Climate Science and the 2012 Election – Redux (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:04 AM GMT on October 28, 2012

Share this Blog
10
+

Climate Science and the 2012 Election – Redux (1)


Rood Special in Globe and Mail on Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change

Incredible Wind Animation This is live feed. So it changes.

NASA Animations

Washington Post Time Line and Important Questions

Scenarios and preparedness for Washington D.C. - Capital Weather Gang

Jeff Masters on Hurricane Sandy

Jeff Masters on Hurricane Sandy

-----

We sit here in late October 2012 with the convergence of a hurricane with a strong cold front and a contentious and ugly election.

In this entry I will focus of that hurricane and cold front. The first place that I read about tropical storm Sandy was in the Washington Post on the 23rd of October. Jason Samenow wrote a blog about the prediction of an “extraordinary storm” and how the ensemble of prediction models used by the World’s weather services had divergent predictions. Since that time we have seen the models converge on their predictions of storm paths that target the middle Atlantic, and the storm has been given a Halloweenish name – Frankenstorm. I will return to the name later. This forecast has motivated all sorts of preparations and anxiety. I am in Denver, and the airport managers are alerting the local hotels of the likelihood of disrupted air travel. I am supposed to give a talk in DC next Friday, and I have already received notification of possible cancelation. (And, yes, I am thinking of Plan B travel.) We have yet to see how the forecast and the storm will play out, but I expect millions without power for days. Not sure whether it all starts as far south as Richmond, or Baltimore, or Rutherford, but I expect a large swath of power outages and flooding. To me, this basic prediction became the proverbial no-brainer about the 25th of October. If I still lived in the East, then if I were on the coast on the north-side of the hurricane, I would be buying the candles (actually, these days, the LEDs) and filling up the tub with water. I would be finding safe harbor. This storm is damaging from south to north, east to west.

Models: In these blogs I have been wandering through a series to demystify models and their use in scientific investigation. In the context of weather prediction and emergency planning this prediction is remarkable. The storm is predicted to cross the Mid-Atlantic coast on Monday night or Tuesday morning, October 29th or 30th. Going back to the first article on October 23rd, this is full 7-day awareness. 7 days prior to the event, awareness is raised, and we watch the story from the prediction converge day after day. We see nationwide response starting to take shape, with anticipation of power failures, floods, and travel disruption. Is there still a chance that the model predictions will all prove wrong? Yes. With each passing forecast period, however, this risk of forecast failure becomes smaller. We have over the past decade seen storm after storm disrupt the country, cause billions and billions in damage. We have seen reliable forecasts of these storms, and we have grown to expect reliability in model alerts and warnings. Yes, there is a chance that the models will be wrong, but our experiences show that forecast failure is not the place to bet your money.

Frankenstorm: OK the Weather Channel has decided to name winter storms. There are actually some good reasons to do this; namely, it might help in communication of alerts and preparedness. But Frankenstorm? So this is NOT the Weather Channel’s name. (Chicago Tribune on storm-naming challenges) Frankenstorm is obviously a clever name that is supposed to recognize the potential enormity of the storm – the tradition of Snowmageddon. I am about to make an argument that this type of naming-for-effect is symptomatic of a degradation of forecast information. I quote Nate Silver from an interview on Fresh Air. Silver makes the statement that weather forecasters are especially good at using statistical methods to improve their forecasts, specifically Bayesian statistics. There is a fairly long segment in the transcript if you want to read more. Quoting Nate Silver:

“They (forecasts) aren't perfect by any means, but now when you have a hurricane, for example, sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, they can predict the landfall position of that hurricane within about 100 miles, on average, three days in advance. Which means if you need to evacuate some key counties in Louisiana or Mississippi, you could do so. Twenty-five years ago they could only get within about 250 miles on average, which if you draw a radius, would take you everywhere from about Tallahassee, Florida to Houston, Texas. Not a very useful prediction at all.”

And then on the important distinction between the National Weather Service and broadcasters on TV.

“So here is a slightly important distinction to make, where the data we've seen the most impressive gains is from the National Weather Service itself. And they're scientists, they're very rigorous about what they do. They should maybe be distinguished from the local TV meteorologist who succumbs to various types of news media biases. Where it's been shown, for example, that local meteorologists have what's called a wet bias, which means they put more rain in the forecast than there really is.”

The interview then goes on talk about how “storm of the century,” Snowpocalypse, and now, perhaps, Frankenstorm are part of the exaggerated forecast-for-effect syndrome. It is interesting how communication can impact science.

Getting to the Election: So we live times that are ripe with, perhaps, political scrupulosity. So we now move to a set of stories on how the storm will affect the election (and here). The abstract in an article in the Post ends with “Indeed, the weather may have contributed to two Electoral College outcomes, the 1960 and 2000 presidential elections.”

And getting to Climate Change: So we have slow moving, powerful storms. We have the term Frankenstorm suggesting an unholy mix of weather events. In the past few months I wrote about the papers “The Recent Shift in Early Summer Arctic Circulation” and "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes". These papers talk about a link between changes in the Arctic changing the steering of storm and slowing them down, making for more extreme event. We’ll see how it all plays out.

In January of 2012 I wrote an entry on climate change in the 2012 election. I ended it with this:

Looking forward to the 2012 election, I don’t expect that climate change will be an oft-articulated issue. The issue out front will be jobs, and the prominent link will be made between the exploitation of fossil fuels, new jobs, and energy security. Our approach to climate change will remain quietly in the hands of those savvy enough to use the unique knowledge provided by climate projections and those post-government truth tellers who no longer have to look away.

Next entry I will look at the last four years and what has and has not happened with how we are treating climate change.

r

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: 54 - 4

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

54. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:55 PM GMT on November 04, 2012
RickyRood has created a new entry.
53. iceagecoming
4:40 PM GMT on November 04, 2012
Of the four Presidential candidates on enough ballots to win, it certainly isn't surprising that the Green Party's Jill Stein, a Harvard Medical school graduate, has the strongest platform of climate change.

Climate change is not the only issue where President Barrack Obama has underperformed compared to the promises of candidate Obama. But his climate change performance has been so weak that even former Vice-President Al Gore has criticized him for his lack of leadership, saying "“He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attack."

Stein has made the Green New Deal the centerpiece of her campaign, combing a FDR-style public jobs program and economic bill of rights with a massive investment in energy conservation and clean, renewable energy. She would finance the transition to a carbon free economy with progressives taxes, carbon fees on polluters, an end to tax subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear, and transfers from the military budget. An annual fund of several hundred million dollars would be created to finance research and investments in renewable, clean energy and mass transit.

Stein, who will host a internet Town Hall meeting on Climate Change on Sept. 30, points out that climate change is already occurring, as evidenced by the increasingly severe weather patterns and the melting of the artic ice. She says that it is time for action, not debate.



So President Obama as you survey the results of Hurricane Sandy, here is my question for you. When you were at Hofstra University not talking about climate change with Governor Romney did you know that the Presidential candidate that did want to talk about climate change was shackled to chair a few miles from the debate ? Did your minions tell you about the 62 year old lady doctor – Green Party candidate Jill Stein who wants to talk about climate change being arrested for blocking traffic ?





Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
52. theshepherd
4:26 PM GMT on November 04, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming:
or here.

Maybe he can deliver to NY.



You couldn't afford him.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
51. iceagecoming
4:16 PM GMT on November 04, 2012
or here.

Maybe he can deliver to NY.

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
50. iceagecoming
4:05 PM GMT on November 04, 2012
The residents of Staten Island are pleading for help from elected officials, begging for gasoline, food and clothing three days after Sandy slammed the New York City borough.
“We’re going to die! We’re going to freeze! We got 90-year-old people!” Donna Solli told visiting officials. “You don’t understand. You gotta get your trucks down here on the corner now. It’s been three days!”
Staten Island was one of the hardest-hit communities in New York City. More than 80,000 residents are still without power. Many are homeless, and at least 19 people died on Staten Island because of the storm.
One of the devastated neighborhoods was overwhelmed by a violent surge of water. Residents described a super-sized wave as high as 20 feet, with water rushing into the streets like rapids.
Staten Island resident Mike Abuzzio’s home is completely gone, with only his floor boards remaining. He, his wife and their two young daughters have been staying with relatives.
“My youngest daughter yesterday said, ‘Daddy, I want to go,’” Abuzzio told ABC News. “I told her, ‘It’s going to be awhile, hon.’ She doesn’t understand. She’s 6.”
In the rubble that was once his home, Abuzzio found one clean, intact plate of Christmas china. He said that plate will be special at Christmastime and will be used specifically for his mother’s cookies.
For 48 hours after the storm, search teams were hunting for two Staten Island brothers, just 2- and 4-years-old. They were swept out of their mother’s arms when waves caused by storm surges crashed into the family’s SUV. Their small bodies were found today at the end of a dead-end street. Their parents were at the scene where the bodies were discovered.
Staten Island officials sounded increasingly desperate today, asking when supplies will arrive. They blasted the Red Cross for not being there when it counted.
“This is America, not a third world nation. We need food, we need clothing,” Staten Island Borough President Jim Molinaro said today. “My advice to the people of Staten Island is: Don’t donate the American Red Cross. Put their money elsewhere.”
The Red Cross and the National Guard arrived in the area late Tuesday and are distributing food, water and gas – and city officials say things are much better.
Molinaro urged New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Wednesday to cancel Sunday’s New York City Marathon. The race’s staging area is on Staten Island and Molinaro said it would be “crazy, asinine,” to have the race after what has happened.

Link

Meanwhile: the C&C is at Jiffy Lube in DC?


Nov 4, 2012 12:40am
President Obama, Bill Clinton Unite On 2012 Trail For First Time


The Barack Obama-Bill Clinton “bromance” was on full display tonight in battleground Virginia as both men united in public for the first time on the 2012 campaign trail.
Clinton, who has been barnstorming the country for Obama and audibly hoarse, appeared to captivate the Democratic crowd with his vigorous endorsement of President 44 while making a hard final pitch to undecided or wavering voters.
” As you can see, I’ve given my voice in the service of my president,” Clinton told the crowd of 24,000 at Jiffy Lube Live, a large outdoor concert venue just outside suburban Washington, D.C. “I want to tell you, four years ago when he ran, both Hillary and I worked very hard, we did together over a hundred appearances. But I am much more enthusiastic about Barack Obama’s election tonight that I was even four years ago.”
“He knows that a budget based on arithmetic is a lot better than one based on illusion,” he said taking a swipe at Republican nominee Mitt Romney.


The vocal hypocrites of Katrina are awfully silent.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
49. Neapolitan
4:52 AM GMT on November 04, 2012
Quoting JerseyJoe130:
In any case, in the final analysis, it really does not matter if there is climate change, or what is causing it. Our job is to adapt to what change may come.
So, shut up, roll over, and take it like a man, huh? Gee, that's hardly the picture of thrust-jawed defiance you tried to paint. You've expended quite a few words boasting of your love for freedom from tyranny, but then you turned around and contradicted yourself with your statement that it's not really freedom you want; it's permanent access to the fossil fuels to which you are addicted.

You may wish to reword your profit-uber-alles manifesto.
Quoting JerseyJoe130:
I prefer a free society in an adverse environment, to tyranny in a comfortable environment.
Pollution is tyranny; I, personally, prefer to breathe.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
48. Xandra
1:48 AM GMT on November 04, 2012
TELL MITT ROMNEY: CLIMATE CHANGE ISN'T A JOKE


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
47. JerseyJoe130
5:41 AM GMT on November 03, 2012
I just dont understand way no one is saying part of the Temperature change is do to the increase of earth axis tilt . That more affect on the climate then Co2 levels .
Member Since: November 3, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
46. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:23 AM GMT on November 03, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
Why Seas Are Rising Ahead of Predictions: Estimates of Rate of Future Sea-Level Rise May Be Too Low

ScienceDaily.com

Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century.

"There is an Arctic sea ice connection," says Hay, despite the fact that melting sea ice -- which is already in the ocean -- does not itself raise sea level. Instead, it plays a role in the overall warming of the Arctic, which leads to ice losses in nearby Greenland and northern Canada. When sea ice melts, Hay explains, there is an oceanographic effect of releasing more fresh water from the Arctic, which is then replaced by inflows of brinier, warmer water from the south.

"So it's a big heat pump that brings heat to the Arctic," says Hay. "That's not in any of the models." That warmer water pushes the Arctic toward more ice-free waters, which absorb sunlight rather than reflect it back into space like sea ice does. The more open water there is, the more heat is trapped in the Arctic waters, and the warmer things can get.


That is an interesting thought. Arctic sea ice melt increasing the fresh water content of the Arctic Ocean is something I had considered. I had not thought out how that would affect the surrounding land based ice, other than a warmer ocean would add some to the melting of land based ice. I would have imagined that the Arctic freeze season would begin before the exposed water would have much of an impact on the land based ice. I had not considered the other influences that would be involved. I would like to read further studies on this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
45. RevElvis
4:08 AM GMT on November 03, 2012
Why Seas Are Rising Ahead of Predictions: Estimates of Rate of Future Sea-Level Rise May Be Too Low

ScienceDaily.com

Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century.

"There is an Arctic sea ice connection," says Hay, despite the fact that melting sea ice -- which is already in the ocean -- does not itself raise sea level. Instead, it plays a role in the overall warming of the Arctic, which leads to ice losses in nearby Greenland and northern Canada. When sea ice melts, Hay explains, there is an oceanographic effect of releasing more fresh water from the Arctic, which is then replaced by inflows of brinier, warmer water from the south.

"So it's a big heat pump that brings heat to the Arctic," says Hay. "That's not in any of the models." That warmer water pushes the Arctic toward more ice-free waters, which absorb sunlight rather than reflect it back into space like sea ice does. The more open water there is, the more heat is trapped in the Arctic waters, and the warmer things can get.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
44. Xulonn
10:45 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting Neapolitanfan: You spend your entire days here telling each other that the sky is falling while the rest of the world either ignores you or laughs at the lack of proof
Yet more hogwash - b.s. pulled out of wherever, with no basis in fact. I find it interesting that you align yourself with Africa, the Middle East, Russia and Indonesia, and rather than countries with a higher literacy rate like Canada, Australia, most of Europe, Korea and Japan.
From KIVU Nature: As you can see most of the countries where less than half of the people think global warming is caused by people are in Africa, the Middle East, Russia, Indonesia, and somewhat surprisingly, the United States is aligned with these countries in thinking anthropogenic global warming is not real. Canada, most of Europe, and Australia are more than 50% convinced that AGW is real. Only Japan and Korea are more than 75% convinced with Japan 90% convinced people cause global warming.
According to Gallop, a conservative-leaning polling organization: The most recent global poll from 2011 found that only 48 percent of Americans believe climate change is occurring from either human activity or a mix of human and natural causes, the lowest among developed countries. Eighty-three percent of people in Asia expressed this opinion, which was shared by 72 percent in Canada, 69 percent in Europe and 65 percent in Latin in America.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1503
43. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:09 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I thought carbon was evil:

Link


Nothing is inherently evil. Carbon has MANY useful and beneficial purposes. Yet, as with anything else, too much of a good thing is actually a bad thing.

Do you have any more useful links? The link you just gave is actually to positive and useful information. Unlike .........., well, I will it at that. I do appreciate that last link. Please, we could all use more of such links.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
42. NeapolitanFan
8:37 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
I thought carbon was evil:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
41. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:48 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I suppose pointing out fact is "attacking the messenger." This blog has truly become a twenty-member kum ba yah fantasy. You spend your entire days here telling each other that the sky is falling while the rest of the world either ignores you or laughs at the lack of proof. It reminds me of past history where the Church pushed geocentric dogma -- everyone knew it to be wrong, but it was heretical to say it. If you want government funding, don't deny "climate change" publicly. It's all about the money.


Facts? What facts? You posted an image. I highly doubt that your congratulating Michael Mann for any honors or awards he may have received would be done so with a note of sarcasm attached. ... And yes, I did read the notation at the bottom of the image. There are your facts.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
40. Xulonn
6:10 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
Interesting blog diary (Link) on Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy, North Atlantic heat, and AGW/CC by member FishOutOfWater at DailyKOS.

Fish's focus is on factors of AGW/CC related to oceanic heat content, thermohaline circulation, and heat transfer between the oceans, sea temperatures and sea temperature differentials across the globe. I would be interested to hear comments/critique from Dr. Rood or other science professionals on this aspect of AGW/CC.

The opening paragraph:
The north Atlantic ocean is heating faster than all the world's oceans because of the increased flow from the Indian ocean to the Atlantic ocean.The rapidly strengthening greenhouse effect produced by exponentially increasing human emissions of greenhouse gases is affecting earth's climate unevenly. The North Atlantic ocean is heating the fastest of the world's oceans. The rapidly increasing heat content of the north Atlantic ocean is fueling the rapid increase in weather related disasters in the United States. This increase in disasters is not a cyclic phenomenon. Because the north Atlantic is at the end of the great "conveyor belt" of the global circulation of salt and heat - the thermohaline circulation - it accumulates heat the fastest of the oceans when the earth is heating up. Since 1995, the north Atlantic has been heating at a record rate.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1503
39. Daisyworld
6:04 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting PlanetHype:
One of the reasons that people are skeptical about climate change is that most scientific research is funded by the government. As such, climate studiers depend on the government for the grants to keep them alive. To keep the grant money coming, the conclusions need to be dramatic and frightening. So there is a predisposition to interpret the data in a way to keep public funding intact. [...]
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I suppose pointing out fact is "attacking the messenger." This blog has truly become a twenty-member kum ba yah fantasy. You spend your entire days here telling each other that the sky is falling while the rest of the world either ignores you or laughs at the lack of proof. It reminds me of past history where the Church pushed geocentric dogma -- everyone knew it to be wrong, but it was heretical to say it. If you want government funding, don't deny "climate change" publicly. It's all about the money.


"No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists and hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax. Nor has anyone been able to explain why Mother Nature would keep playing along."

- Elizabeth Kolbert
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 860
38. NeapolitanFan
5:12 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


When you cannot attack the message, you will resort to attacking the messenger. You are a fine example of what a "class act" truly should be.


I suppose pointing out fact is "attacking the messenger." This blog has truly become a twenty-member kum ba yah fantasy. You spend your entire days here telling each other that the sky is falling while the rest of the world either ignores you or laughs at the lack of proof. It reminds me of past history where the Church pushed geocentric dogma -- everyone knew it to be wrong, but it was heretical to say it. If you want government funding, don't deny "climate change" publicly. It's all about the money.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
37. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:25 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
PlanetHype #36

"One of the reasons that people are skeptical about climate change is that most scientific research is funded by the government. As such, climate studiers depend on the government for the grants to keep them alive. To keep the grant money coming, the conclusions need to be dramatic and frightening. So there is a predisposition to interpret the data in a way to keep public funding intact."

Pardon my being so blunt, but this a ludicrous reason to not accept what the science shows us. Your claim that climatologist would invent a problem in order to gain/retain employment is as big a straw man argument as any I have heard. Climatologist are hired around the world by corporations and different industries to better prepare these corporations and industries for their future needs. To imply that climatologist are only government employees is in err. Also, scientist hired by any government can just as easily pick another threat for the purpose of gaining/retaining government funds. An example of this would be the identification and mapping of extra-planetary objects that could pose a threat to us all at some point in the future. Governments have already funded such studies, and they continue today, simply based on the thought that, "We need to know.". Yet, the AGWT denial industry does not see this as an attempt to rid us of freedoms or a reason to raise taxes. What would the denial industry do if there was a near Earth object that is projected to hit us in 20 - 30 years? Would they be in such a state of denial as to say this is just an attempt to raise taxes and restrict our freedoms? No? Why not? Any such discovery could easily lead governments to heavily tax and possibly declare Marshal Law in order to defeat any such threat. ... So, what you are really saying is that your perspective is the reason why the AGWT cannot be real and has nothing to do with what the actual science shows us. Do you drink arsenic based on the principle alone that you should be free to do so and without a government's warning that it will prove harmful/fatal for you to do so? I would offer to you that it would be very difficult for you to stand on principle when your body lies horizontally in a casket! One other thought, your decision to deny the AGWT and to ward off any attempts to mitigate it equates to not only your drinking the arsenic, based on principle but, also, you want everyone else in this world to drink arsenic as well based solely on your principles. Do you suffer from Jim Jones' principle that we must all follow you through the Gates of Hell? Not even those that denied that the Titanic would sink, after it struck the iceberg, tried to keep the other passengers from getting in the life boats! Those that denied the Titanic would sink ended up drowning like rats just to prove their point. Those that denied that the Titanic would sink did not attempt to force others to drown like rats along with them! The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. ... And principled, mental midgets! I certainly hope that you are not one of these mental midgets and are better able to arrive at a sound and reasoned approach to the threats of AGW!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
36. PlanetHype
2:21 PM GMT on November 02, 2012
One of the reasons that people are skeptical about climate change is that most scientific research is funded by the government. As such, climate studiers depend on the government for the grants to keep them alive. To keep the grant money coming, the conclusions need to be dramatic and frightening. So there is a predisposition to interpret the data in a way to keep public funding intact.

Basically, I think the climate change arguments are designed to insure the continuance of the scientific "welfare" system.

In any case, in the final analysis, it really does not matter if there is climate change, or what is causing it. Our job is to adapt to what change may come.

Why? Because freedom is more important than the environmental movement. That movement is largely based on the premise that state "controls" must be instituted to stop the activities of man that contribute to climate change. That is not going to happen, nor should it happen. The focus must be on building infrastructure to withstand the new climate and take advantage where possible.

Not stopping development or deciding what fuels we should use.

Ultimately the problem, if it exists at all, is self-limiting. Fossil fuels will run out of their own accord and the alternatives will be adopted organically.

But it must be based on the supremacy of freedom and liberty. They are more important and better values than those advocated by the climate change advocates.

A better approach than designing byzantine tyrannical systems to solve a problem that may not exist is to present the data to the public and leave it there.

It's a question of values and philosophy. I prefer a free society in an adverse environment, to tyranny in a comfortable environment.
Member Since: November 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
35. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:37 AM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming:


The New England Hurricane of 1938 (or Great New England Hurricane, Yankee Clipper, Long Island Express, or simply the Great Hurricane) was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The storm formed near the coast of Africa in September of the 1938 Atlantic hurricane season, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane[1] on Long Island on September 21. The hurricane was estimated to have killed between 682 and 800 people,[2] damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at US$306 million ($4.7 Billion in 2012).[3] Even as late as 1951, damaged trees and buildings were still seen in the affected areas.[4] It remains the most powerful, costliest and deadliest hurricane in recent New England history, eclipsed in landfall intensity perhaps only by the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635.
Background

Before the 1938 New England hurricane, it had been several decades since a hurricane of any significance adversely affected the northeastern Atlantic coastline. Nevertheless, history has shown that several severe hurricanes have affected the Northeast, although with much less frequency in comparison to areas of the Gulf, Florida, and southeastern Atlantic coastlines.

The Great September Gale of 1815 (the term hurricane was not yet common in the American vernacular), which hit New York City directly as a Category 3 hurricane, caused extensive damage and created an inlet that separated the Long Island resort towns of the Rockaways and Long Beach into two separate barrier islands.

The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane, a Category 4 storm which made four separate landfalls in Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and southern New England. The storm created the highest recorded storm surge in Manhattan of nearly 13 feet and severely impacted the farming regions of Long Island and southern New England.

The 1869 Saxby Gale affected areas in Northern New England, decimating the Maine coastline and the Canadian Outer Banks. It was the last major hurricane to affect New England until the 1938 storm.

The 1893 New York hurricane, a Category 2 storm, directly hit the city itself, causing a great storm surge that pummeled the coastline, completely removing the Long Island resort town of Hog Island.

The years spanning 1893 to 1938 saw much demographic change in the Northeast as large influxes of European immigrants settled in cities and towns throughout New York and New England, many of whom knew little, if anything, about hurricanes. Most people at the time associated hurricanes with the warmer tropical regions off the Gulf Coast and southern North Atlantic waters off the Florida coastline, and not the colder Atlantic waters off New York and New England. The only tropical storms to affect the area in recent years had been weak remnant storms. A more common weather phenomenon was a noreaster, which is a powerful low-pressure storm common in the Northeast during fall and winter. Although Noreasters can produce winds that are similar to those in hurricanes, they do not produce the storm surge that proved to be the 1938 storm's greatest killer. By 1938, most of the earlier storms were hardly remembered.

Link





The Blue Hill Observatory at its 635-foot elevation in Milton, Massachusetts, just south of Boston, recorded a gust of wind out of the south at 186 mph with a sustained wind of 121 mph between 6:11 and 6:16pm. Only one anemometer survived these winds, which remain the second highest winds ever recorded on earth.


Link




That is some very interesting reading, iceage. Thanks!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
34. iceagecoming
3:30 AM GMT on November 02, 2012


The New England Hurricane of 1938 (or Great New England Hurricane, Yankee Clipper, Long Island Express, or simply the Great Hurricane) was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The storm formed near the coast of Africa in September of the 1938 Atlantic hurricane season, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane[1] on Long Island on September 21. The hurricane was estimated to have killed between 682 and 800 people,[2] damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at US$306 million ($4.7 Billion in 2012).[3] Even as late as 1951, damaged trees and buildings were still seen in the affected areas.[4] It remains the most powerful, costliest and deadliest hurricane in recent New England history, eclipsed in landfall intensity perhaps only by the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635.
Background

Before the 1938 New England hurricane, it had been several decades since a hurricane of any significance adversely affected the northeastern Atlantic coastline. Nevertheless, history has shown that several severe hurricanes have affected the Northeast, although with much less frequency in comparison to areas of the Gulf, Florida, and southeastern Atlantic coastlines.

The Great September Gale of 1815 (the term hurricane was not yet common in the American vernacular), which hit New York City directly as a Category 3 hurricane, caused extensive damage and created an inlet that separated the Long Island resort towns of the Rockaways and Long Beach into two separate barrier islands.

The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane, a Category 4 storm which made four separate landfalls in Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and southern New England. The storm created the highest recorded storm surge in Manhattan of nearly 13 feet and severely impacted the farming regions of Long Island and southern New England.

The 1869 Saxby Gale affected areas in Northern New England, decimating the Maine coastline and the Canadian Outer Banks. It was the last major hurricane to affect New England until the 1938 storm.

The 1893 New York hurricane, a Category 2 storm, directly hit the city itself, causing a great storm surge that pummeled the coastline, completely removing the Long Island resort town of Hog Island.

The years spanning 1893 to 1938 saw much demographic change in the Northeast as large influxes of European immigrants settled in cities and towns throughout New York and New England, many of whom knew little, if anything, about hurricanes. Most people at the time associated hurricanes with the warmer tropical regions off the Gulf Coast and southern North Atlantic waters off the Florida coastline, and not the colder Atlantic waters off New York and New England. The only tropical storms to affect the area in recent years had been weak remnant storms. A more common weather phenomenon was a noreaster, which is a powerful low-pressure storm common in the Northeast during fall and winter. Although Noreasters can produce winds that are similar to those in hurricanes, they do not produce the storm surge that proved to be the 1938 storm's greatest killer. By 1938, most of the earlier storms were hardly remembered.

Link





The Blue Hill Observatory at its 635-foot elevation in Milton, Massachusetts, just south of Boston, recorded a gust of wind out of the south at 186 mph with a sustained wind of 121 mph between 6:11 and 6:16pm. Only one anemometer survived these winds, which remain the second highest winds ever recorded on earth.


Link


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
33. iceagecoming
3:20 AM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Tunnels would have weakened Sandy to a mediocre tropical storm prior to landfall Mr. President......




Any Questions?????


Nope, as usual.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
32. cyclonebuster
1:53 AM GMT on November 02, 2012
Any questions?

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
31. cyclonebuster
12:04 AM GMT on November 02, 2012
Quoting Xandra:
What Those Who Understand Atmospheric Physics Are Talking About After Sandy

Posted by Dan Satterfield

Asking if Hurricane Sandy was caused by climate change is like asking someone at the South Pole which way is north. This kind of storm could almost certainly form in a world where the CO2 levels have been unchanging and Arctic sea ice levels were stable. That said, anyone who claims Sandy was, or was not, caused by the changing climate just doesn’t get it.

If it seems like extreme storms are increasing over the Northeast USA, then you are right. The climate extremes index by the NOAA NCDC agrees.

It may be possible with some attribution and detection studies to say something about how much more likely it was for this storm to have occurred but that is for the future, and it will not be easy. So, what can we say about Sandy that is scientifically accurate??

Plenty.

1. The oceans are over a degree celsius warmer than they were a century ago ,and we had record warm oceans (2-3 degrees C above normal!) off the East Coast for most of the last several months.

2. The planet is a degree celsius warmer than it was a century ago, and this means the atmosphere on the whole is holding 5-7% more water vapor than it was 80 odd years ago.

3. Sea level has risen at least a foot over the past century, and along the coast of Delaware and Virginia, the sinking shorelines mean the water level is over 18 inches higher than even 60 years ago. Ask someone in Jersey who has a foot of water in their house if it would have been better if the water was 18 inches lower.

What we CAN say is this:

If a storm exactly like Sandy were to have hit in October of 1912, it would have been less wet with a storm surge that was lower. We can also say that a storm exactly like Sandy 90 years from now will be much wetter with water levels at least 24 inches higher. (The Mid-Atlantic coast is sinking at the rate of a foot a century, and the sea is rising at the same rate already. That’s two feet if nothing changes! The best science says the sea alone will rise 36 inches over the next century as the planet warms and the oceans expand.)

What meteorologists like myself, and climate researchers are talking about is the huge blocking high over Greenland. October or November hurricanes recurve into the Atlantic because of a much stronger fall jet stream, but the Greenland block turned Sandy into the coast. The track of Sandy was very RARE. Nearly unheard of actually, especially for this time of year. Dr. Jeff Masters has an excellent post about the Greenland block and how rare it is this time of year. Finish this post then read his.

Could the loss of Arctic sea ice be a factor in that big Greenland high pressure system. Dr. Jennifer Francis has research that says yes. (Andy Revkin at Dot Earth has a good post about this as well here.) Would the high have developed anyhow? Perhaps, but it would seem ridiculous to assume that the amazing loss of Arctic Ice would have little effect on the atmosphere over the Northern Hemisphere. That claim would be an extraordinary supposition that goes against the laws of physics and would require some profound evidence. The shoe is on the other foot now I think.

Rising sea levels and a warming planet are sneaking up on us little by little, but it will not be perceived that way. Instead, it will be realized in sudden and catastrophic events like floods, hurricanes and heat waves and droughts.

As I write this, 63 million people across 7 states are still in the dark…

Source


Tunnels regulate that...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
30. Xandra
7:50 PM GMT on November 01, 2012
What Those Who Understand Atmospheric Physics Are Talking About After Sandy

Posted by Dan Satterfield

Asking if Hurricane Sandy was caused by climate change is like asking someone at the South Pole which way is north. This kind of storm could almost certainly form in a world where the CO2 levels have been unchanging and Arctic sea ice levels were stable. That said, anyone who claims Sandy was, or was not, caused by the changing climate just doesn’t get it.

If it seems like extreme storms are increasing over the Northeast USA, then you are right. The climate extremes index by the NOAA NCDC agrees.

It may be possible with some attribution and detection studies to say something about how much more likely it was for this storm to have occurred but that is for the future, and it will not be easy. So, what can we say about Sandy that is scientifically accurate??

Plenty.

1. The oceans are over a degree celsius warmer than they were a century ago ,and we had record warm oceans (2-3 degrees C above normal!) off the East Coast for most of the last several months.

2. The planet is a degree celsius warmer than it was a century ago, and this means the atmosphere on the whole is holding 5-7% more water vapor than it was 80 odd years ago.

3. Sea level has risen at least a foot over the past century, and along the coast of Delaware and Virginia, the sinking shorelines mean the water level is over 18 inches higher than even 60 years ago. Ask someone in Jersey who has a foot of water in their house if it would have been better if the water was 18 inches lower.

What we CAN say is this:

If a storm exactly like Sandy were to have hit in October of 1912, it would have been less wet with a storm surge that was lower. We can also say that a storm exactly like Sandy 90 years from now will be much wetter with water levels at least 24 inches higher. (The Mid-Atlantic coast is sinking at the rate of a foot a century, and the sea is rising at the same rate already. That’s two feet if nothing changes! The best science says the sea alone will rise 36 inches over the next century as the planet warms and the oceans expand.)

What meteorologists like myself, and climate researchers are talking about is the huge blocking high over Greenland. October or November hurricanes recurve into the Atlantic because of a much stronger fall jet stream, but the Greenland block turned Sandy into the coast. The track of Sandy was very RARE. Nearly unheard of actually, especially for this time of year. Dr. Jeff Masters has an excellent post about the Greenland block and how rare it is this time of year. Finish this post then read his.

Could the loss of Arctic sea ice be a factor in that big Greenland high pressure system. Dr. Jennifer Francis has research that says yes. (Andy Revkin at Dot Earth has a good post about this as well here.) Would the high have developed anyhow? Perhaps, but it would seem ridiculous to assume that the amazing loss of Arctic Ice would have little effect on the atmosphere over the Northern Hemisphere. That claim would be an extraordinary supposition that goes against the laws of physics and would require some profound evidence. The shoe is on the other foot now I think.

Rising sea levels and a warming planet are sneaking up on us little by little, but it will not be perceived that way. Instead, it will be realized in sudden and catastrophic events like floods, hurricanes and heat waves and droughts.

As I write this, 63 million people across 7 states are still in the dark…

Source
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
29. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:04 PM GMT on November 01, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Congratulations, Michael Mann:




When you cannot attack the message, you will resort to attacking the messenger. You are a fine example of what a "class act" truly should be.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
28. NeapolitanFan
2:12 PM GMT on November 01, 2012
Congratulations, Michael Mann:


Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
27. cyclonebuster
10:00 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Sandy's reincarnation???

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
26. Kumo
7:27 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Thank you kindly for the welcome Rookie.

Just today I get a real witty (sarcasm) reply, on a conservative news website that I post on, to my argument that AGW is very real.

"the ice caps on mars are receding too...are there humans on mars?"

It's just hard to believe a ridiculous hypothesis from Habibullo Abdussamatov, who just so happens to reject the idea of greenhouse gasses, can be seen as truth by my fellow conservatives.

It would appear that John McCain's daughter also shares my views on AGW, but our party does not receive her well either.


I see your point on completely stopping fossil fuel usage, but I look at how our current infrastructure and transportation has become so heavily dependent on consumption of oil. We've got a few really big problems to solve when it comes to cost to get to a carbon neutral civilization.

-Convincing automobile manufactures to stop producing octane combustion based vehicles.

-Convincing big oil companies to limit hydrocarbon production and to switch to currently available renewable energy solutions.

-Convincing consumers to stop buying automobiles with octane combustion based engines.

-Possibly completely re-engineering our cities to be more green friendly and to vastly reduce commute times and distances.

-Retraining all workers from the fossil fuel energy companies, so they have the skills needed to thrive in a post fossil fuel civilization.

Considering as of June 2012 our amount of CO2 saturation in the atmosphere stands at 395 ppm and is far higher than anything we've seen within the past 20 Million years, wouldn't this be a cause for concern that a positive feedback has already been reached and that the only way to get out of this mess is through carbon sequestration projects on a grand scale even after fossil fuel consumption has stopped?

Seems like any route we take to fix our atmosphere the costs are going to be quite high, but I definitely believe it's worth it if we want to continue the old politics of arguing over guns and abortion in the future.
Member Since: August 3, 2012 Posts: 15 Comments: 145
25. Xulonn
4:10 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
hurricane-sandy-2012_surge

Fascinating link of the name Sandy to Cassandra...
Quoting Mark Hertsgard at The Nation:
Sandy is short for Cassandra, the Greek mythological figure who epitomizes tragedy. The gods gave Cassandra the gift of prophecy; depending on which version of the story one prefers, she could either see or smell the future. But with this gift also came a curse: Cassandra%u2019s warnings about future disasters were fated to be ignored. That is the essence of this tragedy: to know that a given course of action will lead to disaster but to pursue it nevertheless.

And so it has been with America%u2019s response to climate change. For more than twenty years, scientists and others have been warning that global warming, if left unaddressed, would bring a catastrophic increase in extreme weather%u2014summers like that of 2012, when the United States endured the hottest July on record and the worst drought in fifty years, mega-storms like the one now punishing the East Coast.

I think that Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy might begin to counter the Cassandra myth among those who deny AGW/CC and its consequences. Hopefully this tragic disaster will mark a turning point in the acceptance of AGW/CC by more citizens - in spite of the fact that individual weather events cannot be attributed solely to CC.

The top picture is an image that comes to my mind when I think about sea level rise with respect to human civilization. Although big oceanic storms will sear the images of seawater surge flooding into the consciousness of even many denialists, sea level rise will sneak up on many areas as in the picture, a scene that will eventually occur around the globe even where they don't have hurricanes, cyclones and other big oceanic storms.

My first experience of watching a high tide slowly rising over a paved road was at China Camp State Park near my home in San Rafael, California a few years ago. Photobucket
During the highest tides of the year, water from San Francisco Bay slowly rises and flows over the road into the salt marsh that is normally drained via small culverts. Some day this will occur during a period of heavy rain and flooding in northern California when the Sacramento River is pouring huge amounts of water into San Francisco Bay and pushing against the high tide. Then water will pour over the not only the roads, but also the low rock seawall into the nearby exclusive Peacock Gap neighborhood in San Rafael, flooding million dollar homes around the golf course, and blocking the only roads into the area.

The Great Flood of 1862 in California, which drove California into bankruptcy, occurred before global warming was an issue. If anything close to it happens again, it will be blamed on AGW/CC, but regardless of the "cause," it would make Superstorm Sandy look like a relatively minor event.


Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1503
24. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:55 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Kumo - post #16

I would like to welcome you and your posts here.

I would also like to say that you have taken on a daunting task in trying to convince Republicans that AGW is not anything that is real, but merely an attempt by Al Gore to reap vast, personal fortunes through the sales of his snake oil to the public. His communistic, liberal, lying ways are designed to do nothing more than to redistribute wealth. ( I always thought that this was the plan of the modern version of a Capitalist, but whatever. ) Conservatives, on the other hand, are far more capable of using their critical thinking skills. I do not associate the Republican Party, or any of the Republican leadership, as being "conservative" in their values or practices. The Democrats, and their leadership, have a saving grace with me. The Democrat leadership does not have a party plank that denounces the AGWT, unlike the Republican Party. Well, that takes care of the introduction of myself to you, other than I am a steadfast Independent.

I read the article concerning carbon sequestration through CO2 removal and its conversion into petrol. I would say that this technology is several years away from becoming a viable technology for us to use, if it will ever become a viable technology for us to use. There is a considerable amount of energy that has to be introduced to extract the energy it would produce. Renewable energy sources supplying the input energy is mentioned and is quite noteworthy.

"We ought to be aiming for a refinery-scale operation within the next 15 years."

There is just too much to overcome, in the short term, for this technology to help us from reaching any tipping points that would fairly render this technology a moot point.

"Although the prototype system is designed to extract carbon dioxide from the air, this part of the process is still too inefficient to allow a commercial-scale operation."

and

"The company can and has used carbon dioxide extracted from air to make petrol, but it is also using industrial sources of carbon dioxide until it is able to improve the performance of "carbon capture"."

and

"Other companies are working on ways of improving the technology of carbon capture, which is considered far too costly to be commercially viable as it costs up to %uFFFD400 for capturing one ton of carbon dioxide." - This last point almost assuredly eliminates any strong, public support for this technology.

Here is the one place that shows promise that this technology would be implemented at all - ""You're in a market place where the only way is up for the price of fossil oil and at some point there will be a crossover where our fuel becomes cheaper," he said." - While it is true that rising fossil fuel costs will eventually price itself out of wide scale use, it is also true that there are several different technologies in use today that will also become cheaper to use in comparison to the ever escalating prices of fossil fuels. In other words, the technology that is proposed in the article will be no saving grace, by any means.

So, what will be our saving grace? There is only one correct answer to this question. We MUST get off of fossil fuels NOW. Period. How quickly this can be accomplished will be the determining factor in as to how well life will fare on this planet within our next few generations. That is the short and most direct answer that I feel anyone can give an honest response to this question. Any other answer would be more based on the illusions hope brings to us than it would be on sound, reasoned logic.

Kumo, I appreciate the efforts you are taking to bring an awareness of the situation to those that would most deny the situation even exists. I fear that the denial industry will have to be voted down long before the denial industry could be convinced of the fallacies of its ways.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
23. cyclonebuster
2:21 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Costliest known Atlantic Tropical Cyclones as of 2012
(2008 Storm Damage is Estimated[dubious – discuss] in USD)
Billions Name Year
$108.0 Hurricane Katrina[1] 2005
$37.6 Hurricane Ike[2][3] 2008
$26.5 Hurricane Andrew[4] 1992
$29.2 Hurricane Wilma[5][6][7][8] 2005
$25.0* Hurricane Sandy[9] 2012
$19.0 Hurricane Irene[10] 2011
$18.6 Hurricane Charley[11][12] 2004
$18.1 Hurricane Ivan[13][14] 2004
$15.2 Hurricane Agnes[15] 1972
$14.1 Hurricane Hugo[16][17] 1989
$10.5 Hurricane Rita[18] 2005
$10.4 Hurricane Frances[14][16][19] 2004
$10.2 Hurricane Gilbert[20] 1988
$9.4 Hurricane Betsy[16][21] 1965
$8.5 Hurricane Gustav[22] 2008
$8.2 Hurricane Mitch[23][24][25][26][27] 1998
$8.0 Hurricane Jeanne[14][16][28][29] 2004
$8.0 Hurricane Camille[16] 1969
$7.9 Hurricane Fifi[16][30] 1974
$7.9 Hurricane Georges[29][31][32] 1998
$6.8 Hurricane Diane[16] 1955
$6.6 Hurricane Donna[16][33] 1960
$6.5 Hurricane Frederic[16] 1979

TUNNELS 20 BILLION YOU DECIDE......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
22. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:12 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Internal server error........


Here is the link - U.S. obsessed over the Superstorm, but ignored the climate behind it - Just call me, "The Link Master!". ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
21. cyclonebuster
1:44 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Quoting RickyRood:
Rood Special in Globe and Mail on Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change


http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/us-obsess ed-over-the-superstorm-but-ignored-the-climate-beh ind-it/article4789420/?service=mobile


Internal server error........
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
20. cyclonebuster
1:38 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Tunnels would have weakened Sandy to a mediocre tropical storm prior to landfall Mr. President......




Any Questions?????
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
19. cyclonebuster
1:30 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
Many of the interviews I've done over the past three days have asked me about the connection between Sandy and global warming. It seems to be a question in everyone's minds and it sounds like it might *start* to be an election issue over the next few days.

Here's an interview I did with the Warwick Beacon.



Tunnels yet Angela? Anyone????
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20431
18. Dr. Ricky Rood , Professor
12:53 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
Rood Special in Globe and Mail on Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change

Member Since: January 31, 2007 Posts: 315 Comments: 258
17. Kumo
6:47 AM GMT on October 31, 2012
Quoting Kumo:

As a conservative who does believe in AGW, I find it very frustrating at times that members of my own party don't share a similar view. I am usually called a liar, among other colorful terms when I try to get the correct and very urgent point of AGW across to my fellow Republicans. They just don't get it, and I am not sure if that is from some deep seated fear in meeting with the liberal side in a middle ground or if they have just been lazy enough to be corrupted by bad science that has often tried and epicly failed to debunk AGW.

For Republicans, It's true that we don't think about much of anything unless dollars, cents and tradition are being interfered with. So perhaps what may be needed to solve the problem with rising CO2 levels and get everyone on the same page is to turn it into an attractive business model.

I know about Carbon Sequestration and storage technologies that are currently being explored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Perhaps such a technology could be further developed into the mass production of hydrocarbons killing two birds with one stone and making folks on both sides of the fence happy, helping to solve our energy crisis and helping to foster a balance of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ex clusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into- petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-cr isis-8217382.html

http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/



Member Since: August 3, 2012 Posts: 15 Comments: 145
16. Kumo
6:38 AM GMT on October 31, 2012
As a conservative who does believe in AGW, I find it very frustrating at times that members of my own party don't share a similar view. I am usually called a liar, among other colorful terms when I try to get the correct and very urgent point of AGW across to my fellow Republicans. They just don't get it, and I am not sure if that is from some deep seated fear in meeting with the liberal side in a middle ground or if they have just been lazy enough to be corrupted by bad science that has often tried and epicly failed to debunk AGW.

For Republicans, It's true that we don't think about much of anything unless dollars, cents and tradition are being interfered with. So perhaps what may be needed to solve the problem with rising CO2 levels and get everyone on the same page is to turn it into an attractive business model.

I know about Carbon Sequestration and storage technologies that are currently being explored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Perhaps such a technology could be further developed into the mass production of hydrocarbons killing two birds with one stone and making folks on both sides of the fence happy, helping to solve our energy crisis and helping to foster a balance of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ex clusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into- petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-cr isis-8217382.html

http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/


Member Since: August 3, 2012 Posts: 15 Comments: 145
15. Daisyworld
2:47 AM GMT on October 31, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
Many of the interviews I've done over the past three days have asked me about the connection between Sandy and global warming. It seems to be a question in everyone's minds and it sounds like it might *start* to be an election issue over the next few days.

Here's an interview I did with the Warwick Beacon.


Indeed, good interview.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 860
14. Neapolitan
2:32 AM GMT on October 31, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
Many of the interviews I've done over the past three days have asked me about the connection between Sandy and global warming. It seems to be a question in everyone's minds and it sounds like it might *start* to be an election issue over the next few days.

Here's an interview I did with the Warwick Beacon.
Nice interview, and one that goes hand-in-hand with a piece I read today on TIME.com:

"[I]f you are in your 60s or 70s or 80s, Sandy's destructive forces are a once in your lifetime event. But younger generations—those of us in our fifties, and our children—will likely be looking at flooded coastal cities, devastated infrastructure, blownout power, and storm surges for the rest of our lives.

We've got to stop this 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' argument about the connections between individual storms and climate change. Scientists can—and should—try to parse out each and every contributor to a storm. That's their job. But policy makers cannot afford to do so--or to wait for definitive answers. The overall picture is dire enough. Our climate is changing, for the worse. Reliability and predictability of climate patterns? That, too, belongs to an older generation. We need only look at the role of warmer North Atlantic ocean temperatures in Sandy’s growth to see this."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
13. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
12:33 AM GMT on October 31, 2012
Many of the interviews I've done over the past three days have asked me about the connection between Sandy and global warming. It seems to be a question in everyone's minds and it sounds like it might *start* to be an election issue over the next few days.

Here's an interview I did with the Warwick Beacon.
12. philhoey
6:13 PM GMT on October 30, 2012
Quoting RickyRood:
Actually a good point on the LEDs ... I'm amazed someone is reading my blog with all of the hurricane going on. But on the LEDs, I have been through many hurricanes, and showing my age, I would have gone with the storm candle, and never thought of the LED. And then worried about the fire hazard.


Many years in DC, Greenbelt, AA county. Power still on?




In Frederick County Maryland we did not loose power. I also use LED lights kept charged by small solar panels. Actually work great for those places like the shed where I keep the tractor and don't want to run a line.

It also never hurts to have a small generator (propane powered) when you are on a well. :)
Member Since: August 25, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 56
11. philhoey
6:05 PM GMT on October 30, 2012
Well Dr. Rood - I hope you plan on driving or taking the bus. Flights are backed up for days and train service has been suspended to DC. From Chicago not sure how far the train will get you.
Since a massive amount of moisture was dumped in the Potomac River drainage basin, the 5th most serioius flooding is being predicted from Hancock and South, this will cover the rail lines from the Harpers Ferry area and down.
Good luck on making your event.
Phil
Member Since: August 25, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 56
10. georgevandenberghe
12:47 PM GMT on October 30, 2012
Yes we never lost power. I was prepared for a multiday outage. Winds were not as bad as feared
but I still got 40 sustained and a few gusts to 60mph.
Why were there not more power outages? I have two hunches.
1. The winds were out of the same direction as the derecho in June. A lot of what would have been vulnerable to Sandy was taken out by the Derecho.
2. The boundary layer was more stable than in a typical tropical cyclone. Less momentum mixed down
to the ground than usual so the 85 knot winds at 950mb mostly stayed up there. Leafy trees may also have acted as a more effective momentum sink than the bare trees of winter do so if we had a midlatitude cyclone of the same intensity (rare!) we would have gotten more winds out of that.

I was wrong about 950mb. That level was amazingly close to (or briefly below) the surface yesterday. I meant around 1500 feet up.
Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 19 Comments: 1950
9. Dr. Ricky Rood , Professor
1:15 AM GMT on October 30, 2012
Actually a good point on the LEDs ... I'm amazed someone is reading my blog with all of the hurricane going on. But on the LEDs, I have been through many hurricanes, and showing my age, I would have gone with the storm candle, and never thought of the LED. And then worried about the fire hazard.


Many years in DC, Greenbelt, AA county. Power still on?


Quoting georgevandenberghe:
I agree with most everything except the buying candles part.
In the 21'st century LED light sources are better. Candles are a gross fire hazard. Advising
against candles got me to post.

But now that I'm here I might as well continue

Also, I am concerned too much will be made about just stating problems on the north side of the storm which are fairly stated. Points to the south of the track (like my home in Riverdale MD) are also at high risk because the wind field is more uniform than in most tropical cyclones and will be bad on the south (my) side. It is true we won't get storm surge flooding up the Potomac but wind hazards are almost as bad as further north and the rain hazard is worse (this is common with tropical cyclones transitioning in temperature gradients)
I am expecting 4-6 more inches if I am lucky enough not
to get a rainband parked over my region for half a day
as happened Y'day 10/28 in western Delmarva.) If
we do get a stationary rainband we could get 6-12" The combination of no power and a basement that needs a sump pump is unnerving. I have battery backups but
batteries are not unlimited.
Member Since: January 31, 2007 Posts: 315 Comments: 258
8. georgevandenberghe
3:47 PM GMT on October 29, 2012
I agree with most everything except the buying candles part.
In the 21'st century LED light sources are better. Candles are a gross fire hazard. Advising
against candles got me to post.

But now that I'm here I might as well continue

Also, I am concerned too much will be made about just stating problems on the north side of the storm which are fairly stated. Points to the south of the track (like my home in Riverdale MD) are also at high risk because the wind field is more uniform than in most tropical cyclones and will be bad on the south (my) side. It is true we won't get storm surge flooding up the Potomac but wind hazards are almost as bad as further north and the rain hazard is worse (this is common with tropical cyclones transitioning in temperature gradients)
I am expecting 4-6 more inches if I am lucky enough not
to get a rainband parked over my region for half a day
as happened Y'day 10/28 in western Delmarva.) If
we do get a stationary rainband we could get 6-12" The combination of no power and a basement that needs a sump pump is unnerving. I have battery backups but
batteries are not unlimited.
Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 19 Comments: 1950
7. Neapolitan
1:04 PM GMT on October 29, 2012
From the "Well, duh" Department:

Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected?

Over the past decade scientists thought they had figured out how to protect humanity from the worst dangers of climate change. Keeping planetary warming below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) would, it was thought, avoid such perils as catastrophic sea-level rise and searing droughts. Staying below two degrees C would require limiting the level of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm), up from today's 395 ppm and the preindustrial era's 280 ppm.

Now it appears that the assessment was too optimistic. The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected. More sea ice around the Arctic Ocean is disappearing than had been forecast. Regions of permafrost across Alaska and Siberia are spewing out more methane, the potent greenhouse gas, than models had predicted. Ice shelves in West Antarctica are breaking up more quickly than once thought possible, and the glaciers they held back on adjacent land are sliding faster into the sea. Extreme weather events, such as floods and the heat wave that gripped much of the U.S. in the summer of 2012 are on the rise, too. The conclusion? "As scientists, we cannot say that if we stay below two degrees of warming everything will be fine," says Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at the University of Potsdam in Germany.

The X factors that may be pushing the earth into an era of rapid climate change are long-hypothesized feedback loops that may be starting to kick in. Less sea ice, for example, allows the sun to warm the ocean water more, which melts even more sea ice. Greater permafrost melting puts more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, which in turn causes further permafrost melting, and so on.

.....

But just how powerful could the various feedback loops become? Climate models, which are good at explaining the past and present, stumble when it comes to predicting the future. "People can conceptualize these abrupt changes better than the models do," Schuur says. Even if the planet is in a tipping point now, he adds, we may not recognize it.

The unsettling conclusion for climate policy is that science does not have definitive answers. "We know the direction but not the rate," Manning says. Yet the uncertainties do not justify inaction, scientists insist. On the contrary, the uncertainties bolster the case for an immediate worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they reveal how substantial the risks of rapid change really are. "What we're doing at the moment is an experiment comparable on a geological scale to the big events of the past, so we would expect the inputs to have consequences similar to those in the past," Nisbet says.

That is why Hansen cannot look at his grandchildren and not become an activist on their behalf. "It would be immoral," he says, "to leave these young people with a climate system spiraling out of control."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
6. RevElvis
3:38 AM GMT on October 29, 2012
Not-So-Permanent Permafrost: 850 Billion Tons of Carbon Stored in Frozen Arctic Ground Could Be Released

ScienceDaily.com

As much as 44 billion tons of nitrogen and 850 billion tons of carbon stored in arctic permafrost, or frozen ground, could be released into the environment as the region begins to thaw over the next century as a result of a warmer planet, according to a new study led by the U.S. Geological Survey. This nitrogen and carbon are likely to impact ecosystems, the atmosphere, and water resources including rivers and lakes. For context, this is roughly the amount of carbon stored in the atmosphere today.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
5. Barefootontherocks
10:11 PM GMT on October 28, 2012
PRELIMINARY EXTENDED FORECAST DISCUSSION
NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER COLLEGE PARK MD
942 AM EDT THU OCT 25 2012

VALID 12Z MON OCT 29 2012 - 12Z THU NOV 01 2012


...HIGH IMPACT MERGING OF ENERGETIC SYSTEMS ANTICIPATED OFF THE
MID ATLANTIC COAST...


PRELIMINARY UPDATE...

DESPITE A MODEST CLUSTER OF OUTLYING DETERMINISTIC SOLUTIONS AND
ENSEMBLE MEMBERS FROM THE VARIOUS MODELING CENTERS, THE LION'S
SHARE OF GUIDANCE INDICATES THAT THE CIRCULATION ASSOCIATED WITH
HURRICANE SANDY WILL PASS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE AMPLIFYING POLAR
TROUGH OVER THE EASTERN UNITED STATES TO BECOME INCORPORATED INTO
A HYBRID VORTEX OVER THE MID ATLANTIC AND NORTHEAST NEXT TUESDAY.
THE HIGH DEGREE OF BLOCKING FROM EASTERN NORTH AMERICA ACROSS THE
ENTIRE ATLANTIC BASIN IS EXPECTED TO ALLOW THIS UNUSUAL MERGER TO
TAKE PLACE, AND ONCE THE COMBINED GYRE MATERIALIZES, IT SHOULD
SETTLE BACK TOWARD THE INTERIOR NORTHEAST THROUGH HALLOWEEN,
INVITING PERHAPS A GHOULISH NICKNAME FOR THE CYCLONE ALONG THE
LINES OF "FRANKENSTORM", AN ALLUSION TO MARY SHELLEY'S GOTHIC
CREATURE OF SYNTHESIZED ELEMENTS.

AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, WHEN ONE PART OF THE NATION IS EXPERIENCING
A VERY ENERGETIC ATMOSPHERE DISTURBANCE, THE REMAINDER IS
RELATIVELY CALM. THIS EVENT SHOULD NOT PROVE THE EXCEPTION, WITH A
FAIRLY BENIGN FEED OF PACIFIC AIR INTO MOST OF THE WESTERN AND
CENTRAL STATES. THE FAR WEST, PARTICULAR NORTH OF CALIFORNIA, WILL
HAVE ENOUGH SUSTAINED ONSHORE FLOW TO KEEP THE PERIOD WET AND
UNSETTLED.


CISCO

Haha. HPC vs TWC. James Cisco (and/or co-workers) is smarter than the average scientist. And more creative.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18991
4. RevElvis
7:19 PM GMT on October 28, 2012
Fake Climate Report Looks Like Actual Government Climate Report, Except Fake

wonkette.com

ScientificAmerican.com

The addendum matches the layout and design of the original, published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program: Cover art, "key message" sections, table of contents are all virtually identical, down to the chapter heads, fonts and footnotes...

"It's not an addendum. It's a counterfeit," said John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota who studies clean power sources. "It's a continued effort to kick the can down the road: A steady drip, drip, drip of fake reports by false scientists to create a false sense of debate."
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Viewing: 54 - 4

Page: 1 | 2Blog 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.