Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:47 AM GMT on February 10, 2012

Share this Blog
14
+

Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (2)

Earlier articles in this series:

Extreme Weather: Can we use predictions to plan?

La Nina and the Missouri River (1)

Link to NCPP to Missouri River Basin Pilot

The purpose of this series of articles is to explore how we might use model predictions and projections to plan better for extreme events. It is a mix of seasonal climate prediction and decadal-to-centennial climate projections. 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 of climate-change problem solving, 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. An interest of mine is to develop templates on how to use that knowledge – and of course, by doing so in these blogs to provide some transparency into the use of climate information.

The previous entry made a start on the problem, but as in many starts it was naïve. It did provide a sanity check that tells us that 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 that start motivates me to step back and think about all of the pieces – or mechanisms – that might work in concert to produce a flood. I will start with a map and a few pictures.

Figure 1 is a map of the Missouri River Basin. The headwaters of the Missouri River are in the Rocky Mountains in a span from central Colorado to Montana. For the upper Missouri River, the ranges in Wyoming and Montana are the most important.



Figure 1: Map of the Missouri River Basin

I have marked up this figure a bit in Figure 2. I put in some triangles to represent the mountains. Based on the paper I discussed in the first entry, that naïve start, Item 1 points to the region where there is a late spring and early summer deficit of rain associated with La Nina. Up in the mountains of Montana I have marked Item 2, that La Nina is associated with more snow in the winter.



Figure 2: Missouri River Basin with mountains symbolically marked by little hats along with the locality of precipitation variability that is linked to the La Nina cycles.

So I want to do two things here. First, where did I get that information about La Nina and snow in Montana? The Climate Prediction Center keeps a remarkable amount of information. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it is not always easy to find the information, and when you do, sometimes it needs translation. Here is their page ENSO Temperature and Precipitation Composites. Figure 3 contains my markups of a couple of figures for the composite anomalies and the composite frequency.



Figure 3: From the Climate Prediction Center. These are composite pictures, meaning that a set of La Nina years are averaged together to show what La Nina looks like. The figure plots anomaly which is the difference from an average calculated for the years 1981-2010. Hence, the composite is the average difference of a La Nina year from the average of all of the years in 1981-2010. The frequency is what percentage of the years do you see this pattern of average differences. These are for January, February, and March.

If you compare carefully with the maps in Figures 1 or 2, especially in northwestern Wyoming, La Nina suggests larger amounts of snow. The frequency map says that this pattern of difference occurs about 80% of the time. There are also positive snow cover anomalies in northwestern Colorado, but the rivers here, flow into the Missouri relatively far downstream. The strong positive snow cover anomaly in the mountains of Idaho are not in the Missouri River Basin.

The second point that I want to emphasize here is the emergence of the fact that flood in a large river basin, like the Missouri, is related strongly to the accumulation of water in basin. Therefore, variables like snow cover and soil moisture are more directly important to evaluating flood risk than, say, instantaneous rain amounts. This has consequences for the type of information that is needed from climate models. More information is needed from climate models than temperature and precipitation. We need estimates of, in this case, the storage of water in the environment. It also points out that what happens in one region in an earlier season is an important part of the information that is needed; that is, we need to determine connections.

My goal in this series is to try to write down the process and a template to make it easier for me to think about this problem the “next time.” So what do I have so far – and this will be subject to revision

Plausibility: Do I have a plausible, observational or experiential, foundation to expect a relationship between a mode of variability (here, La Nina) and an impact (here, Upper Missouri River Flood)?

Geography: What happens to a place is strongly influenced by the geography. What are the characteristics of the geography that influence behavior? In this case, for example, mountains influence the storage of water that ultimately ends up in the Missouri River.

Knowledge: We need to identify the type of knowledge that is needed, and location of sources of that knowledge. We need to know if there are existing, trusted sources that synthesize existing knowledge. We need to know if we can find pieces of usable knowledge in from trusted sources. We need to know if we need to generate knowledge to fill in the gaps to complete the knowledge base.

Connections: What pieces are connected together?

I will complete and refine this in future entries in the series.


r

Link to NCPP to Missouri River Basin Pilot

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: 162 - 112

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

162. georgevandenberghe
12:44 AM GMT on April 12, 2012
I'm not going to deny global warming. There is just too much
evidence from many sources. However the plant zone maps
did shift south from 1972 when I first saw them to 1990 when
"newer" ones were published. THis was probably due to several intense
arctic outbreaks in the 1980s. The shift north again is slightly
larger than the shift south was in the 1990 version so the net
shift from the 70s when I was a kid to now is slightly north.

It is ONLY ANECDOTAL but the two hottest summers of the
past 140 years in the DC metro area were 2010 and 2011
(ranks 1 and 2) These are FAR warmer (1 degree F) than
any previous summer (summer 2009 by the way was
on the cool side of normal)

Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 17 Comments: 1713
161. Neapolitan
11:31 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Sheldon

Maybe because it would be double counting. This was pointed out by Weaver. He also says there is debate about the WTW estimates because of the large uncertainties in the conversions. This is why they were not included in the paper. Also everything I claimed is in the report.

When did the researchers put out the video, oh that is right they did not as you claimed (made up or as most call it lied about). It is an OLD video of the researcher from GREENPEACE.

These are a few quotes from Andrew Weaver about the NEW report " I was surprised by the results of our analysis I thought it was larger than it was" end quote. Also this quote " The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming" end quote. I find this one the best and I quote " We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tar sands it's going to lead to this,that and the other. We thought, well, lets take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are" end quote

So I guess your old GREENPEACE video and Hanson and Mckibben are out of date. I sense some cracks developing when Trenberth goes after Loeb for his study and now Hanson going after Weaver, you can bet Mckibben will not be far behind.


He also says Unconventional Natural Gas and Coal are the big problems not oil.

Still having trouble with the actual truth I see. Here is an idea do some research before you shoot your mouth off. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

FWIW I could not care less if you ever respond to me again or not because there is no way possible to care less. I also think you would stop because every time you have the last couple of weeks you have been pOWNd. Mr. massive cranium beat again by a lowly construction worker. LMFAO as always its been a pleasure.

Edit: I also know why you think you are always the smartest one in the room, because you are the only one in the room. My sides hurt from laughing so hard.
Ignoring the usual third grade-level ad hominems, I can't help but be astonished again at your thorough use of cherry-picking. You make an unsubstantiated claim about a peer-reviewed article; I provide reference to an explanatory piece about that article written by the authors of that article wherein they state that the article definitely does not say what you claim it says; you reject that explanation outright, and instead cherry-pick a few quotes from a popular news source.

Pretty incredible, really.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
160. nymore
4:40 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
I planned to not address you any further until you change your ways--you do a bit too much name-calling for me to waste much time with you--but you've misrepresented the report, and I feel a correction is in order.

--First, the report was only concerned with the CO2 directly released from burning the hydrocarbons currently stored in the tar sands; it didn't even begin to touch on the extraordinary amounts of CO2 that is released during the extraction, transport, or refining of those tar sands.

--Second, the authors of the paper have put up a webpage--http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_Oil_ Sands_climate.html--because they knew that denialists would twist and distort their paper out of sheer desperation, and they wanted to set the record straight. Those hoping the new study says that Tar Sands are just peachy would do well to read both the paper and the website.

--Third, they also put up this video:



In short, what Hansen said some time ago is every bit as true today as it was earlier: it's "game over" if the Tar Sands are exploited as some would like. Hansen said this of the report: "The argument that the currently known amount of carbon in the tar sands pit is small compared to the total fossil fuels burned in two centuries is fallacious and misleading %u2014 every single source, even Saudi Arabia, is small compared to the total. If we once get hooked on tar sands and set up infrastructure, the numbers will grow as mining capabilities increase. Tar sands are particularly egregious, because you get relatively less energy per unit carbon emitted and there is associated environmental damage in the mining.%u201D


Sheldon

Maybe because it would be double counting. This was pointed out by Weaver. He also says there is debate about the WTW estimates because of the large uncertainties in the conversions. This is why they were not included in the paper. Also everything I claimed is in the report.

When did the researchers put out the video, oh that is right they did not as you claimed (made up or as most call it lied about). It is an OLD video of the researcher from GREENPEACE.

These are a few quotes from Andrew Weaver about the NEW report " I was surprised by the results of our analysis I thought it was larger than it was" end quote. Also this quote " The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming" end quote. I find this one the best and I quote " We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tar sands it's going to lead to this,that and the other. We thought, well, lets take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are" end quote

So I guess your old GREENPEACE video and Hanson and Mckibben are out of date. I sense some cracks developing when Trenberth goes after Loeb for his study and now Hanson going after Weaver, you can bet Mckibben will not be far behind.


He also says Unconventional Natural Gas and Coal are the big problems not oil.

Still having trouble with the actual truth I see. Here is an idea do some research before you shoot your mouth off. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

FWIW I could not care less if you ever respond to me again or not because there is no way possible to care less. I also think you would stop because every time you have the last couple of weeks you have been pOWNd. Mr. massive cranium beat again by a lowly construction worker. LMFAO as always its been a pleasure.

Edit: I also know why you think you are always the smartest one in the room, because you are the only one in the room. My sides hurt from laughing so hard.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
158. Neapolitan
3:52 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting nymore:
It seems I was wrong about the report I posted last night. The actual number by how much the world would warm is not 1/20 of 1 degree C. but 1/33 (0.03) of 1 degree C. even less than I claimed last night.

It also claims burning all the known oil reserves in the world would result in less than 1 degree C.

Oh those big bad oil companies causing all this GW. LOL
I planned to not address you any further until you change your ways--you do a bit too much name-calling for me to waste much time with you--but you've misrepresented the report, and I feel a correction is in order.

--First, the report was only concerned with the CO2 directly released from burning the hydrocarbons currently stored in the tar sands; it didn't even begin to touch on the extraordinary amounts of CO2 that is released during the extraction, transport, or refining of those tar sands.

--Second, the authors of the paper have put up a webpage--http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_Oil_ Sands_climate.html--because they knew that denialists would twist and distort their paper out of sheer desperation, and they wanted to set the record straight. Those hoping the new study says that Tar Sands are just peachy would do well to read both the paper and the website.

--Third, they also put up this video:



In short, what Hansen said some time ago is every bit as true today as it was earlier: it's "game over" if the Tar Sands are exploited as some would like. Hansen said this of the report: "The argument that the currently known amount of carbon in the tar sands pit is small compared to the total fossil fuels burned in two centuries is fallacious and misleading — every single source, even Saudi Arabia, is small compared to the total. If we once get hooked on tar sands and set up infrastructure, the numbers will grow as mining capabilities increase. Tar sands are particularly egregious, because you get relatively less energy per unit carbon emitted and there is associated environmental damage in the mining.”


Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
157. Neapolitan
3:18 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
This is a little off-topic, but I remember a while back reading that Neapolitan planned to attend one of the "Occupy" "protests." To me, the "occupiers" share many ideals with warmists. I'd like everyone to read this synopsis of the "protesters" ideology:

Link
I've partaken in several Occupy get-togethers, and I can tell you that the vast majority of people involved are very polite, clean, intelligent, and sensitive, and to a person each is very concerned about maintaining civility, decorum, and a non-violent attitude.

Now, the wacky, birther-obsessed, Obama-hating, ultra-right wing Western Journalism Center--aka "World Net Daily"--is of course going to disagree with Occupy; after all, WND part of the very establishment that Occupy aims to dismantle. And as I mentioned earlier, the right knows it has squandered any good will it built up, in part by putting up Presidential candidates who have absolutely no chance of taking back the White House. So we can expect the hysterical and screeching attacks to continue on through November.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
156. nymore
3:17 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
It seems I was wrong about the report I posted last night. The actual number by how much the world would warm is not 1/20 of 1 degree C. but 1/33 (0.03) of 1 degree C. even less than I claimed last night.

It also claims burning all the known oil reserves in the world would result in less than 1 degree C.

Oh those big bad oil companies causing all this GW. LOL
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
155. NeapolitanFan
3:05 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
This is a little off-topic, but I remember a while back reading that Neapolitan planned to attend one of the "Occupy" "protests." To me, the "occupiers" share many ideals with warmists. I'd like everyone to read this synopsis of the "protesters" ideology:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
154. Ossqss
2:17 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
It's long been known that an ice sheet can take decades to millennia to fully response to a change in climate, so it comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever to scientists that the Antarctic continental ice sheet hasn't changed noticeably. Remember, there's two miles of very frigid ice at the center, so it's going to take a bit of time for it to start showing the reality of the situation. However, Antarctic ice is melting pretty swiftly at the edges, particularly along the peninsula--precisely as predicted some years ago.



Lets have a peek/





Interactive chart?

So far so good eh?....... unless the post stretches the blog for some. If so, I will fix it in about an hour unless it gets hammered with flags and disappears.

BTW rookie, your assumptions are just that on CO2 at this point.

That's pretty much the Lowdown! :)






Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
153. NeapolitanFan
12:21 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
It's long been known that an ice sheet can take decades to millennia to fully response to a change in climate, so it comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever to scientists that the Antarctic continental ice sheet hasn't changed noticeably. Remember, there's two miles of very frigid ice at the center, so it's going to take a bit of time for it to start showing the reality of the situation. However, Antarctic ice is melting pretty swiftly at the edges, particularly along the peninsula--precisely as predicted some years ago.


Take millenia? Of course.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
147. Neapolitan
11:52 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting NaplesFLBreeze:

Well, then, why is the Arctic just responding now? I'd like to know. So instead of going ahead and calling me a troll (you can be so predictable sometimes...), that's something to ponder.
In case you were not aware, Antarctica is a continent--a huge mass of solid rock--covered with thousands of meters of ice, while the Arctic is open ocean water covered by just a meter or two of ice. Check it out; Google will concur.

BTW, I only call you a troll because you are. What are you up to now? A hundred handles? More? I seriously don't know how you do it--or why. If I was ever a member of a forum or group that didn't want me because of my attitude, my obscene posts, my insatiable desire to spend all day posting nasty WUMails and minusing comments from people I didn't like, or my jealousy-driven obsession with a few members, I do believe I'd just go elsewhere. But here you are again. Pretty incredible, if you ask me.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
145. Neapolitan
11:30 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
New paper shows no trend in the Antarctic ice sheet. Didn't algore just do a publicity stunt there claiming the ice is melting faster than ever before? Anything to further his bank account:

Link
It's long been known that an ice sheet can take decades to millennia to fully response to a change in climate, so it comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever to scientists that the Antarctic continental ice sheet hasn't changed noticeably. Remember, there's two miles of very frigid ice at the center, so it's going to take a bit of time for it to start showing the reality of the situation. However, Antarctic ice is melting pretty swiftly at the edges, particularly along the peninsula--precisely as predicted some years ago.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
144. Some1Has2BtheRookie
10:30 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I have ever claimed man has no hand in it


That is true, nymore. I do not ever recall you claiming that man has had no play in GW.

We may be holding a 2 and an 8, in this poker hand, but all we need is a clean draw off of the top of the deck and this hand could end up with 4 8's. Not a perfect hand, but I will take it. ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
143. NeapolitanFan
10:16 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
New paper shows no trend in the Antarctic ice sheet. Didn't algore just do a publicity stunt there claiming the ice is melting faster than ever before? Anything to further his bank account:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
142. iceagecoming
10:00 PM GMT on February 20, 2012






Link


393.09ppm is the highest value for January concentrations in recorded history. Last year’s 391.19 was the previous highest value ever recorded. This January’s reading is 1.90ppm higher than last year’s.


!!!!????
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
141. nymore
9:40 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


Wait a minute, hold the horses and the phone... are you saying that burning oil causes global warming and that you have a method you trust....


he ha ho, hypocrit much?
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yes, it appears as though he's finally admitting to the basic tenets of climate change theory: our burning of oil leads to increasing CO2, and that CO2 is causing the planet to warm. Of course, since he is choosing to accept the cited document, it stands to reason that he's also agreeing with it that our continued burning of coal is, in a word, suicide.

Congratulations, nymore! Welcome to the science side of things!
Well if either one of you to can find where I have ever claimed man has no hand in it please point these out. No what I have claimed is in this poker game man may be holding a 2 and an 8 not a pair of queens. Alright carry on with your drivel.

BTW I am still waiting to hear the outrage at these two frauds or won't either of you criticize two of your heroes.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
140. Neapolitan
9:11 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Just when you thought things could not get any scarier.

"I was talking about the radical environmentalists," Santorum said, suggesting that they believe man should protect the earth, rather than "steward its resources." "I think that is a phony ideal. I don't believe that's what we're here to do ... We're not here to serve the earth. That is not the objective, man is the objective." - I say WHAT?!?!?! Without Earth, there is no man! What a whackjob!

Rick Sanitarium

Let me add this as well:

"Earlier in the day on Saturday, Santorum had also said that health insurance plans shouldn't be required to cover prenatal testing, because that testing results in more abortions, as well as contending that government-run public education was "anachronistic.""

Santorum is completely unelectable--as is Romney--and that's why the GOP is in such a tizzy. The anti-science stance alone taken by those two--and most of the Republican party, for that matter--is enough to cost them the election; throw in other things like their anti-women, anti-immigrant, and anti-working class actions, and it's easy to see why Obama will be a sure thing come November.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
139. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:32 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Just when you thought things could not get any scarier.

"I was talking about the radical environmentalists," Santorum said, suggesting that they believe man should protect the earth, rather than "steward its resources." "I think that is a phony ideal. I don't believe that's what we're here to do ... We're not here to serve the earth. That is not the objective, man is the objective." - I say WHAT?!?!?! Without Earth, there is no man! What a whackjob!

Rick Sanitarium

Let me add this as well:

"Earlier in the day on Saturday, Santorum had also said that health insurance plans shouldn't be required to cover prenatal testing, because that testing results in more abortions, as well as contending that government-run public education was "anachronistic.""

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
137. Neapolitan
5:17 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


Wait a minute, hold the horses and the phone... are you saying that burning oil causes global warming and that you have a method you trust....


he ha ho, hypocrit much?
Yes, it appears as though he's finally admitting to the basic tenets of climate change theory: our burning of oil leads to increasing CO2, and that CO2 is causing the planet to warm. Of course, since he is choosing to accept the cited document, it stands to reason that he's also agreeing with it that our continued burning of coal is, in a word, suicide.

Congratulations, nymore! Welcome to the science side of things!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
136. greentortuloni
2:06 PM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:
It looks like the eco-terrorists James Hanson and Bill Mckibben are a little off in their estimates of tar sands oil killing us all. New research from the University of Victoria in BC shows burning all 170 billion barrels would raise the temp by only 1/20 of 1 degree Celsius. Lets see the outrage at these two frauds from you warmists. I won't hold my breath.


Wait a minute, hold the horses and the phone... are you saying that burning oil causes global warming and that you have a method you trust....


he ha ho, hypocrit much?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
135. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:47 AM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:
It looks like the eco-terrorists James Hanson and Bill Mckibben are a little off in their estimates of tar sands oil killing us all. New research from the University of Victoria in BC shows burning all 170 billion barrels would raise the temp by only 1/20 of 1 degree Celsius. Lets see the outrage at these two frauds from you warmists. I won't hold my breath.


Why do I suspect that this BC university might have a vested interest in saying this? I suppose that they are also thinking that if the only CO2 emitted into the atmosphere came from the tar sand oils that only a 1/20 of a degree Celsius rise in temp would be all that we would see. What do they base this on? Does it include the extraction, transportation, refining and transportation of the refined products as well? Or, are they talking about just burning the tar sand oils in place? Do you have any links that would verify the universities studies and how they arrived at this conclusion?

How have you been doing?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
134. Patrap
3:38 AM GMT on February 20, 2012
GOM Sea Height Anomaly


2012



2011
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127803
133. Neapolitan
12:33 AM GMT on February 20, 2012
Quoting MassiveCranium:

The simple point of the graph was that it was much warmer in the past before man could have had any effect. Also, this bunk about CO2 causing warming is exactly that -- garbage. Absolutely no correlation can be shown between increased temperature and increased CO2. In fact, emissions have been steadily increasing. CO2 is at its highest levels ever, if you wish to believe that. Global temperature averages have been stagnant for the past fifteen years. If increased CO2 can be directly correlated with increased warming, then temperatures should be at all time highs. They aren't and the infamous warmists don't know why, which is very obvious if you read through their email.
Also:

--Black is white.

--Up is down.

--The sun shines at night.

--Water isn't wet.

--Fox is "fair and balanced".

--The Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny help Santa hand out gifts on Christmas.

Okay, your turn...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
132. nymore
9:34 PM GMT on February 19, 2012
It looks like the eco-terrorists James Hanson and Bill Mckibben are a little off in their estimates of tar sands oil killing us all. New research from the University of Victoria in BC shows burning all 170 billion barrels would raise the temp by only 1/20 of 1 degree Celsius. Lets see the outrage at these two frauds from you warmists. I won't hold my breath.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
131. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:55 AM GMT on February 19, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Mitigation you say....... I say, of what?

What impact does :

A Dam have on climate ?

Wind Farms have on climate ?

Solar Farms Have on climate ?

On climate?

Just for starters.

Does desire supersede fact?

Here ya go....

Tell me the impact of CO2 from pre-packaged stuff like soda drinks on climate as percent of warming.,,,,,,,, It is relevant...

To focus on one thing is simply irresistible, is it not? :)





Ossqss, you recently stated that you like to invoke thought, on this blog. There are times that you do invoke thought. However, this is not one of those times.

Are you able to cite anyone that has ever claimed that any form of energy will not also have an associated cost with it? A cost to our environment and a cost in the use of fossil fuels to manufacture and to put into place the renewable energy sources.

What we are looking at is a mitigation to the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The other energy sources you have pointed out do create some of their own anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. Both during their manufacture and being brought on line. What they also do is mitigate the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 that we emit into the atmosphere.

You also seem to be of the belief that we will always have plenty of cheap and easily obtained fossil fuels. The easily obtained fossil fuels were exhausted decades ago. We are now forced to take greater risks to recover the fossil fuels we do extract.

Mitigation can also be accomplished by consuming less, conserving what we consume and recycling what we discard.

What happens to the price of the barrel anytime there is talk of war? Are we not constantly hearing of the possibility of wars now? What happens to the price of the barrel every time there is civil unrest around an oil producing region? Do we not now see a lot of civil unrest in some of these regions now? Every time the price of the barrel rises, so do the costs to transport the barrel and everything else that is transported. This is a double hit in costs at the pump and costs at the store registers. You even pay more taxes in the form of sales taxes. What happens to economies every time there is jump in the price of the barrel and the price at the pump? You seem to be content with leaving us in these unpredictable and uncontrollable cycle of events. You also seem content with our having to depend on other nations for our future energy needs. Should we fail to quickly develop and put in place alternative energy sources now then we will most certainly always be dependent on other nations to supply our energy needs, if only in having to buy the technology and equipment from other nations.

Ossqss, you are undoubtedly a learned person. However, you seem to be lacking in your ability for forward thinking. You seem to think that our maintaining the status quo is the way to our better future. Just the opposite is true and a little forward thinking would help you realize this.

Great video! I always liked that one!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
130. Ossqss
4:11 AM GMT on February 19, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Try mitigation and intelligent thinking. I do realize that these are difficult tasks to accomplish, for many, but it is certainly worth the effort. ....You just can't fix "stupid".


Mitigation you say....... I say, of what?

What impact does :

A Dam have on climate ?

Wind Farms have on climate ?

Solar Farms Have on climate ?

On climate?

Just for starters.

Does desire supersede fact?

Here ya go....

Tell me the impact of CO2 from pre-packaged stuff like soda drinks on climate as percent of warming.,,,,,,,, It is relevant...

To focus on one thing is simply irresistible, is it not? :)



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
129. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:35 PM GMT on February 18, 2012
Quoting MassiveCranium:
The Global Warming Hoax is Now Killing People. People are freezing to death in their homes and in the streets. What will it take to drive a stake into the heart of the global warming monster?

Link


Try mitigation and intelligent thinking. I do realize that these are difficult tasks to accomplish, for many, but it is certainly worth the effort. ....You just can't fix "stupid".
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
127. greentortuloni
7:13 PM GMT on February 18, 2012
Quoting MassiveCranium:

The simple point of the graph was that it was much warmer in the past before man could have had any effect. Also, this bunk about CO2 causing warming is exactly that -- garbage. Absolutely no correlation can be shown between increased temperature and increased CO2. In fact, emissions have been steadily increasing. CO2 is at its highest levels ever, if you wish to believe that. Global temperature averages have been stagnant for the past fifteen years. If increased CO2 can be directly correlated with increased warming, then temperatures should be at all time highs. They aren't and the infamous warmists don't know why, which is very obvious if you read through their email.


Oh, thank God! We are all saved!

No idea what you are talking about mate but it ain't the truth.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
126. Patrap
5:19 PM GMT on February 18, 2012
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127803
123. greentortuloni
7:01 AM GMT on February 18, 2012
Here is another example of the new conservative wunderbras in action.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
122. greentortuloni
7:00 AM GMT on February 18, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Not really. Please show us specific examples of what you state.

Don't give me the temperature item with respect to the 1.4 degree variance over 160 years. That is simply foolish with land records. Don't tell me of the increases in Hurricane stats, that has not panned out. Tell me of something that actually can have a case made for it.

We see more for we have more eyes and technology that did not even exist 10 year ago. Just look at the temp claims based upon the near term that insinuate long term fact. Simply improper to do. You know that, but you play fan of the "cause".

Until reality of fact comes into play, nothing changes.

I certainly don't like the current state of disinformation, but it is what it is.

Hope for change, we need it.

Nothing else matters!





I semi agree with you. I used to be really into the models because the logic of the physical drivers was so sound but I could never believe a given result, there was too much possibility to adjust a coefficient, etc one way or the other. But I believe the physical evidence: glaciers, arctic ise decreasing 70+ %, changing geological features, changing weather patterns etc. You can downplay most of the individual results (except arctic seaice, in my mind) as one off events... but how many one off events can happen before you have to say it is no longer one-off events but the beginning of what the model predicts... 'beginning' mind you, we are in for a hell of a bad trip.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
121. Birthmark
3:32 AM GMT on February 18, 2012
"Don't give me the temperature item with respect to the 1.4 degree variance over 160 years. That is simply foolish with land records."

After all, who lives on land anyway? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
120. Ossqss
2:44 AM GMT on February 18, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


There is uncertainty on both sides of the debate, truly. Where the uncertainty ends is in the physical observations we experience today. The AGWT explains what we are observing today far better than any other theory that has been proposed. Really, it is that simple.


Not really. Please show us specific examples of what you state.

Don't give me the temperature item with respect to the 1.4 degree variance over 160 years. That is simply foolish with land records. Don't tell me of the increases in Hurricane stats, that has not panned out. Tell me of something that actually can have a case made for it.

We see more for we have more eyes and technology that did not even exist 10 year ago. Just look at the temp claims based upon the near term that insinuate long term fact. Simply improper to do. You know that, but you play fan of the "cause".

Until reality of fact comes into play, nothing changes.

I certainly don't like the current state of disinformation, but it is what it is.

Hope for change, we need it.

Nothing else matters!



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
119. LowerCal
10:02 PM GMT on February 17, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:
Link
I remember what happened to Dan Rather when he was too anxious to believe the Killian documents.

I don't foresee any such major fallout in this case though. All of the facts in the one suspect document are actually present in the rest of the documents which the Heartland Institute acknowledge as authentic. Your linked article clearly states that.
Member Since: July 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 9167
118. Patrap
6:11 PM GMT on February 17, 2012
Quoting LargoFl:
put a frog in a pan of water,put that pan on the stove and turn it to slow heat, the water will get warmer and warmer, but slowly, the frog wont jump out because he does not notice the increase of heat, he will die in that pan...its whats going to happen to mankind if he does not start to realize the climate changes..slowly..happening! mother nayure is making changes, we must adapt to these changes,pure and simple...earth 2100 was a Great program to watch, regardless wether you belive in the changes or not.


During the course of that show, first, I loved the Art associated with it.
It was Beautiful at times, and stark reality another.
Secondly, it came to me that here we have a show,describing the future as it may be..and the personal impact it has on the individual.

Also the attaching of persona from this forum to characters in the Story, were also intriguing to say the least.

: )

Earth 2100 Hosted by ABC journalist Bob Woodruff, the two-hour special explored what a worst-case future might look like if humans do not take action on current or impending problems that could threaten civilization. The problems addressed in the program include climate change, overpopulation, and misuse of energy resources.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127803
117. JupiterKen
6:02 PM GMT on February 17, 2012
Link


Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
116. Neapolitan
12:46 PM GMT on February 17, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
Forbes Magazine on Heartland Institute

Link

I don't brake for trolls !
Dr. Masters said yesterday that his blog entry today (Friday) would be on this very subject. It should be interesting...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13505
115. greentortuloni
9:29 AM GMT on February 17, 2012
Deserves posting in full (link is above, in source comment):

The Heartland Institute yesterday lashed out at the blogosphere for reporting on the contents of leaked documents that appeared on DeSmogBlog late in the night of February 14. It was material that, if legit, implies Heartland is guilty of spreading dangerous disinformation simply to make a buck (something it has long accused climate scientists of doing).

Heartland, a nominally Libertarian “think tank”, is one of the loudest voices in the climate-change denial choir, yet its prepared statement contained, among threats and hedged denial, this appeal to the better angels of our nature:

“…honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours,” the statement said. “As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.”

Yes, let’s think of what just happened – and why stop 24 hours ago (or, more accurately, 48 hours ago at this point)? Why not go back a decade or even two? Or a century? Or longer?

Let’s think of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which aggregates research from thousands of scientists and then summarizes it in conservative assessment reports that have been vetted hundreds of times over before being released to the public.

Let’s think of the people who attack the IPCC – people who have no qualms about pulling isolated sentences out of early drafts of thousand-page documents and then using them to try and discredit an entire body of research.

Let’s think of climate scientists – geeky types who, for the most part, grew up with a sense of wonder at the world around them, devoted their lives to learning, and now spend their time modeling clouds and currents or digging into ice sheets.

Let’s think of the community of climate science – which spent the last century modeling the skies and the seas as early generations grew old and died and subsequent generations carried on, tested the theories, discarded the ones that didn’t hold up, and kept the ones that did.

Let’s think of how the notion emerged that man’s activities were first going to alter the atmosphere, then might be altering the atmosphere, and – finally – were almost certainly altering the atmosphere.

Let’s think of how this evidence slowly began to mount across the scientific community, how it came into focus from data points across the globe, from ice sheets and tree rings to physical measurements.

Let’s think of how scientists – as is their wont – questioned this evidence, attacked it – “honestly disagreed” with it – until they had no choice but to acknowledge that their worst fears were, in fact, coming true.

Let’s think of how they came to realize that our current practices were bringing us to a cliff that will kill our crops, dry our prairies, and destroy our economy. Let’s think of the subsistence farmers in Kenya who are currently suffering a drought that Arizonans can’t even comprehend, or the indigenous tribes of the Amazon who will suffer under climate change – or the mass migrations that will threaten our national security.

Let’s think of the absurd belief that a global community of highly-educated scientists would collude to create a false body of knowledge just so they can make a buck.

Let’s think of the military, which is already taking steps to protect us from the consequences of our own apathy.

And let’s think of the unsavory tactics that were used to discredit credible scientists – tactics that have been documented over and over again in books like Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway and Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore (who also launched the DeSmogBlog in 2006).

Let’s think of the consequences of these tactics – of the inexpensive solutions that have been deferred – and made unnecessarily expensive – as a result, and of the nasty tone of our rhetoric – a tone that doesn’t come naturally to most of us, but which we will adapt if we have to.

Let’s think of a shepherd tending his flock, threatened by vandals. Let’s think of the moment he puts down his staff and takes up his spear. Let’s think of the costs of that action: the untended flock, the unwoven coat, the uneaten meat. Let’s weigh that against the cost of inaction.

Yes, let’s think of what just happened – and why it happened, and what’s at stake, and what we can do about it. Let’s look at the science and not the subterfuge. Let’s examine the costs of action and weigh them against the costs of inaction. Let’s examine the evidence for and against, and weigh the veracity of of both. Let’s get real.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
114. greentortuloni
9:27 AM GMT on February 17, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I wonder if Sheldon can back up any of the wild accusations he has made. If you want to see how honest he is just read all the posts in this blog. I have proven him to be less than reputable.

Have fun Sheldon and a piece of advice get a hobby or something to do instead of living in blogs arguing AGWT and Politics.

BBL



No, you haven't actually proved Nea less than reputable. You actually have done pretty much what Nea accused you of: ignoring your own data that you posted when it showed your point was erroneous or ill derived.

Why not try something new: actually understand the point someone is trying to make and then answer why you think that point is wrong with facts.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
113. RevElvis
6:07 AM GMT on February 17, 2012
Forbes Magazine on Heartland Institute

Link

I don't brake for trolls !
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
112. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:58 AM GMT on February 17, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


I have to agree with you with stipulation,,,, I find myself arguing here (same as some) to provide some sense of equipoise with respect to choice and more importantly, understanding. My intent is to provoke thought and consideration, not definiteness. We simply don't have definitive information available, even if it is spun as such. It really is simply still conjecture on either side of the fence.

It is fascinating to watch the melding evolution of a digital world, no?

How things can change now days :)



There is uncertainty on both sides of the debate, truly. Where the uncertainty ends is in the physical observations we experience today. The AGWT explains what we are observing today far better than any other theory that has been proposed. Really, it is that simple.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737

Viewing: 162 - 112

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog 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.