake is plain insane. In any event to my knowledge thus far as january closes out I don't believe any of our inland lakes here in southern lower michigan are close to safe enough to even go ice fishing. As I mentioned ive never seen an entire winter without the ice thickening to a point of relative safety..at least for people to walk or skate on. While we still the better part of 6 weeks left its still too early for the climate change issue to come into the discussion; however if theres no activity all winter on our lakes due lack of extended cold to freeze these lakes solid it will be a first to my knowledge in my 40-some odd years living here?? On a personal note I kind of prefer the snow & cold as opposed to my fiancee who cannot stand it & is enjoying the mild mostly snow free winter hus far. In conclusion I'll be monitoring things closely as Ive studied weather all my life. The past few winters in contrast have been extremely cold & snowy so im not prepared to say global warming/climate change is at fault just yet. Speaking from a political point of view how some these individuals mainly on the far right can get up here and deny it blows my mind?? Are they just that stupid, perhaps just in denial since many are so narrow minded?? Heres my message to them...now some folks whom are well aware of the changes occuring may disagree me on this...Its very clear large percentage of the changes are due to human activity, burning fossil fuels, ect...but some of the warming is due to the earths natural cycles. To those who deny climate change: Folks its changing whether you choose to believe it or not for whatever reason, I say its a combination; however & most important, unfortunately theres not a damn thing we can do about it. If we were to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow, which were not going to do, it will make little difference. The changes the earths climate is undergoing in my opinion is irreversable & out of human control; therefore whatevers gonna be will be so folks on the right...my philosphy with everything is we are all free to believe as we wish, but at this point in time the data shows the earths avg temps is some 2 degrees (celisius) give or take higher then its been in several centuries or longer but theres little we could do about it if we wanted to but nobody is gonna do anything so its a moot point. Thanks to all for reading my comments
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New report from UK.

Flooding is biggest climate risk to UK, report says
26.01.2012 05:31:17
Source: Reuters

Flooding will be Britain's biggest climate risk this century, with damage set to cost as much as 12 billion pounds ($18 billion) a year by the 2080s if nothing is done to adapt to extreme weather, a report said on Thursday.

British summers are forecast to get hotter, while winters will get milder and wetter. New government-funded research has identified the top 100 effects of climate change and their expected impact on Britain and magnitude over this century. The "Climate Change Risk Assessment" found that if no further action is taken to address climate change, annual flood damage to buildings could reach between 2.1 billion and 12 billion pounds, compared to current costs of 1.2 billion pounds. "If I had to pick one particular issue, the flooding issue is the most dominant," said Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and one of report's authors. Britain is already at risk of extreme weather. In 2007, summer floods cost over 3 billion pounds and disruption from snowfall last year cost 600 million pounds a day over a several-day period. More intense bursts of rainfall in summer and longer rainfall in winter will cause more floods, worsening damage and disruption to infrastructure and property. Over the longer term rising seas will bring coastal flooding, Watson added. Annual insurance payouts and premiums will rise significantly, and more properties will find it harder to get insurance and obtain mortgages, the report said. The government is spending 2.1 billion pounds on flood defenses over the next four years, but this represents a cut in funding of around 27 percent, the chairman of the environment agency said when the spending budget was announced in 2010. Despite this, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said the government could still ensure more homes are protected from floods. It hopes to protect 145,000 households by March 2015.

HEATING UP

The report identified other risks including hotter summers, which could bring 580 to 5,900 extra deaths a year by the 2050s. The number of days in an average year when temperatures go above 26 degrees Celsius could be 27 to 121 in London by the 2080s, compared to 18 now, the report said. However, the total number of premature deaths could be offset by milder winters which would avoid some 3,900-24,000 deaths a year by the 2050s. "Cold spells will not disappear, though on average there will hopefully be less of them," said Watson. Energy demand for air conditioning will rise in the summer but heating demand will fall in the winter, which could reduce costs by over 1 billion pounds a year by mid-century. Agriculture and forestry will also be affected. Droughts and some pests and diseases could increase as a result of warmer weather, which could reduce timber yields and quality and drive up timber costs by the 2080s. On the plus side, sugar beet yields could rise by up to 70 percent and wheat yields by as much as 140 percent by mid-century due to longer growing seasons if water and nutrients are available. "A warmer climate presents opportunities to grow new crops such as soya, sunflowers, peaches, apricots and grapes, while new markets may open up overseas for British grown produce," the study said. Peter Mallaburn, climate policy expert at Leicester's De Montfort University, said the report showed Britain's lack of preparedness. "We need a coherent strategy to sort out this mess. Let's hope that this report acts as a wake-up call," he said. The government said it will use the study to form the basis of a national adaptation plan, due to be published in 2013.

The full report is available at ccra.defra.gov.uk/

Personal comment: Have they considered that bulge of fresh water in the Arctic and other fresh melt water from the GIS that could slow the Gulf Stream? It appears not.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting nymore:
How do they get the temps in the upper arctic and antarctica, satellites are you sure I think you may want to check. I will give you a chance to fix the mistakes you have made or if you can not find them because you don't know just ask I will be happy to help you along.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you claiming satellites aren't used to measure temperature at the poles? It's not clear what you may have read over at WUWT--that site, after all, is chock-full of utter nonsense--but satellites have been providing complete spatial coverage of both poles since the early 1980s.

Again, denialists can't have it both ways, claiming that station data are wrong because of siting*, calibration, sparsity of coverage, etc., while also claiming that satellite data are wrong because of--well, who knows why. So I repeat: which is it?

* - And, no, doofuses like Anthony Watts can't blame station data at the poles on air conditioners, asphalt runways, the urban heat island effect, and so on. Maybe Inuit hunting fires? The hot breath of polar bears? Baby penguins playing a prank?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting greentortuloni:


No, if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, no one would care about Exxon (et al). They would be a great company. Similarly, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer and lung disease, no one would care. They would all be in the same class as all the other large companies that distribute goods and make a profit, from Apple to Samsung to Boeing to Nike.

Unfortunatly, Oil is destroying the world and not only do they not care, they are actively trying to use disinformation, bribes to politicians (PACs, etc. in America) and unfair business practices to prevent the rise of competitors.

If, Exxon looked at the data and said, "yes CO2 is a problem, we are sorry, we didn't know but now we do and we will change", I would be a big fan of theirs. However, they can't do that and so they continue with the public campaigns of disinformation, etc. that asre so sucked up by a percentage of the population. That is the problem.
Well put. We're to forget all about Big Energy's institutional lies and manipulations, and to just ignore their wanton, profit-motivated destruction, and instead only listen to their bleating about what a great example of free enterprise their industry is. It reminds me of the old joke: "Well, aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting nymore:
The ROI would be the same for Exxon as any other company that does the same thing I am sure. You also do not need gas, you can buy an electric car, electric mower and on and on. I just want to get this straight because Exxon sells more for a cheaper profit margin they are bad? Wanna stop speculators make them take full delivery at time of purchase. Problem solved


No, if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, no one would care about Exxon (et al). They would be a great company. Similarly, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer and lung disease, no one would care. They would all be in the same class as all the other large companies that distribute goods and make a profit, from Apple to Samsung to Boeing to Nike.

Unfortunatly, Oil is destroying the world and not only do they not care, they are actively trying to use disinformation, bribes to politicians (PACs, etc. in America) and unfair business practices to prevent the rise of competitors.

If, Exxon looked at the data and said, "yes CO2 is a problem, we are sorry, we didn't know but now we do and we will change", I would be a big fan of theirs. However, they can't do that and so they continue with the public campaigns of disinformation, etc. that asre so sucked up by a percentage of the population. That is the problem.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting Neapolitan:

Many millions of square kilometers--and, more importantly, the place where all the ice is kept.Wait. I'm confused. Denialists claim over and over that land-based thermometers don't work--they're sited wrong, they're incorrectly calibrated, magical fairies render them useless--saying instead that only satellite readings are accurate (See: Spencer, Roy), and therefore scientists don't really know what the temperature is. Yet when satellite readings are nearly the only thing available--as in the Arctic and Antarctic--denialists claim that the lack of land-based thermometers means scientists don't really know what the temperature is.

Which is it?
How do they get the temps in the upper arctic and antarctica, satellites are you sure I think you may want to check. I will give you a chance to fix the mistakes you have made or if you can not find them because you don't know just ask I will be happy to help you along.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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.
The ROI would be the same for Exxon as any other company that does the same thing I am sure. You also do not need gas, you can buy an electric car, electric mower and on and on. I just want to get this straight because Exxon sells more for a cheaper profit margin they are bad? Wanna stop speculators make them take full delivery at time of purchase. Problem solved
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Neapolitan:

And I see some on here still do not know the difference between 70% and 10%.

Sigh...
Well I am against all incentives and subsidies so your point is moot with me. Please try again

BTW your billion dollar losses to prove AGWT, is a shame as pointed out earlier but with any good story why let facts get in the way. A good example I hope a large tornado never hits Cowboy Stadium because it would not have to hit anything else and it would be well over 1 billion in damage. Old Texas Stadium value (cost) today with inflation 190 million new Cowboy Stadium value (cost) today 1.33 billion. Come to think of it your right it is all AGW.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Climate change indicator #5,765:
New map for what to plant reflects global warming

Global warming is hitting not just home, but garden. The color-coded map of planting zones often seen on the back of seed packets is being updated by the government, illustrating a hotter 21st century.

It's the first time since 1990 that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has revised the official guide for the nation's 80 million gardeners, and much has changed. Nearly entire states, such as Ohio, Nebraska and Texas, are in warmer zones.

The new guide, unveiled Wednesday at the National Arboretum, arrives just as many home gardeners are receiving their seed catalogs and dreaming of lush flower beds in the spring.

It reflects a new reality: The coldest day of the year isn't as cold as it used to be, so some plants and trees can now survive farther north.

"People who grow plants are well aware of the fact that temperatures have gotten more mild throughout the year, particularly in the wintertime," said Boston University biology professor Richard Primack. "There's a lot of things you can grow now that you couldn't grow before."
Full article here.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting Neapolitan:

Many millions of square kilometers--and, more importantly, the place where all the ice is kept.Wait. I'm confused. Denialists claim over and over that land-based thermometers don't work--they're sited wrong, they're incorrectly calibrated, magical fairies render them useless--saying instead that only satellite readings are accurate (See: Spencer, Roy), and therefore scientists don't really know what the temperature is. Yet when satellite readings are nearly the only thing available--as in the Arctic and Antarctic--denialists claim that the lack of land-based thermometers means scientists don't really know what the temperature is.

Which is it?


Here is is:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
Here's a local report.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
Hypocrites never want to make the first step.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
Quoting iceagecoming:


Amount of time and C02 generated by your rant.

Dec 26, 2011 ... Server farms are necessary to keep the ever growing internet running, ... each kilowatt-hour of electricity generates about 1.3 pounds of CO2....
www.tech2date.com/keeping-large-server

well now, that is about a ton of CO2.

Maybe you could take the A out of GW. The first step is always the hardest.

Just kiddin, we know you keep all that data stashed in your noggin.


Why would the naysayers care what the amounts are?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
Quoting Neapolitan:
PART II

    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)

    CO2

    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)

    News

    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


Amount of time and C02 generated by your rant.

Dec 26, 2011 ... Server farms are necessary to keep the ever growing internet running, ... each kilowatt-hour of electricity generates about 1.3 pounds of CO2....
www.tech2date.com/keeping-large-server

well now, that is about a ton of CO2.

Maybe you could take the A out of GW. The first step is always the hardest.

Just kiddin, we know you keep all that data stashed in your noggin.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
10,000 years ago humans began domesticating plants and animals.

500 years ago we invented the printing press.

100 years ago we began driving automobiles.

50 years ago we invented the computer.

40 years ago we landed on the moon.

The speed of change is rapid. Population, computing power, speed of transport, the sheer amount of known information, and most other things that involve humans, are all increasing at an accelerating rate. The rate at which they are increasing is increasing. We are all part of it, with younger people thinking nothing of it, and the elderly commenting on it, but generally handling it okay.

But if we were to transport King Arthur to modern-day New York he'd most probably pass out from trying to grasp what was happening. But can it stop, slow down or reverse.

No, for that is not in our nature.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
TEPCO Notes Rise in Radioactive Leaks from Damaged Reactors

Tokyo, Jan. 23 (Jiji Press)--Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Monday reported an increase in radioactive materials leaking from damaged nuclear reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant.
The total amount of radioactive cesium that leaked from the containment vessels of the No. 1 to No. 3 reactors reached 70 million becquerels per hour, up 12 million becquerels from the December level, the power firm said.
It seems that radioactive dusts were stirred up because plant workers went inside reactor buildings and removed rubble, TEPCO officials said.
The outcome was reported to the second meeting on medium- to long-term measures toward decommissioning of the damaged reactors held between the firm and the government on Monday.
Last month, the leaked amount was put at 10 million becquerels each for the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors and 40 million becquerels for the No. 3 reactor.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
"The suffering, the anxiety, the uncertainty, the deep regrets, wounds, the burden of centuries of sorrow is part of thought. Thought is responsible for all this."

You must understand the whole of life, not just one little part of it. That is why you must read, that is why you must look at the skies, that is why you must sing and dance, and write poems and suffer and understand, for all that is life.

J. Krishnamurti
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
No ice at the southern pole? Temperature there is?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting JupiterKen:


And this comprises what percent of the total earth area?

Many millions of square kilometers--and, more importantly, the place where all the ice is kept.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


It's amazing all of that red in the Arctic area where we have almost no temperature readings.
Wait. I'm confused. Denialists claim over and over that land-based thermometers don't work--they're sited wrong, they're incorrectly calibrated, magical fairies render them useless--saying instead that only satellite readings are accurate (See: Spencer, Roy), and therefore scientists don't really know what the temperature is. Yet when satellite readings are nearly the only thing available--as in the Arctic and Antarctic--denialists claim that the lack of land-based thermometers means scientists don't really know what the temperature is.

Which is it?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


It's amazing all of that red in the Arctic area where we have almost no temperature readings.


Collared polar bears transmit the data. ;-) We are running low on transmission stations using these.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Neapolitan:
An excellent article over on ClimateProgress.org. It's a very worth read, but I though I might show you a couple of very telling graphs:

uh-oh

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.

uh-oh

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.


It's amazing all of that red in the Arctic area where we have almost no temperature readings.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
201. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:38 PM GMT on January 24, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


And this comprises what percent of the total earth area?


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?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
200. cyclonebuster
5:16 PM GMT on January 24, 2012
This

Link

prevents this.




Quoting Neapolitan:
An excellent article over on ClimateProgress.org. It's a very worth read, but I though I might show you a couple of very telling graphs:

uh-oh

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.

uh-oh

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.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
199. JupiterKen
4:43 PM GMT on January 24, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
An excellent article over on ClimateProgress.org. It's a very worth read, but I though I might show you a couple of very telling graphs:

uh-oh

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.

uh-oh

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?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
198. Neapolitan
11:02 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
An excellent article over on ClimateProgress.org. It's a very worth read, but I though I might show you a couple of very telling graphs:

uh-oh

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.

uh-oh

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
197. cyclonebuster
6:07 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
THIS

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
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
196. cyclonebuster
6:03 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
195. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:40 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I see some on here still do not know the difference between profit and profit margin. Well maybe they can look it up while looking up hypocrisy.

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


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
194. nymore
3:11 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:

And I see some on here still do not know the difference between 70% and 10%.

Sigh...
I say no gov't cash for anyone period. Which I have said many times so your point against me is moot. Question how will this green power handle base load power. Nukes can do it but your against them to aren't you? Keep living your green energy fantasy it does not work in the real world
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
193. cyclonebuster
3:09 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I see some on here still do not know the difference between profit and profit margin. Well maybe they can look it up while looking up hypocrisy.

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


Which is better for life?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
192. Neapolitan
2:58 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I see some on here still do not know the difference between profit and profit margin. Well maybe they can look it up while looking up hypocrisy.

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

And I see some on here still do not know the difference between 70% and 10%.

Sigh...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
191. Patrap
2:33 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
From Energy to the Pulpit.

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.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
190. Patrap
1:30 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
189. nymore
1:05 AM GMT on January 24, 2012
I see some on here still do not know the difference between profit and profit margin. Well maybe they can look it up while looking up hypocrisy.

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
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259

Viewing: 239 - 189

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

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.