A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 21:18 GMT le 21 juin 2011

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 principals 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.


Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In 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: 534 - 484

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Quoting RustyShackleford:

Your asking questions??

Innocent until proven guilty!!!!

I posted that at 12:28 Central Time and where are the responses?

I'm willing to bet you've been up all night and you've come up with an answer you were just waiting for me to get online.

What about this little number?

McBill would like to think he answered it but he didn't

I want a group that doesn't get ONE penny of the governments money.

They also have to come up with their own findings and their own results.

No using other peoples data set.

Can you answer these questions??

And by you I mean anybody???

Rusty, I posted a very nice response to this yesterday, but you failed to address it, which means you may have missed it. Allow me, then, to repeat it:

Scientists have to be paid, of course; they're workers just like anyone else, and it's ludicrous to say otherwise to try to make a point. Now, given that an oil corporation's mission is to make money off of oil, while a government's mission is to protect its citizens and their way of life, it's one of the worst types of false equivalence to try and claim that scientists living on meager government grants are no different from those living on relatively lavish oil company salaries, or no less susceptible to wrongdoing. That's patently not true; both ample data and the law of supply and demand dictate that because the large majority of scientists do support AGWT, the handful who don't generally make more money by going to work for oil companies. And while it's not true that all scientists employed by oil companies are corrupt, just as it's not true that all government scientists are bastions of ethicality, the fact remains that Big Energy employees a vastly larger percentage of scientists who are climate change contrarians than does the U.S. Government.

So, back to another statement and question I asked more than once yesterday: 38 trillion liters a day of CO2 are being pumped into the environment*. Do you believe it simply vanishes once it's out there?

* - Manmade. That is, from the burning of fossil fuels, released during the manufacture of cement, etc. Doesn't include CO2 from deforestation, etc. As of 2007; numbers emissions have risen since then.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
seems that way....

oh, but you can count on some snappy remarks from McGriddle!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
'sup Rusty....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

I'm not here for appearance. Nor vanity, no image, none of that. You think for one minute I care what others think of me? Common Neo, have I ever? I speak what I believe, and believe what I observe in scientific reasoning and fact as it relates to climate. And the science is beginning to point to another cooling trend for the globe. No bias, No BS. No brown nosing to garner Dr. Masters or Ricky's approval or choosing a side of a debate just so I can have friends or dispense my personal political views upon others. None. And you know what? It just so happens that when I speak, others listen, and I reap the benefits of that everyday. I like to think of that as an extra bonus. **

However, I don't walk around carrying myself in a way that suggests I'm better or know more than anyone else.

That's the difference between you and me.

That truth will always shine through, and I believe we should let the readers think for themselves and decide what to think on their own. Lots of smart people here. They'll find the truth and sift through the biases. Don't worry.

And there you go yet again for the umpteenth time. Please tell us what science it is you're seeing that is "beginning to point to another cooling trend for the globe". Pretty please, with sugar on top. Share with us the real science--the actual observations, the solid research, the voluminous data--that suggest that the planet is about to enter a cool phase. Because if you're unable to produce that science, what you're saying is just wishful thinking--and wishful thinking has no place outside of Disneyland and Las Vegas.

FWIW, I, too, am not on WU to make friends; if I were, the last place I'd hang out would be Dr. Rood's forum, given the overwhelming ratio of denialists to scientific thinkers. Don't you think? ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

I don't have to provide you anything.

Of course you don't have to; it's a free country. I merely mentioned that people might take you more seriously if you would. Whether that's important to you is left entirely up to you. ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:
Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.[snip]


Global Cooling Tip # 9128784428882847494882748847743

It isn't the CO2, it's the sun, Duh!

Your premature glee suggests that you may not have read the entire article. In short, climate scientists have been saying for years that many past warm-ups weren't initiated by CO2; this four-year-old article does nothing to refute that. Here, allow me to extract a few salient points:

"The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas...accelerated the meltdown."

"The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate."

"I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate, Stott cautioned.

"...with the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere...accelerating the warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:
>So, as this warming trend is continuing to wind down...

As Ronnie Ray-Gun famously said, "There you go again." ;-)

That is, you've now cycled back to Step #0. Listen here: I can practically guarantee you that people will take you more seriously if you approach this argument from a position of factual reality. I know I will. With that in mind, could you please provide at least a single shred of scientific evidence to bolster your claim that the warming is winding down? That would be great news, I tell you...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 520

Quoting iceagecoming:

I suspect their here to watch the next glaciation.

Man, I hope they brought popcorn; that would be the dullest movie ever.

* * *

All right guys, I've got something I've got to finish up before bedtime so I'm out for the night.

To RustyShackleford and cat5hurricane: Thanks for the replies and Good Night. A good night as well to anyone else that is on. Will probably check back this weekend.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Warning! Warning! Alien approaching!

Alien life and UFOs: 10 top 'believers'
NASA research has found that half of all stars in the universe have Earth-like planets orbiting around them, raising fresh hopes of finding alien life.

1. Professor Stephen Hawking

Last year, the revered physicist and cosmologist suggested that extraterrestrials almost certainly exist but that humans should be taking steps to avoid them rather than seek them out.

He said: “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”

“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.

“I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”

2. Lord Rees

The astronomer royal last year said he believed aliens could well exist and warned that they might prove to be beyond human understanding.

“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive,” he said. “Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains,” he said.

3. Lachezar Filipov

Bulgarian government scientists from the country's Space Research Institute claimed two years ago that they were already in contact with extraterrestrial life.

They claimed that experts were trying to decipher a complex set of symbols sent to them, after posing aliens a list of 30 questions.

Mr Filipov deputy director of the Space Research Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, revealed that the centre's researchers were analysing 150 crop circles from around the world, which they believe answer the questions.

"Aliens are currently all around us, and are watching us all the time," Mr Filipov said.

"They are not hostile towards us, rather, they want to help us but we have not grown enough in order to establish direct contact with them."

4. Edgar Mitchell

The former NASA astronaut claimed in 2009 that alien life exists but that the US government was covering up the evidence.

Mr Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, made the claims in a talk to the fifth annual X-Conference – a meeting of those who believe in UFOs and other life forms.

He also said he had attempted to investigate the 1947 'Roswell Incident', which some believe was the crash-landing of a UFO, but had been thwarted by military authorities.

He said: "We're not alone. Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. ... We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there.

"I urge those who are doubtful: Read the books, read the lore, start to understand what has really been going on. Because there really is no doubt we are being visited.

"The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time."

5. Jimmy Carter

The US President from 1976 to 1980, promised while on the campaign trail that he would make public all documents on UFOs if elected. He said: "I don't laugh at people any more when they say they've seen UFOs. I've seen one myself."

6. General Douglas MacArthur

The Korean and Second World War soldier, said in 1955 that "the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets. The politics of the future will be cosmic, or interplanetary".

7. Monsignor Corrado Balducci

The Vatican theologian, said: "Extraterrestrial contact is a real phenomenon. The Vatican is receiving much information about extraterrestrials and their contacts with humans from its embassies in various countries, such as Mexico, Chile and Venezuela."

8. Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding

The Second World War RAF Fighter commander during the Battle of Britain once said of UFOs: "I am convinced that these objects do exist and that they are not manufactured by any nations on earth."

9. Ronald Reagan

The US President from 1980 to 1988, claimed he had seen a UFO himself. He said: "I looked out the window and saw this white light. It was zigzagging around. I went up to the pilot and said, 'Have you ever seen anything like that?' He was shocked and he said, 'nope.' And I said to him: 'Let's follow it!' We followed it for several minutes. It was a bright white light. We followed it to Bakersfield, and all of a sudden to our utter amazement it went straight up into the heavens. When I got off the plane I told Nancy all about it."

10. Mikhail Gorbachev

The USSR's last head of state: "The phenomenon of UFOs does exist, and it must be treated seriously."


I suspect their here to watch the next glaciation.

Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.

Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause.

The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.
“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”

While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea.

The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

“What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said.

But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward.

Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote.

This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence.

In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began.

Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source.

As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day.

In addition, the authors’ model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming.

The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth’s orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size.

However, this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet growth and retreat lies in the southern hemisphere’s spring rather than the northern hemisphere’s summer.

The conclusions also underscore the importance of regional climate dynamics, Stott said. “Here is an example of how a regional climate response translated into a global climate change,” he explained.

Stott and colleagues arrived at their results by studying a unique sediment core from the western Pacific composed of fossilized surface-dwelling (planktonic) and bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms.

These organisms – foraminifera – incorporate different isotopes of oxygen from ocean water into their calcite shells, depending on the temperature. By measuring the change in these isotopes in shells of different ages, it is possible to reconstruct how the deep and surface ocean temperatures changed through time.

If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead.

“The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”


Stott’s collaborators were Axel Timmermann of the University of Hawaii and Robert Thunell of the University of South Carolina. Stott was supported by the National Science Foundation and Timmerman by the International Pacific Research Center.

Stott is an expert in paleoclimatology and was a reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also recently co-authored a paper in Geophysical Research Letters tracing a 900-year history of monsoon variability in India.

The study, which analyzed isotopes in cave stalagmites, found correlations between recorded famines and monsoon failures, and found that some past monsoon failures appear to have lasted much longer than those that occurred during recorded history. The ongoing research is aimed at shedding light on the monsoon’s poorly understood but vital role in Earth’s climate.


Global Cooling Tip # 9128784428882847494882748847743

It isn't the CO2, it's the sun, Duh!
Member Since: 31 décembre 1969 Posts: Comments:
Step 0: You tell us the planet isn't warming.

Step 1: We prove to you that it is.

Step 2: You tell us that, okay, it is warming, but it's not that bad.

Step 3: We prove to you that it is.

Step 4: You tell us that, okay, it is bad, but it's not from CO2.

Step 5: We prove to you that it is.

Step 6: You tell us that, okay, it is from CO2, but that CO2 isn't man-made.

Step 7: We prove to you that it is.

Step 8: You tell us that, okay, the CO2 is man-made, but that doesn't matter because the planet isn't warming.

Step 1: We prove to you that it is...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 512

Goodnight Ossqss

№ 516

I'll occasionally lurk when I don't have a lot of time to adequately respond. A lot of times I'll just simply skim through when the board atmosphere is a bit contentious. I have no interest in that; real life is contentious enough, and people will generally be less respectful on a message board than they will be in real life. Personally, I try to only say here what I would be willing to say to someone in person and to treat everyone with respect whether I agree with them or not. It still hasn't kept me off of some people's Ignore lists though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Continuing from № 507...

I just noticed in the graphic that accompanies Neapolitan's link that the Russian 2010 heatwave is also implied as being linked to AGW, despite findings otherwise. Also notable is that the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season is listed as well. LOL. Not enough faces, not enough palms.

* * *

№ 508
Quoting cat5hurricane:

That's a good point. At least narrow it down and pinpoint a specific event and go from there. Right now, all I see is that broad brush painting the barn again.

Well, it seems the most recent strategy is to sort of, for lack of a better phrase, "carpet-bomb" the cybersphere with long lists of severe events supposed resulting from AGW. One may criticize me for a recent emphasis on tornadoes alone, but it is the "low hanging fruit" of the current argument. There seems to be no observational evidence of a link there whatsoever yet it continues to be played up for propaganda purposes. There are certainly other types of severe events where there might be at least have some evidence to support a link, I would imagine.

* * *

№ 509
Quoting RustyShackleford:

#noproof right?

Why won't they answer you or even remotely acknowledge your posts?

It's very annoying...

They are losing steam.

That's fine. It saves me the time responding. I probably spend too much time here anyway...LOL.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 504

Seriously, is there anything new here? I see that the same Trenberth quotes are recycled. If they want to begin to try to link a particular type of severe event to AGW, as I said previously, a good start would be to show that there is an observational trend that shows an increase. I see tornadoes listed here as well, despite no observational increasing trend in strong tornado events. Without some corroborating observational evidence, all that's really being discussed here is an intention to ratchet up the rhetoric a bit.

Does it seem that "Every Day They Write The Book" :)

Gnight, remember your brain writes a chapter every day of your life........... live, learn and learn again ~

Member Since: 31 décembre 1969 Posts: Comments:
№ 504

Seriously, is there anything new here? I see that the same Trenberth quotes are recycled. If they want to begin to try to link a particular type of severe event to AGW, as I said previously, a good start would be to show that there is an observational trend that shows an increase. I see tornadoes listed here as well, despite no observational increasing trend in strong tornado events. Without some corroborating observational evidence, all that's really being discussed here is an intention to ratchet up the rhetoric a bit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GiovannaDatoli:

You don't have to be so direct. I applaud the effort; however, the data therein is vastly undermined by the fact that the author in question has a bias--that is a very well established base for defending Exxon Mobil numerous times. Other than that, I'd say you hit the nail on the head. ;-)

Please, feel free to show me how the data is wrong. I did ask for such, not an opinion, did I not?

Please post verified research, not opinion articles for us.

Member Since: 31 décembre 1969 Posts: Comments:
Link between climate change and recent extreme weather events can no longer be ignored, say top scientists

Scientists are to end their 20-year reluctance to link climate change with extreme weather – the heavy storms, floods and droughts which often fill news bulletins – as part of a radical departure from a previous equivocal position that many now see as increasingly untenable.

Climate researchers from Britain, the United States and other parts of the world have formed a new international alliance that aims to investigate exceptional weather events to see whether they can be attributable to global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

They believe that it is no longer plausible merely to claim that extreme weather is "consistent" with climate change. Instead, they intend to assess each unusual event in terms of the probability that it has been exacerbated or even caused by the global temperature increase seen over the past century.

The move is likely to be highly controversial because the science of "climate attribution" is still in the early stages of development and so is likely to be pounced on by climate "sceptics" who question any link between industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and rises in global average temperatures.

In the past scientists have been extremely reluctant to link a single extreme weather event with climate change, arguing that the natural variability of the weather makes it virtually impossible to establish any definitive association other than a possible general consistency with what is expected from studies based on computer models.

However, a growing number of climate scientists are now prepared to adopt a far more aggressive posture, arguing that the climate has already changed enough for it to be affecting the probability of an extreme weather event, whether it is an intense hurricane, a major flood or a devasating drought.

"We’ve certainly moved beyond the point of saying that we can’t say anything about attributing extreme weather events to climate change," said Peter Stott, a leading climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter.

"It’s very clear we’re in a changed climate now which means there’s more moisture in the atmosphere and the potential for stronger storms and heavier rainfall is clearly there.

UK Independent Article...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Please tear this apart for me, so I can ignore it.

Really, I do hope someone can dismiss the numbers for me .......

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data .html

Member Since: 31 décembre 1969 Posts: Comments:
ok, so not banned... more like Whack a Mole...

individual posts get sent to the corn field...

works for me....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
wah wah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
somebody got banned!!!!!!!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RustyShackleford:

He never does...

That's the thing...

I've been asking all day and I've asked a few other times too...

All I get is

"I've shown you many times, not going to do it now"

Or something along those lines.

Your correct. Opinion is not science. I at least post studies (peer reviewed at that) that he never touches. Why? He has no answers aside from slander and demeaning talking points. Perhaps one day Neo will realize that his actions (and others like it) are contributing more to the downfall of the AGW religion than all else.

Remember, Kyoto is a huge loss for them. To have those large countries bail out on it has essentially ended it. That doesn't happen due to settled science.

Insert Dr. Smith photo here with the "Oh the pain" caption.............
Member Since: 31 décembre 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Cat, yes, CO2 has been higher. But the rate at which it's now increasing has never before happened without mass die-offs. In fact, every extinction in the planet's history has been a direct result of climate change. Supervolcano eruptions, comet collisions, and the like killed by altering the climate so rapidly that most living organisms couldn't adapt in time. And bad as an all-out global thermonuclear war would be, it's not the explosions or the radiation that would kill most people; it's the resulting "nuclear winter" that would do us in.

Now, if you're comforted by saying, "Well, see, it has been hotter before, and there has been more CO2," knock yourself out. But for me, that ain't nearly enough.

38 trillion liters of CO2 per day are being let loose in the atmosphere. Do you believe it just vanishes without a trace?

OK, please show us how much of it is from man made sources ?

Cmon you can do it.........

Back it up with legitimate sourced studies that justify your statement !

Member Since: 31 décembre 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 534 - 484

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

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

42 ° F
Ciel dégagé

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.