Simply Uncertain

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:10 AM GMT en Febrero 21, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.



Figure 1: From 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year 2100

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

r

Old Entry on Uncertainty and Definition of Model Types

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: 318 - 268

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Quoting Barefootontherocks:
I don't understand why you all have been arguing over whether the ice at the top of the world is melting. At least that's how I interpret what I read here. Of course it's melting. The way I learned it, 15,000 years ago Puget Sound was covered by glaciers.

Sigh...
;)

What relevance do you imagine that has to the current warming?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I don't understand why you all have been arguing over whether the ice at the top of the world is melting. At least that's how I interpret what I read here. Of course it's melting. The way I learned it, 15,000 years ago Puget Sound was covered by glaciers.

Quoting Neapolitan:
Huh? I asked you an honest, open, balanced, fair, and relevant question. If you didn't care to comment, a simple "I don't have an answer" would have been more polite.

Sigh...
LOL. (Insert beauty/beholder argument.) Likely you and I attended different schools of etiquette. I don't ask or answer personal questions.

Sigh...
;)
Member Since: Abril 29, 2006 Posts: 151 Comments: 18390
Quoting JupiterKen:How can the Mann stick be correct when it shows the MWP didn't happen? Citation on the "significant cooling elsewhere" that "has been demonstrated far too many times".
The Mann "hockey stick"--and every other reconstruction of the same global temp data--indeed includes the WMP. It's just that, as I stated, it was a regional event, so is barely discernible among the noise.
Quoting JupiterKen:Also identify who is quick to disregard the temperature data of the last 200 years?
Well, you can begin with Anthony Watts, and work your way from there.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Quoting JupiterKen:


The MWP is accepted to be much higher than the graph you show.

Who says and on the basis of what evidence do they say it?

It will be interesting to see if you attempt to answer that question factually.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Look again. It clearly indicates the temperature was warmer from the beginning of the graph to about 1300. If you cannot see that, then your ability to understand a graph is very much in question.


You are still incorrect. The MWP is accepted to be much higher than the graph you show. Your beliefs on my understanding of graphs is of no concern to me.
Member Since: Mayo 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting JupiterKen:


The MWP is not shown on your graph.

Look again. It clearly indicates the temperature was warmer from the beginning of the graph to about 1300. If you cannot see that, then your ability to understand a graph is very much in question.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Nonsense. The MWP indeed appears on Mann's original graph. It is easily seen on the left of the following.

Anything else?


The MWP is not shown on your graph.
Member Since: Mayo 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting Neapolitan:
Climate scientists don't "disregard" the WMP; it's just that it's not the hockey-stick breaking thing denialists wish. In short, temperatures are globally warmer than they have been at any time during the last 2000 years, and the WMP wasn't caused by the same thing that's driving the current warming. The same data that shows regional warming durng the WMP shows significant cooling elsewhere--as has been demonstrated far too many times...

On a related note, perhaps some day a denialist will tell me why they're so quick to disregard temperature data gathered over the past couple of hundred years--or even past couple of decades--yet just as quick to latch onto temperature data from 800 years ago.


How can the Mann stick be correct when it shows the MWP didn't happen? Citation on the "significant cooling elsewhere" that "has been demonstrated far too many times". Also identify who is quick to disregard the temperature data of the last 200 years? It's the only real data we have.



Member Since: Mayo 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting Neapolitan:
On a related note, perhaps some day a denialist will tell me why they're so quick to disregard temperature data gathered over the past couple of hundred years--or even past couple of decades--yet just as quick to latch onto temperature data from 800 years ago.

'Tis a stumper, isn't it?

Or maybe not. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:


And what exactly would I be checking on with HI? I don't believe I mentioned anything about them but nice misdirection (a good tactic when lacking facts).

Do you deny the MWP? The Mann hooeystick says there was none in spite of the many historical and paleo records.

Nonsense. The MWP indeed appears on Mann's original graph. It is easily seen on the left of the following.

Anything else?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Oceans Turning Acidic Faster than Past 300 Million Years"

LiveScience Link

I don't brake for trolls !
Member Since: Septiembre 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting JupiterKen:


And what exactly would I be checking on with HI? I don't believe I mentioned anything about them but nice misdirection (a good tactic when lacking facts).

Do you deny the MWP? The Mann hooeystick says there was none in spite of the many historical and paleo records.
Climate scientists don't "disregard" the WMP; it's just that it's not the hockey-stick breaking thing denialists wish. In short, temperatures are globally warmer than they have been at any time during the last 2000 years, and the WMP wasn't caused by the same thing that's driving the current warming. The same data that shows regional warming durng the WMP shows significant cooling elsewhere--as has been demonstrated far too many times...

On a related note, perhaps some day a denialist will tell me why they're so quick to disregard temperature data gathered over the past couple of hundred years--or even past couple of decades--yet just as quick to latch onto temperature data from 800 years ago.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Climate Change Costs Touching Insurers

commondreams.org Link

I don't brake for trolls !
Member Since: Septiembre 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


You've been breathing too much CO2.
All of us have been, courtesy of the fossil fuel industry. Thank you for finally acknowledging that fact...
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with you, JupterKen. All lies should be exposed for what they are and appropriate responses should be made to the liars. ... Uh, you did check with The Heartland Institute before making this post??? Please, say that you did. ... Uh oh! I see some serious problems ahead!


And what exactly would I be checking on with HI? I don't believe I mentioned anything about them but nice misdirection (a good tactic when lacking facts).

Do you deny the MWP? The Mann hooeystick says there was none in spite of the many historical and paleo records.
Member Since: Mayo 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting JupiterKen:


No. The lies need to see the light of day and they will.


I agree with you, JupterKen. All lies should be exposed for what they are and appropriate responses should be made to the liars. ... Uh, you did check with The Heartland Institute before making this post??? Please, say that you did. ... Uh oh! I see some serious problems ahead!
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Xandra:
Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)

Like most syndromes, ASS is a collection of symptoms that individually may not be serious, but taken together can be quite dangerous — at least it can be dangerous to the health and well-being of humanity if enough people actually believe the victims.

One tell-tale symptom of ASS is that a website or a writer focuses their climate attacks on non-scientists. If that non-scientist is Al Gore, this symptom alone may be definitive.

The other key symptoms involve the repetition of long-debunked denier talking points, commonly without links to supporting material. Such repetition, which can border on the pathological, is a clear warning sign.

Scientists who kept restating and republishing things that had been widely debunked in the scientific literature for many, many years would quickly be diagnosed with ASS.

If you suspect someone of ASS, look for the repeated use of the following phrases:

• Medieval Warm Period
• Hockey Stick
• Michael Mann
• The climate is always changing
• Warmist
• Hoax
• Temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide
• Pacific Decadal Oscillation
• Water vapor
• Sunspots
• Cosmic rays
• Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark
• Ice Age was predicted in the 1970s
• Global cooling

Individually, some of these words and phrases are quite useful and indeed are commonly used by both scientists and non-scientists who are not anti-science. But the use of more than half of these in a single speech or article is pretty much a definitive diagnosis of ASS.

When someone repeats virtually all of those phrases, along with multiple references to Al Gore, they are wholly a victim of ASS — in scientific circles they are referred to as ASS-wholes.



You've been breathing too much CO2.
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting cyclonebuster:






Cherrypicking? This article demonstrates that there has been much less ice in the past.
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
You need coolin', baby, I'm not foolin'
I'm gonna send ya back to schoolin'
Way down inside, a-honey, you need it
I'm gonna give you my love
I'm gonna give you my love, oh

Wanna whole lotta love
Wanna whole lotta love
Wanna whole lotta love
Wanna whole lotta love


Daddy need's it 2
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127647
Quoting Neapolitan:
Arctic ice extent two standard deviations below the long-term average. Ouch! ;-)


Are you so certain? I see where you get your disinformation:

Link and

Link
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting JupiterKen:


Science? Hockey stick? MWP? Lies and more lies. Mann should be jailed. There is no witch hunt for the guilty.

It is understood that that is how you *feel*, however, I wonder if you can substantiate your feelings with...oh, I don't know, maybe facts?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
What lies? Several independent investigations have failed to turn up one single shred of evidence that Mann lied about the science. The Professional Denialist Industry can--and most likely will--continue its frustrated quest to find something, anything, on which to try and hang Mann and those other climate scientists just seeking the truth, but at this point most people realize that that quest is entirely ideological and political, and has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with hoping to silence one of the greats.
Witch hunt (wich' hunt') - metaphor (coined 1932) 1. The act of seeking and persecuting any perceived enemy, particularly when the search is conducted using extreme measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence.


Science? Hockey stick? MWP? Lies and more lies. Mann should be jailed. There is no witch hunt for the guilty.
Member Since: Mayo 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Really? One whole paper? lol

The rest of the fear-mongering hardly requires a response. Few, if any, are holding up China as an example of how to control population.

Since you've decided to make this personal and to attempt to define my position for me, it's not out of place for me to return the dubious favor.

It is apparent from your posts above that you prefer a world in which starvation, poverty, dehydration, and disease run rampant. You evidently are in favor of further AGW and climate change, meaning not only will humans will suffer but a large number of animals and plants will likewise suffer, many to the point of extinction.

Are you sure that you want to discuss ethics?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted. Mahatma Gandhi <

...

Population control has nothing to do with death.

Try again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
All we have is the history of ice at the North pole. I am sure that it does not go back very far compared to the Earth's existence. Link
Member Since: Junio 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


My point is that 30 years of records proves nothing. The Arctic ice cap melts and refreezes as it always has.
Paleoclimatologists argue that annual Arctic Sea ice is now at its thinnest and most spare in many thousands of years. That't longer than 30 years, right?
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Quoting JupiterKen:


No. The lies need to see the light of day and they will.
What lies? Several independent investigations have failed to turn up one single shred of evidence that Mann lied about the science. The Professional Denialist Industry can--and most likely will--continue its frustrated quest to find something, anything, on which to try and hang Mann and those other climate scientists just seeking the truth, but at this point most people realize that that quest is entirely ideological and political, and has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with hoping to silence one of the greats.
Witch hunt (wich' hunt') - metaphor (coined 1932) 1. The act of seeking and persecuting any perceived enemy, particularly when the search is conducted using extreme measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


My point is that 30 years of records proves nothing. The Arctic ice cap melts and refreezes as it always has.


Your point is irrelevant and the data proves you wrong. Deal with it!!
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting NeapolitanFan:






Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Here is what the "NAYSAYERS" are going to say with this chart!

"Arctic Ice is UP now!"




In reality the death spiral continues. It is a classic case where the "NAYSAYERS" think it is UP because it is currently heading in that direction. However,in reality it is still well BELOW the 1979-2000 average so UP is still DOWN in this case. The naysayers also think that because the area has increased then so has the "VOLUME" of the ice. Again,according to PIOMAS they are dead wrong!


So when the "NAYSAYERS" come to you and say Arctic Ice is UP you can come here and show them it is DOWN.


My point is that 30 years of records proves nothing. The Arctic ice cap melts and refreezes as it always has.
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Here is what the "NAYSAYERS" are going to say with this chart!

"Arctic Ice is UP now!"




In reality the death spiral continues. It is a classic case where the "NAYSAYERS" think it is UP because it is currently heading in that direction. However,in reality it is still well BELOW the 1979-2000 average so UP is still DOWN in this case. The NAYSAYERS also think that because the area has increased then so has the "VOLUME" of the ice. Again,according to PIOMAS they are dead wrong!


So when the "NAYSAYERS" come to you and say Arctic Ice is UP you can come here and show them it is DOWN.

Always remember NAYSAYERS are classic

Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I would expect a logical person to understand the effects GHGs have on the planet and understand how they can warm it. How about you?


Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


1st or 2nd lowest in how many years of records? 30? How old is the earth? Do you really expect any logical person to believe that 30 years of records really means anything in a span of 5 billion years?


I would expect a logical person to understand the effects GHGs have on the planet and understand how they can warm it. How about you?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting Neapolitan:
Great news! The American justice system--and clear thinking, and scientific honesty--has prevailed, while denialism has lost yet another round:Now will Cuccinelli finally end his frivolous, taxpayer-funded, time-wasting, ideologically-driven witch hunt?


No. The lies need to see the light of day and they will.
Member Since: Mayo 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting greentortuloni:


Uh,

you do realize that the ice has been 1st or 2nd lowest all year?

you do realize that it is finally within 2 sigmas of normal, not back to normal.

You do realize that this measures ice extent, not thickness.

You do realize that this 'new' ice is thin and full of brine?

You do realize that most of the ice that is making the rise is in a area that will melt anyway?

you do realize that the thick multiyear ice has diminshed rapidly?

you do realize that the artic is not a glass of 100% water, or even salt water. It is a complex ecosystem with plants, animals, algae, mineral and gas deposits, currents, atmosphere, etc. and that the disturbance of hte last few years has consequences much beyond a simple macro number?

you do realize that any of the above especially the last, which anyone doing any sort of even half baked analysis (instead of surfing for blog straws to grasp) would find on their own and publish in order to not cherry pick isolated facts,... any of the above renders your statement mostly meaningless re artic ice survival?


1st or 2nd lowest in how many years of records? 30? How old is the earth? Do you really expect any logical person to believe that 30 years of records really means anything in a span of 5 billion years?
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting iceagecoming:
Environment News Service
First, Fast, and Factual



SOFIA, Bulgaria, February 27, 2012 (ENS) - The rapid thawing of Europe's second longest river, the Danube, has sent huge ice floes slamming into boats and bridges, causing widespread damage to river vessels. A ship carrying 700 tons of corn sank Sunday night in southeast Romania; no injuries were reported.

Earlier this month the river froze along the Bulgarian section for the first time in 20 years. Near Silistra, a port city in northeastern Bulgaria on the border with Romania, the river froze again after warmer temperatures produced a thaw on Monday, sending ice racing downstream, smashing port infrastructure.

In the municipality of Purvomai, 16 villages were inundated over the weekend. In one of the hardest-hit villages, Vinitsa, water flooded 50 houses, shops and outbuildings, reports "The Sofia Echo" newspaper. No one was injured although large numbers of animals drowned.

This winter's cold front had frozen large stretches of the waterway, blocking navigation in parts of Germany and the Balkans.

"This severe winter in which hundreds of people have died has highlighted several weaknesses in our built environment and our ability to prepare for worst-case scenarios," said Wahlstrm. "Vulnerable communities across Europe have been cut off from transport, schools, health facilities and electricity in many cases."

Wahlstrm praised Bulgaria's decision to inspect more than 500 dams throughout the country and to release the water from some dams and reservoirs to control the floodwaters.

"We do need to plan better. The unpredictability of severe weather events leads to high human and financial costs. More focus on winterization planning will be a wise investment in the coming years."





Link


Wow! I guess SUBZERO temps caused this.

"The rapid thawing of Europe's second longest river, the Danube, has sent huge ice floes slamming into boats and bridges, causing widespread damage to river vessels."


"Earlier this month the river froze along the Bulgarian section for the first time in 20 years."

That should raise a flag something is wrong for it not to freeze at least every other year. Don't you think?










Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting greentortuloni:


Uh,

you do realize that the ice has been 1st or 2nd lowest all year?

you do realize that it is finally within 2 sigmas of normal, not back to normal.

You do realize that this measures ice extent, not thickness.

You do realize that this 'new' ice is thin and full of brine?

You do realize that most of the ice that is making the rise is in a area that will melt anyway?

you do realize that the thick multiyear ice has diminshed rapidly?

you do realize that the artic is not a glass of 100% water, or even salt water. It is a complex ecosystem with plants, animals, algae, mineral and gas deposits, currents, atmosphere, etc. and that the disturbance of hte last few years has consequences much beyond a simple macro number?

you do realize that any of the above especially the last, which anyone doing any sort of even half baked analysis (instead of surfing for blog straws to grasp) would find on their own and publish in order to not cherry pick isolated facts,... any of the above renders your statement mostly meaningless re artic ice survival?


Sadly,the Cherry he picked isn't even ripe,it is still green. This is nowhere close to the 1979-2000 average and if it where to make it there it is going to melt again so fast because the ice is so thin. Winter is over except for a few more cold days,perhaps! All my fruit trees are in full bloom now. This usually happens at the end of March here in Alabama not in the beginning.The Arctic Ice is going to start melting real soon now because it is so hot so early.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting wxmojo:
I suppose it is a growing premise that AGW s contributing to the increase of severity, frequency, and size of such super storm that engulfed one-half our nation of the last two days. Can anyone shed some light to me why severe weather in the southeast seems to always be connected via continuous lines of energy originating from the equatorial Pacific region? See attached images. 





More heat creates more water vapor,lift and a stronger jet stream. Combine the three and it is a recipe for disaster. Remove the heat and the severity decreases.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Environment News Service
First, Fast, and Factual



SOFIA, Bulgaria, February 27, 2012 (ENS) - The rapid thawing of Europe's second longest river, the Danube, has sent huge ice floes slamming into boats and bridges, causing widespread damage to river vessels. A ship carrying 700 tons of corn sank Sunday night in southeast Romania; no injuries were reported.

Earlier this month the river froze along the Bulgarian section for the first time in 20 years. Near Silistra, a port city in northeastern Bulgaria on the border with Romania, the river froze again after warmer temperatures produced a thaw on Monday, sending ice racing downstream, smashing port infrastructure.

In the municipality of Purvomai, 16 villages were inundated over the weekend. In one of the hardest-hit villages, Vinitsa, water flooded 50 houses, shops and outbuildings, reports "The Sofia Echo" newspaper. No one was injured although large numbers of animals drowned.

This winter's cold front had frozen large stretches of the waterway, blocking navigation in parts of Germany and the Balkans.

"This severe winter in which hundreds of people have died has highlighted several weaknesses in our built environment and our ability to prepare for worst-case scenarios," said Wahlström. "Vulnerable communities across Europe have been cut off from transport, schools, health facilities and electricity in many cases."

Wahlström praised Bulgaria's decision to inspect more than 500 dams throughout the country and to release the water from some dams and reservoirs to control the floodwaters.

"We do need to plan better. The unpredictability of severe weather events leads to high human and financial costs. More focus on winterization planning will be a wise investment in the coming years."





Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Arctic ice at seven year high. Ouch!



Uh,

you do realize that the ice has been 1st or 2nd lowest all year?

you do realize that it is finally within 2 sigmas of normal, not back to normal.

You do realize that this measures ice extent, not thickness.

You do realize that this 'new' ice is thin and full of brine?

You do realize that most of the ice that is making the rise is in a area that will melt anyway?

you do realize that the thick multiyear ice has diminshed rapidly?

you do realize that the artic is not a glass of 100% water, or even salt water. It is a complex ecosystem with plants, animals, algae, mineral and gas deposits, currents, atmosphere, etc. and that the disturbance of hte last few years has consequences much beyond a simple macro number?

you do realize that any of the above especially the last, which anyone doing any sort of even half baked analysis (instead of surfing for blog straws to grasp) would find on their own and publish in order to not cherry pick isolated facts,... any of the above renders your statement mostly meaningless re artic ice survival?
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting wxmojo:
I suppose it is a growing premise that AGW s contributing to the increase of severity, frequency, and size of such super storm that engulfed one-half our nation of the last two days. Can anyone shed some light to me why severe weather in the southeast seems to always be connected via continuous lines of energy originating from the equatorial Pacific region? See attached images. 





I'm not going to answer because I don't know and I don't have enough time to do the research required to gain anything sort of a credible opinion. However, given the climate in which it was asked, lets assume, for a second, that this is a post that you are a denier. My only response is: Oh Thank God! Finally a denier that starts with a scientific question!
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
The more I think about it, the more I compare "global warming science" to sorcery. I challenge anyone to show me another field of study where the participants can differ so much on the basic tenets of the "science". This "science" is nothing of the sort. It's simply flawed theory. If the premier "experts" in any other field of study were so consistently wrong in their predictions, they would be laughed into submission. Not one of the predictions by the warmists have been correct. In fact, they haven't even been close. Without their lock on the data and models and their manipulation of said data we would see that global temperatures show no trend one way or the other. In what other field of science would those who control the data hide it and their methods from public scrutiny? What are they hiding? It's obvious from some of the leaked email. They are hiding the fact that there is no warming without their data doctoring. The only reason that we are still talking about AGW is because it's not about science; it's about world government, regulation, and, most of all, more taxes and redistribution of wealth. Those in control want to take from the rich and give to the poor. They are anticapitalists because they already have the wealth.


Now you're just making stuff and/or outright lying. Seriously, where is the scientific discussion instead of the gossip? "I don't like the new attractive girl, she must be a witch...." ... didn't we already have that period in American history?
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Long term? Maybe in your mind. How is 30 years of data in the history of the earth considered "long term?"


Same way that a car wreck takes 30 seconds but has long term consequences for the car.

Same way that jumping out of a building has long term consequences.

etc., etc.

We are participants in a global car wreck and big oil appeasers are dithering, at best.
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Seawall, I really appreciate posts like this one that you have posted. You used a cool, even tone to express your points.

I too am a fan of Atmoaggie's tropical posts. He is among the best with what he posts and very informative concerning the tropical systems and their dynamics. I have spent time on his blog, as a lurker, to learn more about what is happening in the tropics. He comes across as being well educated, very knowledgeable, detests any personal attacks and stays above the usual fray. The only time he shows any questionable conduct is when the discussion moves to climate change. He has strong opinions on this subject and his enthusiasm to not talk about climate change will sometimes belittle his knowledge, education and demeanor. What I find most strange about his stance on climate change is that the AGWT is a valid theory and is quite worthy of scientific consideration and he does not seem to give it any scientific consideration. After all, there is no other competing theory that better explains the physical observations we are seeing now. Since the AGWT can help explain what will possibly happen with the tropical systems. I would think that his quest for knowledge, and to better understand the tropical systems, that he would take a serious look at the AGWT to see if it helps to explain what he may be confused with concerning the tropical systems. When a tropical system behaves differently than what we may expect it to do, I find it somewhat disingenuous to say that somethings are just like that. I would think that his natural and scientific curiosity would lead him to explore why somethings behave as they do. I would think that he would have to at least examine the possibility that the AGWT helps to explain what he may be unsure of concerning the behavior of a tropical system.

Atmoaggie did not also explain that Venus's atmospheric pressure only modestly explains why Venus's surface temperature is so much higher than Earth's. He also cannot account for Venus's orbit being closer to the Sun than is Earth's orbit to explain the additional heat we see on Venus's surface. Without the explanation of Venus's greenhouse gases, we cannot account for all the surface temperature we observe on Venus's surface. He also did not account for the fact that Venus has lost the ability to absorb these greenhouse gases from its atmosphere due to the extra heat at the surface. Venus is a prime example of an irreversible, run away greenhouse effect. Will Earth ever reach that point due to AGW alone? No. We will have long been gone before this could happen.

Atmoaggie leaves me with a question for me to ponder. I know his great disgust with even a modest discussion concerning the AGWT and climate change. Why did he visit Professor Rood's blog and, more importantly, why did he bother to even make any posts on this blog? I will say that he did offer to us an excellent example of one the dynamics of a planet's climate. He did give us an example of how higher atmospheric pressures create higher surface temperatures. This example, however, does not do anything to strengthen or minimize the AGWT here on Earth. Our atmospheric pressures have not seen a sudden increase or fall that would help to explain any climate change we have experienced here on Earth. Certainly we have seen some anomalies of high pressure systems just as we have seen some anomalies of low pressure systems. What I have not seen is any trends towards a higher or lower atmospheric pressures that would help to explain any climate changes that have been observed. So why, I must ask, did Atmoaggie even bother making his posts here? Should I be allowed to speculate here, I would be lead to believe that his posts were only intended to lead to more confusion concerning the AGWT and not to offer any knowledge as to why we are observing the climate changes that we do observe here on Earth. I may speculate even further that he posted here with the encouragement of others here to do so. I just do not envision Atmoaggie suddenly feeling a compulsion to do so on his own. ... I could be wrong.

This brings us to yesterday's posts concerning the AGWT on Dr. Master's blog. There was a LOT of severe weather events to be observed over the past two days. I, as you, would have rather seen any discussions of any possible effects from AGW on these weather events to have been done in a post discussion of these weather events. However, there was a question raised, possibly by a troll, if AGW was a factor in what we were seeing yesterday. A resounding No!, was given in response to the question. Well, we both know what happened from there. All in all, I thought that the AGW discussions were few and brief. I believe that should the initial response to the question had been that we should leave this topic to post storm discussions, instead of a, No!, then the following posts on the topic would probably have not occurred. The question was legitimate, if not also provocative, and any person seeking to satisfy their own intellectual curiosity concerning this would not have responded with a simple, No! Really, this only opens the door to further responses. The AGWT is a valid scientific theory that should be further utilized to help to explain some of the weather events we endure. Do you not agree?


Thanks for the discussion.. Again, I hold Atmoaggie in very high regard, and during significant weather events, I don't take the time to think if Climate Change is responsible for the events unfolding before my eyes on radar. I've learned so much from here, in the beginning, and now, I'm learning lots more thanks to friends that have helped me so much. So many things to grasp about the weather, and I realize that climate affects the weather and vice versa. Without a formal education, sometimes one gets lost in all the data, and models, but I've found out I can wade through most of them. It's a tough learning process. I just wish I would have pursued a degree in MET, instead of Business... but, alas, I didn't like math that much.. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I suppose it is a growing premise that AGW s contributing to the increase of severity, frequency, and size of such super storm that engulfed one-half our nation of the last two days. Can anyone shed some light to me why severe weather in the southeast seems to always be connected via continuous lines of energy originating from the equatorial Pacific region? See attached images. 



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


What was Mann hiding? The University of VA spent over half a million dollars (of taxpayer money) hiding what would have cost them $8000 to produce. It's not over yet. UVA still might have to release the email under FOIA laws.
Bull. The University spend $570,697.97 in defense of Mann, every cent of it from private funds.

Now, the real question: how much taxpayer money has Torquemada/Cuccinelli spent? And a better question: how many AG resources has he squandered on his Grand Inquisition? How much time has he wasted tilting at ideological windmills for political gain, when there are actual crimes he could have been pursuing?
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Another indicator of a warming climate.


This prevents it:

This too:
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


He's still there because there because AGW frauds protect their own. He hasn't made one prediction that has been fulfilled. Pretty good for government work, I suppose.


Your laughable!
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396

Viewing: 318 - 268

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog 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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
61 ° F
Muy nublado