The Scientific Organization: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:29 PM GMT en Junio 15, 2011

Share this Blog
4
+

The Scientific Organization: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (2)

There are a few open themes in these blog posts that need attention – and a couple that I intend to fit together. In this entry I want to return to some of the issues raised in Something New in the Past Decade?, which looked at an old report on the organization of U.S. climate modeling and high performance computing. One motivation for returning to this old report is an ongoing panel study to write a new report about “A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling.” (link)

Over the past 25 years there have been many reports written about climate and weather models (example), climate and weather observing systems (example), high performance computing (example), and how to transition efforts from research to operations (example). If you look into these reports and their conclusions a number of common themes emerge. First, the presence of these reports suggests that there is a long-held perception that U.S. activities in climate science are not as effective as they need to be or could be. The reports consistently conclude with recognition of the creativity and quality of our scientific research, followed by calls for more integration across the federal agencies. In my earlier entry I argued that anytime there is a push towards more integration of research, there is both individual and institutional resistance.

This resistance occurs for many reasons, both good and bad, both structural and cultural. I want to focus on those reasons that appeal to the sanctity of “the science.” These arguments are often based on the notion of creativity and innovation and that creativity and innovation cannot be managed. Further arguments rely on the observation that many innovations come from unexpected places, and therefore, cannot be anticipated. Therefore, the creative edge of science needs to be left unencumbered by the heavy hand of management needed to assure integration.

Another notion enters into the argument - that is to comply with the standards required to integrate component pieces into a whole hurts the integrity of “the science.” There are two lines that support this. The first line focuses on examples of when attention was directed towards, say, information systems or technology and a product of dubious scientific integrity was produced. The second line is that by the time a particular component, say the algorithm that calculates the rain from thunderstorms, is integrated into an operational weather or climate model that algorithm is no longer state-of-the art. Therefore operational or production models are always a step behind the best science.

These arguments, which have merit, serve to benefit the dominate type of scientific efforts in the U.S. These are the efforts associated with individual scientists, who focus (or reduce) their problems in such a way to isolate something specific and to determine cause and effect. This reductionist approach to investigation is central to the classic scientific method, which has proven to be a very effective method of discovery. The focus on reduction comes at the expense of the path of science that comes from – how do all of the pieces fit together? That is the integrating or unifying path of science. This unifying path requires a synthesis of knowledge. This synthesis does, in fact, lead to new discoveries because when the pieces do not fit together, then we are required to ask – why not? The synthesis of scientific knowledge is also required to, for example, forecast the weather or climate or to adapt to sea level rise.

My ultimate thesis is that a focus on integrated or unified science does not come at the expense of “the science,” and does not undermine the scientific method or the integrity of “the science.”

There are several elements of the scientific method. At the center of it all is testing and checking. In a good scientific paper, most of the text is spent describing the results and how those results were determined to be correct, or at least, convincingly defended. A scrupulous reader looks for independence in the testing and validation; that is, how is unbiased information brought into the research to evaluate the results. Then the paper is subjected to peer review, which is another form of verification. Once a paper is published, it becomes fair game for all to question, and there is, ultimately, a requirement that the result be verified by independent investigation. If the result cannot be reproduced, then there is little acceptance of the result as correct (see Wikipedia Cold Fusion).

This process of checking is ingrained into scientists, and those who develop a sustaining legacy as quality researchers are always expert on how to check results in multiple ways. It is also true that on the individual level, it is ingrained into the scientist to question the results of others. Therefore, at the level of the individual, there is a built in process that does not promote synthesis, integration, or unification. Quite the contrary, what is promoted is the creation of many high quality nuggets of knowledge. These nuggets may or may not fit together to form a consistent body of knowledge.

Returning to the beginning of this article, one message from report after report is the need for the integration of the efforts of climate science to meet the broader needs of the community. This is true for physical climate, where there is the need for integration of knowledge to provide predictive models for assessment of climate change. And, as those who decide to use the information from these models try to make decisions for their investments and their projects, there is a need for the integration of this information with many other sources of information – for example, how big does my drainage pipe need to be? How high should my levee be?

The reports call for better integration, but at the very basis of the culture of research and the use of the scientific method, we value most the rugged individualism of skepticism. How then is integration of research to address societal goals achieved?

If it were easy, if were simply a matter of making sure that all of the right pieces were built, then we would not have 25 years of reports with a cadence of “need more integration.” Perhaps the obvious answer - there needs to be a process or an organization that as a whole honors the principles of the scientific method. This requires, then, a process that builds trust among the individuals of the organization. It requires structuring of checking and validation in a form that supports the transfer of knowledge (and computer code) from one individual to another. It requires the development of validation strategies that test the combined knowledge, the combined algorithms, in a quantitative and repeatable way. This organization is far different than an organization that is comprised on many, individual, excellent scientists. Next, thinking about the scientific organization that we need.

r




Figure 1: Chaos and order, 2008 Galvanized wire, 60x60x60cm. Barbara Licha, Finalist of Willoughby Sculpture Prize 2009. (from Ultimo Project Studios)



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: 257 - 207

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

257. sirmaelstrom
1:00 AM GMT en Junio 22, 2011
№ 254

***Note: I made an error in the calculation below; I compared PIOMAS & IARC-JAXA data from May to Cryosat-2 data from Jan/Feb. I recalculated the thickness comparison in comment № 56 of the next blog entry's comments***

Quoting Snowlover123:
Well, Cryosat finally released its first Arctic Sea Ice thickness map.

This image is for January/February of this year. Interestingly, PIPS matches up very well with this data.



Cryosat's detailed Ice thickness map. Notice that there is a lot of thicker ice, including 3, 4, and 5 meter ice.



And here is PIPS. They match up pretty nicely.



Interesting. I did a "back of the envelope" estimate to see how well the PIOMAS compares below; values are for late May, the most recent PIOMAS model estimates I could find:

From here I estimated that the PIOMAS model gives about 18500 km³ for arctic ice volume.

From here I estimate the ice area from IARC-JAXA as 10x10⁶ km²


Dividing with units here gives an average of about 1.85 m as the average thickness of the arctic sea ice.

It looks to me like the Cryosat-2 data suggests that arctic ice volume/thickness is much greater than what is modeled by PIOMAS. The PIPS2 estimate does seem to be a closer match.

Member Since: Febrero 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
256. Neapolitan
10:51 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting myCVattached:
I found this article very interesting. Thank you for posting. comment icons Pictures, Images and Photos">
Quoting Snowlover123:
Oh no, it looks like Seasonal Weather Variations, not Carbon Dioxide, are causing a good chunk of the melting that has happened since 1979...!

From Dr. Pielke Sr...

Quote:

New Paper Under Review “Changes In Seasonal Snow Cover In Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region” By Gurung Et Al 2011

Peter Williamson alerted us to a related paper that highlights the major role of regional circulation patterns on climate (this time for the Arctic). The paper is

Smedsrud, L. H., Sirevaag, A., Kloster, K., Sorteberg, A., and Sandven, S.: Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline, The Cryosphere Discuss., 5, 1311-1334, doi:10.5194/tcd-5-1311-2011, 2011

Quote:

Arctic sea ice area decrease has been visible for two decades, and continues at a steady rate. Apart from melting, the southward drift through Fram Strait is the main loss. We present high resolution sea ice drift across 79° N from 2004 to 2010. The ice drift is based on radar satellite data and correspond well with variability in local geostrophic wind. The underlying current contributes with a constant southward speed close to 5 cm s−1, and drives about 33 % of the ice export. We use geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960′s. The increase in ice export occurred mostly during winter and is directly connected to higher southward ice drift velocities, due to stronger geostrophic winds. The increase in ice drift is large enough to counteract a decrease in ice concentration of the exported sea ice. Using storm tracking we link changes in geostrophic winds to more intense Nordic Sea low pressure systems. Annual sea ice export likely has a significant influence on the summer sea ice variability and we find low values in the 60′s, the late 80′s and 90′s, and particularly high values during 2005–2008. The study highlight the possible role of variability in ice export as an explanatory factor for understanding the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades.


Well, I give Pielke points for trying; there's something to be said for persistence, no matter how wrong one may be.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
255. Snowlover123
9:22 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Oh no, it looks like Seasonal Weather Variations, not Carbon Dioxide, are causing a good chunk of the melting that has happened since 1979...!

From Dr. Pielke Sr...

Quote:

New Paper Under Review “Changes In Seasonal Snow Cover In Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region” By Gurung Et Al 2011

Peter Williamson alerted us to a related paper that highlights the major role of regional circulation patterns on climate (this time for the Arctic). The paper is

Smedsrud, L. H., Sirevaag, A., Kloster, K., Sorteberg, A., and Sandven, S.: Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline, The Cryosphere Discuss., 5, 1311-1334, doi:10.5194/tcd-5-1311-2011, 2011

Quote:

Arctic sea ice area decrease has been visible for two decades, and continues at a steady rate. Apart from melting, the southward drift through Fram Strait is the main loss. We present high resolution sea ice drift across 79° N from 2004 to 2010. The ice drift is based on radar satellite data and correspond well with variability in local geostrophic wind. The underlying current contributes with a constant southward speed close to 5 cm s−1, and drives about 33 % of the ice export. We use geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960′s. The increase in ice export occurred mostly during winter and is directly connected to higher southward ice drift velocities, due to stronger geostrophic winds. The increase in ice drift is large enough to counteract a decrease in ice concentration of the exported sea ice. Using storm tracking we link changes in geostrophic winds to more intense Nordic Sea low pressure systems. Annual sea ice export likely has a significant influence on the summer sea ice variability and we find low values in the 60′s, the late 80′s and 90′s, and particularly high values during 2005–2008. The study highlight the possible role of variability in ice export as an explanatory factor for understanding the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
254. Snowlover123
9:17 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Well, Cryosat finally released its first Arctic Sea Ice thickness map.

This image is for January/February of this year. Interestingly, PIPS matches up very well with this data.



Cryosat's detailed Ice thickness map. Notice that there is a lot of thicker ice, including 3, 4, and 5 meter ice.



And here is PIPS. They match up pretty nicely.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
253. Snowlover123
9:10 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Other Arctic Datasets also show a very evident slow down in melting.





Those wishing for an Extent near 2007's Extent are going to be sorely dissapointed. As demonstrated here, the Diphole Anomaly will not persist through nearly all summer as 2007's did. We already have storminess in the Arctic here.

If you look very closely, you can now see thin ice returning to the meltponds at the center of this picture.



The Diphole Anomaly, other then possibly returning between D 4-5, looks to not really return for the next 10 days or so.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
252. Snowlover123
9:04 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
#250- I don't think that spam is tolerated on this blog.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
251. Snowlover123
9:03 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:


Here's the text from Eurekalert:

"To reconstruct sea level, the scientists used microfossils called foraminifera preserved in sediment cores extracted from coastal salt marshes in North Carolina. The age of the cores was estimated using radiocarbon dating and other techniques. To test the validity of their approach, the team compared its reconstructions with tide-gauge measurements from North Carolina for the past 80 years, and global tide-gauge records for the past 300 years. A second reconstruction from Massachusetts confirmed their findings."

As you can plainly see, phrases such as "from Massachusetts" and "global tide-gauge records" contradict the "two stations off the coast of North Carolina" claim, so someone may want to take a different tack where that's concerned.

As to the graph you posted from the "Steven Goddard" site, it seems to be lacking context. That is, is it supposed to be showing global sea level? Hemispherical? Regional? I can only say this: there's definitely an upward trend since 1935 or so (when the chart begins)--which is right in line with the original articles findings.

The planet's warm, and getting warmer. Watts Up With That? ;-)


Okay, so they compared two stations in North Carolina to one station in Massacusetts to verify their findings... again, that can not be represented as Global data, because it is only 3 stations near the Atlantic Ocean!

Here's a few for Massachusetts... Sea Level clearly accelerated in Boston MA in the earlier part of this graph, faster than now.



Boston, MA



Martha's Vineyard- no acceleration at all.

Evidently, Mann's "smoothed" data that results in a Hockey Stick, can NOT be compared to Global Data.

I have one question for you- how can there be Global Tidal Records in Massachusetts, if it is only one point near the Atlantic Ocean?

I think I'm Skeptical about this "Science." :)
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
249. PurpleDrank
6:58 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
watt wuz the global temperature average in 1811? anyone know? how about 1411? or 1011?

this is what it would look like if we actually knew:


__---___---___---___---___

up down up down up down up
Member Since: Agosto 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
248. NRAamy
6:13 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Watts Up With That? ;-)

( shakes head )

for that, you deserve a time out....
Member Since: Enero 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
247. Neapolitan
6:12 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


One has to be really desperate if they are going to cite the Mann paper. Their basis for this claim that sea levels are rising the fastest ever recorded? Two stations off the coast of North Carolina. As we have previously discussed, you can not take one or two stations and say that this is the Global Average. It doesn't work like that.

Even worse, when one looks at the actual data, instead of Mann's infamous smoothed data, you see that the rate of Sea Level change has not increased in North Carolina.



Interestingly, the Mann paper shows that there was now a Warm Period near the year 1000, which his infamous "Hockey Stick" does not show.



It appears that either you or the site from which you received your information is mistaken. Here's the text from Eurekalert:

"To reconstruct sea level, the scientists used microfossils called foraminifera preserved in sediment cores extracted from coastal salt marshes in North Carolina. The age of the cores was estimated using radiocarbon dating and other techniques. To test the validity of their approach, the team compared its reconstructions with tide-gauge measurements from North Carolina for the past 80 years, and global tide-gauge records for the past 300 years. A second reconstruction from Massachusetts confirmed their findings."

As you can plainly see, phrases such as "from Massachusetts" and "global tide-gauge records" contradict the "two stations off the coast of North Carolina" claim, so someone may want to take a different tack where that's concerned.

As to the graph you posted from the "Steven Goddard" site, it seems to be lacking context. That is, is it supposed to be showing global sea level? Hemispherical? Regional? I can only say this: there's definitely an upward trend since 1935 or so (when the chart begins)--which is right in line with the original articles findings.

The planet's warm, and getting warmer. Watts Up With That? ;-)
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
246. Snowlover123
5:57 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
#245- I don't think that Neapolitan is a liar. He's just a mistaken individual.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
244. Snowlover123
5:19 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
Uh-oh.

Now, I realize the research was conducted by actual scientists with degrees and all, so some may choose to ignore it, but, still, it may be of interest to othersI sure hope the Little Ice Age Part II kicks in and reverse the course of things. C'mon, Solar Minimum!!!


One has to be really desperate if they are going to cite the Mann paper. Their basis for this claim that sea levels are rising the fastest ever recorded? Two stations off the coast of North Carolina. As we have previously discussed, you can not take one or two stations and say that this is the Global Average. It doesn't work like that.

Even worse, when one looks at the actual data, instead of Mann's infamous smoothed data, you see that the rate of Sea Level change has not increased in North Carolina.



Interestingly, the Mann paper shows that there was now a Warm Period near the year 1000, which his infamous "Hockey Stick" does not show.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
243. Neapolitan
5:18 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
236, gotta love those PAL reviewed papers. LOL

Thank you WUWT for showing us the truth about them.

Saving the world and the ocean, one activist opinion at a time, another NGO flap, this one duped global media

One can generally read the depths of Watts' despair over any particular bit of environmental news by the amount of knee-jerk shouting he starts doing. This is a great case in point: a group of knowledgeable and dedicated scientists from different disciplines get together to discuss what they're seeing--and all the failed TV weatherman can do in response is throw yet another thousand-word tantrum?

Oh, well. I'm sure in AW's little sheltered corner of the world, the oceans can be treated like a bottomless garbage pit into which can be dumped decades worth of fertilizers, petrochemicals, and refuse--along with startling heat--and yet nothing will ever harm fish stocks. The thing is, though, anyone with even a modicum of common sense can tell you that's simply not possible.

The oceans are dying, Anthony. Say what you will, but there's far more evidence to support IPSO's conclusion than there is to support yours...
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
242. NRAamy
3:51 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
did ManBearPig run through here?

thanks....
Member Since: Enero 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
241. Ossqss
3:29 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
236, gotta love those PAL reviewed papers. LOL

Thank you WUWT for showing us the truth about them.

Saving the world and the ocean, one activist opinion at a time, another NGO flap, this one duped global media
Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
240. Neapolitan
3:27 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting atmoaggie:
Well, in April, I, personally, was out on a boat 90 miles out SSE of Venice, LA (~40 miles from the Deepwater Horizon site) and we caught 2 shy of our limit on Yellowfin Tuna. (Was a good tuna hunt with good-sized, normal YFTs, according to those among us that go out regularly.)

Saw nothing at all untoward.

I love me some yellowfin. (Or used to.) But from what I recall, YFT are top dwellers, so they wouldn't be hanging around down in the deep where the oil reportedly remains thick and nasty. Glad you had a successful outing, but, of course, a "clean" catch in one area isn't necessarily indicative of the same thing elsewhere.

At any rate, the world's seas are
I suppose we'll find out sooner or later.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
239. atmoaggie
2:20 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

The supposed "humiliating climbdown" to which your ten-month-old report refers has proven to be anything but, of course; numerous follow-up studies have shown that a) the oil did not simply dissipate and b) it's had a grave effect on Gulf seafood.

From the Wikipedia entry on the oil spill (and you can find all the references there):

"The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and to the Gulf's fishing and tourism industries. In late November 2010, 4,200 square miles of the Gulf were re-closed to shrimping after tar balls were found in shrimpers' nets. The amount of Louisiana shoreline affected by oil grew from 287 miles in July to 320 miles in late November 2010. In January 2011, an oil spill commissioner reported that tar balls continue to wash up, oil sheen trails are seen in the wake of fishing boats, wetlands marsh grass remains fouled and dying, and that crude oil lies offshore in deep water and in fine silts and sands onshore. A research team found oil on the bottom of the seafloor in late February 2011 that did not seem to be degrading."

Hardly the rosy, non-science, anti-logical "pollution is good!" blather printed in the Mail, is it?

At any rate, the BP spill was just one of many assaults on the aquatic environment discussed in the article to which I linked. Bad stuff, it is. Bad, bad stuff...

As for fish stocks rebounding due to underfishing caused by the presence of Somali pirates, that illustrates just how badly mankind is doing. And in reference to the changes that are allowing Atlantic cod to rebound, I'd call that yet another success story highlighting the need for continued government regulation; left to their own devices and greed, many people simply can't be trusted to be good stewards.
Well, in April, I, personally, was out on a boat 90 miles out SSE of Venice, LA (~40 miles from the Deepwater Horizon site) and we caught 2 shy of our limit on Yellowfin Tuna. (Was a good tuna hunt with good-sized, normal YFTs, according to those among us that go out regularly.)

Saw nothing at all untoward.
Member Since: Agosto 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
238. Neapolitan
1:50 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Quoting iceagecoming:
How BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill could actually lead to an increase in fish stocks

Read more:
Link


Somali Pirates Disrupt Fishing Industry, Increase Fish Stocks


Link


Catch Limits in 12 fish stocks increasing May 1.


The stocks include Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder and Gulf of Maine cod.

The Associated Press

PORTLAND %u2014 A year after shifting to a new system for regulating New England fisheries, federal officials are increasing limits on 12 out of 20 groundfish stocks when the new season begins May 1.

Higher catch limits will be a relief for fishermen who saw across-the-board restrictions last year, when fishermen were first allowed to join "sectors" with specific allotments. This year, about half of fishermen will use that system, while the remainder will face restrictions on the number of days at sea.

Marjorie Mooney-Seus from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service says bigger catch limits for 11 stocks including Georges Bank cod and Gulf of Maine cod are due to successful efforts to rebuild stocks. Higher limits on the 12th, Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, were negotiated with Canada.

Link







http://students.umf.maine.edu/katie.l.thomas/publ ic.www/Oceans%20Webpage/Atlantic%20Ocean/fish.JPG

The supposed "humiliating climbdown" to which your ten-month-old report refers has proven to be anything but, of course; numerous follow-up studies have shown that a) the oil did not simply dissipate and b) it's had a grave effect on Gulf seafood.

From the Wikipedia entry on the oil spill (and you can find all the references there):

"The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and to the Gulf's fishing and tourism industries. In late November 2010, 4,200 square miles of the Gulf were re-closed to shrimping after tar balls were found in shrimpers' nets. The amount of Louisiana shoreline affected by oil grew from 287 miles in July to 320 miles in late November 2010. In January 2011, an oil spill commissioner reported that tar balls continue to wash up, oil sheen trails are seen in the wake of fishing boats, wetlands marsh grass remains fouled and dying, and that crude oil lies offshore in deep water and in fine silts and sands onshore. A research team found oil on the bottom of the seafloor in late February 2011 that did not seem to be degrading."

Hardly the rosy, non-science, anti-logical "pollution is good!" blather printed in the Mail, is it?

At any rate, the BP spill was just one of many assaults on the aquatic environment discussed in the article to which I linked. Bad stuff, it is. Bad, bad stuff...

As for fish stocks rebounding due to underfishing caused by the presence of Somali pirates, that illustrates just how badly mankind is doing. And in reference to the changes that are allowing Atlantic cod to rebound, I'd call that yet another success story highlighting the need for continued government regulation; left to their own devices and greed, many people simply can't be trusted to be good stewards.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
237. iceagecoming
11:20 AM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
How BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill could actually lead to an increase in fish stocks

Read more:
Link


Somali Pirates Disrupt Fishing Industry, Increase Fish Stocks


Link


Catch Limits in 12 fish stocks increasing May 1.


The stocks include Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder and Gulf of Maine cod.

The Associated Press

PORTLAND %u2014 A year after shifting to a new system for regulating New England fisheries, federal officials are increasing limits on 12 out of 20 groundfish stocks when the new season begins May 1.

Higher catch limits will be a relief for fishermen who saw across-the-board restrictions last year, when fishermen were first allowed to join "sectors" with specific allotments. This year, about half of fishermen will use that system, while the remainder will face restrictions on the number of days at sea.

Marjorie Mooney-Seus from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service says bigger catch limits for 11 stocks including Georges Bank cod and Gulf of Maine cod are due to successful efforts to rebuild stocks. Higher limits on the 12th, Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, were negotiated with Canada.

Link







http://students.umf.maine.edu/katie.l.thomas/publ ic.www/Oceans%20Webpage/Atlantic%20Ocean/fish.JPG
Member Since: Enero 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
236. Neapolitan
10:16 AM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Ah, the "S" word! Always logical, and always helpful! ;-) All I know is that Good Governor Skeletor is gone in 2014, whether or not those hoping to suppress the vote in Palm Beach County and elsewhere are successful this go-round. That will be victory enough for most Floridians, and proof that his particular brand of pro-corporate, pro-pollution, anti-middle class politics is neither productive, wanted, or needed.

Anyway, here's more of that "Socialist" science stuff for those who care about such things:

Ocean life on the brink of mass extinctions: study

Life in the oceans is at imminent risk of the worst spate of extinctions in millions of years due to threats such as climate change and over-fishing, a study showed on Tuesday.

Time was running short to counter hazards such as a collapse of coral reefs or a spread of low-oxygen "dead zones," according to the study led by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO).

"We now face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation," according to the study by 27 experts to be presented to the United Nations.

"Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, over-exploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean," it said.

Scientists list five mass extinctions over 600 million years -- most recently when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, apparently after an asteroid struck. Among others, the Permian period abruptly ended 250 million years ago.

"The findings are shocking," Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO, wrote of the conclusions from a 2011 workshop of ocean experts staged by IPSO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at Oxford University.

Fish are the main source of protein for a fifth of the world's population and the seas cycle oxygen and help absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities.

Reuters Article...
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
234. Neapolitan
12:43 AM GMT en Junio 21, 2011
Uh-oh.

Now, I realize the research was conducted by actual scientists with degrees and all, so some may choose to ignore it, but, still, it may be of interest to others:

Researchers find sea level rising faster over the last century than in past 2,000 years

Sea level has been rising significantly over the past century of global warming, according to a study that offers the most detailed look yet at the changes in ocean levels during the last 2,100 years.

The researchers found that since the late 19th century--as the world became industrialized--sea level has risen more than 2 millimeters per year, on average. That's a bit less than one-tenth of an inch, but it adds up over time.

It will lead to land loss, more flooding and saltwater invading bodies of fresh water, said lead researcher Benjamin Horton whose team examined sediment from North Carolina's Outer Banks. He directs the Sea Level Research Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania.

The predicted effects he cites arent new and are predicted by many climate scientists. But outside experts say the research verifies increasing sea level rise compared to previous centuries.

Kenneth Miller, chairman of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers University, called the new report significant.

"This is a very important contribution because it firmly establishes that the rise in sea level in the 20th century is unprecedented for the recent geologic past," said Miller, who was not part of the research team. Miller said he recently advised New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the state needs to plan for a sea level rise of about 3 feet by the end of the century.

Horton said rising temperatures are the reason behind the higher sea level.

Looking back in history, the researchers found that sea level was relatively stable from 100 B.C. to A.D. 950. Then, during a warm climate period beginning in the 11th century, sea level rose by about half a millimeter per year for 400 years. That was followed by a second period of stable sea level associated with a cooler period, known as the Little Ice Age, which persisted until the late 19th century.

Washington Post Article...

I sure hope the Little Ice Age Part II kicks in and reverse the course of things. C'mon, Solar Minimum!!!
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
233. NRAamy
6:59 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
where's the "Mmmmmm-bop" video?
Member Since: Enero 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
232. Snowlover123
6:55 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
DMI is also showing a very noticeable slowing of melting in the Arctic.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
231. Snowlover123
6:45 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:


LOL! We are at record low levels now and you think the North Arctic is cooling now. LOL! Keep dreaming!


Where on Earth did I say the Arctic was cooling...??

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
230. Snowlover123
6:41 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

No, he wasn't;


So this is what CAGW Advocates' rebuttals now consist of: "No it's not."

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
229. Snowlover123
6:38 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

There's little no doubt among scientists that the coming solar minimum will definitely not in and of itself induce an ice age, nor even a cooling period of any type; there's simply too much CO2 for that to happen.


Really? Then how did we go into an Ice Age 450 Million Years ago with 10X as much Carbon Dioxide?



Answer: Solar Activity was at record low levels.



So even with Carbon Dioxide levels being 10X as high as they are now, the Earth still went into an Ice Age because of the sun. How about that.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
227. PurpleDrank
5:51 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

No, he wasn't; we disproved that a few days ago. He was, in fact, eerily dead-on in his prediction.

The planet is getting warmer, and warmer, and warmer...


except for those periods in planetary evolution where it gets colder, and colder, and colder..

Member Since: Agosto 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
225. NRAamy
3:04 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


Hansen was off for this year by only 60300000000000000000000 Joules!


perhaps, but "Mmmmmmm-bop" is a great song.....

Member Since: Enero 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
224. Neapolitan
3:01 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


Hansen was off for this year by only 60300000000000000000000 Joules!

No, he wasn't; we disproved that a few days ago. He was, in fact, eerily dead-on in his prediction.

The planet is getting warmer, and warmer, and warmer...
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
223. NRAamy
3:00 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
different week, same players...

Member Since: Enero 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
222. Neapolitan
2:59 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:
Another Solar Physicist now believes that the Solar Minimum should last for a very long time- all the way to 2100.

Quote:

"The new episode is a deep minimum. It will look similar to the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1620 to 1720...This new Grand Minimum will last until approximately 2100."
------

This is pretty big for Dr. C. De Jager to say, as he is a very prominent solar physicist within the scientific community, puclishing numerous studies on the solar effect on climate.

Hmmm. Can you find some articles from de Jager that are posted on a real peer-reviewed journal, not the pretend Journal of Cosmology? (As you know, if you've kept up with such things, the COJ has been widely derided as "a ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics") And nothing against C. de Jager himself--I'm sure he's a fine fellow--but he's 90 years old and hasn't been actively involved in his field for decades; someone who's kept abreast of changes in the field might be a better spokesman.

The fact is, of course, that the solar contribution to last century's warming was 10% or less. And, in fact, the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling effect, yet the planet has continued to blithely ignore that and warm up anyway.

There's little no doubt among scientists that the coming solar minimum will definitely not in and of itself induce an ice age, nor even a cooling period of any type; there's simply too much CO2 for that to happen.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
221. cyclonebuster
1:44 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:
After a period of rapid melting in the Arctic, it seems that the seasonal melt has started to slow down some.



This is due increased storminess and increased Cloud Cover that has moved over the Arctic.



LOL! We are at record low levels now and you think the North Arctic is cooling now. LOL! Keep dreaming!
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
220. iceagecoming
1:15 PM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


Hansen was off for this year by only 60300000000000000000000 Joules!


Joules Smoules whatever!

We are all guilty Capitalistic Imperialists.
We must repay the the world for our sins!


They're "Plan B" once Gore fell from grace once the data PROVING global warming came under doubt.

One way or another "Global Warming/Cooling/Change" will be shoved down our throats because third world countries want their global warming money and the only way to get it is for nations to acknowledge it and pay out. Africa alone wants $67 billion per year for global warming payments.



The Kyoto Treaty was based on total emissions, an overly simplistic metric that makes no provisions for the fact that the rate of population and economic growth country are unpredictable, and that these factors greatly impact greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, Kyoto simply established national “caps” for emissions in each country. Those caps would not change if the country’s economy grew, remained stagnant or even if it shrank. As a result, high-growth countries such as Canada and Spain have not come close to meeting their emissions targets, whereas countries which have experienced economic contraction and population decline have easily met theirs.

Canada’s inability to meet its Kyoto commitment is not a source of national shame—it is the inevitable result of a flawed treaty which failed to recognize the relationship between population growth, economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions.

Link

I wonder when China and India are signing up???
Member Since: Enero 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
219. Snowlover123
11:39 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


Ding ding ding !

The Oceans rule in the end ~ let alone that cloud formation understanding problem.

2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions

Edit: The script lacks a rebuttal to such items, hence the re-posting of it.


Hansen was off for this year by only 60300000000000000000000 Joules!
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
218. Snowlover123
11:35 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Another Solar Physicist now believes that the Solar Minimum should last for a very long time- all the way to 2100.

Quote:

"The new episode is a deep minimum. It will look similar to the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1620 to 1720...This new Grand Minimum will last until approximately 2100."
------

This is pretty big for Dr. C. De Jager to say, as he is a very prominent solar physicist within the scientific community, puclishing numerous studies on the solar effect on climate.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
217. Snowlover123
11:25 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Lol McBill....
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
215. iceagecoming
10:30 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Environmentalism is just one quasi-moral crusade that religious extremists regard as a lifestyle and belief alternative to their own faith system.

That seems to fit some around these parts.
Member Since: Enero 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
211. Ossqss
2:26 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:
Seems like accoding to AMSU, Sea Surface Temperatures are the coolest since 2003. It is only .01 Degrees C away from being the coolest Sea Surface Temperatures ever in AMSU recorded history.


Ding ding ding !

The Oceans rule in the end ~ let alone that cloud formation understanding problem.

2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions

Edit: The script lacks a rebuttal to such items, hence the re-posting of it.
Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
210. Snowlover123
1:36 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting McBill:

You are way too funny, dude. On a whim, I saved one of your comments from 5/28/11 where you said pretty much the same thing:



You just keep your fingers crossed and maybe the melt will slow down someday - maybe someday in September?



The AD anomaly was forecast to break down, (and it has begun to do so, which has led to less melt) and the pattern would become stormier and would consist of more clouds in the Arctic.

Of course, your rebuttal is an ad-hominem attack, which is not really much of a surprise.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
209. Snowlover123
1:32 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Quoting McBill:


I'm guessing that Joe D'Aleo is a pretty busy guy. Too busy, in fact, to keep up with the climate science literature or to have even skimmed the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Had he not been so busy, he might have noticed that those "warmist scientists" took time to include a discussion of the PDO and other multidecadal cycles in the oceans back in 2007 in AR4


What a professional at misrepresenting Joseph D'Aleo's statement!

Here, let's read this again, and more slowly, for reading comprehension purposes.

They will never admit to the multidecadal cycles in the oceans as these might explain some or most of the warming they want you to believe are the result to your driving SUVs and the burning coal and oil.

Essentially, Joe D'Aleo is saying here that they will never admit to saying that the oceans are largely responsible for the warming.



Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
208. Snowlover123
1:27 AM GMT en Junio 20, 2011
Seems like accoding to AMSU, Sea Surface Temperatures are the coolest since 2003. It is only .01 Degrees C away from being the coolest Sea Surface Temperatures ever in AMSU recorded history.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 257 - 207

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog 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.