|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Environment |
|
Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
Current rating: 0 |
by pat n
Email: npat1 (nospam) juno.com (verified) |
08 Mar 2006
Modified: 08:57:06 PM |
|
2006 Spring Flood Outlook - NWS ignoring climate change |
National Weather Service continues to ignore climate change in hydrologic modeling and flood prediction for rivers in Illinois
Rivers in Ilinois
PECATONICA R
ROCK R
KISHWAUKEE R
S BR KISHWAUKEE R
GREEN R
ROCK R
MISSISSIPPI R
THORN CR
LTL CALUMET R
CALUMET R
YELLOW R
KANKAKEE R
IROQUOIS R
DES PLAINES R
FOX R
VERMILION R
MACKINAW R
SPOON R
SANGAMON R
SALT CR
LA MOINE R
ILLINOIS R
KASKASKIA R
BIG MUDDY R
Check it out at http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ncrfc/
"2006 NCRFC Spring Flood Outlook is now Available."
Also, check out:
Quality Assurance of Probabilistic River Forecasts: A Case Study for the Minnesota River at Montevideo
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/ncrfc/web/papers/MN_River_Case_Study.pdf
"Final thought: Based on the December simulation, there is an approximate 2 % chance of a very large flood in the Minnesota River basin this spring, if spring conditions continue to develop like those in 1977. Stay tuned!"
NOAA's National Weather Service
North Central River Forecast Center River Forecast Office
1733 Lake Drive West
Chanhassen, MN 55317-8581
952-361-6650
PS Don't figure on seeing anything dealing with climate change in Wisconsin or global warming.
Should you trust the NWS predictions?
Don't ask me... I only worked there for 29 years. |
See also:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
npat1 (nospam) juno.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Mar 2006
|
|
PS Don't figure on seeing anything dealing with climate change in Illinois, or on global warming. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Mar 2006
|
NASA Finds Stronger Storms Change Heat And Rainfall Worldwide
Ithaca NY (SPX) Mar 10, 2006
"Studies have shown that over the last 40 years, a warming climate has been accompanied by fewer rain- and snow-producing storms in mid-latitudes around the world, but the storms that are happening are a little stronger with more precipitation." ...
A 1998 study of precipitation data for the continental U.S., showed an increase in more extreme rainfall and snowfall events over the previous 70 to 90 years. Further, climate model studies that Tselioudis and others performed in the last few years indicate that additional levels of carbon dioxide will lead to fewer but more potent storms as has been the case in the last 50 years. ...
... "the strengthening of the storms produces a 3-4% precipitation increase that comes in the form of more intense rain and snow events."
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/NASA_Finds_Stronger_Storms_Change_Heat_And_Rainfall_Worldwide.html |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Mar 2006
|
Refer please to the link
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
where you will see that infact 'global warming & climate change' are not validly shown as being existant as Human produced or altered affects, at this time.
As such there is little reason to worry hydrologists about such, those that might have personal opinions towards such should firstly do their work still.
Altering the the materials OF the surface OF the planet DOES howver have an effect on the hydrology OF the region, water table inflow, surface run-off and many other factors being known as altered.
It is as such the hydrologist should be much MORE concerned about the sprawl fo humanity and its constructions across the surface.
It is also that the hydorologist should be far LESS concerned with some ability of a supposed 'greenhosue effect' to alter any process of a direct concern to hydrologsists.
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Mar 2006
|
Should you trust a guy that can't even spell hydrologist?
NO.
Ignore Peter K Anderson. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2006
|
Lets see, oh yes, as often as I state my poor typist skills, Pat N. is still trying to make much of a misplaced letter I made in 'hydorologist'.
Hydrologist (noun), practitioner of Hydrology (noun),
Hydrology (noun), the scientific study of the properties, distribution, use, and circulation of the water of the earth and the atmosphere in all of its forms
Refer please to the link
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
where you will see that infact 'global warming & climate change' are not validly shown as being existent as Human produced or altered affects, at this time.
As such there is little reason to worry hydrologists about such; those that might have personal opinions towards such should firstly do their work still.
Altering the materials OF the surface OF the planet DOES however have an effect on the hydrology OF the region, water table inflow, surface run-off and many other factors being known as altered.
It is as such the hydrologist should be much MORE concerned about the sprawl of humanity and its constructions across the surface.
It is also that the hydrologist should be far LESS concerned with some ability of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' to alter any process of a direct concern to hydrologists.
Pat, I have been patiently referring you to the paucity of the methodology you try to employ to indicate 'climate change' as existent, based on your little running temperature plots. I am not alone in indicating the paucity in the methodology you employ. I have in effect been hoping to HELP you.
I am not responsible for your being dismissed from a position as a Hydrologist, but if you refer to the definition above, you should realise WHY that event occurred.
It is NOT about a 'government service', or 'government' even, "not noticing climate change".
It IS about those that show themselves too readily overcome by OPINIONATION, rather than SCIENCE, usually getting dismissed for applying TOO much of the former and TOO LITTLE of the latter, when it is SCIENCE that is the basis of their employment.
Hydrology is a SCIENCE, not an 'opinion game'.
That 'climate science' is an OPINIONATION game 'politic' is WHY it is so often incorrect in SCIENCE in its 'productions'. (See links above.)
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2006
|
There is more to your mistakes than "a misplaced letter". You mispelled hydrologist twice in the same sentence. Then you tell me you've been hoping to HELP me with my little running temperature plots. With friends like you, who needs enemies? No thanks.
It is also that the hydorologist should be far LESS concerned with some ability of a supposed 'greenhosue effect' to alter any process of a direct concern to hydrologsists. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2006
|
It is no more than a 'typo' Pat N. You have attempted in the past to produce "mountains from mole mounds", now you try to produce them from nothing.
You should consider your attitude in all the places you attempt to display it, as I have been mentioning in private discussion, it is nearing an obvious level of irrationality and should not be broadcast as you feel it needs to be.
If you had considered the number of words form the number of sources directed at you regarding you inferred opinion with its methodological basis, taken a step back and LOOKED at the validity of what you try, today you might still be employed AND able to express your OPINION in your private time.
It is OBVIOUS Pat N. that you have a totally belligerent and near automatic opposition to those who can express the inherit flaws of the 'greenhouse concept' and an equally belligerent attachment to the opinions that would seem to be involved in the situation regarding you past workplace.
You cannot express long term processes like climate with a simple runing average of a few decaded, others HAVE told you this. What is being observed is WEATHER PATERNING ALTERATION, not 'climate change'.
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2006
|
Hartlod, you made another spelling boo boo.
Here's a hydrologist even you might look up to... Professor Emeritus Luna Leopold, B.S in Civil Engineering at University of Wisconsin, Madison in 1936 (before my time).
On February 23, 2006, Luna Leopold died at the age of 90. Luna was a vital
force, a man of extraordinary creativity and originality, whose passion about
science and the natural world permeated all he did.
http://eps.berkeley.edu/people/lunaleopold/
Leopold, Luna B., A Sliver Off the Corpus of Science, 2004, in Review of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, v.32, no.1, p.1-12. [ PDF ]
http://eps.berkeley.edu/people/lunaleopold/(181)%20Geomorphology%20-%20A%20Sliver%20Off%20the%20Corpus%20of%20Science.pdf |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Mar 2006
|
You have been EXPRESSELY informed by any number of persons within the pubic forums I have seen you attempt this 'presentation', that the little running averages you tinker with cannot in any manner display any statistical trend of climate. There is NO trend evident even over a 400 year period.
AS has been mentioned you look too closely at too small a section of a long and IRREGUALR curve. You have formed a tangential SOLUTION as the basis of you OPINION. YOU ARE INNCORRECT in your inferences, your tangential solution is NOT indicative of the behavior of the REAL oscillatory function you would PREFER to think it is.
See http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
If you had heeded others Pat N. you still would be employed with the ability to express your 'opinion' outside of work.
As to the mention of Luna Leopold, I am sure that the individual was always doing what they where employed to do during those periods at attendance to their employment, making use of their personal time for other works, not attempting to make the dissemination of complete nonsense from their employed position what they where employed to do, then protesting at their dismissal from such an employed position.
Lastly, the little errors you like to overplay Pat N. (constantly) are typos Pat N.
They are minor, of little relevance usually, routinely overlooked by RATIONAL people within the course of having a discussion.
If you wish me to be blunt Pat N., you do need to realise how OTHERS see your behavior. There is NO likelihood that you will be able to rationally COMPARE yourself VALIDLY to L. Leopold, or any other, most certainly NOT in your attempts to grandstand your dismissal.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Mar 2006
|
My "little running averages" do show trends in temperatures ... at many 100 year climate stations:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
I switched to linear on some of the plots to help you see the trends too.
BTW, if I had "heeded others", as you suggested, I would have betrayed my duty. Being loyal to the people is not the same as being loyal to one's supervisor up the chain of command to the president.
You may wish to review Aldo Leopold's classic book titled The Sand County Almunac, to gain insight on ethics and achieving peace of mind. Aldo was Luna's father. Both went to UW Madsion, as I did a few decades later. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2006
|
You 'plots' are incapable of showing a trend Pat N. as all you are doing is producing a running average. There is nothing to link those temperatures to 'global climate' let alone 'global greenhouse warming'.
At BEST you might show a behavior in a REGION so if you take the station data in a REGION of small enough size you MIGHT be able to show alterations to median temperature induced by a LOCAL effect, such as surface rematerialing.
These can induce WEATHER PATTERNING alteration within that region. This would be able to alter precipitation patterning. It would be also able to be associated with water surface run off and water table level alterations within that REGION.
It is NOT however able to do more as a correlated STATISTICAL process, as your running average is NOT such in the situation you would try to place it.
Again, you have been told this in numerous ways by numerous people.
You should be reading LESS of luminaries 'books' Pat N and more SCIENCE with particular interest in STATISTICAL PROCESS if you would wish to be seen as being less pretentious in you inferences and more 'scientific' in you presentations.
YOU have no 'duty of trust' Pat N. that you have not already abandoned in chasing your OPINION and BELIEF over what you can VALIDLY show with valid SCIENCE.
My first suggestion Pat N. would be to study the basics of the 'split plot' experimental design and implementation processes. From there you can move to the larger design processes encompassed in multiple non independent plot designs where the 'standardised distributions' cannot be implemented due to the NON INDEPENDENCE of the actions within plot regions at boundary interfaces.
This is the design best used for 'global events' with regions made of non independent plots themselves made in the same manner, as a nested recursive analytical process for the general consideration of the 'computer people'.
The best analytic form would be based in a 'Time Series' process analysis with a 'harmonic' function (from acoustical related 'mechanics') as the process being studied, as my suggestion.
When you finish reading your luminaries book Pat N., you can start being a 'scientist' again, pity you did not listen more BEFORE you made your dismissal necessary.
It is what you DO Pat N. that makes you WRONG, NOT what you think.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2006
|
You wrote ... "more SCIENCE with particular interest in STATISTICAL PROCESS" ...
Hartlod,
Please show your comments on SCIENCE with particular interest in STATISTICAL PROCESS ... regarding the topics below.
1. 2006 NCRFC Spring Flood Outlook:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ncrfc/
2. Quality Assurance of Probabilistic River Forecasts: A Case Study ...
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/ncrfc/web/papers/MN_River_Case_Study.pdf |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2006
|
No Pat N., after years of listening to your elitist mannerisms within your expressions of opinion, after listening to all those others inform you of exactly the SAME problems as I have informed you of, and after seeing your 'performance' of 'outrage' at being dismissed for notably NOT doing what you where employed to do, there is little need for me to do more than mention the olde adage of "I told you so!", which I have refrained from doing.
The point of issue is your little running averages and the inability of those simple efforts of numeracy to allow any to claim a 'global process' is 'evidenced'. I might just look at the links you have given, but you have shown no knowledge anyway Pat N. to even facilitate a discussion of any observations made anyway, perhaps I will discuss these links with others.
Also, the material so 'linked' is not at all relevant to the situation presented within this thread, and the many others of this style you have begun. You are seemingly trying to allude that some inferior work is done simply as your OPINION of 'climate change' was rejected, or that you where dismissed, or for a combination of both excuses, that is as all the background all these little 'poor Pat' threads seem to have as justification for their existence.
You are not a 'potential luminary' even if some who attended the same institutions you have did become so recognised. Nor would you be considered a 'martyr of conscience'.
You attempt to ridicule those who point out the deficiencies of your methodology, you attempt to deflect scrutiny onto unrelated papers and situations, and if all else fails, you run to another 'room' and start your efforts to a 'new audience'. You are not even behaving as a 'scientist' any more Pat N., let alone a practitioner of SCIENCE.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2006
|
Hartlod,
Are you having trouble with the SCIENCE and STATISTICAL PROCESS of AHPS?
Start with this....
2006 NCRFC Spring Flood Outlook has been Updated (3/9/2006).
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ncrfc/?n=ncrfc_spring_outlook_20060309
NCRFC Long Range Probabilistic Outlook Summary Table
North Central River Forecast Center Long Range Probabilistic Outlook Summary
Valid February 23, 2006 - May 24, 2006
Illinois River
Percent chance that stage will exceed indicated levels
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
MORRIS
20.0 17.6 16.4 14.5 13.3 12.5 11.3 9.4 7.8
LA SALLE
28.0 24.9 23.8 22.6 21.5 20.3 19.3 16.0 14.2
HENRY
26.1 24.5 22.8 21.9 20.9 19.4 18.1 17.7 16.2
PEORIA
21.9 20.5 18.8 18.1 16.2 13.9 13.2 12.7 11.7
HAVANA
20.0 18.5 17.4 16.0 15.1 14.5 13.5 12.7 9.8
BEARDSTOWN
22.3 20.0 18.2 16.5 14.9 14.1 12.7 11.8 10.5
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ncrfc/content/seasonal/outlooks/2006/rls0223/outlook_summary/esptable.php
This has potential impacts to people living and working in central Illinois so don't take this lightly - it's serious... not an exercise. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2006
|
Pat N., you have no link to any of your 'numbers' to suppose 'climate change', or even 'global climate change'.
You have been informed of the paucity of your 'methodologies' to indicate such many times be many people.
You simply prefer to 'believe', which is NOT a process of SCIENCE.
As has been mentioned Pat N., the rematerialing of Planetary Surface, within and by the production of Human Habitat WILL affect 'water run off', amongst other issues.
The redistribution of Kinetic Energy induction will create a WALKING of precipitation patterning. This is NOT 'climate change' in ANY manner it is most certainly NOT 'global climate change'.
Here in Australia the greater river systems of the 'Plains' have 'ghost runs' to either side of present courses. This represents the past alteration to 'Rain Heads' for these systems. The shifting of to a 'new course' will be accompanied by more frequent FLOODS, when precipitation DOES occur. In Australia the prolonging of DROUGHT will rematerial surface 'naturally'. This will have a similar effect to, but in place of Human habitat sprawl, in the largest part (though such Human action IS having an observable effect in the "Sydney Basin" at present in relation to precipitation relative to 'catchment' regions).
I have every reason to take these matters seriously Pat N.
It is simple for all to see Pat N., you simply have NO IDEA of 'statistical process' Pat N., a 'running average' is NOT a 'highpoint', and it is YOU who are misguided in the RELEVANCE of your NUMBERS and the INFERENCES you would make.
You simply do NOT have the ABILITY and KNOWLEDGE to make the 'calls' you attempt, you should have realised THAT with the number of PEOPLE trying to tell you of the paucity of your 'methodology'.
If you had heeded the information being given you and ceased your attempts of ;elitist mannerisms' as the 'few' within 'Yahoo Group' attempt whilst making censorship to suit themselves (including yourself Pat N.) you might still be employed.
You where dismissed for (seemingly) attempting to use you position to distribute expressly your beliefs. That was NOT your positions required activity, and so eventually you where dismissed.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2006
|
---
Harlod,
The link below might help you understand AHPS so that you can stay on topic with your comment.
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006
From: <globalchange (at) nas.edu>
Climate and Global Change at the National Academies â March 2006
New Report
Toward a New Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS)
The National Weather Service (NWS) is responsible for providing flood forecasts and warnings in the United States.
The agency established the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services (AHPS) program in 1997 to advance technology for hydrologic services, specifically to provide accurate forecasts that support timely warnings for all users of hydrologic predictions. AHPS strives to provide information at the right time to facilitate adequate responses to mitigate damages to life, livelihoods, and property. AHPS is slated to be fully implemented nationwide in 2013. With seven years still remaining in its development and implementation timeline,
a review of the program now is critical to providing NWS with information it needs to maximize the effectiveness of the AHPS program. This report assesses AHPS in respect to hydrologic science and technology research, river routing and mechanics, âsystemsâ engineering aspects, and implementation. Overall, this report finds AHPS to be an ambitious program that promises to provide services and products
that are timely and necessary. The report calls for AHPS to develop a detailed and comprehensive, multi-year implementation plan and for the programâs goals and budget to be brought into closer alignment.
More Information on AHPS
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11598.html
Other NAS activities http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/
--- |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2006
|
I am precisely on topic Pat N. That you do not comprehend what you attempt to link to is very obvious. You are still attempting to maintain a charade of 'authoritive knowledge' whilst avoiding actually saying anything directly.
You are still intent on trying to maintain the elitist mannerisms that you and a few others like to present yourselves with.
It has already been established that the 'Academies' are not represented behind the comments you like to pretend behind, just a small subset of individuals within such.
There is nothing very different in anything that is said by these small subset groups. Infact the 'numerous' reports start to become very much 'standardised rhetoric' in content. They use the same questionable methods to make very questionable inference and all ignore many of the same aspects of our known reality whilst trying to sound 'authoritive' in the face of any and all scrutiny, running from such if gets 'too intense'. Just like yourself Pat N.
The 'Union of Concerned Scientists' is but ~100,000, the IPCC (as the political committee formed from political lobby by what is NOW the UCS) generally uses '2000' selected 'reports' from 'guess which group' of individuals.
This is sometimes called a 'cook up', in the vernacular of certain areas.
In general Pat N., the situation at the base of your persistent production of these 'threads' is still the same, and you are still in 'denial' OBVIOUSLY.
Your dismissal was with (most likely) your (demonstrated) belligerent attempts to foist 'greenhouse warming' into all issues. You care little beyond your beliefs and opinions, which you cannot validate, and not only ignore all those politely indicating the paucity of your methodology; you actively belittle and harass these individuals (myself included).
It is not the work of any other that is being highlighted here, it is your avoidance Pat N. to state clearly WHY you think there is an issue, and that this 'unmentioned issue' is also at the base of the situation that lead to your dismissal, many others are now thinking. It is pointless to continue to 'cut&paste' either links or 'articles', Pat N., to hide behind 'luminaries comments' or the 'platform tools' you employ. They are only misleading yourself into thinking you have some actual level of correctness, which is not in reality existent.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PREDICTIONS, Pat N., in YOUR own words please.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2006
|
Peter, per your request,
I will tell you the answer to WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PREDICTIONS.
However, first I'll point out that this effort on my part to do this for you would be unnecessary if you were less lazy, stubborn, stupid and afraid.
Your distractions are taking time away from my important work in updating 100 year temperature plots. The plots show polar/mid-high latitude amplfication... a signature for greenhouse global warming, accelerating.
More later... |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2006
|
I see you have not supplied a response as to WHAT the supposed problem WITH the 'NWS predictions' is. The '...more later...', attempted to seem busy, is no longer functional either Pat N., you have tried that too often as well to avoid scrutiny.
This is because Pat N., you never intended to do so, that is provide detail OF the supposed 'problem'.
YOU only wish to talk about a problem until it is 'accepted' that a problem exists, so as to make yourself to be a 'martyr of conscience', rather the belligerent and opinionated individual you are. "Live the Dream" sounds great Pat N., you just need to wake up.
The only thing 'important' about your tinkering with 'temperature plots' is the number of places you try to talk them up, perhaps if you where not so intent on creating an 'internet presence' you would have more time for these 'terribly important plots' you always speak of.
You also try to overlook still the number of times you have been informed by any number of people of inability OF these 'plots' to actually indicate any 'climate trend'.
There is NO process even OF 'Polar Amplification' as the CONCEPT that the 'Poles react first' has overlooked that infact the Poles are reacting LAST as the WARMING shows its first effects at the EQUATOR.
15000 years ago Pat N. Texas was just south of permanent snow, the rise FROM that glaciation of that time is NOW at or near the OTHER extreme, with 'deserts' about the equatorial regions, large photosynthetic masses within the 'temperature regions' leading to a receding Polar Ice region.
The only thing that IS obvious is that NOW is the time when the Poles are warming, that is ALL that can be said. There IS NO 'Polar Amplification' process, it is just another 'scarlet fish', another attempt at imposing nomenclature, another indication of the FALSE PSOTIVES included in the 'greenhouse rhetoric' being 'covered over'.
SO there IS no signature of a 'greenhouse effect' evidenced, there is NO possibility even OF a 'greenhouse effect', as it is outlined. There is ONLY a small number of individuals wishing to extent their 'publishing deals' for a few more 'books', and a few hoping to manufacture a 'face; with the hope of getting their 'own' 'publishing deals'. It is like a 'marketing pyramid', which explains the belligerent defense of the 'pyramid' with its parading of the 'higher level' of 'talking heads' and the 'pyramid of rhetoric'.
Afraid am I? It is not I Pat N. who tries to support their positions by use of alternative identities. You post then reply in a supportive manner to yourself.
My trademark allows anyone to locate my street address even, and my phone details, I have even supplied the links to the Australian Intellectual Property site, and the Australian White Pages.
You have NO evidence Pat N., of any 'climate trends', of any 'greenhouse signatures' or even of a 'greenhouse effect' being present and in effect.
What you do have is a large amount of rhetoric void of fact, information or valid methodology, so even your inference AND opinion is near pointless, if not totally so.
..And you have still NOT gave any indication of the reasons why the predictions of the NWS service cannot be trusted, you seem to be just trying to say such as many times as you can....
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
States Calculate Global Warming Pricetag |
by Jim Lobe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2006
|
WASHINGTON - The decision, taken by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, came during the same week that the world's biggest insurance broker, Marsh & McLennan, briefed its corporate clients, which include roughly 75 percent of the "Fortune 500" biggest companies, on the potential impact of global warming on their businesses.
Marsh's clients heard from, among others, Carol Browner, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when former President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and Robert Watson, the chief climate scientist at the World Bank and former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Watson was ousted as IPCC chair in 2002 at the insistence of the administration of Pres. George W. Bush, which rejected his repeated warnings that the Earth faced potentially catastrophic changes in climate unless emissions were reduced.
"Between the insurance commissioners and Marsh, the message is that companies must take climate change much more seriously," according to Andrew Logan, director of the insurance programme at Ceres, a national coalition of environmental and other public interest groups and investment funds representing three trillion dollars in assets.
"The insurance industry is well-positioned to be part of the solution to climate change, and these actions will force industry executives and corporate directors to address the issue," he added.
Both actions come amid growing evidence that global warming is indeed linked to greenhouse emissions and that its impact on both climate and the world's topography is dramatic and potentially catastrophic.
In just the past week, a series of new studies has added to the concern.
Last week, the Journal of Glaciology published the results of an unprecedented survey by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that found that computer models based on assumptions about the impact of the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the Earth's atmosphere had accurately predicted the extensive thinning of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets that has taken place there.
"If the trends we're seeing continue and climate warming continues as predicted, the polar ice sheets could change dramatically," according to lead scientist Jay Zwally. "The Greenland ice sheet could be facing an irreversible decline by the end of the century."
A related study published last week by Science magazine concluded that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing 152 cubic kms of ice each year to the sea around it due to global warming, while another, also based on NASA data, found that the ice cover in the Arctic Sea is currently at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and probably the lowest in the past century.
These latest studies, as well another one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that found that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached levels that have not been seen on Earth for more than a million years, have lent credence to the notion that the Earth's climate is, as NASA's director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, James Hansen, said last December, "nearing... a tipping point beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far-reaching undesirable consequences."
Some of those consequences are of particular concern to the insurance industry, which has been forced to pay out billions of dollars in recent years as a result of damages caused by the growing intensity in recent decades of hurricanes that are fueled by the warming waters of the Caribbean and elsewhere.
Indeed, last week's action by the state insurance commissioners came in the wake of devastating back-to-back hurricane seasons that caused a record 30 billion dollars in U.S. insured losses in 2004 and as much as 60 billion dollars in insured losses from Hurricane Katrina alone in 2005, which was also by far the costliest year in weather-related natural disasters on record, according to a recent study by the Munich Re Foundation.
Indeed, according to a December 2005 Ceres study, U.S. insurers have seen a 15-fold increase in insured losses from catastrophic weather events in the past three decades, increases that have far outstripped the growth in premiums, population and inflation over the same time period.
"It's becoming clearer that we are experiencing more frequent and more powerful weather events that pose huge challenges for the insurance industry," according to Tim Wager, director of Nebraska's Department of Insurance and co-chairman of the new task force set up by NAIC, which originally scheduled the initiative for approval at a meeting in New Orleans that was then cancelled due to Hurricane Katrina.
"The impacts are being felt on our coasts and in the interior U.S.," he added. "We're seeing all kinds of extreme weather in the Great Plains states, including drought, tornadoes, brushfires and severe hailstorms."
In the U.S. system, individual states, rather than the federal government, regulate the insurance industry.
The task force will review whether U.S. insurers have adequately considered the consequences on their industry, including its solvency, if current trends that are believed to be related to global warming continue or intensify, according to Washington State insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler.
"We had a statewide drought emergency in Washington last year," he said, noting its impact on the state's agriculture and ski industries. "As scientists predict this trend to continue, I'm concerned with the impact these changes will have on insurance availability and costs."
Nancy Skinner, U.S. director of The Climate Group, a coalition of multinational corporations, state and local governments, and activists based in the U.S., Britain, and Australia, stressed that the threats posed by warming are not confined to extreme weather events, such as hurricanes.
"People tend to think about climate change in terms of Category 5 hurricanes and sea level rise," she said. "But changing weather patterns such as more intense rain or ice storms and lower snow levels can also have big impacts on business and homeowners. Other lines of insurance are also vulnerable, like health when heat-related respiratory diseases and mosquito-borne diseases increase."
In its briefing, Marsh also stressed the complexity of climate change, urging its clients to review their insurance coverage to ensure that it takes account of all the potential impacts. It said it will soon release a white paper on climate risks.
Copyright Š 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service
http://www.ipsnews.net |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2006
|
Still not indication of what these supposed problems are Pat N. Just more irrelevant 'cut&paste' you produce Pat N.
You have NOT provided ANY Evidence Pat N. that there is even 'unnatural climate change', or a 'problem' with the 'NWS predictions'. There seems to be in general NOT ANY evidence to suggest 'unnatural climate change' (as opposed to WEATEHR ALTERATIONS) is occurring or that there is produced from such issues with the 'NWS Predictions'.
It would seem Pat N. that your did not intend to actually provide these details to begin with as you are trying to stall and divert attention with more 'doom and woe' 'cut&pastes'.
What you ARE become Pat N., like so many of the other belligerent 'greenhouse platformers', is a PUBLIC NUISENCE, not a 'public savior'; a 'slave of opinion' and NOT a 'martyr of conscience', as you are trapped Pat N. within the pyramid of deceit built around the 'greenhouse concepts'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2006
|
--
Peter,
in order for you to understand the evidence you need to understand the method of AHPS.
Do you understand how the Outlook Summary Table was generated?
Please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
North Central River Forecast Center Long Range Probabilistic Outlook Summary
Valid February 23, 2006 - May 24, 2006
Illinois River
Percent chance that stage will exceed indicated levels
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
MORRIS
20.0 17.6 16.4 14.5 13.3 12.5 11.3 9.4 7.8
LA SALLE
28.0 24.9 23.8 22.6 21.5 20.3 19.3 16.0 14.2
HENRY
26.1 24.5 22.8 21.9 20.9 19.4 18.1 17.7 16.2
PEORIA
21.9 20.5 18.8 18.1 16.2 13.9 13.2 12.7 11.7
HAVANA
20.0 18.5 17.4 16.0 15.1 14.5 13.5 12.7 9.8
BEARDSTOWN
22.3 20.0 18.2 16.5 14.9 14.1 12.7 11.8 10.5
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ncrfc/content/seasonal/outlooks/2006/rls0223/outlook_summary/esptable.php
PS This is serious. |
|
Let's Can the Personal Attacks |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2006
|
Peter K. Anderson wrote:
"What you ARE become Pat N., like so many of the other belligerent 'greenhouse platformers', is a PUBLIC NUISENCE [sic]"
Mr. Anderson,
With all due respect, I think that your badgering of Pat. N. is starting to go over the line. If you want to discuss the details of why you disagree with his article, that is all well and good. But to accuse someone who is posting here in good faith of being a nuisance, is, well, being a nuisance yourself.
Our policy on flamebaiting is intentionally set to accomodate a wide range of discussion. However, a certain tone of hyperbolic hysteria has crept into most anything you have to say on the subject. Chill out.
Thanks for your cooperation. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Mar 2006
|
What is seen Pat N. is that your efforts are more desparately made in trying to NOT nominate what the problem you attempt to INFER exist actually is.
You begin these threads in PUBLIC, where you instead attempt to garner an APPEARANCE of knowledge by hiding behind, in this instance, a specific computer program, which neither I or any other need to 'understand' for you to relate WHAT is NOT being included in these supposed faulty 'predictions' of the NWS service.
Your PERSISTENCE with the produced QUANTITY of threads you START (over 500 in one instance) marks you as having MORE TIME that you like to indicate.
The quantitative measure of your actions, combined with the observed qualitative PAUCITY is marking your efforts increasingly as a nuisance (i.e. irritation, annoyance, and pest, etc). So in this it does mark you as becoming a 'public nuisance' in a valid inference of your behavior Pat N.
There is however still the lack of yourself detailing WHAT the issue is, this would NOT involve anything OTHER than an observation, no need to 'understand' AHPS as a computer program, and no need to 'read its output' either.
What Pat N. IS the actual problem you would attempt to SUPPOSE is NOT being made notice of in the NSW 'predictions?
Let's look at some SCIENCE Pat N. and remember a few of the concepts.
It is KINETIC ENERGY that powers our 'weather', by its influence to atmospheric pressure. It is the measure of 'kinetic energy' that is related as TEMPERATURE by the link to the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms that comprise the atmosphere.
This measure of TEMPERATURE and the links to PRESSURE alterations produces the observed 'weather patterning' and powers the 'events' enclosed. Lifting and transporting water as molecules/vapor, warming the surface and through conduction and convection giving the atmosphere and the ocean waters the 'heat' we measure today. This process has been occurring for BILLIONS of years, and is NOT just 'new'.
It is the alterations to the PLANETARY surface materialing, MADE by the production of Human Habitat, which is creating the alterations in distribution of, and rate of INDUCTION of kinetic energy. This is altering WHERE 'weather' will move, and by regulation (in increase of) kinetic energy WHAT events can be 'produced'.
This is due to the alterations made in the materials presented on the surface, and thus the interactional behaviors of the materials presented, to the energy incident photons. This is being done by Humanity, with the production of the sprawl OF the habitat of humanity as it is made.
**Hence the small alterations so far seen IN the recorded median surface temperature OF the surface.
Humanity does NOT like to live in deserts, and so the rematerialing produced BY Humanity is instead produced upon the REMOVAL of photosynthetic mass.
It is KNOWN that the PROCESS of photosynthesis consumes the energy of incident photons within the Upper and Lower visible Spectrums, this energy allowing the production of O2 as a side product, and the carbohydrates the plant requires, and are the real purpose FOR the photosynthetic process. There is NO 'destruction of energy'.
However, by removing the photosynthetic covering, the materials placed instead by sprawl are better able to generator intrinsic kinetic energy gains. This is readily known by all as common knowledge; grassed lawn will be 'cooler' than a spread of concrete.
On a large scale, the cityscape begins too place substantial amounts of kinetic energy into that atmosphere at places that are NOT 'natural' in their positioning. Over time, the increase in sprawl range, and 'internal sprawl density' further increases this effect in a cumulative manner.
Where a city grows too close to its 'water catchments', as example, it is already being seen that the precipitation into those catchments will dwindle.
'Rain' will fall less often, when it does it will be short and a 'heavy' fall as if there is 'less water' being held aloft by the increases in kinetic energy available across the distance of the now 'cityscape sprawl', it will continue until it reaches, for example a near by Mountain Range, where it might be 'dumped out' as snow on a more consistent basis than previously seen in the last 200 years.
It is the input of kinetic energy that suspends water, determining how MUCH water can be lifted, and how LONG a time that water CAN be suspended. The DIRECTION of transport is determined by PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS.
This is very much the case observed in and around Sydney (Australia) at present, for instance.
To observe some FACTS as to what IS 'temperature', please note the quotes below, again from standard texts as common knowledge. Notice also in the quotes below the TIMING of the divergence of two concepts.
One stayed stuck (it seems) on study of hypothetical constructs (the 'thermodynamic studies') of matter (like the 'Ideal Gas' and 'Uniform Blackbody' hypotheses).
The other attempted to make more direct study of the ACTUAL materials ('Molecular Dynamics') that led to 'Quantum' considerations and 'Quantum Theory'.
At the 'schism', there where those that thought that a 'cascade' of photons, and/or quantum objects was not possible, that a CHAIN REACTION was not feasible. To an unfortunate extent, they where very WRONG, but some are seeming still trying to live a 'thermodynamical dream'.
Quotes from (numerous) standard texts, just for today:-
-----
["What is Temperature? In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it."]
["About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale."]
["The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K)."]
-----
Time for you to wake up Pat N.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Mar 2006
|
Peter,
I appreciated you initial concerns on this. It would have been helpful had you taken some time to understand AHPS. I think I should attempt to provide you with answers now that the ucimc moderator has commented. Perhaps my discussion below will be of some help to you or others in understanding the subject.
The Mar 2006 Report by the National Academies states:
"With seven years still remaining in its development and implementation timeline, a review of the program now is critical to providing NWS with information it needs to maximize the effectiveness of the AHPS program."
See my Mar 14 pm post above for a description of the NWS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services (AHPS).
I provided input on 8/18/2004 and 8/21/2004 to the National Academies for their assessment of AHPS. My input included the statement:
"The work that I presented on hydrologic change in the Upper Midwest at the NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center conference last October in Reno, Nevada shows that climate change has already had significant effects on the timing of spring snowmelt runoff in the NCRFC area of responsibility."
It made no sense to me to use the same one set of model calibrated parameters for snowmelt,evaporation and transpiration in a basin where I knew climate change was going on within the historical period of runoff calibration for the river basin. The Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service cannot be viewed as "Advanced" unless it acknowledges and begins to deal with climate change, which I showed was happening at a regional level in the Upper Midwest.
Nothing in the Mar 2006 report suggests the National Academies took my input under advisement, even though I received automated notification that my input was received by Dev Mani, Assistant Executive Officer, National Research Council.
The methodology used in AHPS for providing the long range (90 days) probabilistic output for public use is flawed by its not accounting for climate change taking place during period of record used for model calibration and prediction. Seasonal hydrometeorological elements are changing along with the regional climate change which is happening ... for example, more rain in winter than snow, earlier and later transpiration by crops due to longer growing seasons, intensity of precipitation increasing especially in spring and fall, faster rates of snowmelt from condensation and higher dewpoints, and many other changes in the hydrologic characteristics of the watersheds due to climate change.
It is not surprising that the public does not understand what's considered and not considered in the long range AHPS products, few people do or can. The users are not able to understand the flaws in AHPS because they don't understand AHPS and they don't understand that climate change is happening. NWS has a responsibility to help people understand and be able to anticipate weather, climate and hydrology changes that affect health, safety and protection of property. NWS is avoiding their responsibilities to the public by continuing to ignore the climate change which is already been happening. In Illinois, record January 2005 flooding took place which was not even hinted at in the preceding AHPS products even though I alerted my supervisors of the potential in Nov and Dec of 2004... and I have the evidence to support that. I was removed from federal service in 2005 because of the strong position I took concerning climate change and hydrologic change in the Upper Midwest. I have evidence to support that too.
My input sent to the National Academies in August 2004 for their assessment report published March 2006 on AHPS is below. Why was my input ignored by the National Academies?
Pat N
Input provided to the National Academies in 2004 is shown below.
---
8/18/2004 message submitted to:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/webfdbk.nsf/Feedback?OpenForm&WSTB-
My primary background is hydrology. I have 28 years experience in
hydrologic modeling and surface water prediction. I have a MS degree
from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1975) in Water Resources
Management Program with special study in Civil Engineering.
In January of 2000 I began investigating changes in climatological and
hydrologic data within the Upper Midwest. I concluded that changes in
the timing of spring snowmelt were happening earlier in the season. I
could see that the changing climate was important in my work in
hydrologic modeling and prediction of rivers in the Midwest for public
safety and protection of property.
NOAA Administrators (John Mahoney and Jack Kelly), National Weather
Service(NWS) directors in headquarters, NWS Central Region directors,
and my local supervisor at NOAA NWS North Central River Forecast
Center(NCRFC) in Chanhassen, MN, Daniel R. Luna are not allowing me to
do work related to the changing climate in the Upper Midwest. I have
concluded that consideration and modeling to account for changes in
the climatology and hydrology of the Upper Midwest due to climate
warming is very important in carrying out our duties in serving in the
public interest, at NCRFC.
Most of my studies on the changing climatology and hydrology in the
Midwest and northern Great Plains has been on my own time, away from
the office. I wrote articles that identify the increases in mean
temperatures and dewpoints within the Midwest, and an article that
identifies trends for earlier in the year snowmelt runoff at three
major river stations in the Upper Midwest / northern Great Plains.
Two of my articles are located at the Minnesotans For Sustainability
website, at: http://www.mnforsustain
I continue to encounter very serious difficulty at work resulting
from my study and other efforts dealing with the changes in the
climatology and hydrology within the Upper Midwest due to climate
warming.
If you have interest in my work on climate warming and hydrology
within the Midwest or if you can provide assistance to me in dealing
with the adverse conditions I'm experiencing at work resulting from
not being able to pursue the study of climate change and important
factors related to my responsibility in hydrologic modeling and
prediction please contact me (ASAP).
Sincerely,
Patrick Neuman
Senior Hydrologist
NOAA NWS NCRFC
Chanhassen, MN
---
8/21/2004 11:10 AM message submitted to:
Feedback submitted to:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/webfdbk.nsf/Feedback?OpenForm&WSTB-
U-03-05-A
Project Identification Number: -- WSTB-U-03-05-A
Subject: AHPS
From: pat.neuman (at) noaa.gov
Three (3) e-mail messages from Pat Neuman to Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher are being forwarded below for general feedback on the
current NRC project on AHPS,
being sent 21 Aug 2004.
1.
Subject: Hydrologic climate change work in the NCRFC area
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 03:30:51 -0700
From: Pat Neuman <Pat.Neuman (at) noaa.gov>
To: Conrad C Lautenbacher <Conrad.C.Lautenbacher (at) noaa.gov>
CC: Dee L Nelson <Dee.L.Nelson (at) noaa.gov>
August 11, 2004
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.),
Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and
NOAA Administrator
Dear Vice Admiral Lautenbacher,
I plan to attend your presentation in Chanhassen, MN tomorrow. I am
a senior hydrologist with the North Central River Forecast Center
(NCRFC).
I would appreciate your suggestions on if / how I might be able to
continue work on hydrologic climate change in the Upper Midwest and
Northern Great Plains, at the NWS NCRFC.
I made a presentation on earlier snowmelt runoff in the Upper Midwest
at a NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) / Desert Research Institute
(DRI) workshop in October, 2003. Please view my work at the web site
which follows, showing the material which I presented at the workshop:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuma
n.htm
The final draft of my paper for my presentation at the CPC / DRI
workshop was not acted upon by NWS Central Region. After returning
from the workshop, I wanted others to view my work, so I arranged a
30 October 2004 press release. I prepared a draft that included
giving attention to my paper and my general comments on global
warming, but I had no intention that the press release give an
appearance of support by NWS. Changes were made by wire services
after my final approval, which I did not approve of.
Earlier this year, my supervisor Dan Luna, Hydrologist in Charge
(HIC), regarding climate change, said: "That subject is not part of
the NCRFC/NWS mission". I have shown that hydrologic climate change has already been occurring in the NCRFC area and therefore must be part
of the NCRFC mission, in my view.
In 2002 and 2003 I researched NWS cooperative climate data and flow
data from the US Geological Survey. I used the results of my
research in preparing my presentation for the CPC / DRI workshop.
In 2000 and 2001, HIC Dean Braatz stated: "global warming was beyond
the time window of our hydrologic forecast mission". The statement
was supported by NWS directors in giving final approval to
suspensions I received that were directly related to my efforts in
hydrologic climate change and model needs. I provided Mr. Braatz and
others with data showing trends for earlier snowmelt runoff in the Red River basin, which indicated that climate warming was in the time window for the NCRFC mission, in fact already occurring.
Please reply at your convenience concerning this request for your
suggestions on if / how I might be able to continue work on
hydrologic climate change in the Midwest and Northern Great Plains, at the NCRFC.
Sincerely,
Pat Neuman
NCRFC Senior Hydrologist
Cc Ms. Dee L. Nelson, NOAA Alternative Dispute Resolution, Seattle, WA
Ms. Nelson suggested that I write to Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher on this matter, by voice mail to me on July 21, 2004.
========= 2. and 3. removed
---
08/21/2004 7:13 PM message submitted to:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/webfdbk.nsf/Feedback?OpenForm&WSTB-
U-03-05-A
[Fwd: Comments to the public on global warming]
From: Daniel Luna (at) noaa.gov
Date Monday, August 30, 2004 8:21 pm
To Gary Foltz <Gary.Foltz (at) noaa.gov>
Cc Pat Neuman <Pat.Neuman (at) noaa.gov>
[Fwd: Comments to the public on global warming]
Gary, FYI, Pat asked me to send this.
Please share with Dennis and/or other appropriate NWS employees.
thanks
danl
----- Original Message -----
From "Pat Neuman" <Pat.Neuman (at) noaa.gov>
Date Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:43:18 +0000 To daniel.luna (at) noaa.gov
Subject Comments to the public on global warming Dan, This morning
I heard a National Weather Service employee make light of whether or not global warming is real, while talking to a rainfall observer by phone. The work that I presented on hydrologic change in the Upper Midwest at the NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center conference last October in Reno, Nevada shows that climate change has already had significant effects on the timing of spring snowmelt runoff in the NCRFC area of responsibility. Earlier this year, and in 2003, I heard staff from NWS offices in Chanhassen, Chicago and Detroit say NWS has been telling the public there is no global warming. I think people at higher levels in NWS and NOAA need to be informed that NWS employees continue to convey a message to the public that global warming may not be a reality. Please provide this message to higher levels in NWS and NOAA.
Thank you.
Pat
---
We very much appreciate your interest in the project and will take your communication under advisement. Thank you. Sincerely, Dev Mani, Assistant Executive Officer, National Research Council - |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Petere K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Mar 2006
|
With all due respect to ML, who I believe I have already spoken to in relation to how to publish articles, I would point out the links o have proffered already outlining the continued harassment of myself BY Pat Neuman, here is one again:-
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22607.php
If you even use Goggle and Search on the string
Pat Neuman "Arctic and Midwest climate change"
You will see
"Results 1 - 10 of about 542 for Pat Neuman "Arctic and Midwest climate change". (2.05 seconds)"
It is that Pat N. and one Gavin S. are harassing me in any forum I attend, hiding behind 'common use identities'. I can provide ML other instances. It is NOT a 'personal' attach to highlight the ill behavior of one Pat N. I do believe that Pat N. you have misinformed the moderator team of ucimc, as is your habit Pat N. to produce fabrications.
So to further demand FROM YOU Pat N., an outline of WHAT the supposed problem is, it is needed to be NOTED that these 'report' are NOT BY a 'National Academy', is it a report from WITHIN a 'National Academy' by a small number of persons.
These persons are all drawn from an equally small group, around 100,000 in number, it is simply the same people, behind differing facades in different combinations, it would seem producing opinion reports with a highly uniform manner of opinion.
Next, in all the rhetoric you provide still, there is STILL NOTHING to state WHAT your 'supposed issue' is with the 'NWS predictions'. Climate change is indeed occurring, it is NOTHING however to do with 'Humanity', or even possible to be due to a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. That is you problem is it not Pat N., you are attempting to bully your opinion, rather than SCIENCE.
There is little option but for Humanity to adapt. Climate change will not be stopped, there is little to validly outline any Human produced effect that can made alterations to the processes of natural climate change.
Realise only ~3% of ALL Water is fresh, ~ 2% of that is 'locked' NOT ONLY as ice/snow, 1% remaining as liquid. There is NOT ENOUGH water 'locked' as 'ice/snow' to make any SIGNIFICANT difference to 'sea level' even if it was ALL released, as much would also begin to recycle as LIQUID in those warming and newly verdant areas close to the Polar Regions.
We are in a Climate Period where Glaciations will reoccur with an irregular periodicity. Ice will 'ebb and flow' but not always will there be an 'Ice Age' of major ice coverage.
The present period is ~2 Million years into its progression. Humanity has in its 'roots and existence' the onset of this Period; perhaps if NOT for this there Periods onset and continuance, there would NOT BE a Humanity to consider.
The peoples of those low lying lands often mentioned as 'threatened need to realise that there is little to believe from the 'doom and gloom' prophets, nor is there any advantage to attempt to make petitions to a court of law to garner decision as to the existence of 'climate change', as there is always such.
There is NOT however any ability to validly cite 'greenhouse concerns' as being able to influence such, especially in 50, 100, or even 200 years. Trends in climate are NOT able to be determined in even 400 years. Then there is the lack of validity of, and the poor veracity to claims of the existence of, a 'greenhouse effect'.
Over a few THOUSAND years there might be an overall motion, as has been seen with the KNOWN receding of snow from just north of the State of Texas from ~15,000 years ago to today. But even within the past 400 years there has been multiple warming/cooling/warming events, none with any particular 'behavior' or showing regular 'periodicity', so there is nothing to suggest that what is being seen now is 'too fast' or 'too slow', it just is 'NOW'. This is particularly the situation with regard to 'ice melting'; it is NOW That this is NATURALLY happening.
This even alters attempts to produce concepts that are resultant of the 'false positive' that is at the base of 'greenhouse science'. There is no 'Polar Amplification', it is NOT that the Polar Regions are altering FIRST; they are infact reacting 'LAST' as climate rises out of the recent glaciation.
What it seems Pat N. is that you where sacked due to an INABILITY to produce SCIENCE, and seem intent on TALKFESTING 'nothing' to try to make an issue FROM NOTHING
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
What NOT to Do When You Suspect People Suspect You're a Troll |
by telling it like it is
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
|
Um, hartlod(tm), I think I would have avoided at all costs posting the link supposedly "outlining the continued harassment of myself BY Pat Neuman, here is one again":-
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22607.php
Now if I was a troll, the last thing I'd be doing is posting a link that rather damningly testifies to the fact that this is exactly what I'm up to here.
Or maybe not. They're tolerant people here, but they've also quite an extensive experience with trolls.
But really, you do go on and on talking to yourself at length in that one. Is it really all about you, which it certainly seems like, based on your presence here already?
Finally, could you explain what the hell is up with trademarking a screen name, especially such a seemingly lame one? That is -- unless you're in a band or something -- just odd. |
|
Should you trust the "telling it like it is(not)"? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
|
Truly "telling it like it is(not)" if you look at the thread mentioned you will find that one Pat N. and Gavin S. begin a thread specifically attempting to belittle myself.
It was not until after i was told of that threads existence I even went to that thread. This can be seen in the DATES of the posts.
You see 'telling as it is(not)" you overlook the WHEN, and so your OPINIONS relate a FABRICATION of events to suit 'your' purpose perhaps, but are not at all correlated to REALITY.
That there are 'communally used identities' is attested in a 'spoiler attempt' by one 'CH' that is made from behind at least on 'free yahoo account', but used by more than one 'individual'. The 'labeled identity' has remained the same even when differing mail accounts are used.
You should also realise 'telling it like it is(not)' that after being informed of the actions of Pat N. and Gavin S., the next thing I did AFTER commenting in that particular thread was look for others by title, firstly within the particular 'service' that Pat N. was (ab)using, then after finding a few 'titles', used Google to associate those titles with both 'Pat Neuman' and 'Gavin Smith' (some have provided an alternative spelling of Gavin's surname but i have not bothered to search further).
There are multiple copies of near all of Pat N.'s titles, from 30 to over 500. Asking WHY such would be done, i was informed that there is behavior suggestive of attempting to 'build a platform' by Pat N. with Pat N. being 'raised up upon it'.
As you are again anonymous 'telling it is(not)" I do believe that you are either Pat N. or Gavin Smith still, and as so far the only persons IN this thread are Pat N and myself, it would seem more likely to be Pat N. trying to 'hide' again.
I am only here as it seems Pat N. is still trying to make much of nothing, which is all that has ever been at the basis of 'his opinion', and this seemed a good place to speak directly to 'Pat N.' 'in private' as i do not see many others being even aware this 'thread' exists.
I only found it whilst looking into fiscal scams involving the garnering of DONATIONS to supposedly aid 'Polar Bears' from 'melting ice'. It seems 'flim-flam' is rife within the motives of many presenting 'environmental concern'. FRAUD is still a criminal offense, regardless of 'presented motive'.
Is it "telling it like it is(not)", that you are perhaps worried your cash flow might be restricted if people generally become aware of the SCAMMING being done under the guise of "environmental concern"? The posts for such are often seen in YAHOO with links to other places. I have provided one such already, which lead me to other posts with the same title, one made by Pat N. to which I replied with a general response and NO reference to Pat N.
Then the 'hate hartlod threads' began, as linked. YOU see "telling it like it is(not)" the WHEN is not something YOU can ignore.
As I do believe you have already been TOLD as to details behind my 'TRADEMARK ' I shall be brief.
The word 'hartlod' has been my 'net name' since university, before the internet and even before 'personal computers'. It has been associated with ME now for over 20 years, nearer to 25 years now. It was used with some KNOWNING that it was I (Peter K Anderson) behind the 'label of 'hartlod' when it was generally NOT to be known WHO the individual was involved in the 'task at hand'.
As I have been ill for over a decade now, it was a way of 'RETIRING' the label, by making a PUBLIC, direct and LEGAL link to said label with me (Peter K Anderson) obvious. I do not think I will need to be anonymous again.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com
With sparse regard to:-
-----
"telling it like it is"
(No verified email address)
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
-----
With various comments made within "Should you trust the NWS predictions?" |
|
So to further demand FROM YOU Pat N., an outline of WHAT the supposed problem is, |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
|
Hartod,
I identified "WHAT the supposed problem is," in my August 11, 2004 email (above) ... which was to the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.) ...
where I wrote that:
Earlier this year, my supervisor Dan Luna, Hydrologist in Charge (HIC), regarding climate change, said: "That subject is not part of the NCRFC/NWS mission". I have shown that hydrologic climate change has already been occurring in the NCRFC area and therefore must be part of the NCRFC mission, in my view,
and,
I requested the Vice Admiral / NOAA Director to please view my work at the web site, which follows, showing the material which I presented at the workshop:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm
The Vice Admiral replied to me a few days later (8/17/2004) that he did review my paper, after which he stated that my paper...
"appears to me as a noteworthy and scholarly addition to the body of scientific
knowledge --" ...
and he wrote:
... "I have the following thoughts for you.
First I encourage you to continue to do the best scientific work possible and to find outlets that are personally satisfying to you. Second, I really can't and do not want to try to interfere with what your supervisor assigns to you for work in support of his mission within the agency. There are avenues for you to discuss these issues within the chain of command and our organization. Third, I hope that you can come to terms with your work assignments whatever they may be or what they may or may not include. Finally, I appreciate your service and your contributions to NOAA and I hope that you will
continue to gain personal satisfaction from being part of an organization that is so vital to the future!
I followed the Vice Admiral's by sending a brief reply email, thanking him for telling me his thoughts (above).
Comments I have now, below, were not in my reply to the Vice Admiral.
I have always done the best scientific work possible that I could do, at work and at home.
My supervisors at NWS have been meteorologists and not hydrologists.
There were no avenues for me to discuss the issues of climate change and hydrology within the chain of command of the organization, suggested by the Vice Admiral.
The issues at my workplace were on the occurrence and significance of climate and hyrologic change in the Midwest, not on the causes of global climate change or global warming.
Regional climate change in the Upper Midwest is connected with Upper Midwest hydrologic change, which is connected to responsibilities at NWS NCRFC.
I performed all task which were assigned to me at work, and then some.
My performance in flood prediction for the Illinois River basin in May 2002 and January 2005 were the highlights of my 29 year career with the NWS in river forecasting.
The third thought which the Vice Admiral shared with me is that he hoped that I
"could come to terms with my work assignments, whatever they may be or what they may or may not include".
I believe that I have done that throughout my entire career, always doing the assignments that I was given, but in some cases doing more. The portion of my time used at work spent reviewing climate and hydrologic time was mainly during personal break and lunch periods, and when computer systems were down and backed up so that other work was not possible. Again, non of my at work efforts were associated with the causes of climate change, only the influences that climate change was having in changing the hydrology of the basins within the Upper Midwest and northern Great Plains. |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
|
It would seem Pat N that you where trying to make your supposition of 'human influenced climate change' from 'greenhouse effects' in some manner more 'relevant' than you could validly show, especially with your 'running averages' even after your methodology in that 'numeracy' was highlighted numerous times by numerous people as being deficient in terms of its capability of producing a correlated 'trend' regarding 'climate'.
It seems Pat N. that your entire effort has been towards having your invalid inferences make alterations to various existing systematic methodology to include your personally opinioned 'factors' that you OPINION are influencing 'hydrology' in various regions.
Instead of 'showing' "Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.)" a presentation, you should perhaps have been listening instead to you EMPLOYER at that time.
To remind you Pat N. of yet another thread you have 'produced':-
-----
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
"Hydrologist said climate change impacts hydrology, thus career in river prediction with NOAA/NWS ends" -Due to my position that climate change is impacting hydrology in the Mississippi River, Great Lakes and Red River of the North basins, my career of 29 years in river forecasting with the National Weather Service (NWS) ended on July 15, 2005.
..
..
For additional information, please see the link to the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center article: "Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends" by pat n (26 Feb 2006)
at:
www.ucimc.org/newswire/update/index.php
Your supportive comments would be appreciated.
-----
It would seem Pat N. that you could not get those of SCIENCE to listen to you. This was due to the situation SO MANY OTHERS had explained to you; your 'methodology' is INADEQUATE to allow you to produce VALID INFERENCE of 'climate change' due to 'greenhouse warming'.
You where NOT intent on 'getting on with your work' as it is OBVIOUS that was NOT the case, you where dismissed Pat N. NOT for making comment, but for it seems trying to have "making comment" become your 'employment'. SO you where dismissed.
You have woven such a large 'net' Pat N., it is NOT unreasonable that one such as I who spends time looking FOR questionable situations on and within the internet, will start seeing these "sad sac' threads. Then there are the' supportive' identities making 'suggestions' that others should 'support Pat', like those from Mike Neuman (again from Yahoo!).
If it had NOT been for your (still maintained) 'elitist' attitude within Yahoo! PAt N., I would not indeed have BOTHERED further with these NUMEROUS threads you start, as it is I began to notice indications of activites that would NOT be considered 'proper'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Temperature plots |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
|
Click on image for a larger version
 | Click on image for a larger version
 |
|
see links |
See also:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
|
|
Temperature plot for Park Rapids, MN 2 S (1893-2005) |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
|
Click on image for a larger version
 |
The record at this station begins in 1893.
A linear regression line has been added by using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software. |
See also:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
|
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Mar 2006
|
All very pretty Pat N., but in no manner can you expect to get any correlation to the overall climate trend with the METHOD you attempt with data from such a short time period.
This HAS been explained numerous times to you even BEFORE you managed to produce the situation of your dismissal. This is not only been mentioned by myself, and below I place the small list of threads I again bothered to mention and explain WHY this is the case.
You still Pat N. seem unable, or unwilling, to realise that you have produced a TANGENTIAL SOLUTION for the overall climate oscillation.
The overall climate oscillation is of an IRREGULAR periodicity, there is NOT going to be a 'smooth wave' function and there WILL be periods of sharp increase to decrease in median temperature IN THE SORT TERM. These fluctuations do NOT indicate ANY real alteration to the underlying oscillation, and have been OBSERVED readily within the past 400 years.
See http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
Your 'linear regression' Pat N. is simply NOT adequate to produce valid inferences of the style you attempt. You might be making the 'regression' in proper manner, it is simply NOT the 'tool for the job' and if you KNEW more about statistical process Pat N., it would NOT need to be explained so often in increasing detail to GET YOU To realise WHAT you are doing is not VALID.
The oscillations of climate a observed as a 'wave form', like the 'tidal motions' induced by this planets Moon. What you do Pat N. is effectively run to the beach, see the tide coming in, and run away yelling "You will all drown!'.
If there is anyone interested:-
-----
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22675.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/17575.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22524.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/22241.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/18060.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/17879.php
http://hm.indymedia.org/mod/comments/display/10410/index.php
-----
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
A New Take on an Old Millennium |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Mar 2006
|
The subject of reconstructions of temperature variations of the past millennium has been discussed many times before on this site (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). Despite the apparent controversy, the basic conclusion--that the global and hemispheric-scale warmth of the past few decades appears anomalous in a very long-term context--has stood up remarkably well in many independent studies (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 is at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=253
... We doubt that this, or for that matter, any study will silence the increasingly small but persistently vocal minority of contrarians who continue to challenge this conclusion. But to them, we offer the reminder that paleoclimate evidence comprises only one of many independent lines of evidence indicating a primary role of human activity in modern climate change. If the only line of evidence that remains in dispute pertains to estimated millennial temperature histories, then the case for denialism appears extremely weak indeed.
References:
Jones, P.D. and Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth, Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003.
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=253
Also see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114 |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Mar 2006
|
Firstly Pat N., the issue is again NOT involving anyone else's 'work'. You have run from your 'methodology' of making 'plots' to subjects NOT involved. YOU are NOT making 'temperature reconstructions'; you are attempting to produce plots of data from NOW, and doing so in an invalid manner for the inferences you would like to opinion as correct.
This has NOTHING to do with the past 'millennium' in any manner.
There is nothing in SCIENCE to produce ANY valid supposition that the past few decades ARE 'anomalous'. There is nothing to suggest that what we see today is any different in behavior to what has been seen in the past 400 years.
So apart from NOT being so far able to validate your own methodology Pat N., you try to cite inferences of others that are no more valid, they are just 'believed' by persons who would like to do so, but cannot otherwise validate their methodology anymore than you can Pat N.
For instance, it has already been detrermined that the 'stick graph' (as you always fall back to Pat N.) was produced in a flawed manner (which has always been mentioned Pat N.) with the dropping of ''outridder points" immediately making the 'study' to look for 'climate alteration' rather pointless, those 'points' represetning the varience from the 'nice graph' that such small events might indicate. It is odd that the process of dropping those points is made 'reasonable' by persistant mention of these points NOT representing 'climate change', yet the little 'blip' you would like produce NOW Pat N. IS supposedly 'climate change'.
Again , there is NO 'paleoclimate evidence' that is valid even. All are too filled with assumptions factualised to 'produce a result'. This is called 'predetermination' Pat N.
Lets consider those 'gas bubbles'. Ice is formed by compression of snow, there is NO reason to think '500,000 year old gas bubbles' trapped represent any specific period. The ice around them was formed by comrepssion of fallen snow.
Next the amount of GAS in those bubbles is not only devoid of WATER VAPOR, it is an INSIGNIFICANT sample of the ATMOSPHeRE as well.
Your 'independent studies' Pat N. not only show the same INABILITY in those invovled to percieve valid STATISTICAL PROCESS, they all regard the 'greenhouse concepts' as 'correct' and use them in supposd 'temperature reconstructions'. This is again 'predetermination'.
Even botanists have disputed attempts to rail 'opinion' regarding 'tree rings' and 'temperature'.
As another example, measuring 'microwave' energy from orbit is only giving you the output of the atmospheric cascade of photons. If you consider the plots showing surface incident energy you will note that only the lower and upper visible and lower third of the UV spectrum are able to become surface incident. Atmospheric water removes near all energy that water CAN interact with so ice melt is from convection/conduction of kinetic energy, not 'radiation', the gravitational variation in atmosphere density also trending to produce motion of suspended photons away from the surface, NOT back towards such.
There is no 'we' (in your use of the 'Royal Plural' Pat N.), just the HOPE from the SMALL and VOCAL minoirty that you would seem to try to be part of Pat N. to sound 'imposing'.
There are no 'denialists' or 'denialism' Pat N., you simply CANNOT validate anything you would like to opinion and so try to make you OPINION appear to be a 'consensus'. There are very FEW who can agree with you Pat N. and do so under scrutiny OF THEIR 'opinion'.
So it would be NOW Pat N. that you drop your pretensious mannerisms, you 'elitism' and try to validate your OPINION without all the rhetoric you make (perhaps to cover up no having any ability to produce any actual validity).
AS to your sad attempts to produce a 'website' as 'authoritive' ('realclimate', again), it should be pointed out that simply gathering a small number of peorple who 'think like you' Pat N. is not making you OR them any more 'correct'.
YOU have still avoided any and all discussion of "Polar Amplification" as one example of your obscurantist intentions. It is NOT that the "Polar Regions" react first, they are infact reacting LAST. It is that the Polar Regions are reacting NOW, where as 15,000 years ago, it was observable for snow melt just north of the current State of Texas to be increasing on a wide scale.
It is simple for you to realise Pat N. that there is nothing to suggest 'unnatural climate change' is occuring, you have produced nothing to suggest such is happening.
It is that by producing a 'new surface' in an increasing sprawl HUMANITY is redistribruting across the surface the location and rate of induction of Kinetic Energy. The ALTERATION noted so often is to the MEDIAN surface temperature is induced by the alterations TO the materials comprising the SURFACE made by Human Habitat sprawl,. It is also that the '0.6 degrees C. increase' is only the 'residual' remaining in the 'new surface' after conduction/convection actions.
Next, humanity is NOT rematerialing in a consistent manner; Humanity does not build over deserts. Humanity likes instead to build over photosynthetic mass. Humanity replaces the process of Photosynthesis with its sprawl, so more energy is also now available to the processes of kinetic energy induction
This is NOT producing 'climate change'; it IS inducing an alteration to the patterning of WEATHER events across the surface.
To remind as to WHAT 'temperature' is representing, again those quotes from (numerous) standard texts:-
-----
["What is Temperature? In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it."]
["About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale."]
["The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K)."]
-----
So perhaps Pat N., there could be less attempts to justify your so far invalid methodology from behind vapid 'elitism'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Polar Amplification, powerful hurricanes and Florida temperatures increasing |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Mar 2006
Modified: 09:26:06 AM |
Click on image for a larger version
 | Click on image for a larger version
 |
===========
We keep looking for the ice to recover, but it isn't," said Mark C. Serreze, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, which monitors the region using satellites. "Unless conditions turn unusually cold this spring and summer, we may be looking at sea ice losses in 2006 that will rival what we saw in 2005."
The ice retreat recorded last September was the biggest since satellites began routine monitoring in 1979 and was probably the biggest in 100 years, according to Dr. Serreze's research group and an independent University of Illinois team.
March 15 2006
http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6212
http://nsidc.org/news/
==============
Strong Storms Linked With Rising Sea Surface Temperatures
Atlanta GA (SPX) Mar 17, 2006
Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have released a study supporting the findings of several studies last year linking an increase in the strength of hurricanes around the world to a global
increase in sea surface temperature.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Strong_Storms_Linked_With_Rising_Sea_Surface_Temperatures.html
================ |
See also:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
|
|
There is no valid process to support the label of "Polar Amplification". |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Mar 2006
|
There is no valid process of "Polar Amplification" and never has been.
The situation in Florida is based on alterations to regional weather patterning. This has ALL been mentioned previously
The contrivance of an 'imposing name', "Polar Amplification", seems the only reason for the material being presented as otherwise there is little of SCIENCE in what is there contained.
"Polar amplification" is as much contrived nonscience as is the supposed 'greenhouse effect'. The 'Polar Regions' are NOT reacting first, but are in FACT acting in turn and are LAST to show the effects of warming that began ~15,000 years ago.
As mentioned, the small rise in kinetic energy inductance is due to the rematerialing of the land surface by Humanity, and the location of this planets present 'climate' within its natural climate oscillation, complete with the expected behaviors (being exhibited) for that position.
As I have mentioned I was attempting to PREEMTIVELY discuss storms in and around the Gulf of Mexico within the current time frame of the overall climate oscillation.
IT is that Humanity is altering the surface and this is redistributing the sites of kinetic energy induction and the overall amount of such induction. Hence the SMALL increase in median surface temperature of 0.6 degrees C.
There is NO 'Polar Amplification', it is a complete 'false positive' construct and all that is otherwise mentioned is those already explained alterations to average surface temperature AND regional weather profile.
See
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
for more details
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Polar Amplification |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Mar 2006
|
Click on image for a larger version
 | Click on image for a larger version
 | Click on image for a larger version
 |
|
See figures |
|
There is no process of 'Polar Amplification' evident. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Mar 2006
Modified: 12:37:54 AM |
The contrivance of an 'imposing name', "Polar Amplification", seems to be made with little regard to the 'Polar Regions' NOT 'reacting first', but are in FACT acting in turn and are LAST to show the effects of warming that began ~15,000 years ago when the snow cover began to move back from the edge of what is now just north of the State of Texas. The Ice and Snow are gone from that region, but the warming cycle still continues.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to VALIDLY produce a trend from only a few decades data, and so plots of 'temperature' and the NUMBERS incorporated are only showing a 'tide returning', NOT 'unnatural warming'. There is NO valid reason to run from the 'sight' calling "Doom and Woe' is upon you all!"
There seems some that still avoid notice of how irrelevant numerous measures of temperature can be in developing any climate model that is VALID and functional when those measures are made for such small time frames compared to the overall process purported to be under study.
These 'temperature' plots are not able to validate opinions of 'global warming' due to inadequate statistical methods being employed. One million data points in the last 30 years is only defining a statistically insignificant time-frame of the overall climate oscillation. 100 Million data points in 50, 100 or 200 years, is of no more help in validating either model or opinion.
It is very simply really, with relation to global climate alterations, there is no trend viable from only '15 years' of 'time', there is no trend viable from the past 150 years or 400 years, and no matter how many data points you place into that period, you will still not get a trend. This is known of statistical process, often ignored within the opinion and inference proffered in regard to 'greenhouse climate change'.
There is also the motion of human population across the surface in line with population growth. The alteration of the surface associated with this increase in population has led to alterations of what would be 'pleasant green terrain' to become covered to various densities in coverage of concrete and asphalt, with the increase in surface region of concrete and asphalt leading to the small increase in average SURFACE temperatures observed as 0.6 degrees C. to date.
If you look at the plot of SURFACE temperature "Figure 1â you will notice the trended âshapeâ linked to plots relating to HUMAN POPULATION for this period.
I again provide the most relevant plots. The rise in average surface temperature (as above) is in tandem with rematerialing produced by the rise in population seen in "Figure 2, Human population growth/redistribution (U.N.)" and total growth in Figure 3.
Greater definition of population rise and redistribution is seen, with consideration of geographic redistribution of Human population seen in figure 4, as detailing geographical population density, which can relate where future sprawl will proceed.
The trend of Human Population redistribution will continue to see sprawl over presently existing 'green' regions, like the Amazonian basin. Sprawl will continue into those presently less densely occupied regions, taking the âbest places first. Then population growth will âfill inâ the gaps to produce a âunified human sprawl surface materialâ.
ď§ This âsprawlâ trend, along with its linked interactions with turbulence and weather patterning, is produced from Surface kinetic energy induction rate and distribution alterations. These alterations, these redistributions, produced by âsprawlâ surface rematerialing will be producing further changes to weather and regional 'climates'.
It is important to notice this as it is the REDISTRIBUTION and ALTERATION of kinetic energy induction by the planetary surface that is producing alterations to weather patterning seen in events associated with, rainfall, floods, snow, etc. All these events are driven by turbulence produced by Conduction and Convection of kinetic energy.
There is again, to restate what needs to be realised rapidly, no possibility in SCIENCE for a 'greenhouse effect' to even be produced by the materials involved. Such 'greenhouse concepts' would involve behaviors the actual materials do not posses, these properties outlined as 'greenhouse behavior' within the âgreenhouse concepts.
It is that few if any of the labeled âclimate expertsâ, the supposed 'relevant scientists' often presenting âdoom and woeâ, can actually place our âpresentâ into the actual known climate oscillation. How then can they be at all referenced as producing âfuture scenariosâ of âhuman induced âclimate woesâ? Effectively they are 'lost' and if we had heeded these âclimate expertsâ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the âGlobal Cooling scareâ of the 1970âs.
ď§ Observations are not so much of âclimate changeâ but of âredistribution of turbulenceâ induced by alterations to the planetary surface. Humanity IS making these alterations and is doing so unheeding of the effect our constructions are having on the distribution and rate of kinetic energy inductions CONDUCTED to the atmosphere/ocean and transported as CONVECTION.
Climate alteration is a process of thousands of years, not tens or even hundreds. Notice the irregular periodicity of those Periods that contain multiple glacial events (above), where ice ebbs and flows across the surface (figure 5).
These total periods are within the 'troughs' of a very LONG and IRREGULAR oscillation. SO the 'blocks of time' in figure 5 represent the placement of 'troughs' within the overall Planetary Climate oscillation.
Within these 'troughs' occurs an EVIDENCED secondary set of oscillations, producing the fall and rise, the ebb and flow' of ICE & SNOW across the surface. ALL of this activity is WITHIN the OVERALL 'trough' of the LONG term irregularly periodic oscillation.
Within these 'short and ice prone' Periods, Million of years are encompassed; the present PERIOD is only TWO MILLION years into its progression.
Are we to listen to the book selling âclimate prophetsâ for more MILLIONS of years yet?
Are we to fund âclimate prophetsâ in their continuance with BILLIONS of dollars for the MILLIONS of years left in this cycle?
I do not hope so!
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
See also:
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
|
|
Glacier meltdown is getting faster |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Mar 2006
|
In opposition to Hartod's arguments against Polar Amplification, ... "Chilling proof that glacier meltdown is getting faster, published: 20 March 2006 at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article352365.ece
Excerpts:
"Many of the world's mountain glaciers are melting at a faster rate than at any time in the past 150 years, according to the latest
assessment by glaciologists.
Scientists believe that the Alps, in particular, are experiencing a rapid disappearance of glaciers formed during the last ice age more
than 10,000 years ago." ...
"Michael Zemp and colleagues from the World Glacier Monitoring Service
at the University of Zurich in Switzerland believe that warmer air temperatures in Europe in recent decades is behind the rapid loss of Alpine glaciers.
"Glaciers have been shrinking since 1850 but there has been a definite acceleration over the past two decades," Dr Zemp said.
The latest study shows that there has been a 50 per cent decrease in the area of the Alps covered by glaciers over the past 150 years.
However, the rate of loss between the 1970s and 2000 was almost three times faster than the rate of loss seen between 1850 and 1970, Dr Zemp said.
In fact, the situation is even more dramatic because much of the loss between 1970 and 2000 occurred after 1985. And since 2000 there have been exceptionally warm years where glaciers have shrunk even faster
than in previous years, Dr Zemp said." ... |
|
Re: Glacier meltdown is getting faster |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Mar 2006
|
What 'we' are seeing from those platforming 'Doom and Woe' are attempts to present 'out of context' their numeracy as references to 'absolutes'. What 'we' are OBSERVING AND MEASURING is a 'peak climate' rebalancing of RELATIVE volumes of fresh water from its Solid PHASE to its Liquid and "Gaseous" PHASE.
What these few individuals think will happen at the opposite cyclic 'end' (the peak) of the irregularly periodic glaciations this Planet will produce, within the current Period of the Long Term Climate Oscillation is quite unknown, but that IS where 'Climate' is placed NOW.
Please refer to post in this thread titled:-
"There is no process of 'Polar Amplification' evident",
and refer to slide labeled "Four Geological Times of Glaciations",
with realisation that the 'blocks' seen in that 'chart' represent periods of time when glaciations reoccurred on a planetary scale, some being 'Ice Ages". The labeled points in that chart are, from right to left, 1 billion years AGO, 500 million years AGO, AND 'Today' (as part of the last '2 Million' years).
For the past 2 MILLION years, Ice has moved back and forth, melting then extending again. YOU will see that this periodic behavior extends well BEFORE '1970', has a periodic component MUCH LONGER than the 1970 to 2000 period mentioned, and beyond mentioning that 'ice is melting' perhaps a 'bit faster' there is nothing more to be validly mentioned of or including CLIMATE.
HOWEVER, as I have mentioned, there is little KNOWN about the opposing climate condition TO the periods OF glaciation that often contain an "Ice Age", commonly considered a Glaciation of a majority of the Planet's surface.
It IS thought that these warm periods at the PEAK of the oscillation will be TURBULENT with altering STRONG weather patterning.
This IS what is being experienced NOW, as this is NOW that such a PEAK seems to be upon the NATURAL CLIMATE oscillation.
It is NOT that seeing some ICE melting NOW means that ICE will NOT reform later. Water will FREEZE when it is 'cold enough' again. It is NOT even thought that all the ICE will melt.
Even if ALL the OCEAN ICE around the POLAR REGIONS does 'melt', the newly warmed sub-artic regions, verdant with streams and rivers, will take up much of the release to increase the proportion of FRESH LIQUID water available on a now EXTENDED verdant land surface.
So the ~3% of total Planetary water that is 'fresh' will see the alterations that there could be ~2% as LIQUID and ~1% as 'trapped' (including remaining Snow and Ice).
Sea levels will NOT need to be expected to RISE DRAMATICALLY as not ALL the 'melt' will remain IN the oceans, and we ARE only speaking of less than ~2% of ALL water available to being with being 'involved'.
What we are observing AND measuring is a 'peak climate' rebalancing of RELATIVE volumes of fresh water form its SOLID PHASE to its Liquid and "Gaseous" PHASE.
There is NO 'proof', chilling or otherwise, of "Polar Amplification" or even of 'unnatural climate change', just a few individuals overly satisfied with inadequate numeracy and methodologies.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Underwater Colorado |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Mar 2006
Modified: 10:01:51 PM |
Click on image for a larger version
 |
|
This is a photo I took of Underwater Colorado exhibit at the Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. Although there has been uplifting and sedimentation since the sea reached that level 70 million years ago, it does look like a lot of water to have to deal with for future generations. |
See also:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
|
|
Regarding the relevancy of 'underwater Colorado'? |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Mar 2006
|
70 Million years ago there where no 'humans'.
The alteration to the major climate oscillations that realised the dip into the CURRENT period of irregularly recurring glaciations saw no "Humanity" walking anywhere.
This 'present period', now in progress for around 2 MILLION years, actually saw the 'Rise of Humanity' within the 'lead in' period that preceeded it.
Humanity is in every sense the CHILD of 'climate change' and is NOT a 'victim' of climate alteration.
It is thought that the DEVELOPEMENT of intellect was DRIVEN in Humanity by the circumstances that gave it 'birth'. It was the ABILITY to 'think' that gave 'humanity to be' the "edge" over its 'competitors' in this (ongoing) period of CHANGE.
There are few other reasonable considerations that could see a small animal climb down from 'trees' and go on to 'dominate' a planet.
That the 'trees' possibly became less sustaining, due to the encroachment of the 'cold' , and infact did not move, meant that the 'population' that 'became human' needed to, and left the trees and began to WALK eventually due to the greater efficiency of a bipedal stance for improved 'line of sight' whilst in transit. The urge to SEE was translated from the observational advantages the 'species culture' had developed in the initial 'TREE HOPPING' made to escape the 'encroaching cold' until there where too few trees to make such advantageous, so 'standing tall' became a 'survival mechanism'.
This is seen in, as example, the Slender-Tailed Meerkat, whose 'guard' still 'stands erect' to 'shout a warning', see:-
http://www.zootopia.com.au/content/view.asp?id=1061
Freeing up the fore limbs meant that these could begin to be used for other activities and this freedom was the most likely reason for the progression of TOOL use in the "species (as a potential plural) that became Humanity".
The issue these 'few doomsayers' need to realise is that there is NO PERMANENCE in CLIMATE, only persistence.
As such, like those that 'produced Humanity', 'HUMANITY itself' will need to REALISE that the concepts of 'PERMANCE' that permeate the 'scare' behind the concepts made mention of with regard to the 'photo' are infact those of the animals that DID NOT handle change well.
It IS that HUMANITY will need to MOVE, and if 'Colorado' gets a bit 'wet' in another 70 MILLION years, it would be HOPED that HUMANITY will then again WALK TALL and MOVE.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Unerwater Colorado |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
Hartlod wrote: 70 Million years ago there where no 'humans'. ... This 'present period', now in progress for around 2 MILLION years, actually saw the 'Rise of Humanity' within the 'lead in' period that preceeded it.
That's our problem.
The problem for this century and beyond is the rapid rate of global warming, a result of power generation from billions of fossil fuel burning machines.
"Careful measurements have confirmed that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that human activities are the primary cause. CO2 measurements have been taken directly from the atmosphere over the past few decades. CO2 trends for earlier times have been derived from measurements of CO2 trapped in air bubbles in glacial or polar ice. The 36% increase (in 2006) in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 concentrations have varied naturally throughout Earth's history. However, CO2 concentrations are now higher than any seen in at least the past 650,000 years".
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/infodata/faq_cat-3.html
Other estimates (EPA documents) are that atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher now than it's been for more than the last 20 million years.
From the Underwater Colorado exhibit: "Much of North America used to be an inland sea - not just once, but several times.
The CO2 that humans are injecting into the air because of their addiction to fossil fuels will produce a quick high in sea level. It will come up much much faster than it left the last time around. |
|
Regarding further the relevancy of 'underwater Colorado'? |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
The situation that WE ALL observe NOW is the 'end play' of the warming process that began ~15,000 years ago. From that point of time, the snow and ice began to retreat, away from the equatorial regions to NOW be seen in the Polar Regions.
This 'warming process' is NATURAL and the Polar Regions are reacting IN TURN and LAST within this NATURAL warming process.
The ONLY ISSUE the 'greenhouse few' need to realise is that all this is happening NOW. That is what is making the situation UNIQUE, not in any manner is there otherwise a VALID link to a 'greenhouse warming effect'.
There is NO ABILITY for CO2 to actually BEHAVE in a manner as outlined as being a 'greenhouse behavior', the materials DOES NOT posses the ability to so act.
The MODERN realisation of actual behaviors was at the basis of ALL the repeated failures at validation the 'greenhouse concepts' had in their presentations within the 20th Century. After the last failure, in the mid 1950's, it was realised that MODERN SCIENCE was leaving the 'greenhouse concepts' behind. That is when those platforming these concepts decided to act NOT as those of SCIENCE, but as 'politicians'. These 'few' instead garnered 'opinion' instead of details, and to this day the 'greenhouse platform' is 'opinion based' with little VALID SCIENCE beneath the façade. This is reported in the 'greenhouse versions of history' as the "Brilliant few leaving the slow processes of SCIENCE to bring warning of danger to the people", or in some minor variation on such a theme.
The measure of CO2 is a FALSE POSITIVE.
The RISE in median SURFACE TEMEPRATURE is DIRECTLY correlated to the rise in Human Population, and the SPRAWL of habitat linked to that population rise.
*Please refer to:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for more detail.
Next, there is little in valid method that can outline the atmosphere of 650,000 years ago, as has already been shown. Again poor methodology and predetermination is having overlooked the lack of VALIDITY in the INFERENCES of 'atmospehric content' so often attempted to be factualised.
For example, regarding 'ice cores', where the ice is produced from the compression of SNOW. There is no VALID reason to assume that after 650000 years the gas 'bubbles' actually represent the original composition of the 'atmosphere' at any particular time, or at all.
This is as the SAMPLE volume is no small as to NOT offer a sample size that can render a statistically SIGNIFICANT 'experiment' for the 'population' (see concepts under Experimental Design). Also there is nothing to suggest that any particlar 'bubble' contains ONLY gas form a particualr 'time'. Then there is that all the H20 is removed. Then the list of 650,000 years of unknowns is added.
There is NOT even a 'chance' that the 'estimates' for 20 MILLION Years ago could even be CLOSE to 'approximates' even. At this time the climate would have been in a DIFFERENT 'mode', no longer in a 'PRIMARY TROUGH'. The SAME would be true for 70 MILLION years ago. The attempt is to infer 'temperature' then 'produce' an amount of CO2. this is NOT valid as the 'greenhouse effect' is NOT validly produced or even existent.
These periods (20 to 70 MILLION years ago) would be in a PRIMARY CREST mode of the overall Climate oscillation. The SECONDARY oscilllations would still occur however, but would NOT dip into 'glaciations'. You would see in geological record (more likely) division of Secondary PEAK and DIP by SEA LEVEL alterations, as TURBULENCE leaves few traces otherwise that would survive till NOW.
The PRESENT Primary Trough is only 2 to 3 MILLION years 'old'. The BEHAVIOR we are observing is particular to THIS 'oscillatory mode'. It is NOT VALID to 'cross boundaries' UNNOTICED as these 'few' (so often quoted) would like to do.
There is that the 'few' try hard to avoid notice of what is beng told by the natural processes WE ALL OBSERVE. EVERYTHING that is observed CAN be readily detailed WITHOUT imposing any 'unnatural casuality' and have such done in a VALID manner with regard to SCIENCE and in a statistically proper method.
At 'best' what Humanity IS doing is produceing variation in WEATHER PATTERNING by altering the distribution across the surface of Surface produced Kinetic Energy induction (in both regional location and amount/rate).
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Mar 2006
|
-------
I see now that Hartlod will most likely never be serious in any of his remarks. Thus, I will stop posting replies to Hartod at this forum.
------- |
|
New Studies Warn of Effects of Melting Polar Ice |
by from NYTimes
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Mar 2006
|
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Within the next 100 years, the growing human influence on earth's climate could lead to a long and irreversible rise in sea levels by eroding Earth's vast polar ice sheets, according to new observations and analysis by several teams of scientists.
One team, using computer models of climate and ice, found that by about 2100, average temperatures could be 4 degrees warmer than today and that over the coming centuries, the world's oceans could rise 13 to 20 feet â conditions last seen 129,000 years ago, between the last two ice ages.
The findings, being reported today in the journal Science, are consistent with other recent studies of melting and erosion at the poles. Many experts say there are still uncertainties about timing, extent and causes.
But Jonathan T. Overpeck of the University of Arizona, a lead author of one of the studies, said the new findings made a strong case for the danger of failing to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
"If we don't like the idea of flooding out New Orleans, major portions of South Florida, and many other valued parts of the coastal U.S., we will have to commit soon to a major effort to stop most emissions of carbon to the atmosphere," he said.
According to the computer simulations, the global nature of the warming from greenhouse gases, which diffuse around the atmosphere, could amplify the melting around Antarctica beyond that of the last warm period, which was driven mainly by extra sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere.
The researchers also said that stains from dark soot drifting from power plants and vehicles could hasten melting in the Arctic by increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed by ice.
The future rise in sea levels, driven by loss of ice from both Greenland and West Antarctica, would occur over many centuries and be largely irreversible, but could be delayed by curbing emissions of the greenhouse gases, said Dr. Overpeck and his fellow lead author, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
In a second article in Science, researchers say they have detected a rising frequency of earthquake-like rumblings in the bedrock beneath Greenland's two-mile-thick ice cap in late summer since 1993. They add that there is no obvious explanation other than abrupt movements of the overlying ice caused by surface melting.
The jostling of the giant ice-cloaked island is five times more frequent in summer than in winter, and has greatly intensified since 2002, the researchers found. The data mesh with recent satellite readings showing that the ice can lurch toward the sea during the melting season.
The analysis was led by Goran Ekstrom of Harvard and Meredith Nettles of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., part of Columbia.
H. Jay Zwally, a NASA scientist studying the polar ice sheets with satellites, said the seismic signals from ice movement were consistent with his discovery in 2002 that summer melting on the surface of Greenland's ice sheets can almost immediately spur them to shift measurably. The meltwater apparently trickles through fissures and lubricates the interface between ice and underlying rock.
"Models are important, but measurements tell the real story," Dr. Zwally said. "During the last 10 years, we have seen only about 10 percent of the greenhouse warming expected during the next 100 years, but already the polar ice sheets are responding in ways we didn't even know about only a few years ago."
In both Antarctica and Greenland, it appears that warming waters are also at work, melting the protruding tongues of ice where glaciers flow into the sea or intruding beneath ice sheets, like those in western Antarctica, that lie mostly below sea level. Both processes can cause the ice to flow more readily, scientists say.
Many experts on climate and the poles, citing evidence from past natural warm periods, agreed with the general notion that a world much warmer than today's, regardless of the cause of warming, will have higher sea levels.
But significant disagreements remain over whether recent changes in sea level and ice conditions cited in the new studies could be attributed to rising concentrations of the greenhouse gases and temperatures linked by most experts to human activities.
Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years as an aftereffect of the warming and polar melting that followed the last ice age, which ended about 10,000 years ago. Discriminating between that residual effect and any new influence from human actions remains impossible for the moment, many experts say.
Satellites and tide gauges show that seas rose about eight inches over the last century and the pace has picked up markedly since the 1990's. But that acceleration appears to result from natural fluctuations in Southern Hemisphere winds and ocean behavior, said Laury Miller, who directs a project measuring sea-level rise for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The underlying rate of change in sea level still "looks fairly steady," said Dr. Miller, who spent last week at an international meeting on sea-level observations in a city where such changes matter: Venice.
David G. Vaughan, an expert on polar ice at the British Antarctic Survey, said that the various recent discoveries of unexpected ways in which glacial ice can flow to the sea made it all the more important to intensify research at both ends of the earth.
In a paper that was just accepted for publication in the journal Climatic Change, he wrote that it remained unclear, for example, whether hypothesized instability of certain Antarctic ice sheets "is real or simply an oversimplification resulting from inadequate understanding."
Dr. Overpeck, the co-author of the paper on sea-level rise, acknowledged the uncertainties. But he said that in a world in which humans, rich and poor, increasingly cluster on coasts, the risks were great enough to justify prompt action.
"People driving big old S.U.V.'s to their favorite beach or coastal golf course," he said, should "start to think twice about what they might be doing."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com
Additionally, there were two reports on NPR today that addressed the problems associated with human-accelerated climate change.
Climate Change Could Cause Rapid Rise in Sea Levels
by Richard Harris
All Things Considered, March 23, 2006 ¡ Before the last ice age, global sea level was as much as 20 feet higher than it is today. Global warming is likely to push air temperatures back to the levels found 129,000 years ago in the next century so sea levels could rise much faster than expected.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5298104
Expert Explains Possible Effect of Rise in Sea Levels
All Things Considered, March 23, 2006 ¡ Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, talks with Melissa Block about the potential effects of a rise in sea level.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5298107 |
|
