A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)
A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)
In the previous entry I set out the need of a scientific organization; that is, an organization that is designed and run to honor the tenets of the scientific method. This stands in contrast to, say, a laboratory or a center that is populated by scientists carrying out a multitude of projects, each following the scientific method. One motivation for the scientific organization is the steady stream of reports from the past two decades calling for better integration of U.S. climate activities to provide predictions to meet societal needs. At the foundation of my argument is that the way we teach, fund and reward scientific investigation has been, traditionally, fragmenting. Without addressing this underlying fragmentation, there are high barriers to achieving the needed integration. (see, Something New in the Past Decade?, The Scientific Organization, High-end Climate Science).
What does it take for an organization to adhere to the scientific method? Ultimately, I will arrive at the conclusion that it takes a diligence of management and governance, but for this entry I will continue to focus on the elements of the scientific method, and specifically the development of strategies to evaluate and validate collected, rather than individual, results.
In May I attended a seminar by David Stainforth. Stainforth is one of the principles in the community project climateprediction.net. From their website, “Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models.” In this project people download a climate model and run the model on their personal computers, then the results are communicated back to data center where they are analyzed in concert with results from many other people.
This is one example of community science or citizen science. Other citizen science programs are Project Budburst and the Globe Program. There are a number of reasons for projects like this. One of the reasons is to extend the reach of observations. In Project Budburst people across the U.S. observe the onset of spring as indicated by different plants – when do leaves and blossoms emerge? A scientific motivation for doing this is to increase the number observations to try to assure that the Earth's variability is adequately observed – to develop statistical significance. In these citizen science programs people are taught how to observe - a protocol is developed.
Education – that is another goal of these citizen science activities, education about the scientific method. In order to follow the scientific process, we need to know the characteristics of the observations. If, as in Project Budburst, we are looking for the onset of leafing, then we need to make sure that the tree is not sitting next to a warm building or in the building’s atrium. Perhaps, there is a requirement of a measurement, for example, that the buds on a particular type of tree have expanded to a certain size or burst in some discernible way. Quantitative measurement and adherence of practices of measurement are at the foundation of developing a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment is one where we try to investigate only one thing at a time; this is a difficult task in climate science. If we are not careful about our observations and the design of our experiments, then it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to evaluate our hypotheses and arrive at conclusions. And the ability to test hypotheses is fundamental to the scientific method. Design, observations, hypothesis, evaluation, validation – in a scientific organization these things need to be done by the organization, not each individual.
Let’s return to climateprediction.net. A major goal is to obtain a lot of simulations from climate models to examine the range of variability that we might expect in 2100. The strategy is to place relatively simple models in the hands of a whole lot of people. With this strategy it is possible to do many more experiments than say one scientist or even a small team of scientists can do. Many 100,000s of simulations have been completed.
One of the many challenges faced in the model-based experiments is how to manage the model simulations to provide controlled experiments. If you think about a climate model as a whole, then there are a number of things that can be changed. We can change something “inside” of the model, for example, we can change how rough we estimate the Earth’s surface to be – maybe grassland versus forest. We can change something “outside” of the model - the energy balance, perhaps, some estimate of how the Sun varies or how carbon dioxide will change. And, still “outside” the model, we can change the details of what the climate looks like when the model simulation is started – do we start it with January 2003 data or July 2007? When you download a model from climateprediction.net, it has a unique set of these parameters. If you do a second experiment, this will also have a unique set of parameters. Managing these model configurations and documenting this information allows, well, 100000s of simulations to be run, with a systematic exploration of model variability. Experiment strategy is explained here.
What impressed me about climateprediction.net is the ability to design and execute a volunteer organization that allows rigorous investigation with of a group of thousands of people on thousands of different computers distributed all over the globe. Protocols have been set up to verify that the results are what they should be; there is confidence in the accuracy of the information collected. Here is an example where scientists are able to define an organization where the scientific method permeates the organization. Is this proof that a formalized scientific organization is possible? What are the attributes that contribute to the success of a project like climateprediction.net? Are they relevant to a U.S. climate laboratory?
Bringing this back to the scale of U.S. climate activities – in 2008 there was a Policy Forum in Science Magazine by Mark Schaefer, Jim Baker and a distinguished number of co-authors. All of these co-authors had worked at high levels in the government, and they all struggled with the desire and need to integrate U.S. climate activities. Based on their experience they posed an Earth System Science Agency made from a combined USGS and NOAA. In their article they pointed out: “The synergies among our research and monitoring programs, both space- and ground-based, are not being exploited effectively because they are not planned and implemented in an integrated fashion. Our problems include inadequate organizational structure, ineffective interagency collaboration, declines in funding, and blurred authority for program planning and implementation.” Planning and implementation in an integrated fashion, I will add – consistent with the scientific method – that is what is needed for a successful scientific investigation by an individual; it is needed to make climateprediction.net substantive; it is needed for any climate organization that is expected, as a whole, to provide integrated climate information.
r
Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index
It's all about the ice not the money!
Hmmm....that graph again. It really should always be included with it's disclaimer, from the same site that it originates from. I'll give the disclaimer and relevant links below, including the source of the graph since you didn't provide it.
Disclaimer:
"Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care."
Disclaimer is from here.
Original source for the graph is this page.
Larger version (~1 MB) is here.
Source of Cryosat-2 data is here.
I had tried to give a quick estimate of how PIOMAS compared to the Cryosat-2 data (prior blog comments № 257) but I noticed that I made an error: I inadvertently compared Jan/Feb Cryosat-2 data to May PIOMAS/IARC-JAXA estimates. I'm recalculating below using Jan/Feb data.
PIOMAS model estimate for arctic sea ice volume for Jan/Feb: 18000 km³ I'm assuming the Cryosat-2 data is referring to the average of the Jan 1st-Feb 28th period. This is actually almost the same as I used for the May number in my previous attempt. I got the data from here.
Average sea ice area over the same period, from IARC-JAXA, was about 12x10⁶ km². This data comes from here.
This yields about
1.5421.5 m average thickness for the Jan/Feb time period. I think it's pretty obvious this is far less than estimated by Cryosat-2. I suppose it's possible that the Cryosat-2 data may still need to be calibrated to some degree, but I had thought that they had spent the last several months doing that, so I'm not sure. At the moment however, if the Cryosat-2 data is accurate, it appears PIOMAS has been underestimating ice volume significantly.Edited: Corrected math error.
Total Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS showing the volume of the mean annual cycle, the current year, and 2007 (the year of minimum sea ice extent in September). Shaded areas indicate one and two standard deviations from the mean.
That evil Algore! How dare he suggest that women have a right to decide when and whether to start a family, or how big that family should eventually be!!! How dare he suggest that women have access to reproductive healthcare!!! Just who does he think he is?!?!?!
What are we doing to prevent the death spiral?
Do you have an opinion on the Cryosat-2 data?
Yes! All data is imperfect. But that does not mean you can ignore it. The data we use to build modern day airplanes is imperfect,also. However, we still choose to fly in them. Correct Dr. Rood?
Certainly, no data is perfect. However, unless there is something significantly wrong with the initial Cryosat-2 data, it seems to indicate that the PIOMAS model estimates are way off. This in turn casts some doubt on the perceived lowest volume claims of 2010, speculation about thin ice, etc. I'll be interested in seeing if there is any further calibration, or any reason to think the Cryosat-2 data is in question.
Thanks goes to RP Sr. for providing the path to the item. I recall watching the Sat imagery of such not long ago.
PDF
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011 /tcd-5-1311-2011.pdf
Link to the site ~
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011 /tcd-5-1311-2011.html
I was intending to look up the link for that. Thanks, Ossqss.
My pleasure :)
I think perhaps we will ultimately find a correlation from the papers offering to the Russian heat wave and and other anomalous items we have viewed in the big picture. Just kinda fits, imho ~
Oh no you dont.
Al gore is proposing that it(reduced procreation) is the duty and a needed action to be taken to reduce the so called burden on Earth.
The Progressive/liberal agenda is sustainability of population and resources.
Modeled after Chinas one child policy,to name just one.
The agenda of those on the left and the Progressives is something that is in lockstep with the warmists and the radical environmental extremists.
There is no way I can let you twist away the agenda of those you mostly support.
As is often pointed out from the left,directed at their opposition.
The company you keep is reflective of your agenda!
Forced or coerced population control is a major part of the Environmental extremest plan!
You have little leeway to twist your way out of that imbedded part of your philosophy and peer goals!
You can not just glaze over the wanted outcome of Al Gore and the company he keeps,
by implying there is nefarious control over reproduction rites,when the goal of the globalists is control of procreation freedom.
Then in the 11th century, sea level rose by about half a millimeter each year for 400 years, linked with a warm climate period known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly.
Then there was a second period of stable sea level during a cooler period called the Little Ice Age. It persisted until the late 19th century.
Let us use the above and conclude:
Cause of these variations are solar.
Beleaguered-scientists-try-to-have-it-both-ways
It was announced June 15 that scientists are now fairly sure that around 2020, sunspot activity is going to lessen significantly. All the conditions for it are lining up so far. In layman’s language, less active sun, with fewer sunspots, can produce cooling because solar flares are diminished. Technically, this condition is a “solar minimum.” The last time it happened, experts say, we had a “Little Ice Age.”
Some 20 independent news sources published the findings emanating from at least three independent scientific studies and some dozen scientists. All seemed to concur that episodic sunspot activity lasting anywhere from 70 to 150 years is responsible for wild swings in weather on Earth as well as on other planets within our solar system. This 70- to 150-year cycle has embedded within it several shorter-term, 11-year solar cycles (“mini-cycles,” for lack of a better term), “that we all should have learned about in high school,” advises Dr. Michael Coffman, president of Environmental Perspectives, Inc.
Coffman explains that “everyone expected a normal cycle this time around. It hasn’t happened. The sun has massive ‘conveyor belts’ of plasma that circulate every 11 years. Our current solar cycle, Cycle 24, is very weak and scientists are now realizing the internal ‘conveyor belt’ is breaking down just as it did 150 years ago.” [See graph.]
“The number of sunspots (or, solar eruptions),” explains Coffman, “is already the lowest they have been in over a 100 years. [See the stunning graphic by clicking “here” at the bottom of the embedded link above.] There are indications that Cycle 25 may not have any at all! This hasn’t happened since the mid-1600s to the mid-1800s, when Earth experienced what is termed ‘the Little Ice Age.’” The “Little Ice Age” had no sunspots, and global temperatures dropped by 3 degrees Celsius. But in contrast to what people are led to believe by "global-warming" ideologists, the cooling did not turn out well. Coffman points to historical details showing that the dip in global temperatures caused, instead, massive crop failures, famine, and disease.
Unfortunately, science organizations that are responsible for grants and government contracts to scientists don’t know exactly how to spin these latest findings (much less their ramifications) in view of the politically correct necessity of maintaining man-made global-warming dogma to justify various legislative schemes of wealth redistribution now on the table — carbon footprints, cap-and-trade, etc. — all of which have become essential to the liberal establishment that holds the purse strings of research and development (R&D).
Link
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at- nasa/2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate/
Even for the "theory challenged" the empirical evidence indicates down, down, down. Still like
the tunnels though, just make sure they are in deep water.
Hot Air Detector?
Gore: Obama has 'failed'
By: CNN Associate Producer Gabriella Schwarz
(CNN) – Former vice president and environmental advocate Al Gore sharply criticized President Obama's "failed" approach to global warming Wednesday, forcing the White House to defend its record on climate change.
Can you say "OUCH"
From the Clinton News Network no less "OUCH, OUCH"
So--Pielke is touting a paper that recognizes that a) CO2 greenhouse warming is a major cause of ice loss in the Arctic Sea and b) other feedback effects were able to contribute to that ice loss once the ice melted enough.
Wow. I'm not sure whether to praise him for his honesty and candor, or send him an email suggesting he re-read the paper before he embarasses himself further. ;-)
Believing that women should have greater access to reproductive education and healthcare so they're better equipped to make decisions affecting their lives is the diametrical opposite of taking "control of procreation freedom". If anyone can explain how it isn't, I'd be willing to listen.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/q uikscat-20071001.html
"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.
Correct: as of 2007 (when the article to which you linked was posted) the warming climate had allowed Arctic sea ice to switch from perennial to seasonal, and that in turn is affecting the wind patterns. Since the beginning of this century--that is, 2000-2001--those wind patterns in the Arctic have changed, allowing even quicker ice loss. Nghiem's statement, then, was both precursor and adjunct to the article in The Cryosphere discussed elsewhere.
The signs of warming are increasing and everywhere. Hard to miss, aren't they?
Hummm, I had to log in to see some of the newcomers to Club Grey's posts? Welcome aboard Neo :)
Here is a tid bit picked up on the waiver wire during lunch. I am suprised this stuff is still going on considering all the issues the IPCC has on its hands.
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc e.house.gov/files/061711_Broun%20Letter%20to%20UN%2 0re%20IPCC%20Conflict%20of%20Interest.pdf
What do you mean by "this stuff'? You mean the continued witch-hunting by a member of the Tea Party? The thoroughly- and repeatedly-debunked allegations against Mann and Jones that nevertheless keeping being grasped at yet again by the pro-pollution crowd? The attempts to besmirch men of character and substance by reproducing stolen emails in a ludicrously out-of-context manner? The silly anti-science stonewalling by yet another Representative on behalf of his Big Energy masters? In short, the mad rantings of an Islamaphobic, "Obama-is-a-Socialist", denialist Birther? Is that what you mean by "this stuff"? If so, I agree with you: this is a time for serious people, not grandstanders.
Yet another example of why nobody can see your posts unless they are logged in with settings on "show all".
Here, perhaps this will help you understand what conflict of interest actually means. Go ahead and slander the writer rather than face the facts as per your normal patterns of operation. Your gibberish above has no relevance to the subject at hand. Gheeze!
Conflict of interest guidelines for the IPCC
If all across the controlled lands of the World,Every country adopted the Climate agenda,
How much warming could be reduced ?
Reduced by how many degrees?
And what cost is involved in this minor reduction of temp rise?
And just where are the funds going to come from after the Warmists have decimated the GDP of the world? ..."
Do you suggest that since you believe we could not completely reverse the effects of AGW that we should do nothing at all? ...... Your car is nearly out of gas. Shouldn't you be driving faster?
Warmist will have decimated the global GDP? What is the logic behind your question? Speculation, creating capital from the thin air and creative financing have brought about the decimation of the global economy. The redistribution of wealth from the developed countries to the developing countries has come from globalization and not from the "warmist". What sense does it make, ever, to ship your raw materials half way around the world and then ship them back, half way around the world, to be sold as finished or semi-finished products? This makes perfect sense, if you an energy provider that supplies the energy to do so.
What are the associated costs to the global economy if only half of what is predicted by AGW comes true?
What are your credentials that allows you to make statements that are completely contradictory of those that have advanced degrees in this field of study? Are you truly more knowledgeable than they are? Will you give me one reason as to why I should believe your viewpoints over theirs? While you have made no such statements in the post of yours that I now quote, you have belittled those with the degrees before and have implied that you know more than they. I am listening. Convince me that you know more on the subject than do the ones with the degrees. Will you be bothered, if I am skeptical of your knowledge of the subject?
I have no issue with those that are true skeptics. I have issues with self induced ignorance of the subject by those that wish us to believe them over the ones that have actual knowledge of the subject. The subject matter can be of any subject.
From what I've seen in my time around here, whether a particular poster's comments are visible or not has far less to do with the quality and veracity of their posts than it does with the willingness of so many to desperately silence dissenting opinions by mashing the minus button on every post and poster they don't like. (It's kinda like "climategate", only writ much smaller.) Fallacy #1.
I didn't "slander" the writer; slander is the expression of a false and negative claim, and nothing I wrote was false. Dr. Broun has made anti-Islam statements; he has repeatedly referred to President Obama as a socialist; he is a member of the Tea Party Republicans who has stated his doubt that President Obama is not an American; he has a long and storied history of climate change denialism--and I can back up what I just wrote. Fallacy #2.
Pretending that a person's political leanings has absolutely no bearing on whether they believe scientists or oil companies is laughably foolish at best, and outright dangerous at worst. Fallacy #3.
That's three strikes. Now take a seat on the bench...
"Acceptable", is a relative term. Could you be more precise in as to what is "acceptable" to you?
Models were used to predict the extent of the flooding of both the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers recently. The models did not accurately predict how much water Aunt Sally's house would get in inches off the floor. The models did accurately predict Aunt Sally's house would experience an intrusion of rising waters from the flood and possibly that Uncle Bill's barn would suffer as well. The models did not accurately predict where each breech in the levees would occur or precisely when they would fail. They did predict that there would be some failures in the levee system. Since the models did not accurately predict everything concerning these floods then, using your logic, these floods were not occurring. Is this an "acceptable" assessment of your failed logic?
Do you deny that AGW is happening? Fine, I have absolutely no issue with that. The caveat is that you have to bring to me the proof that what you believe is true or I have no logical reason to believe you. You will be most challenged by the fact that since you believe models carry no weight then I can not logically believe in any models you should produce. ... You have been challenged. Can you meet the challenge?
Once again, nothing you bring to the table is relevent to the point conveyed. That point was "conflict of interest" as part of the IPCC processes and the continued avoidance of such policy by the IPCC.
InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure
"The lack of a conflict-of-interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input. Questions about potential conflicts of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s service as an adviser to, and board member of, for-profit energy companies, and about the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review. However, the Committee believes that the nature of the IPCC’s task (i.e., in presenting a series of expert judgments on issues of great societal relevance) demands that the IPCC pay special attention to issues of independence and bias to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, its results."
The "continued avoidance of [COI] policy by the IPCC"? Do you have evidence of that? I mean, besides baseless allegations and accusations by notorious denialists (Broun, Curry)? Do you have any proof that the IPCC hasn't or isn't instituting the recommendations of the IAC?
FWIW, I agree with avoiding even the appearance of conflict of interest. I have to say, however, that I've seldom seen anything quite so laughably hypocritical as Big Oil-funded denialists accusing credible scientists of COI. Pot? Meet Kettle.
It strikes me--not for the first time--that if the denialist crowd would devote one-tenth as much energy to combating the effects of climate change as they do to making one desperate attempt after another at discrediting and obfuscating, we might make at least a little progress. But that'll never happen; that wouldn't make the Koch Brothers and the other puppeteers of the world happy, now would it?
I do have the decency to properly acknowledge the quotes I am pasting.
From post #79
"Do you suggest that since you believe we could not completely reverse the effects of AGW that we should do nothing at all? ...... Your car is nearly out of gas. Shouldn't you be driving faster"?
NO!
And you know its a ridiculous leap to conclude so.
Reports on cap and trade by government, and by think tanks independent, left-leaning and right-leaning, all conclude that cap and trade is an economic loser. Studies from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, The Brookings Institution, the Energy Information Administration, the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and The Heritage Foundation all found net decreases in income and employment. And the net decrease is after our government spends taxpayer dollars to build more expensive windmills and solar panels.
Link
o review: Both the House and Senate climate change bills plan on scaling back CO2 emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. According to United States Census figures, the population of the U.S. will increase by thirty million by 2020 and by 100 million by 2050. So where will the cuts come from? From America's coal industry, which will be shuttered; from our manufacturing sector, which will be moved offshore; and from our livestock industry, which will also be sent abroad.
Link
We can and must support commonsense policies that protect our environment, but that goal can be achieved without abandoning 70,000 or more Pennsylvania jobs and imposing higher gas and electricity prices on all Pennsylvanians. A focus on renewable energy, conservation, low-carbon energy like natural gas, nuclear energy and cleaner-coal technology are all part of the solution. But as unemployment climbs toward 10 percent, protecting our hard-working families must be our first priority.
Link
%u201CThis is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs,%u201D Capito said.
Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations.
"Let me be clear, it%u2019s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA.
Link
Solar power subsidies have helped bankrupt the Spanish economy, and the very government officials who have peddled these schemes are backpedaling furiously to keep their jobs as their taxpayers rise in revolt. The government is slashing subsidies left and right, but it may already be too late to save their economy. Meanwhile, at least one Spanish solar power company has found a temporary bandage to slow its fiscal hemorrhaging -- the American taxpayer. Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorksi, who was not reelected in November, has a nephew who "worked" for the Spanish solar company Abound. Somehow, this foreign company was blessed with a 400-million-dollar federal grant. Abound will probably join its rivals in Spain into ruin -- the Spanish landscape will be littered with uneconomic solar power plants that will bear more than a little resemblance, metaphorically speaking, to the windmills of Miguel Cervantes' Don Quixote.
Link
This tsunami of bankruptcies is headed our way.
Many of the execs and investors behind these green schemes are Democratic donors and those who have toiled in Democratic party politics for years. Solyndra was another solar scheme that received 535 million dollars in federal tax dollars. The "investment" was widely touted by the Obama administration. The firm was chock-full of investors and executives who were generous Democratic donors and activists. One of its biggest investors was a big bundler for the Obama-Biden campaign.
Solyndra also closed one of its plants and laid off workers after gouging on the aid.
But wait...there is more. The hucksterism runs rampant.
Solyndra's auditor could not issue an opinion that would have allowed the company to go public and for its investors to cash out. The reason? Solyndra was so badly run that doubts were raised regarding its ability to continue as a going concern. The backers may have lacked much as investors and scientists. But as crony capitalists, they excelled.
Link
I never said I was an expert.
That was just an obvious smear directed at me.
So I let the experts tell the story.
And BTW!
. And just a question.....
If all across the controlled lands of the World,Every country adopted the Climate agenda,
How much warming could be reduced ?
Reduced by how many degrees?
I asked a question.
And you can answer it cant you?
Or are you not an expert?
And just this for a cherry on top.
From #79
I have no issue with those that are true skeptics. I have issues with self induced ignorance of the subject by those that wish us to believe them over the ones that have actual knowledge of the subject. The subject matter can be of any subject.
So do you have a problem with your ignorance on extreme environmental policies decimation of economies?
Tornado tracks.
This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-13 50811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind -power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html# ixzz1Q9YvpJa0
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-13 50811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind -power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html# ixzz1Q9YQlKBv
Link
This is reaching too for 1600.
Some don't some do!
Here is your man:
Energy secretary says there's no need to tap U.S. oil reserves
By Andrew Restuccia - 03/02/11 02:11 PM ET
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday that volatile oil prices will be reined in by spare world oil capacity without the United States having to tap into its own strategic oil reserves.
Obama Admin. Taps U.S. Emergency Oil Reserves
The Obama administration announced Thursday it will release 30 million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The move comes as part of an international effort to reduce crude prices and resuscitate economic recovery in the world's most industrialized nations.
Only emergency is the 30 percent poll number!
He hope it works or it's Hillary winning the Primaries
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Obama says he wants to negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban, the group in Afghanistan that harbored al Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11. “So as we strengthen the Afghan government and security forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban,” he said in his Wednesday evening White House address.
He then spelled out these conditions for such negotiations: “They must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan constitution.”
President Obama said he thought progress on this front can be made.
For my part, I am not so sure.
Even if the Taliban leadership were to break from al Qaeda and abandon violence - they certainly have not done that yet - I suspect they will never accept Article 22 of the Afghan constitution which says: “Any kind of discrimination and distinction between citizens of Afghanistan shall be forbidden. The citizens of Afghanistan, man and woman, have equal rights and duties before the law.”
All of us remember what life for women in Afghanistan was like before U.S. forces removed the Taliban from power after 9/11. Afghan women and girls now have rights they did not have before.
Based on what Afghan women must still endure in those areas under Taliban control, I have no reason to believe the Taliban have changed their views. I suspect the hard-core true believers in the Taliban probably never will.
Even Wulff is done with him.
But you can say there are more of them because of warming.
Obama's Solar Nightmare
Evergreen Solar Inc. will eliminate 800 jobs in Massachusetts and shut its new factory at the former military base in Devens, just two years after it opened the massive facility to great fanfare and with about $58 million in taxpayer subsidies.
The company announced yesterday that it will close the plant by the end of March, calling itself a victim of weak demand and competition from cheaper suppliers in China, where the government provides solar companies with generous subsidies.
Evergreen itself has a factory in Wuhan, China, built in collaboration with a Chinese company, Jiawei Solarchina Co. Ltd., and with money from a Chinese government investment fund. The company had previously said it would shift some production from Devens to the Wuhan plant but yesterday was the first time it said Devens would be closed.
The Devens closing is a major hit to Governor Deval Patrick's efforts to make Massachusetts a hub of the emerging clean-energy industry. The administration persuaded Evergreen to build at Devens with a package of grants, land, loans, and other aid originally valued at $76 million. The company ended up taking about $58 million, one of the largest aid packages Massachusetts has provided to a private company, and the governor was the featured guest at Evergreen's ribbon-cutting in July 2008.
From American Thinker
Governor Patrick had been criticized during his reelection campaign for providing aid to the plant during a time of economic stress. He ignored the criticism and plowed ahead. He and Barack Obama shared more than plagiarized speech lines and campaign strategist David Axelrod.
There are claw-back provisions allowing the state to recover some of the lost money. But these are mostly window dressing. Officials admit that the terms are so complicated and generous that any recovery will be only a token amount. Company officials agree.
This is, of course, an outrage. Money is fungible. Evergreen used its own money to expand in China, took taxpayer dollars to take a fling in Massachusetts, and when that venture failed, just closed the doors and walked away. What a deal! Taxpayers take the risk. If the venture had succeeded, the company and its promoters and investors would have pocketed the gains; when it failed, they just walked away with nary an ounce of obligations to taxpayers. Were the lights, at least, run on solar power?
Link
Yes, I suppose it is not much a challenge when you do not address the challenge. What is the challenge I presented to you? Did you address this challenge? No, you did not. You side stepped the challenge by making statements about climate models. How does this even begin to convince me that what you believe in, concerning AGW, is true and that I should believe you over the people that have degrees in climatology? Again, the challenge for you is to provide me with the proof that what you believe is true. Just because you find every climate model unacceptable to YOU does not convince me that you carry the truth concerning AGW. This does not convince me of anything other than you seem to have some advanced skills at side stepping the issue. I seriously doubt that what you provide as “proof” would be enough to convince a true skeptic.
You did not even answer the first question. Could you be more precise in what is acceptable to you in terms of climate models? I shall quote you, “Too bad not one long-term climate model in existence has any degree of acceptable accuracy” What is an acceptable degree of accuracy for you? Models that predict the extent of river floods are not completely accurate either and yet you seem to accept them without any resistance what so ever. Why is that? “… not one long-term climate model in existence has any degree of acceptable accuracy” Will you name just one model predicting the extent of river flooding that was completely accurate? What makes this “acceptable” to you but, when a climate model is not completely accurate it has become unacceptable to you? Show me REAL evidence that AGW is not true. Convince me that you are the knowledgeable one that I should believe over many that have advanced degrees on the subject and would say that you are wrong. Don’t side step the challenge. Show me your proof that I should believe you over them.
“Predictions of river level rise are far simpler than predictions of climate. There is no comparison.” …. They both use models to make their predictions. Why do you so easily accept the models of one and not the other when they both show inaccuracies? When Aunt Sallys’ house only got 4” of water inside of it instead of a predicted 5” did you protest on the blogs that the models are not accurate and cannot be trusted? If not, why not? Did you protest and say that river flooding is a sham because their effects could not be accurately forecasted in the long term? Not one model has had an “acceptable” degree of accuracy, correct? Yet AGW is a sham because no long-term models have shown any “acceptable” degree of accuracy for you.
You will find it easy to convince those that already believe as you believe. I am more of a challenge. You have to show me your proof. Not so easy any more, is it? Are you up to this challenge or do we simply move back out onto the dance floor again? Show me again just how tricky your side step move is. I can keep up.
It saddens me, and obviously many others, to see the inability of some to at least respectfully consider what they don't want to hear. I learn from this site(good and bad)everyday, and hope I can always provide something in return. I frequently post "peer reviewed papers" that rarely garner comment from anyone, and probably for good reason. Just ask about cosmic rays and low level cloud formation considerations in the climate models. Nothin~
With respect to the COI item spattered about earlier, this should give you an easily understood layman version of what I reference.
Energygate ?
The IPCC is an underling entity of the WMO , but the IPCC has no governing code of ethics and only an informal guidance document. WMO has the documented policy, along with others, linked below. I find it completely unacceptable for the IPCC's type of exemption to even exist considering the stakes involved. Then to blatantly toss the policy they tout they developed and not apply it to their new report,,,what does that tell you? Hence, another example as to why we see so much that provides for less trust by most in IPCC. I will not waste any time reviewing the items that have been hashed over many times. Bottom line, the logic is prevailing.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/governance/ethics/Code%2 0of%20Ethics%20%28E%29.pdf
I shall waste no more of my PCO2 footprint on you tonight :)
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index