Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Lots of extreme weather is likely a result of climate change.

Likely? How likely?

Climate models are EXTREMELY complex. Even weather models are complex. We are getting pretty good at predicting larger weather patterns, but the closer you get to a smaller area, the harder it gets to predict.

Of course, ultimately, in the very large picture, the summation of all weather must equal the instantaneous climate. But that's a very large picture. That's where the models are going to do the best.

When even the primary metric, average earth temperature, and all the variables that impact it cannot be nailed down as much as we would like, where is the model that accurately and convincingly informs us about "extreme" weather and its relationship to climate change?

Originally Posted by radind

This is a political issue and both sides are at fault and both must cooperate to make progress. We have been collectively sitting on our hands for 30 years.
Manhattan Project for Clean Energy Independence

It is a political issue, you are right. But both sides are not at fault. The Republicans are at fault.

..."The New Manhattan Project challenges the United States to reach 50% energy independence in ten years and 100% energy independence in 20 years and brings together scientists and researchers in the U.S. in a competitive format to reach one of seven energy goals:

- Double CAFE standards to 70 MPG while keeping vehicles affordable
- Cut home and business energy usage in half
- Make solar power work at the same cost as coal
- Make the production of biofuels cost-competitive with gasoline

All that needs to be done, and can be done; now, or in that time frame. Solar will probably be cheaper than coal someday, in the normal course of events. There are lots of other biofuels in the works besides methanol, such as algae and seaweed. These things take some political will (missing today thanks to the GOP and DINOs) and more research, but a Manhattan Project is not really necessary. The USA needs to do it, and so do other countries (many of whom are already ahead of us in doing it).

- Safely and cheaply store carbon emissions from coal-powered plants
- Safely store or neutralize nuclear waste
- Produce usable electricity from a nuclear fusion reaction "...

These are pipe dreams. Fusion? Neutralize nuc waste? Who knows! Noone wants nuclear waste in their backyard. You can't get rid of coal emissions by burying them in the ground. They will leak out, and meanwhile take up too much valuable land. It costs too much to pipe them to land that can safely store them. Noone has even developed a workable means to capture and store CO2 anyway. This is a ruse by the coal CEOs to keep their millions rolling in.

Originally Posted by TnT

Originally Posted by James50

It does appear that wherever there are weather extremes, someone is willing to attribute it to global warming. Too cold – global warming. Too hot – global warming.

James50

Weather is not climate.
Climate is not weather.

The real take-away here is anomalous behavior and whether it can be tied to Global Warming. He have had a string of exceptional incidents in the last few years that fall well outside the 3 sigma range on the accepted probability distribution. OK, some 4 sigma events do occur, even a 5 sigma once in a while. The real issue is, how many and how extreme does the cluster of anomalies have to be to validate the argument that the distribution itself has shifted? I think that's in line with Hansen’s thinking. I don't have the knowledge of past events or the statistical skills to make the argument one way or the other. But as a layman, it looks likely that we're in for more of the same.

Originally Posted by TnT

Likely? How likely?

Climate models are EXTREMELY complex. Even weather models are complex. We are getting pretty good at predicting larger weather patterns, but the closer you get to a smaller area, the harder it gets to predict.

Of course, ultimately, in the very large picture, the summation of all weather must equal the instantaneous climate. But that's a very large picture. That's where the models are going to do the best.

When even the primary metric, average earth temperature, and all the variables that impact it cannot be nailed down as much as we would like, where is the model that accurately and convincingly informs us about "extreme" weather and its relationship to climate change?

I'm sure there are articles online, and I have already posted them, that shows this relationship. The larger models are all we really need to tell us that extreme weather is a result of climate change. It really doesn't matter exactly where it is. Those who disagree that extreme weather changes where they are, are not the result of climate change, may be technically correct, but they are just obfuscating the issue.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... No one wants nuclear waste in their backyard...

Apparently, New Mexico is interested. They have lots of empty land and need the jobs. That's a poor motivator, but it may do the trick. Now that Yucca Mountain is dead, the original nuclear state may get the nod.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is a political issue, you are right. But both sides are not at fault. The Republicans are at fault.



All that needs to be done, and can be done; now, or in that time frame. Solar will probably be cheaper than coal someday, in the normal course of events. There are lots of other biofuels in the works besides methanol, such as algae and seaweed. These things take some political will (missing today thanks to the GOP and DINOs) and more research, but a Manhattan Project is not really necessary. The USA needs to do it, and so do other countries (many of whom are already ahead of us in doing it).


These are pipe dreams. Fusion? Neutralize nuc waste? Who knows! Noone wants nuclear waste in their backyard. You can't get rid of coal emissions by burying them in the ground. They will leak out, and meanwhile take up too much valuable land. It costs too much to pipe them to land that can safely store them. Noone has even developed a workable means to capture and store CO2 anyway. This is a ruse by the coal CEOs to keep their millions rolling in.

Blaming the other side for all the problems is a big part of why we can make no progress.
We need dialog, not just the blame game. If you rule out nuclear power , it will just take longer to achieve energy independence. Solar will be great when the costs come down and the engineering is in provide a large fraction of our energy needs.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The real take-away here is anomalous behavior and whether it can be tied to Global Warming. He have had a string of exceptional incidents in the last few years that fall well outside the 3 sigma range on the accepted probability distribution. OK, some 4 sigma events do occur, even a 5 sigma once in a while.

Huh. 3-Sigma is ~0.2% over the short-term and up to as much as ~6.5% over the million-reps scale. So to be making even the 3-sigma claim over a set of data like weather events, you would need to be able to say that a particular event occurs in general once in a set of five hundred cycles (and that for your baseline. What you are trying to claim is that there has been an increase of such events -- meaning that you've got a baseline where they are at 3-sigma, and then the current set of data indicating at least one cycle of more frequent occurrence).

I'd love to see the dataset you have showing at least a couple five-hundred-cycles' worth of measurements that lets you claim a weather event is even as infrequent as 3-sigma. Of course, 4- and higher is even more ridiculous a claim to make, given the size of the datasets we have to work with.

TL;DR
"Anomalous", without meaningful data to back it up, is a bullshit word.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Apparently, New Mexico is interested. They have lots of empty land and need the jobs. That's a poor motivator, but it may do the trick. Now that Yucca Mountain is dead, the original nuclear state may get the nod.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one!

Personally, I'm against turning any part of our beautiful and sacred mother into a nuclear wasteland passed down for generations. We can't turn back on the damage we have already done; we sure as hell shouldn't continue.

Originally Posted by radind

Blaming the other side for all the problems is a big part of why we can make no progress.

As far as Republicans are concerned, there IS a way to make progress.

drumroll........

Vote them out of office.

Uh, in this case, "blaming the other side" is getting to the root source of the problem.

We need dialog, not just the blame game. If you rule out nuclear power , it will just take longer to achieve energy independence. Solar will be great when the costs come down and the engineering is in provide a large fraction of our energy needs.

The costs of solar would come down in just a few years, before any new nucs come on-line. The engineering is almost there now; what's not there yet are all the plants and transmission lines we need; plus a lot more local solar panels. Plus windmills and other renewables. Plus the nucs we already have, while they last. And, also temporarily, natural gas, and the oil wells we have already drilled. That's quite enough.

Let's be a bit less skeptical about solar, and get on with it. It's time to build! Nuclear power is Japanese roulette, and heavy clean-up costs.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Huh. 3-Sigma is ~0.2% over the short-term and up to as much as ~6.5% over the million-reps scale. So to be making even the 3-sigma claim over a set of data like weather events, you would need to be able to say that a particular event occurs in general once in a set of five hundred cycles (and that for your baseline. What you are trying to claim is that there has been an increase of such events -- meaning that you've got a baseline where they are at 3-sigma, and then the current set of data indicating at least one cycle of more frequent occurrence).

I'd love to see the dataset you have showing at least a couple five-hundred-cycles' worth of measurements that lets you claim a weather event is even as infrequent as 3-sigma. Of course, 4- and higher is even more ridiculous a claim to make, given the size of the datasets we have to work with.

TL;DR
"Anomalous", without meaningful data to back it up, is a bullshit word.

We have a lot more data than you seem to accept. Yes, some if not most of it is derivative, but how else to determine weather patterns prior to human record keeping? And I think "cycle" is a bit disingenuous as a parameter when we're discussing the world's weather. I'm no expert, but I know that a series of exceptional hurricane seasons is not statistically likely. I know that we had the most active season on record just recently. I may not know how many occurred in the time prior to record keeping, but in other areas of the world, records of sorts go back a few thousand years. Between that and the data we can derive from ice cores and the like, we have a fair idea of what constitutes baseline climate. Is it perfect? No. Is the data good enough to use? Yes. The alternative is to act like nothing is happening, and the risks are pretty high to play dumb.

Where electric cars are concerned, if you live in an area fueled entirely by coal, there is now still a small net savings in CO2 by switching from an oil car to an electric one (about a quarter less); plus elimination of other greenhouse gases that come out of a tailpipe; minus sulphur dioxide. In areas like CA where coal is already very little or no part of the energy mix, it's a great deal for the environment, and maybe for your wallet too in the near future.


http://green.yahoo.com/blog/care2/33...vironment.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Where electric cars are concerned, if you live in an area fueled entirely by coal, there is now still a small net savings in CO2 by switching from an oil car to an electric one (about a quarter less); plus elimination of other greenhouse gases that come out of a tailpipe; minus sulphur dioxide. In areas like CA where coal is already very little or no part of the energy mix, it's a great deal for the environment, and maybe for your wallet too in the near future.


http://green.yahoo.com/blog/care2/33...vironment.html

Interesting. I still would need a charging option, since I don't own a garage.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We have a lot more data than you seem to accept. Yes, some if not most of it is derivative, but how else to determine weather patterns prior to human record keeping?

What's the matter with "you can't"? I mean, "We don't know" has the very significant scientific virtue of being the truth... for whatever that's worth...

And I think "cycle" is a bit disingenuous as a parameter when we're discussing the world's weather.

We could go with specific events, if you want -- though there is less data on that than there is on cycles. Really, I'm more or less content for the time being to talk in cycles such as 'hurricane season', even -- if we wanted to be much more reflective of reality, we'd want to look at cycles on the order of long-climate.... but we don't even have enough in the way of 'hurricane season' cycles to make a meaningful 3-standard-deviations claim; at least let's start with the easy stuff.

I'm no expert, but I know that a series of exceptional hurricane seasons is not statistically likely.

That's pure tautology. 'Exceptional' means 'not statistically likely'.

I know that we had the most active season on record just recently. I may not know how many occurred in the time prior to record keeping, but in other areas of the world, records of sorts go back a few thousand years.

Indeed, and depending on how willing we are to account for the holes in records and lack of precision the further back we go, the kind of seasons you want so very much to call 'exceptional' are in fact pretty well in the range of 'stuff that happens from time to time'.

Between that and the data we can derive from ice cores and the like, we have a fair idea of what constitutes baseline climate.

Sure thing. If you want to talk ice cores, it's well worth pointing out that swings of the size (and slope) we seem to be in the middle of experiencing are also fairly not-exceptional. At least as far as the error-bars (honestly drawn) indicate.

Is it perfect? No. Is the data good enough to use? Yes. The alternative is to act like nothing is happening, and the risks are pretty high to play dumb.

I'm sure the Nahua made much the same argument when started to arise their 'exceptional' circumstances. Why take the risk of doing nothing, right?

Dr. Hansen has been a busy man. Take that, you skeptics!

NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans

A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the skepticism about climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research, that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.

NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth's energy imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar activity from 2005 to 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to space during that time period.

"This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research released Monday.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

As far as Republicans are concerned, there IS a way to make progress.

drumroll........

Vote them out of office.

Uh, in this case, "blaming the other side" is getting to the root source of the problem.



The costs of solar would come down in just a few years, before any new nucs come on-line. The engineering is almost there now; what's not there yet are all the plants and transmission lines we need; plus a lot more local solar panels. Plus windmills and other renewables. Plus the nucs we already have, while they last. And, also temporarily, natural gas, and the oil wells we have already drilled. That's quite enough.

Let's be a bit less skeptical about solar, and get on with it. It's time to build! Nuclear power is Japanese roulette, and heavy clean-up costs.

I fully support getting on with solar now and I agree that this will be the key to our future.
-We just do not agree on the timeline for solar to provide a large fraction of our energy needs.
We can compare notes in ten years to see what actually develops.
In the meantime , I still favor dialog as best way to move forward.

Originally Posted by James50

It does appear that wherever there are weather extremes, someone is willing to attribute it to global warming. Too cold - global warming. Too hot - global warming.

Texas Heat and Drought Caused by Global Warming, NASA's Hansen Says



James50

That "Somebody" is a damn prophet who was treated like sh*t by the Bush Administration because he stated facts that Big Oil didn't like.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What's the matter with "you can't"? I mean, "We don't know" has the very significant scientific virtue of being the truth... for whatever that's worth...

We could go with specific events, if you want -- though there is less data on that than there is on cycles. Really, I'm more or less content for the time being to talk in cycles such as 'hurricane season', even -- if we wanted to be much more reflective of reality, we'd want to look at cycles on the order of long-climate.... but we don't even have enough in the way of 'hurricane season' cycles to make a meaningful 3-standard-deviations claim; at least let's start with the easy stuff.
That's pure tautology. 'Exceptional' means 'not statistically likely'. Indeed, and depending on how willing we are to account for the holes in records and lack of precision the further back we go, the kind of seasons you want so very much to call 'exceptional' are in fact pretty well in the range of 'stuff that happens from time to time'.

Sure thing. If you want to talk ice cores, it's well worth pointing out that swings of the size (and slope) we seem to be in the middle of experiencing are also fairly not-exceptional. At least as far as the error-bars (honestly drawn) indicate.

I'm sure the Nahua made much the same argument when started to arise their 'exceptional' circumstances. Why take the risk of doing nothing, right?

Done pounding on the table?

Originally Posted by radind

I fully support getting on with solar now, and I agree that this will be the key to our future.
-We just do not agree on the timeline for solar to provide a large fraction of our energy needs.
We can compare notes in ten years to see what actually develops.
In the meantime , I still favor dialog as best way to move forward.

Yes I agree, let's dialogue with good folks in government like Jerry Brown who have an interest in what we say.
Nudge and encourage them along.

(no use having "dialogues" with reactionary ideologues like the majority of idiots currently in the House; just vote them out and send them home; that's the ONLY thing to do with these bozos)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes I agree, let's dialogue with good folks in government like Jerry Brown who have an interest in what we say.
Nudge and encourage them along.

(no use having "dialogues" with reactionary ideologues like the majority of idiots currently in the House; just vote them out and send them home; that's the ONLY thing to do with these bozos)

It appears that we have little in common. Continued stalemate is not a good option.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Done pounding on the table?

You got any facts to pound instead? Those are a lot more interesting.

The US Weather Service just reported that January 2012 was the warmest January in Chicago in eighty years.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The US Weather Service just reported that January 2012 was the warmest January in Chicago in eighty years.

It hasn't gotten below -10F this winter here in Fargo, and it's been averaging in the mid 20s F. This winter has been crazy.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Where electric cars are concerned, if you live in an area fueled entirely by coal, there is now still a small net savings in CO2 by switching from an oil car to an electric one (about a quarter less); plus elimination of other greenhouse gases that come out of a tailpipe; minus sulphur dioxide. In areas like CA where coal is already very little or no part of the energy mix, it's a great deal for the environment, and maybe for your wallet too in the near future.

But if your old car still runs perfectly well and isn't a horrible polluter, it may take a LONG time for the "greener" electric car to be a net gain to the environment to overcome the production process and the use of finite raw materials to build it.

I'm certainly not down on electric cars here, but if one is considering replacing a perfectly functional and emissions-compliant car for a new "green" car, one needs to factor in the environmental cost of producing it.

Originally Posted by radind

It appears that we have little in common. Continued stalemate is not a good option.

On the contrary, it is quite clear. We all just need to realize the obvious facts. The stalemate cannot be broken by dialogue with the GOP. The stalemate can only be broken by voting them out. That is so obvious, I find it hard to understand why you don't get it. Haven't you been following the news? Look what the GOP did last year in congress? Dialogue with these folks? Forget it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The US Weather Service just reported that January 2012 was the warmest January in Chicago in eighty years.

And last January was one of the coldest on record.

James50