Introduction - Models are not All Wet: Models, Water and Temperature (2)
Introduction - Models are not All Wet: Models, Water and Temperature (2)
I am starting a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature.
A couple of entries ago, I wrote a somewhat muddled blog, Difference Between Night and Day. My major goal in that blog was to look at how water, especially water vapor, enters into the climate and climate change problem. I used some regional differences in climate, say Florida's and Arizona's, with the hope of suggesting that we have some intuition of how water vapor modifies regional climate. For example, due to the absence of water vapor, Arizona's extremes of daily temperature are larger than in a much wetter Florida.
This simple intuitive notion, however, quickly falls into complexity. It is the typical complexity of climate science, where the members of a set of simple physical processes combine in many different ways to produce a difficult-to-untangle knot of observations. I will come back to this later, but first, here are some of the other ideas I had in mind in that first blog.
At the end of that blog I referred to the paper by Kukla and Karl, 1993, Nighttime Warming and the Greenhouse Effect (from Rood’s Class Website). This paper investigates the observed decrease in the range between nighttime lows and daytime highs. At the writing of that paper in 1993, the models of 20 years ago did not simulate this observation especially well. How does one respond to fact that models don’t represent a particular observation? A common way to respond, sometimes put forward by commenters on this blog, is that the models fail to represent the observations; hence, the model is wrong, and to base any conclusions, actions or behavior on model results is grievous failure of reason.
I, of course, reject this conclusion. When I get the result that the model does not represent an observation especially well, then I take this as a piece of information that motivates further investigation. The scientific investigations of my career have been based on the process that we develop a model from a set of physical laws that are expressed as mathematical expressions. The physical laws and the construction of the original model are based in their most fundamental way on observations. If the model has been developed properly, then it offers an approximation of that observed behavior. If this is the case, then we have an experimental tool that can be used for further investigation. That investigation is motivated both by the shortcomings in the model’s ability to represent observations we already have and by new observations that come along. In this approach models evolve as a tool that help us explore and manage the complexity of the climate system. They also help guide our thinking about the future based on the projections that come from the models. Models are, therefore, devices to help us think; they do not provide the answer.
Another idea that I introduced in the Difference Between Night and Day was that large changes in the amount of water at the surface, for example, the Dust Bowl and irrigation in the Corn Belt, might have significant regional impacts on climate. The place I am going with this, ultimately, is the Midwest Warming Hole (2 MB if you click), and that requires thinking about water. The Midwest Warming Hole is an observed feature in the center of the United States that is not warming up as fast as the regions around it or as fast as the models predict. This is not a newly discovered feature, but it is a feature that I think takes on new interest as we think about this hot summer, the last hot summer, and how to use the observations today to think about the climate in the future and how to adapt to a warming climate. The Midwest Warming Hole, and the ability or inability to represent it in models, is also a great example to help people think about how to describe model uncertainty.
The last big theme that I want to follow from the original blog is the improvement of ways to discuss and understand the role of water – solid, liquid and vapor – in climate and climate change. I did a series Just Temperature ( one, two, three) which was motivated by the stunningly warm spring in 2012 in the continental United States and my thinking of extreme events as climate change case studies. The Just Temperature series used the fact that the warming of the Earth has become large enough that it is possible using temperature observations alone to make a compelling case the Earth is warming. But once we make it beyond that fact, we have to think about water to understand the complexity of both the spatial and temporal structure of the observed trends.
So here are three big themes that I want to organize around:
1) Doing science with models
2) Communicating the role of water in climate and climate change
3) Thinking about changes in land use and its impacts on water
These will be interspersed, of course, with some tangents to interesting subjects here and there. But those who know this blog know that eventually I get there.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index
A bit unfair on Bell Labs. For a while Bell Labs was the premier research institution in the world.
Our problem is CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Oil, coal and natural gas.
We could get coal off our grid in 'very short years' with wind, solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal and natural gas. More renewables will minimize the use of natural gas.
We could do all our personal driving with EVs or PHEVs. That would eliminate the majority of oil we burn.
We could greatly reduce the amount of natural gas and fuel oil we use for heating via better insulation and geothermal heat pumps.
--
Eventually we will figure out the least expensive storage technology and use that to eliminate natural gas. That's is we are motivated to reduce CO2 to a small fraction of what it is today.
The high price of EVs and PHEVs is almost economy of scale determined. We just aren't building enough yet to become efficient in manufacturing and supply sourcing.
This still leaves airplane fueling, ship fuel, and manufacturing feedstock problems to be solved.
We can fly using biofuels - we're doing it. But it's not clear that we can reasonably produce enough biofuel and enough food, especially with a growing world population and climate-disrupted farming.
Perhaps we will have to continue use petroleum for shipping, but we can minimize the amount with sails (being used), slowing travel speed (being done) and better ship design (being done).
Perhaps we will need to continue to use some petroleum for manufacturing feedstock, but we can reduce the amount by moving to plant based plastics, etc. Which we are already starting to do.
--
Remember, we don't need to get CO2 to Zero. Just down at least 14% of what it now is (399 -> 350ppm).
I'll bet you weren't around when Ma Bell was our sole provider.
Bell Labs wasn't the telephone company.
I do not know that crowd sourcing is the answer, or could be the answer. Or even part of the answer.
I'm simply suggesting that younger folks would serve themselves well were they to get busy and look for solutions. And that current communication technology is likely to make that job a lot easier than land lines, monthly magazines and snail mail.
Change generally comes from the energy and ability to take on more risk that youth possess. Look at the Arab Spring. The people in the streets are not the old folks with white hair. While there were some very valuable older people in the civil rights and anti-war movements, the energy and effort mostly came from younger people.
--
There is no "open market", no "free market". The government's thumb leans heavily on the scale.
What is needed, IMO, is to move the government's thumb from one spot on the scale to another, thus tipping the balance in favor of renewables rather than fossil fuels. Do that for a few years and market forces will further reduce the cost of renewables and electric transportation to the point where market forces will finish the job as the government gradually removes its thumb.
--
Here, I think, is the solution to stopping climate change from getting totally out of control.
Figure out how to pressure government officials so that we quit burning fossil fuels.
Now, what tools shall we use?
You're doing some good stuff. Don't forget to vote.
And if you can't do politics then think about how you can help educate. Politics everywhere are driven by what the governed want.
(Yes, some governments are able to do other than what the governed want. For a while.)
In 1991, I was doing climate risk assessments for large scale infrastructure engineering projects, and my baselines called for loss of Arctic sea ice by 2020, with accelerated sea level rise thereafter. Then, in 1993, the IPCC came out with their more “conservative” numbers and “I got assigned to other tasks”, as the project adopted the IPCC numbers because those numbers set a lower standard of performance and thus much lower costs.
Put aside the "who was right" part and think about the infrastructure.
Think of all the stuff built post 1993 that has been built based on a low-melt, low-sea rise assumption.
And then think about all the stuff built prior to 1993 when "we didn't have a clue"....
Thanks for posting that. Now I realize that tweeting won't save us.
I shall now commence the superior option of silent weeping.
LOL
But, seriously ...
do you have a 1+ years supply of staple foods?
From where does your water come?
Obviously, no one is going to do anything except blog/tweet/whine etc so, will you go with the first billion or later on? Since we are in the developed world, it would be pretty tough for us to go with the first billion ... the second?
No, I keep something more like a three month supply. And I've got a decent garden, orchard and vineyard.
My water comes from a well and I'm getting the fill from a fractured rock ridge up higher. Plus I live in an area that the models indicate will not become drier over the coming years.
I'm off the grid, have been for over 20 years. I heat with wood. I've got several acres of woodland.
If times start looking bad I could start growing grain and get some chickens. I've got plenty of land.
I also live in an area with a lot of deer. I'm a good shot.
OK? But I have exactly no idea what that has with our need to transition off fossil fuels. Only a few of us are going to be able to 'live off the land'.
What is needed is a solution, or solutions, to how we increase the movement off fossil fuels and onto renewables on a very large scale.
And on a pulley and hook easily watered.
It isn't a technical question. I think we're agreed on that.
Solar, Wind, Nuclear (Ugh) whatever ... even the twerps idea (LOL) might help (until the gulf stream stops). Just start building stuff!
Good book on some of the problems we have: The New Depression by Richard Duncan in which he shows that to solve our economic problems and AGW at the same time all that we would have to do is print about a trillion dollars a year and use it to build solar for 4-5 years.
Another book: Blah - to lazy to find it shows how we could have moved 2% (TWO f**&ing percent) of our GDP without more spending to do the same thing. "Could have" being the operative words
All it would take to save the planet is the political will!
Meanwhile Mittens has a 50-50 chance of being the president, and Obama isn't even lying about wanting to do anything. Obama is much more likely to take a bribe - i mean get a campaign contribution as he did in '09 - than he is to do something.
A well organized, angry minority can get something done.
OWS is too busy being PC.
Meteorologists are to busy keeping their careers going. (Except for the Methane Emergency people who have showed some guts.)
Where is our MLK, Malcom X?
You really should pay more attention to what PBO has done to work on climate change. He's not making a lot of noise because at this point in time it would not help his reelection. The current task is to stay in the White House and retake Congress. And, yes, until the rest of us change the system it takes money to win elections.
Would you like a list of what PBO has accomplished in his work on climate change?
I would. I really have quit paying attention to politics in the last few years, so I know of nothing substantive that Obama has done, aside from the EPA deciding to regulate CO2. I don't even know if they (EPA) have actually done anything yet wrt CO2.
My pepper crop is also very nice this year.
We have no space constraint and so have never even thought of those hanging baskets and i wonder if they would work in my very dry air. (Dry at best :-) ) Perhaps this winter, i'll make something up. Its just some sort of soil in a pot ... i'll look it up!
I hope fervently that you are correct, but must agree with birthmark.
Besides, its too late to serendipitously or secretly try to regulate CO2. What we need is:
a plan to pave over ~2 million acres with solar panels,
thousands of windmills,
and thousands of miles of high voltage DC transmission lines.
For starters.
Science Magazine Link
Well, you tagged one important thing. Under PBO the EPA has issued regulations which are in the process of closing down coal. It was not quickly nor easily done, as you can imagine, but the final legal challenges seem to have been dealt with and we can get on with the job.
The writing has been on the wall for a while and only one new coal plant permit has made its way through in the last three or so years. (That one was on the Navajo reservation so the regs might be different.)
Coal as a grid supply peaked at 57% a few years back. Last year it was down to 42.2%. First quarter 2012 coal was down to 36%. That's 21% lower than first quarter 2011. And what I've heard is that coal was about 32% second quarter this year.
We've got around 100 coal plants now on the list for early closure.
--
PBO established new fleet mileage requirements for cars sold in the US.
New standards will require 34.1 mpg by 2016. By 2025 the requirement will be 54.5 mpg and will, for the first time, cover light trucks and SUVs.
The mpg requirement had not been raised since 1990. (Actually 1985.)
--
PBO took part of the stimulus money and created Cash for Clunkers and took 690,000 gas guzzlers off the road.
--
Some of the stimulus money went to help build several EV battery plants.
--
PBO did not sign a climate bill. One passed the Democratic House in 2009 but was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.
--
There's a whole bunch of stuff on this page if you like to check. I won't bother copying it all here.
Link
Let me add that PBO put scientists back in charge of government science. Remember the twenty-something non-scientist Bush put in charge?
"Richard M. Russell is the associate director responsible for the OSTP’s technology portfolio, which includes telecommunications and information technology as well as space and aeronautics. He is also senior director for telecommunications and technology at the National Economic Council.
Mr. Russell holds the most senior White House advisory position devoted specifically to technology, yet he has only a bachelor’s degree in biology, no graduate or professional training of any kind, and no experience in a technology-related industry.29 Although he has served on the professional staff of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, it is not clear that this experience qualifies him to serve in a senior scientific capacity. This appointment is especially perplexing considering that there is no shortage of highly qualified scientists and technologists to fill this post."
Link
Oh, and PBO's Department of Energy just released this most useful tool that I'm enjoying the heck out of...
Open Energy Information
Talking Point Memo currently has PBO winning 281 electoral votes and Romney 206. It takes 270 to win the election. (It's not election day, yet.)
We don't need two million acres of solar panels. A few years ago, when panels were less efficient, we needed 92 square miles, 58,880 acres of panels to provide 100% of the country's electricity. We could pretty much use rooftops and parking lots for the solar we need.
But we do need to speed things up. A bunch.
If we really want to make a major improvement then we should be working to get the right sort of people in the White House and Congress this fall.
Bell Labs was the research division of Ma Bell. Ma Bell invested billions in products that did not make them a profit. Were those consumer products? Some yes in the sense of the technology that made the phone system work (PBX, packet switching technology, ...) Were they important in the history of technology? Some yes, some no.
It's like claiming Pele wasn't a good football player if you removed his feet.
Short version:
Technology exists to lower our carbon output given out power needs.
Technology still has to be developed to lower the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Cutting down on CO2 won't make much of a difference at this point.
I agree with a bit of the paranoia. I ahve no faith in what humanity will be like when it gets bad. Historical evidence says there will be some pockets of good and great humanity but that most of it will be madness and murder. Personally however, I would rather die in the first wave than hide out and isolate myself between now and the first wave.
I realize all that.
I also was a telephone user when Ma Bell ruled our world.
Actually we got our first phone when I was six. It hung on the wall and had a crank. You gave the crank 'one long' and Beula answered and plugged you in to whomever you wanted to reach.
Then Beula was replaced with black rotary phones and automatic switching gear, and then Ma took over.
Ok, I finally got it ...
Very funny. Ha ha
OR
Yes, i am who i said that i am.
"Isolate myself" ?!?!
Nah, we aren't on the same page. We live in the boonies, and I am by nature a very private person, but isolated? LOL
Besides, isolation is a pretty poor survival strategy - see: "The EcoTechnic Future" by John Michael Greer
Bob and i should be able to provide a refuge for our kids, and a few of their friends. (assuming that at least one of us got lucky with the site of our farms). Young people in general now days don't have anything and have trouble saving so i think its up to us oldsters to help out. Its the least we can do after all.
Sorry, i stand corrected.
I gotta repeat the citation of an excellent book:
The New Depression by Richard Duncan
I picked it up because it got a good review in "The Economist". It has a great analysis section, and provides a workable way out of the debt/energy/unemployment mess while building power plants. Good stuff.
I have video if you'd like a confirmation.
: )
Dude ... come on -- --
http://www.topsyturvy.com/ (jeeze what an irritating ad.)
Tomatoes grow on a vine, and so they can hang down below their pot and do fine.
My peppers grow on a bush lookin' thing. Currently the Anaheims are about 5' tall and need very little support. If your peppers grow on some sort of frankenpepper vine ... well ...
Have fun with that! :-)
..these are Louisiana Stuff um wit whatever got eye's Bell Peppers.
: )
Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is
RollingStone.com
Pretty grim picture.
I'm torn between on the one hand hoping this summer sets a serious low for the Arctic sea ice and has problems just severe enough to wake people up and on the other hand being scared about tipping points.
"Nonimus
The US is arguably still riding the coattails of discoveries at Bell Labs back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Think: Transistors, Cell Phones, Lasers, Unix and C programming, etc. As a "Regulated Monopoly" it was a unique collaboration of public and private enterprise."
Guardian.co.uk
Environment campaigners say that drilling could have terrible effects on the waters and wildlife of the Arctic. "It took a vast effort to clean up the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico," said John Sauven of Greenpeace. "There are no such resources to stop a spill in the Chukchi. The consequences could be devastating and very long lasting."
How old are you?
Descriptions of why images are important are always welcomed.
(I see that it's hotter south of Cuba and cooler offshore of south Florida this year on the 19th of July. I don't know what that means without context.)
--
Folks in general -
Same goes for posting links. If you think what you're linking is important then take a moment and describe what you're asking people to go look at. Tell them, in your opinion, why taking time to look at a different site is important.
--Global CO2 emissions continue to increase "An estimated cumulative global total of 420 billion tonnes of CO2 were emitted between 2000 and 2011 due to human activities, including deforestation. Scientific literature suggests that limiting the rise in average global temperature to 2C above pre-industrial levels – the target internationally adopted in UN climate negotiations – is possible only if cumulative CO2 emissions in the period 2000-2050 do not exceed 1,000 to 1,500 billion tonnes. If the current global trend of increasing CO2 emissions continues, cumulative emissions will surpass this limit within the next two decades."
--China hit by its heaviest rainfall in at least 60 years: "The heaviest rain to hit Beijing in six decades has killed at least 10 people and left cars and buses submerged, while 10 other storm deaths were reported elsewhere in the country. The deluge struck on Saturday afternoon and continued into the night, flooding major roads."
--Bacteria Outbreak in Northern Europe Due to Ocean Warming: "Manmade climate change is the main driver behind the unexpected emergence of a group of bacteria in northern Europe which can cause gastroenteritis, new research by a group of international experts shows. The paper, published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Sunday, provided some of the first firm evidence that the warming patterns of the Baltic Sea have coincided with the emergence of Vibrio infections in northern Europe."
--Greenland ice sheet record surface melting underway: "Greenland ice sheet mass loss has accelerated in the past decade responding to combined glacier discharge and surface melt water runoff increases. During summer, absorbed solar energy, modulated at the surface primarily by albedo, is the dominant factor governing surface melt variability in the ablation area. Using satellite–derived surface albedo with calibrated regional climate modeled surface air temperature and surface downward solar irradiance, we determine the spatial dependence and quantitative impact of the ice sheet albedo feedback over twelve summer periods beginning in 2000. We find that while albedo feedback defined by the change in net solar shortwave flux and temperature over time is positive over 97% of the ice sheet, when defined using paired annual anomalies, a second order negative feedback is evident over 63% of the accumulation area. This negative feedback damps the accumulation area response to warming due to a positive correlation between snowfall and surface air temperature anomalies. Positive anomaly–gauged feedback concentrated in the ablation area accounts for more than half of the overall increase in melting when satellite derived melt duration is used to define the timing when net shortwave flux is sunk into melting. Abnormally strong anticyclonic circulation, associated with a persistent summer North Atlantic Oscillation extreme since 2007 enabled three amplifying mechanisms to maximize the albedo feedback: (1) increased warm (south) air advection along the western ice sheet increased surface sensible heating that in turn enhanced snow grain metamorphic rates, further reducing albedo; (2) increased surface downward shortwave flux, leading to more surface heating and further albedo reduction; and (3) reduced snowfall rates sustained low albedo, maximizing surface solar heating, progressively lowering albedo over multiple years. The summer net infrared and solar radiation for the high elevation accumulation area approached positive values during this period. Thus, it is reasonable to expect 100% melt area over the ice sheet within another similar decade of warming."
--Climate science: the gathering storm - The signals are clear enough, and conditions that seem bad now may be regarded as relatively benign in decades to come: " If average temperatures increase, so will temperature extremes. As temperatures increase, so will evaporation. As evaporation increases, so will precipitation. As tropical seas get warmer, so will the increased hazard of cyclone, hurricane or typhoon. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in this century. Last year was the second rainiest year on record worldwide; the winner of this dubious derby was 2010, which, with 2005, was also the warmest on record. A springtime hosepipe ban in southern England was promptly followed by unprecedented rain and flooding in much of the country. Some of the most catastrophic floods and lethal heatwaves ever observed have claimed many thousands of lives in the last decade, and the increasing probability of such extremes has been predicted again and again: by the World Meteorological Organisation; by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; by the UN's inter-agency secretariat for disaster reduction; and by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany who have listed the 19 hottest, wettest or stormiest ever events, all in the last decade. There are other, less direct indicators. The northern hemisphere growing season has expanded by 12 days since 1988. Sea levels are rising. Higher sea levels make storm surges – and consequent catastrophic floods in estuaries, flood plains and coastal cities – more likely, more costly and more deadly. The signals are clear enough. Climate is changing, and local weather patterns are responding. Conditions that seem bad now may be regarded as relatively benign in decades to come. Any single episode of good or bad weather is a chance outcome, like the throw of the dice. But the dice now seem to be loaded."
--Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice: "Climate change of recent decades is also having effects on animals, birds and insects that are already noticeable. Although species migrate to stay within climate zones in which they can survive, continued climate shift at the rate of the past three decades is expected to take an enormous toll on planetary life. If global warming approaches 3C by the end of the century, it is estimated that 21-52% of the species on Earth will be committed to extinction."
Happy Monday... :-\
I have a doubt:
First - please don't take this as an attack! I've lurked here for several years largely because of the great information posted by Neapolitan. I really enjoy the info, nice graphs, and especially the links.
Now the doubt:
Do you post this info on other sites? You realize that this forum thread has about 5 posters and <<100 lurkers 99% of which have already made up their minds? Right?
(Watts up makes money because of the controversy. He says something stupid, his clicks per day goes up, and he gets more adds, and makes more money.)
If you do post for the "enemy", do you think your postings make more of a difference for the "cause" or do they make more money for (for example) Watts?
OR putting it another way
If your postings make a 1% difference in convincing people of the truth, do they enrich the enemy by less that 1%?
I asked BobW the same question, and he told me to vote. LOL!
This forum is a place where some of us share and discuss information relating to climate change. Is our number small? Could be, but it's still a good place for me to find new stuff.
Do I see it as a way to educate people about climate change? The number of readers is small, but each person counts. Just like each vote counts.
Have 99% of the posters here already made up their mind? I would hope it would be 100% if we're talking about their minds being made up to follow the science.
If Weather Underground wants to make more money I suppose they could start a porn forum.
Now, did you have something valuable to add to the discussion? If so, bring it on....
I'm one of the regular posters here on this blog. Like many of the others, I'm continually learning new facts about the severity of what is happening and how some of these severe events are related. This blog is a valuable forum for the exchanging of information as well as opinions. The value to me is that I have more data at my fingertips when confronted with the opportunity to discuss AGW and Climate Change with folks who do not follow the issue as closely as I do.
The comments, charts and links to other sources of information provided by the other regular posters have been invaluable to my learning process. I also appreciate the collegial atmosphere of the discussions as well as the gentle corrections when I have made statements that were either inaccurate or incomplete.
I'm aware of the active poster count here (of which there are more than five, of course--over the last 50 comments alone, we've heard from BobWallace, Patrap, greentortuloni, RevElvis, Birthmark, Some1Has2BtheRookie, you, and me--but I get your point). I'm also aware of the number of denialists who lurk and--occasionally--comment. But even were I the only person reading or posting on this forum, I'd still say what I have to say. I don't predicate where and what I post on how many fellow forum members agree with me, or how many people will read what I write; that's be an almost dishonest way of doing things, IMHO.
I'm not sure by what calculus Watts would make money based on anything I post here. I can tell you this, however; every person who visits this forum and reads Dr. Rood's blog slightly enriches this site's principles--and since they tend to agree with me where climate change is concerned, I'm okay with that.
As Bob hinted at in #141, I don't just come here to post, but to learn, and I've learned a lot. I hope that will always be the case.
co2now.org
395.77ppm
Atmospheric CO2 for June 2012
July 5, 2012
Arctic sea ice extent declined quickly in June, setting record daily lows for a brief period in the middle of the month. Strong ice loss in the Kara, Bering, and Beaufort seas, and Hudson and Baffin bays, led the overall retreat. Northern Hemisphere snow extent was unusually low in May and June, continuing a pattern of rapid spring snow melt seen in the past six years.
"Don't forget to vote.
And if you can't do politics then think about how you can help educate. Politics everywhere are driven by what the governed want."
And go back and ready your posts and the replies you received. Seems to me that this site and our measly small numbers have offered you some facts for your misconceptions. For example, we don't need to pave two million acres of desert with solar panels as you thought when you joined this conversation.
Take some facts. Take the list of PBO's accomplishments (flesh it out some more from the link provided). Find some receptive ears and get a few more people to vote for candidates that will work on our climate/environment problems.
If we each vote and if we convince a even a handful of others to join us we will make a difference.
Heck, even tweet it. Ya never know....
It also appears certain that Greenland will have another record melt-year of the Greenland Ice Sheet. If that happens, the models for predicting sea-level rise will have to be adjusted upward. In just the month of June, we have witnessed the following dramatic events on Greenland:
1. Record low levels of the Albedo at all elevations.
2. Temperatures above freezing for 5 consecutive days at the Summit (Elevation 3200 meters)
3. Peterman Glacier breaks off an ice island 2X the size of Manhattan. Second major calving event in two years.
4. Major flooding of the Watson River at Kangerlussuag caused extensive damage when melt waters were flowing at 3.5 million liters/sec.
Next year doesn,t promise to be any better in the artcic regions with global CO2 levels increasing, regional methane emssions increasing rapidly and much decreased Albedo.
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." (Boldface mine)
Didja get that? There is an entire political party--and a powerful one, at that--that doesn't just discourage critical thinking, but has actually legislated against it in their official party platform. Oh, noz! Can't have the kiddies thinking!
Incredible..
RawStory.com
Would that, perhaps, be the same political party that in North Carolina wants planning for sea-level change to be limited to 8 inches by 2100???
Although not predicted by anyone at this time, it is not inconceivable to have an 8 inch rise by 2030 - 2040. Future generations will be fortunate if sea-level rise along the Easter Seaboard of the US is limited to 18 inches by 2050 and 5-6 feet by 2100. It would be alarmist to conjecture about faster rising sea-levels at this time. However, when CO2 levels eventually exceed 450 ppm and the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets have already lost significant mass then all bets are off as to how fast sea-levels will begin to rise. Remember, 120,000 years there was a very rapid increase with sea-levels rising at a rate of 2 feet/decade for a period of about 50 years.
Here's how easy it is to bring some meat with the bun. First two paragraphs copied and pasted...
"Research published Sunday in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change claims that warning sea levels in the Baltic Sea are strongly linked to recent blooms of the Vibrios bacteria group, which have corresponded with an uptick in humans reporting foodborne illnesses in northern Europe.
And while the study notes that the Baltic Sea is “the fastest warming marine ecosystem examined so far anywhere on Earth,” scientists also found that other temperate and even cooler regions, like Peru, Chile, Israel, the U.S. Pacific northwest and northwest Spain, have all seen growth in Vibrios infections after warmer weather."
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index