Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Reframing Attribution

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 26 03, 2011 07:04 GMT

Reframing Attribution:

It the previous entry I wrote about the perils and pitfalls of event attribution. In this entry I want to untangle a few issues and, then, ultimately reframe attribution. Reframe? This is in the spirit of psychology and sociology, a different way to look at something. In this case, take the word, “attribution” and think about the meaning of this word, say, from the point of view of scientists, journalists, politicians ….

To be concrete, start with this scenario.

1) There is an extreme weather event, perhaps a hurricane submerges New Orleans, or a heat wave kills 1000s in Moscow.
2) Advocates say that the event is global warming.
3) Politicians say that the event is global warming.
4) Scientists suggest that the circumstances of the event are consistent with global warming.
5) Journalists ask if the extreme event is natural or global warming.
6) Different groups of scientists hurry to investigate the event. It takes a while.
7) The scientists publish their papers and because the event was newsworthy, the journalists follow up and ask again: Was the event natural or was it global warming?

There is in this scenario entanglement. We have scientists, journalists, and politicians. I have explicitly used the plural form to suggest that there are many perspectives, many points of view, many purposes represented. Because of the presence of political interests, the question is being asked in a social environment that is more political than it is scientific.

In the previous entry, I wrote, “It is hard to see how playing the game of defining extreme events and then attributing that event to ‘climate change’ can ever be won. In fact, it seems like it is a game that necessarily leads to controversy, and controversy is the fuel of talk radio, blogs propagating around the world, and the maintenance of doubt.” The game to which I refer is described above: event, fast public attribution of the event to climate change, scientific investigation and deliberation, scientific conclusion that the event is not wholly-and-solely due to climate change. In the formal and informal media, this game devolves to:

“This event is the proof of global warming,” followed some months later by, “No it is not.”

You can read the previous entry on why I maintain trying to attribute a single event to climate change with a yes-or-no answer or to split our weather into natural-and-changed is not scientifically sensible. That does not mean, however, that we should not study extreme events and place them into context with history, a warming climate, and how they inform our future. In fact, I have maintained that one of the most important tasks for climate scientists to take on is the quantification of variability that is “short-term” compared with the “long-term” normally associated with climate. (See Some Jobs for Modelers, and Ocean, Atmosphere, Ice and Land) Which brings me to “attribution.”

In the discourse described above, amongst the politicians, journalists, and scientists, “attribution” has risen to mean, “Can this event be attributed to climate change?” Sometimes it is worth going back to basics. From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language attribute is “to relate to a particular cause or source.” And from the Glossary of Terms of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Detection and Attribution: Climate varies continually on all time scales. Detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.”

In fact, neither of these definitions require a yes-or-no, wholly-and-solely answer that a particular event was “caused” by the warming of the planet by increasing greenhouse gases. That requirement has risen from the quagmire of the public discourse.

In the piece Some Jobs for Modelers I talk about “forecast busts.” These are well known to weather buffs, when weather forecasts fail. It is worst when severe weather shows up unexpectedly. In December of 1999 there was a series of Atlantic storms that hit France which were badly forecast. Detailed examination of the observations, the forecast model, and the ability of model to utilize those observations, revealed that there was adequate information to provide a better forecast. Specific failures in the forecast system were identified. (A complicated paper on those storms: Dee et al. 2001) When I think of attribution and a single extreme event, then I think of the detailed scientific investigation of the processes that come together at the occurrence of that event.

There are many reasons to pose such a study. A basic reason is to understand the physical processes. For example, in a historic heat wave, what is the impact of regional changes in the forest, agriculture, and the urban environment? What are the specifics of the atmospheric flow that allow the development of a period of persistent heat? A perfectly legitimate question is whether or not changes in our environment related to greenhouse gases have had a discernible influence on the event.

So that becomes the question. In the complex mix of processes that are responsible for determining the temperature and winds and rain of an extreme event, is there a discernible contribution that can accounted against, attributed to, climate change? To make it more challenging, climate change is not a simple, unrelenting, uniform warming of the surface. Therefore, if there is to be a discernible signal, then it has to rise above the variability, the noise, that is implied by the complexity described in the previous paragraphs. It is not a question of whether or not an extreme event is caused by climate change, it is what influence might be attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases.

That said, there are many reasons to investigate which processes, which causes, are responsible for an extreme event. A fundamental one is to improve the ability to predict the event. Another reason is to understand the impact of the event, assess the risk associated with such events in the future, and, if warranted, develop the ways to better prepare for such events.

I want to return to the my previous blog, which was motivated by a story that originated in the Green Blog by John Rudolf on the New York Times website (March 9, 2011) about the Russian heat wave in the summer of 2010. The news story reported on a paper by Randy Dole and co-authors. Within hours the Dole et al. paper was headlined on both news sites and in blogs that the paper said that the 2010 Russian heat wave had no relation to global warming. It is a source of continuing and intensifying controversy. ( from Climate Progress, recall that above, I deliberately used the plural of scientist.)

Here is the link to the abstract of Dole et al., Was There a Basis for Anticipating the 2010 Russian Heat Wave? Dole et al. take an approach to the problem that is process-based, in the spirit of the process-based approach to a busted forecast. They search for the signal over the noise, and for the 2010 event cannot state definitively that the signal related to the increase of greenhouse gases exceeds the noise. I want to quote, however, two sentences from the “Concluding Remarks” of Dole et al.

“The results suggest that we may be on the cusp of a period in which the probability of such events increases rapidly, due primarily to the influence of projected increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

And looking forward.

“However, as is the case of the 2010 Russian heat waves, events will also occur that are not readily anticipated from knowledge of either prior climate trends or specific climate forcings, and for which advance warning may thus be limited.”

The Dole et al. paper does not state in any way that global warming is unreal. Quite the contrary, they work in a rigorous physics-based approach and investigate this region, at this time, for this event, and ask in the context of a forecasting problem, can a discernible contribution be attributed to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Their method, their analysis, their conclusions - that for some highly particular reasons - the climate change signal has not popped out of the natural variability. But as they say, it has in other places, for other phenomena.

Dole et al. provide one scientific approach to the problem of event attribution. There are other approaches. (see Barriopedro et al. The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Map of Europe) The conclusions from these results are likely to be different, and that difference may appear inconsequential to some and enormous to others. And while these differences might appear as important to scientists, my point is that this process of event attribution is a place where the scientific investigation of the climate interfaces, strongly,with the media. Therefore, it is also a place where, by definition, scientific investigation interfaces with the political argument. Politically or in terms of informing the public, a primary result of this process is to build, amplify and maintain doubt. Here, I have tried to reframe attribution. Next, on reframing the dialogue.

r

Previous blogs on the disruptions and communications of climate science. (or how can climate scientists contribute to political discrediting of science.)

Strength in Many Peers

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

What to Do? What to Do?

If Lady Chatterley’s Lover, then …

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org

Categories: Climate Change Climate Change Attribution

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 151 - 201

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index

152. HaloReachFan 02 04, 2011 17:01 GMT
Quoting weatherboy1992: I can't believe none of the deniers called Halo to account for his personal attacks, and his refusal to acknowledge that the Stefan-Bolzmann equations are real. It means they agree with him! Can you solve for determining how much IR additional CO2 blocks and how much it raised the surface temperature of the Earth? There's no trig or calculus so it really is 8th grade level algebra. Do you agree with Halo that I made up the equations? Mathematical illiteracy has definitely been exposed. We're waiting HaloReachFan. And you need to apologize for saying I created fake equations. I didn't attack you Mike, Find me proof of the attack then I'll apologize. Quoting cat5hurricane: After further review, I'm good after looking over Weatherboy's math. It's solid. But Neapolitan's geography in Master's Blog remains unqualified. Then I believe in those equations. P.S. to anybody that cares. Those equations weren't given in High School Algebra or any other high school course. Not even the first few courses in college. Quoting martinitony: People travel at this time of year. He was banned all 3 of his accounts that I know of. Quoting weatherboy1992: Cat5 accepted. Now are you going to stop claiming I'm this SSI character and quit that harassment? You show up 5 days after he gets banned. The past 2 accounts or so he has had did the same thing. Your lingo is the same. At least change it next time so we don't think you are him. You bring up the same exact talking points as him. ------ Anyways I'm out. Got the Final Four to attend to even though my team came up one weekend short :( Member Since: Сентябрь 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

163. TomTaylor 03 04, 2011 01:29 GMT
Just discovered this blog, and at first site it looks pretty cool. But then I begin to remember the debate on global warming is already over. There is nothing more to debate. Earth is proven to be warming. Humans are proven to be contributing. The debate should be over. The only reason these "debates" (and I put quotes around debates because they really aren't debates. One side provides evidence, while the other side does one of two things: ignores it's presence or denies it's validity. How can you call that a debate?) continue is because of the few people who insist that scientists are conducting some secret ploy to get us to waste money on going green (which is counter intuitive because going green is actually a good thing). Quoting weatherboy1992: I see. This explains a lot. It really does. It isn't a question of whether the equations are presented in HS, although I had them in HS physics. Algebra is a *method* of problem solving, not a list of equations. From 8th grade on I could have used the Stephan-Boltzmann equations easily. I took algebra in 8th-9th grade, and geometry, trigonometry, and calculus later in high school. Strong high schools provide such courses. And I did work with Stephan-Boltzmann equations in high school physics. And they are in my freshman physics book on my desk now. Obviously, those high school courses are for advanced students. Other students, on a less academically demanding 'vocational' track, could get by without being exposed to much math. That's the only explanation for Halo's comment. Halo, since you don't have any education or knowledge, I'll be putting you on the ignore list. You made nasty personal attacks on me in comments #130, #109, #38, and #35 in this blog entry. All you do is attack people. You don't contribute to the discussion in any way. I should have done that a long time ago. I'm gonna go with show average and above---that cuts out the junk deniers. Exactly. Problem is, you ignore iceage and HaloReach fan, and then the debate is over. Just goes to show you, the people on the other side aren't even making arguments. There denying and ignoring. Mixed in with personal attack of course. They present zero evidence. ZERO. Cat5, from what I've seen, isn't doing much of that. But then again, he/she doesn't appear to be making any arguments either. Just seems to be loosely following the anti gw crowd. Member Since: Август 24, 2010 Posts: 18 Comments: 3906

166. TomTaylor 03 04, 2011 01:39 GMT
In reality, the only things left to debate are: 1. How responsible humans are for the current warming, since this is unknown. 2. What will be the future effects of this warming, since this barely understood, but not nearly 100% understood. 3. What are the most effective ways to minimize our contributions, since we know how we can reduce our contributions, but to do that effectively, efficiently, and easily remains to be seen. These things have already been proven: 1. Humans are contributing to the current warming. -The severity to which we are is fairly unknown. 2. The earth is currently warming. For any people who have not yet come to terms with these two items, the evidence has already been provided, you have only refused to acknowledge it's presence and/or validity. Member Since: Август 24, 2010 Posts: 18 Comments: 3906

167. TomTaylor 03 04, 2011 01:41 GMT
Quoting weatherboy1992: TomTaylor I'm sure you've taken algebra in HS right? And will be taking trig and calc soon, if not already? I'm just thinking I can't have been in the only school system that offered algebra in 8th grade and high school. Slogging through DiffeyQ myself. Fun, fun. And the debate really is over. There's no serious scientific argument that man-made global warming isn't happening. Sure have. I'm in HS right now though, believe it or not. I'm taking Pre Cal at the moment, which is basically Trig mixed in with some other stuff. Quoting weatherboy1992: And it's not just debate. I've learned some good links from MichaelSTL's posts. Yea, I realized this blog isn't just for debating. I was just posting in response to the debate. And yea, Michael makes some good posts. Member Since: Август 24, 2010 Posts: 18 Comments: 3906

170. TomTaylor 03 04, 2011 01:56 GMT
Quoting weatherboy1992: TomTaylor do you know what the mathematician did when he washed up from a shipwreck on a deserted island? Chopped down a tree to make a log table. hahah who comes up with these jokes? And yea, I'm 16 Member Since: Август 24, 2010 Posts: 18 Comments: 3906

171. sirmaelstrom 03 04, 2011 02:11 GMT
Quite honestly, I can't remember the Stefan-Boltzmann equations coming up in Physics in high school or in Physics w/Calculus I or II in junior college (I could be mistaken, I suppose). Admittedly though, I went to a very small high school and junior college: as I recall the math curriculum in high school ended with Trig--no calculus--and in junior college ended with Calculus 3. I do recall that we needed a particular minimum number of students to sign up for DiffEq and we didn't meet that requirement--I did take that at UF. Anyway, I'm sure high school and junior college curricula vary widely. I can't remember the Stefan-Boltzmann equations coming up at UF as part of my curriculum either; I would have expected them to arise in Thermodynamics, which was a requirement for Mechanical Engineering, but not for Electrical Engineering. As far as the debate being over, it does depend on exactly what questions are being asked. As far as what I believe, I think TomTaylor sums it up pretty well in № 166. I have entertained the premise that the increase in CO₂ might have a negligible effect either due to CO₂ being saturated or the amount of anthropogenic carbon being to small a part of the overall system, but as of yet I can't buy into either of those premises and it consequently seems logical that some portion of observed warming has to be due to man-made carbon emissions. The first three items in № 166 are very much up for debate, I would say. Member Since: Февраль 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

172. rod2635 03 04, 2011 02:13 GMT
Quoting TomTaylor: In reality, the only things left to debate are: 1. How responsible humans are for the current warming, since this is unknown. 2. What will be the future effects of this warming, since this barely understood, but not nearly 100% understood. 3. What are the most effective ways to minimize our contributions, since we know how we can reduce our contributions, but to do that effectively, efficiently, and easily remains to be seen. These things have already been proven: 1. Humans are contributing to the current warming. -The severity to which we are is fairly unknown. 2. The earth is currently warming. For any people who have not yet come to terms with these two items, the evidence has already been provided, you have only refused to acknowledge it's presence and/or validity. Member Since: Январь 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 168

173. sirmaelstrom 03 04, 2011 02:15 GMT
Quoting TomTaylor: hahah who comes up with these jokes? And yea, I'm 16 LOL. I know that I've heard hundreds of mathematician jokes...I probably have them on my computer somewhere. I'm sure it would quite easy to find thousands of them online, though. I'm sure there any at least as many engineer jokes as well. Member Since: Февраль 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

174. rod2635 03 04, 2011 02:18 GMT
Re TomTaylor 1. Already Proven - on board with that 2. Left to Debate - I have an alternative to minimizing impact, though not popular. Would instead suggest we maximize utilization of all fossil fuel reserves as quickly as possible, exhuast the supply, allow for a 1000 year climatic disruption, then a re-establishment of equilibrium. The human race will survive and adapt, and there will be no fossil fuel alternatives available ever more. Take the hit and get it over with. Member Since: Январь 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 168

175. atmoaggie 03 04, 2011 02:19 GMT
Quoting sirmaelstrom: Quite honestly, I can't remember the Stefan-Boltzmann equations coming up in Physics in high school or in Physics w/Calculus I or II in junior college (I could be mistaken, I suppose). Admittedly though, I went to a very small high school and junior college: as I recall the math curriculum in high school ended with Trig--no calculus--and in junior college ended with Calculus 3. I do recall that we needed a particular minimum number of students to sign up for DiffEq and we didn't meet that requirement--I did take that at UF. Anyway, I'm sure high school and junior college curricula vary widely. I can't remember the Stefan-Boltzmann equations coming up at UF as part of my curriculum either; I would have expected them to arise in Thermodynamics, which was a requirement for Mechanical Engineering, but not for Electrical Engineering. I think I saw 'em in high school chemistry. And I know I saw them in 3 or 4 atmo courses in college, especially in atmo physics and atmo chem...and had to derive them, prove them, and use them. (And probably all of the above on an exam, IIRC.) ;-) Member Since: Август 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

176. sirmaelstrom 03 04, 2011 02:24 GMT
Quoting atmoaggie: I think I saw 'em in high school chemistry. And I know I saw them in 3 or 4 atmo courses in college, especially in atmo physics and atmo chem...and had to derive them, prove them, and use them. (And probably all of the above on an exam, IIRC.) ;-) The nice thing about all the engineering courses I took is that you only had to derive any equation once, and rarely ever had to do it on a test. After it was shown how it was derived, it practically was always given to us. Of course, I had every equation I would ever need stored on my HP anyway. Member Since: Февраль 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

177. TomTaylor 03 04, 2011 02:51 GMT
Quoting rod2635: Re TomTaylor 1. Already Proven - on board with that 2. Left to Debate - I have an alternative to minimizing impact, though not popular. Would instead suggest we maximize utilization of all fossil fuel reserves as quickly as possible, exhuast the supply, allow for a 1000 year climatic disruption, then a re-establishment of equilibrium. The human race will survive and adapt, and there will be no fossil fuel alternatives available ever more. Take the hit and get it over with. That will probably happen whether we want it to happen or no. It's still the cheapest energy source (except maybe nuclear, not sure) so we will likely continue with it as long as we possibly can. One thing to keep in mind is that we won't ever completely exhaust the reserves. There comes a point when the amount of energy needed to pump the oil exceeds the amount of energy provided by the oil you extract. Meaning it takes say 2 barrels of oil to extract one. Once this happens, we will stop extracting oil since it will no longer make sense to continue pumping it. Member Since: Август 24, 2010 Posts: 18 Comments: 3906

178. atmoaggie 03 04, 2011 03:09 GMT
Quoting sirmaelstrom: The nice thing about all the engineering courses I took is that you only had to derive any equation once, and rarely ever had to do it on a test. After it was shown how it was derived, it practically was always given to us. Of course, I had every equation I would ever need stored on my HP anyway. Hum. I specifically remember that we had to prove Green's theorem in an exam for a vector calculus course (after Diff EQ). I remember that as I got zero for it after doing it perfectly when my lower case j did not have the tail, thus was an i, on the very final step. 0/15. (I hated that guy). But I got a B, I think. Member Since: Август 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

179. rod2635 03 04, 2011 03:09 GMT
Agree with you on that TomTaylor. Marginal cost will exceed marginal benefit. Physical reserves will remain but 'economic' reserves will be exhuasted. Member Since: Январь 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 168

180. TomTaylor 03 04, 2011 03:32 GMT
Quoting rod2635: Agree with you on that TomTaylor. Marginal cost will exceed marginal benefit. Physical reserves will remain but 'economic' reserves will be exhuasted. yea exactly. I like the way you put it. Member Since: Август 24, 2010 Posts: 18 Comments: 3906

181. quasigeostropic 03 04, 2011 04:12 GMT
Quoting atmoaggie: I think I saw 'em in high school chemistry. And I know I saw them in 3 or 4 atmo courses in college, especially in atmo physics and atmo chem...and had to derive them, prove them, and use them. (And probably all of the above on an exam, IIRC.) ;-) The stefan-boltzmann equations were used a lot in my college atmospheric courses. Big bad equations that professors made me derive and use! In high school, I thought algebra was time consuming. Using calculus made solving algebraic equations easier. Past calculus, differential/partial differential equations was not as bad as it sounded. Might I add, the most frightening equations I came across were the quasi-geostrophic equations. Had to solve them and use them for everything and on exams, all throughout the advanced MET courses. Member Since: Ноябрь 20, 2007 Posts: 21 Comments: 192

183. atmoaggie 03 04, 2011 14:18 GMT
Quoting quasigeostropic: The stefan-boltzmann equations were used a lot in my college atmospheric courses. Big bad equations that professors made me derive and use! In high school, I thought algebra was time consuming. Using calculus made solving algebraic equations easier. Past calculus, differential/partial differential equations was not as bad as it sounded. Might I add, the most frightening equations I came across were the quasi-geostrophic equations. Had to solve them and use them for everything and on exams, all throughout the advanced MET courses. For some reason, I thought that deriving the RTE with clouds was on the top of my ugly equation list. Member Since: Август 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

184. cyclonebuster 03 04, 2011 17:27 GMT
How much would the planet cool if we upwelled 75 degree water the full width of the Gulfstream for ten years non-stop? Member Since: Январь 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

185. cyclonebuster 03 04, 2011 19:17 GMT
Gulfstream Kinetic Energy prevents this lunacy! TOKYO -- Engineers pinned their hopes on chemicals, sawdust and shredded newspaper to stop highly radioactive water pouring into the ocean from Japan's tsunami-ravaged nuclear plant Sunday as officials said it will take several months to bring the crisis under control, the first time they have provided a timetable. Concrete already failed to stop the tainted water spewing from a crack in a maintenance pit, and the new mixture did not appear to be working either, but engineers said they were not abandoning it. The Fukushima Da-ichi plant has been leaking radioactivity since the March 11 tsunami carved a path of destruction along Japan's northeastern coast, killing as many as 25,000 people and knocking out key cooling systems that kept it from overheating. People living within 12 miles of the plant have been forced to abandon their homes. The government said Sunday it will be several months before the radiation stops and permanent cooling systems are restored. Even after that happens, there will be years of work ahead to clean up the area around the complex and figure out what to do with it. "It would take a few months until we finally get things under control and have a better idea about the future," said Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama. "We'll face a crucial turning point within the next few months, but that is not the end." Link Member Since: Январь 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

186. HaloReachFan 03 04, 2011 19:29 GMT
I never used those equations in High School but then again the government runs it now and I just took a math class in college and nothing about it was said either. Funny though. The guy who brought that up is. BANNED Glad the Admins are doing a great job with the site. Member Since: Сентябрь 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

188. martinitony 03 04, 2011 21:29 GMT
Quoting cyclonebuster: How much would the planet cool if we upwelled 75 degree water the full width of the Gulfstream for ten years non-stop? Cyclone, you really don't know if your concept would work on any long range basis. In the short term you have no idea what the effect on the local weather would be. More or less storms, hurricanes, tornados, snow, ...? Now, the long run. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is the absence of heat. So bringing cold water to the surface to cool may do nothing more than cause cooling at the point of contact. Perhaps it's like opening the refrigerator door to cool the house you maroon. Do you really believe you can bury the heat you remove at the surface and get it to stay lower in the ocean. Somebody here with a PHD in physics with a specialty in thermodynamics needs to speak up already. On your other idea of harnessing energy from the currents, that might make some sense, but it could also dramatically change our climate and change it quickly and perhaps catastrophically. The energy in the winds and currents is derived directly from the sun on a continuous basis. If there is a way to capture some without destroying the planet, that would be good. But, don't think that just because there is no smoke, carbon black or ash that there could not be consequences. Member Since: Июль 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

189. cyclonebuster 03 04, 2011 22:05 GMT
Quoting martinitony: Cyclone, you really don't know if your concept would work on any long range basis. In the short term you have no idea what the effect on the local weather would be. More or less storms, hurricanes, tornados, snow, ...? Now, the long run. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is the absence of heat. So bringing cold water to the surface to cool may do nothing more than cause cooling at the point of contact. Perhaps it's like opening the refrigerator door to cool the house you maroon. Do you really believe you can bury the heat you remove at the surface and get it to stay lower in the ocean. Somebody here with a PHD in physics with a specialty in thermodynamics needs to speak up already. On your other idea of harnessing energy from the currents, that might make some sense, but it could also dramatically change our climate and change it quickly and perhaps catastrophically. The energy in the winds and currents is derived directly from the sun on a continuous basis. If there is a way to capture some without destroying the planet, that would be good. But, don't think that just because there is no smoke, carbon black or ash that there could not be consequences. Maroon? I prefer Crimson. LOL! Anyways,In short there would be less storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and snow since less heat would be available to fuel them. Do you even know how a refrigerator works? Tell me what the condenser,evaporator and thermostatic expansion valve does? LOL! The consequences are a cooling Earth instead of a warming Earth which we are causing. If we are changing things for the worse now is it in our best interest to restore our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution? Member Since: Январь 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

192. martinitony 03 04, 2011 22:41 GMT
Quoting cyclonebuster: Maroon? I prefer Crimson. LOL! Anyways,In short there would be less storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and snow since less heat would be available to fuel them. Do you even know how a refrigerator works? Tell me what the condenser,evaporator and thermostatic expansion valve does? LOL! The consequences are a cooling Earth instead of a warming Earth which we are causing. If we are changing things for the worse now is it in our best interest to restore our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution? Yes, I know how A/C works. Do you? My point was, and you didn't address it, is that removing heat from the inside of a refrigerator just adds heat to the outside of the refrigerator. Therefore, opening the door only makes that person in front of the door feel good, but the net effect on the entire house is a zero. Actually, in the case of a refrigerator the net effect is added heat because the removal of heat from the inside actually burns additional energy. Now, if you can make the outside of your tunnel refrigerator outer space, then you'd have something. Now, you dipstick, how can bringing cool water to the ocean surface in order to cool that air, where the cool water surface, actually reduce the total heat in the atmosphere and oceans? It can't. So that heat that retreats into the ocean would eventually resurface and you don't know where, when and to what effect. If you did, you would stop talking about tunnels and answer the where, when and what I just asked. But you won't. Member Since: Июль 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

193. sirmaelstrom 03 04, 2011 22:43 GMT
Quoting cyclonebuster: Maroon? I prefer Crimson. LOL! Anyways,In short there would be less storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and snow since less heat would be available to fuel them. Do you even know how a refrigerator works? Tell me what the condenser,evaporator and thermostatic expansion valve does? LOL! The consequences are a cooling Earth instead of a warming Earth which we are causing. If we are changing things for the worse now is it in our best interest to restore our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution? LOL...I know I'm going to regret this but...I've got a little time to kill... Remind me again of a couple of things: What is the length and diametre of the pipe that you are proposing to use to bring the cooler water to the surface? How much kinetic energy is going to be lost doing so? Or put another way, what do you think that the flow through the pipe, and thus volume of water brought to the top will be? An interesting start anyway...I'm trying to remember if we've covered these specifics before. Member Since: Февраль 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

194. cyclonebuster 03 04, 2011 22:45 GMT
We have robotic rovers on Mars still sending back pictures today of the martian surface but we can't get a robotic rover to image a damaged nuclear reactor. Tell me about the media sugar coating the event! Nuclear plant owner under increasing heat in Japan Tokyo (CNN) -- Already grappling with a nuclear accident stemming from a historic earthquake, Japan's largest utility is now facing a sharp loss of public confidence and what it says are threats to its employees. In daily press conferences, spokesmen for the Tokyo Electric Power Company have told reporters that they're doing their best to bring an end to a crisis that has forced them to repeatedly improvise new solutions. But the company has had to retract key data about conditions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in the past week. And its financial future has been clouded by the amount of compensation it will have to pay in the disaster's wake -- a step company spokesman Junichi Masumoto acknowledged Sunday night that it has "yet to make any concrete plans about." Criticism has grown almost daily, with 40,000 public complaints coming into their offices daily, the company says. Its president, Masataka Shimizu, was hospitalized last week due to "fatigue and stress," with company chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata taking over in his absence. And the utility faced more tough questions Sunday, when it disclosed that it had found the bodies of two missing workers in the basement of the No. 4 reactor's turbine plant four days earlier. Spokesmen said they held off reporting the discovery in order to notify the families and discuss with them how to announce the news about the two men, who had been missing since the March 11 earthquake. Link Member Since: Январь 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

198. cyclonebuster 03 04, 2011 23:17 GMT
Quoting MichaelSTL: Let's see what CB says about this (just because he always points out how one area or another is lower than normal): April 6, 2010 Cold snap causes late-season growth spurt Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979. And this year it looks like it may be even later... Of course, before the deniers jump on this, check this out: In fact, the Arctic Oscillation through March was the highest positive value since 1994: The record high Antarctic sea ice extent last year was during a similar extreme positive phase of the Antarctic Oscillation (currently, it is strongly negative, with record low Antarctic sea ice extent, at least since 2003). WOW! I am impressed. It is probably so thin a Polar Bear can't walk on it! Member Since: Январь 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

199. cyclonebuster 03 04, 2011 23:23 GMT
Quoting MichaelSTL: Let's see what CB says about this (just because he always points out how one area or another is lower than normal): April 6, 2010 Cold snap causes late-season growth spurt Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979. And this year it looks like it may be even later... Of course, before the deniers jump on this, check this out: In fact, the Arctic Oscillation through March was the highest positive value since 1994: The record high Antarctic sea ice extent last year was during a similar extreme positive phase of the Antarctic Oscillation (currently, it is strongly negative, with record low Antarctic sea ice extent, at least since 2003). LOL! TODAY is April 3rd. Let's see what the April the 6th actually brings us! Member Since: Январь 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

200. martinitony 03 04, 2011 23:25 GMT
Quoting MichaelSTL: Let's see what CB says about this (just because he always points out how one area or another is lower than normal): April 6, 2010 Cold snap causes late-season growth spurt Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979. And this year it looks like it may be even later... Of course, before the deniers jump on this, check this out: In fact, the Arctic Oscillation through March was the highest positive value since 1994: The record high Antarctic sea ice extent last year was during a similar extreme positive phase of the Antarctic Oscillation (currently, it is strongly negative, with record low Antarctic sea ice extent, at least since 2003). Was NASA wrong back on March 23 when they said that the high extent was reached on March 7? If they were wrong about that, do you think that was the exception? I don't. What's more is I think they also mislead and even distort and even lie. Member Since: Июль 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

201. cyclonebuster 03 04, 2011 23:26 GMT
Member Since: Январь 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

Viewing: 151 - 201

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood