Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 21. helmikuuta 2012 klo 07:10 (GMT) | +11 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition!
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
54 °F
Selkeää
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Hae ilmainen Weather Sticker® |
 |
Lataa valokuvia |
 |
Weather API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Tule sivuston jäseneksi |
 |
Löydä meidät Facebookista |
 |
Seuraa meitä Twitterissä |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | Tietoja meistä - Ota yhteyttä - Tuki - Employment - Lehdistötiedotteet - Käyttöehdot - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index
Link
Unfortunately, I haven't the time to answer all your piece line by line, as to do so would take up much of my time--especially since everything you claim has previously been debunked time and time and time again.
However, you did say something in your first paragraph to which I wholeheartedly agree: "There has been global warming, and global cooling, too, ever since there has been an atmosphere here on earth. Some of it...has been pretty startling-and downright destructive to flora and fauna." Yes, very destructive. Fossil data show that every time in Earth's history that the climate has changed as rapidly as it's changing now, huge disruptions--up to and including mass extinctions--have been the result. And given that you have, according to your mini-bio, children and grandchildren, you can't possibly wish to subject them to such a destructive yet preventable event, can you?
Also; wlelcome to the board.
Where do we put the thermometer? Well, for the moment, just set it aside. We will not be using it.
Most people are aware that as we go higher up a mountain (gain altitude) we will see a drop in temperature. As a rule, the higher we go, the colder it gets. Correct?
Most people are also aware that, as a rule, the closer we get to Earth's polar regions, the colder it gets as compared to the Equator. Correct?
1. We do not see any glaciers along the Equator that reside at sea level. It is just too darn hot for them to exist there. We do, however, see glaciers near the Equator at high altitudes. We are beginning to see glacial loss at higher altitudes. Is this an indication that:
2. Sea ice exists in the polar regions. We are beginning to see the loss of sea ice. Is this an indication of:
3. There are animal, insect and plant species that do not tolerate cold well and these colder regions restrict their expansion into these regions. The same is true of animal, insect and plant life that survive the cold well, but not the severe cold. We have been witnessing the expansion, in range, of animal, insect and plant life into areas that were too cold for them to exist before. This expansion has not been just closer to the poles, but also higher in altitude. Are these range expansions due to:
4. Bird and animal migrations are largely based on what temperatures they can tolerate and what regions are best for the survival of their new born. We have seen some shifts in these migration patterns as to when these migrations start, and to some degree their destinations, as compared to a few decades ago. Is this largely due to:
Thermometers are just a tool used for collecting data. You can have two thermometers or 1 billion thermometers. They can all be poorly placed or perfectly placed. They can be varied in accuracy or completely accurate. They are just tools to be used to try to determine any overall trends in temperature change. The better they are at doing this the better the data and a determination of how much, if any, of any temperature change and the trend of any change. What is far more important than the tools being used is the actual observations being seen in how nature is behaving. Physical observations of what is happening in nature is far more telling than all of the thermometers in the world. What is nature telling us?
You may place your thermometer any place you wish and add this data to the rest of the data. Any bias associated with your thermometer will be factored into the data. What really matters is what are the physical observations we see in nature.
Why are you even looking for an average global temperature? What you should be looking for is any deviations from our "normal" climate. I do realize that as the global climate changes, we will see new "normals". We are changing the baseline.
ATREX Overview
Launch Madness at Wallops in March - "Five in Five"
Launch madness will hit the east coast in March as NASA launches five rockets in approximately five minutes to study the high-altitude jet stream from its Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.
The Anomalous Transport Rocket Experiment (ATREX) is a Heliophysics sounding rocket mission that will gather information needed to better understand the process responsible for the high-altitude jet stream located 60 to 65 miles above the surface of the Earth.
The high-altitude jet stream is higher than the one commonly reported in weather forecasts. The winds found in this upper jet stream typically have speeds of 200 to well over 300 mph and create rapid transport from the Earth's mid latitudes to the polar regions. This jet stream is located in the same region where strong electrical currents occur in the ionosphere. It is therefore a region with a lot of electrical turbulence, of the type that can adversely affect satellite and radio communications.
The sounding rockets being used for the mission are two Terrier-Improved Malemutes , two Terrier-Improved Orions and one Terrier-Oriole.
The five rockets will release a chemical tracer that will form milky, white tracer clouds that allow scientists and the public to "see" the winds in space. In addition, two of the rockets will have instrumented payloads, to measure the pressure and temperature in the atmosphere at the height of the high-speed winds.
How much for a not so nice prototype? ;)
You appear to not understand the meaning of the word "valid." Or perhaps your personal definition of that word is so liberal as to make it meaningless.
Nowhere. The use of the term average should alone indicate that. Perhaps Dr. Whatshisname should think before he writes.
Indeed. I wonder how many of the previous changes were the result of human activity and took place while Earth supported high-technology-bearing civilizations?
(The answer to both questions is "zero".)
No such thing as a "not so nice prototype" given what they can and will do.
Science Daily Link
I don't brake for trolls !
The tectonic' effects of the collision of one spherule with another during the cosmic impact. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of California - Santa Barbara)
Space is Kinda like a Wal Mart parking lot, if you hang out there long nuff, a rogue 94 Saturn will find you and dent ya purty good.
• Earthquakes and Nuclear Power Plants
• Terrorism and Nuclear Power Plants
Global earthquake activity since 1973 and nuclear power plant locations
Earthquake readiness of U.S. nuclear power plants is unclear
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
This prevents that problem:
by Professor Scott Mandia
Dr. Judith Curry during a recent radio interview and subsequently in one of her blog posts claimed that Heartland is a small player. She also believes that Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have more influence over the climate discussion than Heartland and its personnel. Look at the next picture and decide who you think has more influence over the really important people - policy makers and business leaders. (Hint: Heartland’s President agrees with me. See Dr. Curry’s post to read his chest-puffing message to her.)
Click for larger image:
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/medusa -institute/
This reminds me of the Murdock's saying they are not the only ones that are hacking phone accounts. HI is suppose to be a PR company and this is the best they can come up with to protect their own image? How laughable is that?
Link
So there's that...
RSS satellite temperature anomaly for February = -0.121C, or -0.218F. I am not sure if this will be the warmest year on record for global temps as some have claimed.
The decade trend is 0.135K, My god with the temps rising this rapidly, we are all sure to die in ten years. Start making arrangements now for your demise.
Remember that just because you like something, that doesn't *really* make it "valid."
Valid has an actual meaning.
Here's what he said, according to your link:
"As spring moves up a week or two, tornado season will start in February instead of waiting for April," said climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Sounds like a pretty general statement. What gives?
Good evening, nymore.
Is that what it is? You seem to show little concern over a warming climate. Is it because you do not expect to be around when things really start to heat up?I can see the thought processes involved with this. We know, to the best of what we know, that the Sun will continue to warm. A billion years from now it may well be too hot on Earth for life to exist on Earth at all. This, however, is an act of nature that no one has any control over. This is also so far into the future that no one alive today will loose any sleep over it.
Climate change, as slow as it may be, will most likely have profound effects on people that are alive today or for those that will soon be born. What about them? Will they also have the chance to be so casual about climate change? Will we leave them the resources to cope with climate change?
Why do exhibit such a desire to cling so doggedly to the use of fossil fuels? We know that fossil fuels are a finite source. Is it again that you will not out live their availability? Are you so certain of this? We also see were minor fluctuations cause a spike in the price of the barrel of oil. Just the threat of a tropical storm entering the GOM will cause a sudden increase in the price of the barrel of oil and the price we pay at the pumps. Why has the price of the barrel of oil continued to increase in price for the past few months? What about the rise in the price we pay at the pumps? What is going to happen to these prices when the world economy really starts gaining again? (Do not worry about that part. As long as the price of the barrel of oil keeps rising and we keep paying more at the pumps, the economy is doomed and there is no danger that the economy will become robust again.) Fossil fuels are simply going to become too expensive too use and in the not so distant future. What are your plans for then?
I don't worry about climate change because I can do nothing to control it. If the technology becomes available and cost effective I have no problem using it, but as of now it is still just a dream and not reality. Look at the Chevy Volt they sold what like 1600 cars in two months, the Chevy Silverado pick-up sells over 1100 per day, the price of the immature technology is not cost effective vs proven technology.
I can not completely disagree with what you have said.
You are capable of making a difference, if not on a global scale. There are things that you can do that will make a difference and save you money. You may even have the possibility to profit from it. Consume less, preserve what you consume and recycle what you discard. These three things make a difference.
You did not address what your plans are when the fossil fuels become too expensive to use. We are already seeing strong indications that this time is nearing. Should we not already be well on our way towards alternative energy sources, we will pay dearly. As with the Chevy Volt, had an earlier and a stronger effort been made to refine the technology then we would probably already be well on our way towards mitigating the control fossil fuels have over us all now. This control, by the fossil fuel industries, will only become more pronounced in the future. The not so distant future. What then is your plan for "the good life"?
My employer pays for all my fuel (varies), truck payments (up to 1,000 per month), truck up keep (varies), housing and food (food and housing per diem is 2,200 per month when I am working which is all the damn time). They pay for these things because I work very hard and long hours and make them a ton of cash. It is the quid pro quo.
Then you are making a difference already. You can probably even find ways to expand on this.
The price of fuel is what it is. You are correct. Unlike other things that we may not buy, simply because it may be too expensive to do so or because we have no desires to do so, we will have to purchase fossil fuels. This will be true no matter how much they decide to charge us for it. Tell me, please. Will it delay your plans for retirement if you had to pay $100 every time you filled your gas tank? How about $150? $200? $250? Who knows how much we will have to pay for fossil fuels, in the not very distant future. Will this delay your plans for retirement, if fuel costs you this much every time you filled your tank?
What gives is those types of statements are just not right. It has happened before. The terms, unprecedented, never before in history, first time ever, lose credibility by virtue of the statement itself for they are false. Our ability to see things in today's technologically saturated world provides much more than we had in the past. That is just the fact. Take a look at how many record temps that the Neo* posts that are only a year or so old.
Just sayin!
It is unbelievable to those who can interpret, and in some instances, interpolate the statements, and rightly so. You can sound the alarm, but some of us know better than you do :)
Also my almost 8500 lb truck at 16 miles to the gallon loses on mileage but wins where it is most important an accident with someones 30 plus miles per gallon car or almost anything else.
Ossqss, I expect better from you. I read the entire article - "Scientist See Rise in Tornado-Creating Conditions" I never once saw what you seem to believe the article says. Words, such as, "unprecedented", or "never before in history", or "first time ever" never appeared in the article. Did I miss them?
Here are the words that I did read:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - When at least 80 tornadoes rampaged across the United States, from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, last Friday, it was more than is typically observed during the entire month of March, tracking firm AccuWeather.com reported on Monday.
According to some climate scientists, such earlier-than-normal outbreaks of tornadoes, which typically peak in the spring, will become the norm as the planet warms.
"As spring moves up a week or two, tornado season will start in February instead of waiting for April," said climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Whether climate change will also affect the frequency or severity of tornadoes, however, remains very much an open question, and one that has received surprisingly little study.
"There are only a handful of papers, even to this day," said atmospheric scientist Robert Trapp of Purdue University, who led a pioneering 2007 study of tornadoes and climate change.
"Some of us think we should be paying more attention to it," said atmospheric physicist Anthony Del Genio of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of NASA.
The scientific challenge is this: the two conditions necessary to spawn a twister are expected to be affected in opposite ways. A warmer climate will likely boost the intensity of thunderstorms but could dampen wind shear, the increase of wind speed at higher altitudes, researchers say.
Tomorrow's thunderstorms will pack a bigger wallop, but may strike less frequently than they have historically, explained Del Genio.
"As we go to a warmer atmosphere, storms - which transfer energy from one region to another - somehow figure out how to do that more efficiently," he said. As a result, thunderstorms transfer more energy per outbreak, and so have to make such transfers less often.
In a 2011 paper, Del Genio calculated that, "especially in the central and eastern United States, we can expect a few more days per month with conditions favorable to severe thunderstorm occurrence" by the latter part of this century if the global climate grows warmer.
Indeed, the world has been experiencing more violent storms since 1970, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent assessment.
EXTENDING TORNADOES' PATH
Purdue's Trapp and colleagues got a similar result in their 2007 study, which they confirmed in research published in 2009 and 2011. "The number of days when conditions exist to form tornadoes is expected to increase" as the world warms, he said.
In addition, they found, regions near the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts not normally associated with tornadoes will experience tornado-making weather more frequently. They projected a doubling in the number of days with such conditions in Atlanta and New York City, for instance.
More powerful thunderstorms would be expected to produce more tornadoes, but wind shear could prove a mitigating factor.
Because climate change is not uniform, Del Genio wrote in the 2011 paper, "in the lower troposphere, the temperature difference between low and high latitudes decreases as the planet warms, creating less wind shear."
Other scientists are not so sure, and they see a surge in tornadoes last year as ominous. April 2011 was the most active tornado month on record, with 753, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), compared to the previous record of 267 in April 1974.
"I have no doubt that there will be many times when wind shear is plenty strong to create a tornado," said Trenberth.
That is what Trapp's team concluded in their 2007 study. "Over most of the United States," they wrote, the increase in the power of thunderstorms will "more than compensate for the relative decreases in shear."
As a result, "the environment would still be considered favorable for severe convection" of the kind that creates tornadoes.
From March to May the projected increase in severe storms is "largest over a 'tornado-alley'-like region extending northward from Texas," Trapp found. From June through August, the eastern half of the country is projected to experience such an increase.
If there are more days in the future when wind shear is too weak to produce a tornado from a thunderstorm, said Trenberth, then "the frequency of tornadoes may decrease but the average intensity might increase. You could have a doozy of an outbreak, and then they could go away for a while."
On average, about 800 tornados are reported annually in the United States. About 70 percent are "weak," finds NOAA, with winds less than 110 mph. Just under 29 percent are "strong," with winds between 110 and 205 mph. Only 2 percent of all tornadoes are what NOAA characterizes as "violent," with winds in excess of 205 mph, but they account for 70 percent of all twister deaths.
Well, that is the entire article. Will you point out the terms that you suggest are there?
What the article actually states is the scientist are not yet sure what to expect, in terms of tornadoes. They even suggest that there may be less wind shear and thus a reduction in the number of tornadoes, in the future.
The records that Neo posts are usually records that have stood for many years, if not decades. You may be correct and the new records may start breaking records that only stood for a year or two. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
You say you know better than Birthmark does. Would you mind exposing the evidence of this?
Ouch! The pain! Ouch! The pain! Ouch!
Diesel is about $4/gal. now. Using that as a base, you have tanks that will hold about 160 gallons. Now, if diesel jumps to $5/gal., and this is not unrealistic, you will be paying $800 to fill the tanks. That is another $160 to fill the tanks. ... Imagine what the long haulers are paying. Let us say they average 6 miles/gal. 160 gallons will get them 960 miles. This means they are probably filling up every 1 1/2 days to 2 days. They will be paying an extra $105 to $80 a day for diesel. $105, if they are getting 1 1/2 days driving and $80, if they are getting 2 days driving. They can absorb some of this cost, for a short period of time, but, ultimately, we will be paying this extra cost at the registers. What happens if diesel goes to $6/gal.? This is not unrealistic either. See how it snowballs? What is even worse, the more the cost of fuel, the higher the cost to transport. A price we all will pay at the pumps. After awhile, this begins to feed on itself.
Should this happen, retirement may be further down the road than you hoped for. I honestly hope not.
I am not worried about retirement. Remember the end user always pays the mark up. That is why people who say tax this company or that company more are foolish all they are really doing is raising their own costs in the end.
For everyone's enjoyment here is Song 2 (live)
img src="">
The Chavy Volt, aka Vauxhaul thingamajig, just won car of the year in the UK. That is part of the argument for developing alt energy/efficient vehicles in the US: the technology is exportable to countries that do care about the environment.
As for taxes... it is a big complex network. But the US is no long the Jim Bridger wild west where everyone needs only a gun and a knife (cue Oss with approriate video: Horton, I think). The US is a networked economy. If no taxes were paid, there would be no public services and the economy as a whole would be less efficient. Is the tax rate unfair in some ways: sure, but it is impossible to judge who uses what exactly in what amounts. Taxes are a catchall to increase the networked efficiency of a country of which the businesses depend almost entirely. Look at the request for J and H1 visas: why? Because employers can't find enough educated Americans to do the job. etc. etc. - it is a huge argument and not related to global warming except for how the decision affects investment in alternative energy.
And this is one that, as a conservative, i don't understand. Investing in renewable energy is jsut that: free energy in the years to come. Maybe the technology isn't there yet, but it is coming at a rate directly proportional (if nto linear) to the amount of research that is spent on it. Imagine an America free from Iran, Iraq, Venzuela, etc. instead of having a president fly to Saudi Arabia to kiss buttocks right in the in the Suez canal.
As for driving a truck, I have sympathy. It is hard to find ways to save energy by yourself when your living is networked so tighly with existing infrastructure: how can an individual possibly change infrastructure by themselves? I don't think it is reasonable to ask everyone to be innovative and clever in the face of hwo difficult it is to do either.
Yes, the end user does pay the costs. I do not agree with not taxing companies simply because this cost is passed along to the end user. They should not get a free ride when they use the same infrastructures that the tax payers do. Your debate point could very well lead to saying that companies should not have to pay for raw materials,wages or benefits since these costs are just passed on to the end users. There are costs associated with doing business. Taxes are just one of these costs. Lowering these costs should not be used a strong indicator that the end user would end up paying less for the products. ... Just my thoughts.
I certainly hear you on that. Paperwork should be left to the ones that enjoy doing paperwork. I am not one of them. You earned the break, after doing the paperwork. Enjoy the break!
JB
Here is the latest I found: Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Added
"Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent in February 2012 averaged 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the fifth-lowest February ice extent in the 1979 to 2012 satellite data record, 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.
Continuing the pattern established in January, conditions differed greatly between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Arctic. On the Atlantic side, especially in the Barents Sea, air temperatures were higher than average and ice extent was unusually low. February ice extent for the Barents Sea was the lowest in the satellite record. Air temperatures over the Laptev, Kara and Barents seas ranged from 4 to 8 degrees Celsius (7 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) above average at the 925 hectopascal (hPa ) level (about 3000 feet above sea level). In contrast, on the Pacific side, February ice extent in the Bering Sea was the second highest in the satellite record, paired with air temperatures that were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) below average at the 925 hPa level."
Wind Turbines
Yes, but the reality is that the anomaly is the lowest in a couple of years and the Earth's lower atmospheric temperatures are also the lowest in a couple of years. Putting two plus two together would suggest that things might be changing regarding the warming we had a while back. Can you put two and two together?
What does the article have to do with Obama? Has Britain now surrendered to the control of the U.S.? ... Has anyone told the Queen???
Do you ever read or research your links? Ever?
Matt Ridley also offers his own "prize"
Announcing the Matt Ridley Prize for Environmental Heresy
"Matt Ridley has long deplored the wind farm delusion, and was appalled when a family trust was paid by a wind farm company in compensation for mineral rights on land on which it wanted to build a turbine. The trust would be paid £8,500 a year for it, and Matt couldn’t abide the idea of profiting — even in part — from this. So he is donating £8,500 in an annual prize to be given to the best essay exposing environmental fallacies. Entries open today.
The rules are simple. We invite pieces from 1,000 to 2,000 words in length, to gore one of the sacred cows of the environmentalist movement. Matt says more in his cover essay for the new Spectator (which you can also read on Facebook) : ‘There are many to choose from: the idea that wind power is good for the climate, or that biofuels are good for the rain forest or that organic farming is good for the planet or that climate change is a bigger extinction threat than invasive species.’ A shortlist of six will be put to a panel of judges and the winning entry will be published in the magazine in July.
Entries, please, to ridleyprize@spectator.co.uk and they close on 30 June 2012. And will do every year from now on. I’ll leave the final word to Matt: ‘The real enemy is not wind farms per se, but the groupthink and hysteria which allowed such a flawed idea to progress with a minimum of intellectual opposition. I shall donate the money as long as the wind-gelt flows — so the quicker Dave cancels the subsidy altogether, the sooner he will have me and the prizewinners off his back.’"
The rules really are simple. You do not have to have any facts, any knowledge of the subject or have any related knowledge. Heck, you do not have to have any knowledge of anything, except how to write a 1,000 - 2,000 word "piece". ... Oh, yes. There is a qualifier. Your "piece" must show a distaste for any environmentalist movement. ... Have you applied? Here is your opportunity to get £8,500 for nothing more than a 1,000 words of blather. Are you able to do so? I would venture a guess that you could. But, I could be wrong.
That's called a "trend".
Second, the globe has been in a particularly strong La Nina, a phenomenon which always holds down temps. The globe isn't cooling; it's just that increasing temperatures induced by CO2 are being masked by the La Nina. Once that La Nina is gone and we're back to neutral or El Nino conditons, that mask will be gone, and the true increase will be obvious even to the strongest denialist.
That's called "climate science".
So, to answer your question, yes, I can certainly put two and two together, and here's the answer: the planet continues its warming unabated, and there appears to be nothing that will stop it.
(Of course, when the El Nino gets underway and temperatures skyrocket once again, denialists will be the first to suddenly note that "It's all ENSO"--a phenomenon which the conveniently forget all about when the warming is suppressed by it.)
Yup! Things, they are a changin'.
Now, the next question is, can you put two plus two together? No, no, no. Not twoplustwo. Add 2 and 2 together. Hint: the answer is not 22.
We have just come off of two years of a strong La Nina and are only recently approaching a neutral. Solar activity is starting to come out of its long lull. I wish that I could be as exciting as you about any apparent cooling, but I think this "cooling" is about to change real soon.
393.65ppm
Atmospheric CO2 for February 2012
Viewing: 351 - 401
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index