My Photo

« Good To Know | Main | The Costs of Healthcare: the Heel, the Turn, and the Numbers »

July 17, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2011572111849970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming: Even More Bad Consequences Than You Thought:

Comments

I saw that video on PBS a week or two ago. It really was pretty amazing to see the incredible amount of detail on some these vehicles.

To be honest, I think the horse is out of the barn on climate change. To whatever degree the change we're seeing is anthropogenic, it seems to me that, to a significant degree, the die is cast.

Not totally, and whatever we can manage to do at this point we should try to do.

But some serious damage is going to occur, and we aren't going to be able to keep that from happening at this point.

We missed the boat. Thanks for nothing, W.

IMO at this point we need to put some serious attention on figuring out how to address and manage the impact of the changes that are happening. By "impact" I mean things like widespread starvation, large-scale displacement of people from places that no longer have water or a useful growing season, etc.

One of the root causes of the problems in Darfur is a shrinking water supply due to climate change. Darfur is the canary in the coal mine.

Fwiw, here's an absolutely fascinating article on geo-engineering.

A gem: "A pessimist might judge geo-engineering so risky that the cure would be worse than the disease. But a sober optimist might see it as the biggest and most terrifying insurance policy humanity might buy—one that pays out so meagerly, and in such foul currency, that we’d better ensure we never need it."

I only linked to it because I knew so little about it myself, before a friend gave me a heads up.

We missed the boat. Thanks for nothing, W.

Yep, and thanks also to the pansy-ass Congress under Bill Clinton that refused to ratify Kyoto, too. It would have been a lot harded for Bush to withdraw us from the treaty or openly break it than to do what he did, which was nothing.

"Yep, and thanks also to the pansy-ass Congress under Bill Clinton that refused to ratify Kyoto, too."

Agreed. It's a non-partisan, equal-opportunity act of laziness and political cowardice.

Fresh water and climate change issues are entwined. Both are inevitable given the present direction of human and earth development. Since over 90 percent of fresh water use worldwide is for agriculture, water conservation at the home level is unlikely to help. On the other hand, simply conserving ten percent of agriculture use (through more efficient irrigation, control of evaporation from canals, etc) would completely compensate for home, city, and industrial use!

An even easier means of conserving agriculture use would be through use of crops needing less water. Not only Pakistan but the main crop growing area of India are facing loss of supply (the aquifer in India is rapidly being depleted and, in a couple decades will not longer supply adequate water). If agriculture users combined water preservation together with less water dependent crops, the water problems would be solved for the indefinite future with or without climate changes.

I will forebear the pleasure of discussing whether President Bush, the Congress, President Clinton, or the boogeyman have cause our present situation.

If anything the quoted article understates the problem for Pakistan. My source is a multi part program by Gywnne Dyer (he has done some incredibly good reporting)on CBC radio's Ideas . the next episode airs Monday at 9PM.

For some water sources, the treaties give India a fixed amount of the water flow. That is as flow reduced Pakistan's negotiated share could drop to zero.

Sorry I don't have time to elaborate further

"I will forebear the pleasure of discussing whether President Bush, the Congress, President Clinton, or the boogeyman have cause our present situation."

You're a better man than I.

One of the root causes of the problems in Darfur is a shrinking water supply due to climate change. Darfur is the canary in the coal mine.

Good point russel. Not a lot of people recognize this.

"Since over 90 percent of fresh water use worldwide is for agriculture, water conservation at the home level is unlikely to help. On the other hand, simply conserving ten percent of agriculture use (through more efficient irrigation, control of evaporation from canals, etc) would completely compensate for home, city, and industrial use!"

Just wanted to say that, IMO, this is a really relevant and useful piece of analysis.

Bad things are going to happen, and we're all going to have to deal with them. This is not my field, but my general impression is that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit available -- there are lots of relatively simple things that could be done, which would yield large positive results at relatively low cost and relatively low disruption to existing infrastructure and patterns of use.

IMO it will be important over the next few decades to be attentive and responsive to those opportunities.

Seriously, a lot of people are likely to die or have their lives severely diminished or disrupted. IMO the window of opportunity for prevention, to whatever degree it ever existed, is closing pretty rapidly -- much more rapidly than we are responding to it.

We need to put attention on how to mitigate the negative effects, because they are coming.

Can someone point me to a resource that summarizes/links to the evidence for global warming and/or answers some of the skeptics' criticisms? It would be greatly appreciated.

IMO the window of opportunity for prevention, to whatever degree it ever existed, is closing pretty rapidly -- much more rapidly than we are responding to it.

It's closed. It probably closed 20 years ago, when people first started worrying about it. With climate change - like, I guess, any other dynamic process - there's a big time lapse between when something happens and when that something is visible.

No, the only thing we've been fighting over is how bad it's going to be, and how long the really bad part will last.

Since we've done precious little to prevent any of the worst effects, now people are talking about developing technologies to ameliorate those worse effects. The hopeful assumption is that we'll also develop, and implement, long-term changes in energy production and usage so that we won't need to ameliorate the destruction forever, that at some point we'll stop adding fuel to the fire (so to speak).

But of course we won't. We'll come up with technologies that seem to relieve the worst of the change - iron salts in the ocean to preserve the Gulf Stream, or something in the upper atmosphere to sequester carbon, whatever - and that's where innovation and change will stop. Because that will have "fixed" the problem. And the climate we have will become the default one, the one we assume is normal...

... until the ameliorating technologies stop working.

Our species, in the mass, is dumber than dirt.

So it's an absolute article of faith among you folks that there is NO DOUBT that the earth is getting warmer and that mankind is responsible? No room for any opposing views or even the evidence of your own senses?

If it's so settled, then why are your climate-change heroes so averse to open debate with those who aren't congregants at the Church of AGW? Why is it that more and more, scientists are expressing skepticism about the whole "We're All Going To DIE!" school of Globl Warming Hysteria?

Just curious - at the end of the last Ice Age, what was it that caused the icecaps to retreat and the glaciers to shrink? Wooly mammoths in SUVs? Caveman cooking fires? Do you think it might have warmed up due to natural but little-understood processes?

I mean good Lord, use some common sense - they can't accurately predict the weather for two weeks hence yet you're all certain that THE ICECAPS WILL MELT AND THE SEAS WILL RISE!!

Your faith in this is as fervid as that of a fire-and-brimstone preacher, stomping around and screaming about the upcoming Judgement Day.

Just wanted to say that, IMO, this is a really relevant and useful piece of analysis.

I depressed a number of friends when I linked to this Chart of the Day post by Kevin Drum, discussing how municipal solid waste makes up all of 2.5% of the trash, and thus why Joel Makower, author of The Green Consumer, is contemplating giving up because, "when it comes to waste and recycling, it hardly even matters what individuals do."

But hey it feels good to recycle, and it keeps folks off the industry's backs.

So it's an absolute article of faith among you folks that there is NO DOUBT that the earth is getting warmer and that mankind is responsible? No room for any opposing views or even the evidence of your own senses?

No, by all means, present evidence. I don't think relying on our senses will be particularly useful when trying to gauge such a massive data set as climate.

I mean good Lord, use some common sense - they can't accurately predict the weather for two weeks hence yet you're all certain that THE ICECAPS WILL MELT AND THE SEAS WILL RISE!!

Weather is not climate. You need to understand the distinction in order to truly engage the subject.

I am curious how people seem so sure of the global warming narrative, yet I never see any evidence is never discussed anywhere. Sometimes you'll see a poll of scientists, but I can't put much stock in that- scientists can't speak with authority beyond their specialty, and the climate change specialists are too invested in the narrative.

And yet, liberals are so certain. You ask for evidence, and you get some glib responses like Eric's here.

"Weather is not climate."

So you concede that the weather cannot be accurately predicted, even with all the computer modeling that is modern meteorology.

But 'climate change" - which encompasses the entire earth's atmosphere and includes infinitely more variables and a much longer time span than your regional weekend forecast - this CAN be accurately predicted and it is sound advice to make sweeping policy decisions based on computer modeling?

Your faith is indeed profound but I wouldn't want to fundamentally and adversely change the world's economy based on your belief in computer models.

"So it's an absolute article of faith among you folks that there is NO DOUBT that the earth is getting warmer and that mankind is responsible?"

FWIW, my personal position is as follows:

It certainly appears that the climate is changing. By "certainly", I mean you would have to have your head willfully buried quite deeply in the sand to dismiss the idea.

The reason I think this is because of notable events that haven't appeared before in my lifetime, or in some cases in the historical record. I'm talking about things like the ice cover in the Arctic, melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice cap, etc.

I also notice the steady and consistent migration of wildlife and plant populations to higher latitudes and altitudes. We can argue back and forth about it all day long, but the plants and animals are pretty much a purely non-partisan marker. They just do what they have to do. We should pay attention.

I find the argument for anthropogenic causes, especially increases in atmospheric CO2, to be compelling. That's something short of "convincing", and clearly short of "unarguable". But IMO "compelling" puts it in the category of "you'd have to be going out of your way to ignore or discount it".

Human culture is more or less contemporaneous with the Holocene geologic period. It's been hotter than it is now during the Holocene, so humans have survived a warmer climate than we have now. The notable difference between now and, frex, the Mesolithic period is that there are about six billion of us now.

We can't just pack up and move to another continent anymore.

I'd be very, very surprised if human activity was a total non-contributor to climate change, but anything's possible. Whatever the cause or causes, we're going to have to deal with it, and I don't see a lot of evidence that we're doing so.

So you concede that the weather cannot be accurately predicted, even with all the computer modeling that is modern meteorology.

That depends on what you mean by "predicted."

But 'climate change" - which encompasses the entire earth's atmosphere and includes infinitely more variables and a much longer time span than your regional weekend forecast - this CAN be accurately predicted and it is sound advice to make sweeping policy decisions based on computer modeling?

But that's the thing, the prediction is not what the temperature and humidity will be in NYC on August 12, 2012. That would be hard to predict. The prediction is on larger trends that are easier to predict given the scope of the data.

So, yeah, it's easier to predict larger trends than the exact temperature of a given location on the globe on a given date.

You ask for evidence, and you get some glib responses like Eric's here.

Are you serious? You asked for a link that summarizes "the evidence" for global warming. There isn't one link! There are many! If you really want evidence, you can use the magical The Google. You will get reams and reams of evidence. So much, it would take you weeks - no - months to pore over. And the evidence is not based on polls of scientists.

I'll make you a deal: try googling "scientific evidence for global warming." If you still can't find what you're looking for, then ask me and I'll help you.

Oh, and Blizzard, few are as tireless and skilled in their debunking of global warming skeptics than Tim Lambert.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/

"I am curious how people seem so sure of the global warming narrative, yet I never see any evidence is never discussed anywhere."

Then you're not looking.
www.realclimate.org
www.climateprogress.org
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

"scientists can't speak with authority beyond their specialty"
And if you actually look at the polls, the more research a scientist actually, you know, DOES on climate issues, the more likely they are to recognize the overwhelming evidence arguing for AGW.

Something I've been saying for years.

http://www.physorg.com/news166795736.html

Money Quote

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

We don't really know why things are changing. We have no idea if anything we will do will be of any help, or if it will make things worse. We should be focused more on how to adapt to the changing climate (and stop adding to the problem) and less on how to reverse a situation that may be un-reversible.

So it's easier and more accurate to make sweeping predictions about the conditions of the 5,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons of the all-encompassing earth's atmosphere - predictions for 10, 20 or more years into the future - than it is to predict whether or not it will rain next Tuesday in your town.

Says who, Eric - you?

Seems like you're letting your faith get in the way of rational reality.

tomaig: you don't really understand science and statistics do you?

You're not making a real argument.

It's easier to predict based on trends. If the trends continue, this is what will happen. Further, there is cause for concerns that the trends will actually progress faster than anticipated due to feedback loops.

Seems like you're denying rational reality.

I should add: trends as well as scientific observation of the interaction between CO2 in the atmosphere and its impact on climate. As well as the amount of CO2 released as a result of anthropogenic causes.

I mean, tomaig, what exactly is your argument? That the atmosphere is too big to measure effects on it/data outputs? Really?

It's easier for scientists to predict how many people will die in the US next year than it is for them to predict when I will die. This is the same phenomenon.

So you concede that the weather cannot be accurately predicted, even with all the computer modeling that is modern meteorology.

This is a bizarre statement to make. Have you ever checked out the accuracy of a long term weather forecast?

But 'climate change" - which encompasses the entire earth's atmosphere and includes infinitely more variables and a much longer time span than your regional weekend forecast - this CAN be accurately predicted and it is sound advice to make sweeping policy decisions based on computer modeling?

Well, my insurance company has no clue when I'm going to die. But they can tell me with profoundly disturbing accuracy how many of their policy holders will die this year. Do you appreciate the difference?

So apparently tomaig believes that it is impossible to predict that winter will be colder than summer since a rain prediction tomorrow cannot be 100% sure?

It funny how very accurate thermodynamic analyses and models can be without ever bothering to measure or predict the behavior of any particular molecule.

Or "It's funny...."

Tomaig, could you think about it this way: if there is a chance that human activity is affecting our climate and might have such devastating effects, it is prudent to pay attention. would you want to risk destroying civilization by doing nothing?

So it's an absolute article of faith among you folks that there is NO DOUBT that evolution exists and that mankind has evolved from earlier creatures? No room for any opposing views or even the evidence of your own senses?

If it's so settled, then why are your evolution heroes so averse to open debate with those who aren't congregants at the Church of evolution? Why is it that more and more, scientists are expressing skepticism about the whole "Darwin" school of Global Evolution Hysteria?

Go on, answer me that one, you smarty-pants!

Next Time on Silly Parallels To Silly Questions: Why don't you people bother to debate the flat earth!?!? What are you afraid of?

Shorter answer: when the overwhelming majority of scientific experts on a subject come to a consensus, odds are that they are correct, and the burden is on outliers to prove they are wrong; not vice versa.

"I mean good Lord, use some common sense - they can't accurately predict the weather for two weeks hence yet you're all certain that THE ICECAPS WILL MELT AND THE SEAS WILL RISE!!"

Moreover, setting aside the difference between weather and climate, you can't show me any proof a graviton exists, therefore I can levitate.

Not really my field, but here is my understanding of the CO2 argument:

According to our understanding of the dynamics of the atmosphere and the earth generally, if CO2 levels were to rise significantly, we would expect certain things to happen.

CO2 levels appear to have risen dramatically.

Many if not most of the predicted things are happening. The most significant divergence from what the model predicts is that they're happening faster and sooner than we thought.

Are there other possible factors? Yes, there are.

Do we have complete confidence in our understanding of the dynamics of global climate, and/or of the accuracy of how those things are represented in the models? No, we do not.

But something is freaking going on. The prudent person will want to know what, and why, and what if anything can and should be done to deal with it.

"... but I can't put much stock in that- scientists can't speak with authority beyond their specialty, and the climate change specialists are too invested in the narrative."

This is excellent! If you can't speak beyond your speciality (and I agree that it's wise to not put very much credibility in scientists speaking too far out a field they've demonstrated they've done confirmed research on), but you can't listen to specialists because they agree, then, why, knowledge is simply unobtainable, and anyone's view is as good as the next!

It's a formula for perfect ignorance. Well done!

Hint: in science "invested in a narrative" means "we have endless details in our multitudes of independent studies that mutually confirm our hypotheses." That's how science works: you test hypotheses, and independently confirm them. That's how you eventually get a "narrative," which is always subject to future evidence that it needs to be improved, corrected, or overturned.

Sometimes you'll see a poll of scientists, but I can't put much stock in that- scientists can't speak with authority beyond their specialty

If you can't put much stock in what scientists say outside their specialty, why on earth should anyone be interested in what you have to say on the subject?

Separately, I noticed that tomaig responded to a gently-worded suggestion to learn the difference between weather and climate with a post that... well, demonstrated a continuing inability to make that distinction. Well played.

It is certainly true that our ability to predict the weather is spotty at best--to the point where the accuracy of weather forecasters is a cultural joke in the United States. But this has no more to do with the science behind climate change than marriage counseling has to do with crowd psychology or collective behavior.

In case this wasn't made abundantly clear by any of the comments so far:

The quickest way to be dismissed as at best an ignorant layman who cannot be bothered to understand the most basic elements of climate science, or at worst a mendacious troll with an agenda, is to walk into a discussion about global climate change and start talking about the weather.

In response to the inquiry about scientifically valid information doubting anthropomorphic global warming, see http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html. There are a number of presentations with power point and other formats.

What we seem to know is that the earth is warmer in recent decades and that glaciers and the norther polar cap are decreasing in size. We also know that about 75 or 80 percent of the earth's fresh water is in the southern ice cap and 90 percent of ice is there. We know that a one percent change in the amount of cloud cover will make more impact in global climate than the CO2 changes that have occured in recent decades.
We also know that, independent of climate changes, we are rapidly depleting available fresh water other than in the southern polar cap. For more on that, see a series of scientific articles in last summer's Scientific American.
Finally, we know that some apparently brite folks are coming up with some truly scary ways to reverse global warming. Try building 1500 ships to go around the oceans whipping up water to create more clouds! Or shooting thousands of cannons with ceramic disks (like frisbees) into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Or, scariest of all, pumping sulfur compounds into the upper atmosphere to decrease incoming solar rays (world wide acid rain is apparently not very worrisome to that scientist).

Gary: "So it's an absolute article of faith among you folks that there is NO DOUBT that evolution exists and that mankind has evolved from earlier creatures? No room for any opposing views or even the evidence of your own senses?"

Hmm, slow down, global warming and evolution are far, far, far from having equivalent levels of supporting evidence. I get that you might be on a reductio ad absurdum path here but I think it's important to be accurate in stating the relative levels of evidence for various theories.

The support for evolution is overwhelming and essentially unassailable. It's as well-established as the law of gravity, at this point.

Global warming though is the prediction of computer climate models that are based on 1. physics models of energy flows in and out of the atmosphere and 2. expected feedback effects based on data about past temperature fluctuations and data from the real world about what happens during temperature changes. Those models are tested against past data such as there is, but they are only models. They make assumptions about the behaviour of the world system that are outside of the parameters we have good data for and therefore the assumptions are uncertain.

Don't get me wrong. I think the models are probably right, and with a probability high enough and effects bad enough that major action is justified to minimize the effects. But the evidence for this outcome is much thinner and much less certain than for evolution.

Basically the prediction of large temperature changes is not directly attributable to the direct heat-trapping effects of CO2, which is the simplified version that is usually presented. The large changes rely on assumptions (again, fairly well-supported ones, but ones that go outside of our actual data about the world system) about positive-feedback processes that change e.g. water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere. In other words the increased CO2 is a triggering change that causes positive-feedback effects that cause most of the actual warming. And it's in those positive-feedback effects and their balance against the also-definitely-existing negative-feedback effects that most of the uncertainty lies. Negative-feedback effects are what keep small fluctuations in temperature from snowballing into much larger ones all the time. Unknown or underrated negative-feedback processes could cause less warming than expected. Unknown or underrated positive-feedback processes could cause more warming than expected.

So, note, the uncertainty is in both directions: it could be worse than predicted as well as better! And the CO2-forced warming is pretty certain, that part really is simple physics. But representing the entire warming prediction as due to simple physics is inaccurate (at least as far as I can tell as a moderately-well.informed and interested observer).

And I have to make the last word here this, so as not to be misrepresented: uncertainty is not an excuse for inaction!

And again, while I think it is very important to be clear about the difference between day-to-day or even year-to-year weather and long-term climate changes, weather models and climate models are very closely related. The timescales are obviously different. But the science and calculations involved in the models are very similar, and in some cases the models are basically the same, just run at lower resolution and over longer timescales for climate predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

That does not mean that because weather predictions are inaccurate beyond a certain short period so are climate models, or at least, not necessarily for the same reasons. I am not qualified to give answers about the accuracy of either of those kinds of models. But saying that they're completely different areas of science is inaccurate.

"Or, scariest of all, pumping sulfur compounds into the upper atmosphere to decrease incoming solar rays (world wide acid rain is apparently not very worrisome to that scientist)."

Yeah, that one had me thinking I was reading the Onion.

But saying that they're completely different areas of science is inaccurate.

Who said that?

Jacob Davies, thanks for your contribution.

Robert Glennon,author of Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis, was on the daily show last night. He impressed me with the significant interaction, and potential conflict between "solutions" to this issue and climate change; essentially, the need to think them through together.

In my 9:31AM comment I mentioned a CBC radio program that mentioned the potentially catastrophic impact on Pakistan/India.

with my appetite being whetted, do you have a recommendation of say the best 5 books a layman might read on climate change policy?

Turbulence, one example from Catsy:

"our ability to predict the weather is spotty at best ... but this has no more to do with the science behind climate change than marriage counseling has to do with crowd psychology or collective behavior."

The climate and weather models are much more closely linked than that. In some cases they are the very same model. So it is not accurate - so far as I can tell - to give the impression that there is not a very close relationship between the science behind weather models and that of climate models. There is. That doesn't mean you can superficially blow off the results of climate models, just that it is not a slam-dunk argument against doing so to say that they are completely different kinds of science, because they're not.

Eric,
Thank you very much for the links... I will check them out! I'll also try using The Google.

In some cases they are the very same model.

Which of those cases would those be? I'm not aware of any of the major climate forecasting models being used for weather prediction and I'm having trouble imagining how they would be suitable. You could probably twist and hammer some of them into doing weather forecasting, but I suspect that would be harder than just building a weather model from scratch.

But its been a while since I looked at big simulations running on supercomputers, so I might be wrong.

So it is not accurate - so far as I can tell - to give the impression that there is not a very close relationship between the science behind weather models and that of climate models.

I think you're reading a lot more into Catsy's statement than she ever intended.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A SERIOUS MATTER.

MANY PROFESSIONALS BELIEVE THAT GEORGE W. BUSH SO CONTRIBUTED TO GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEMS.
_____________________
SCANDALS! SCANDALS! SCANDALS!

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER!

“In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (go to Google, type “blog of drizzten Margie Schoedinger,” and hit “Enter”).

“George [Bush is personally complicit] in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of . . . George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell—Nevada Progressive Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010).

McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death.

Bush’s method of murdering Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.

During Bush’s presidency, of course Bush would have desired to kill people whom he hated or get them out of his way. Insofar as Bush was clearly capable of murdering Schoedinger—even in “broad daylight”—and is clearly capable of getting away with it, in consideration of common sense and the laws of human nature, Bush of course murdered numerous people in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger. One can examine public information; in various situations where people who sought to oppose or disadvantage Bush ever so frighteningly ended up “committing suicide”—specifically—Bush murdered them just like he murdered Schoedinger. For example, Bush continuously criminally stalked James Howard Hatfield to the point that he could not get away from it, and he committed suicide in desperation to escape: Bush murdered Hatfield. However, the vast majority of such scandalous information will never come out (the grisly details are typically hard to substantiate). A prosecutor really can lawfully charge a former president with murdering one or more people in the disgusting way Bush murdered Schoedinger. The American people unfortunately live in a world where evil presidents can murder any number of people—figuratively—with a wave of a magic wand and get away with it.

(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her” or “George W. Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked numerous people to the point that they could not get away from it, and they committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered them” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked James Howard Hatfield to the point that he could not get away from it, and he committed suicide in desperation to escape: Bush murdered Hatfield,” hit “Enter,” and readily find hundreds of copies.)

(Please feel free to see my “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” blog.)
_____________________
Andrew Wang
(a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

This may not be a particularly good example, but it's what I could find in a quick search:
http://fennec.ouce.ox.ac.uk/wp4.html

"A suite of models will be utilised (Table 2), capitalising on the ability of the Met Office Unified Model to run in a range of configurations, from high resolution, almost large-eddy resolving (300m or finer), through numerical weather prediction (NWP) to long-term climate simulation. Through this common modelling tool, we will link observational case studies both with NWP and longer-term climate modelling."

But I don't think that's the example I was thinking of. IANAClimatologist though so who knows.

"I think you're reading a lot more into Catsy's statement than she ever intended."

Ah, when gender assumptions rear their heads and come into our airspace....

Jacob,

The reference to a suite of models would seem to indicate that they have different models for different purposes.

Anyone ever watch poker tournaments on television? They can put the odds of a particular playing winning on the screen under their name. But they don't have a clue what the next cards dealt will be. The same kind of thing applies to a single roll of the dice versus 1000 rolls. The people who continuously post about how they can't model climate because they can't predict specific weather events over a short time frame show that they don't understand even the basics of the argument which should be understandable by anyone who has taken any math past rudimentary algebra and takes the time to read about statistics and probability.

Five days ago, BlizzardofOz wrote: "Can someone point me to a resource that summarizes/links to the evidence for global warming and/or answers some of the skeptics' criticisms? It would be greatly appreciated."

Eric Martin gave you Tim Lambert's Deltoid; Jim M gave you RealClimate and ClimateProgress. I'll second those recommendations — RealClimate for the science, ClimateProgress for current U.S. politics. There are many other sites with good information on climate change.

I spent about three months putting together some pages that succinctly explain why the common arguments against climate change are wrong. Lots of links, both general and specific, are included. (It's an ongoing project.) See the link under my name on this post.

Johnny Canuck wrote: "With my appetite being whetted, do you have a recommendation of say the best 5 books a layman might read on climate change policy?"

My top recommendation right now is "Fixing Climate" by Wallace Broecker and [?} Two other good titles are Fred Pearce's "With Speed and Violence" and "Hell and High Water" by Joe Romm.

I'm also partial to a pair of books by Mark Bowen: "Thin Ice", about the mountaintop glacier coring research by Lonnie Thompson (in some of which Bowen participated) and "Censoring Science" about the career of James Hansen.

There are some good books online. Check out "The History of Climate Science" by Spencer Weart. (It may be "The History of Global Warming" — all this is off the top of my head.) You'll have to Google it.

Finally, RealClimate has some good lists.

Trying to turn off italics.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast