Slashdot Mirror

Okay, I'll bite.

TFA says "a change of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 for the 20th century". Meanwhile NOAA http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf says 1.1-1.3 mm for the years 2007-2012. So for a layman, it would appear that the rate of ocean rise is slowing. Furthermore, if we project the most recent 1.2mm/yr average, it works out to be less than 5 inches over the next 100 years. Maybe enough to make me move my beer, but nothing to panic over.

Finally, this paper http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052885.shtml (which I only read the abstract) suggests a 60-Year Oscillation in Global Mean Sea Level. So, the choice of where in this cycle the measurements are taken, the results will vary drastically. And depending on the agenda of the funding source, the published conclusions can be drastically different.

NOAA lists 6 sites where it is continuously monitoring atmospheric CO2, Barrow, AK, the Greenland Summit station, Trinidad Head, CA, Mauna Loa, HI, American Samoa and South Pole Station. Other nations have their own monitoring stations. The reason that Mauna Loa gets mentioned so much is that it was the first place they did that so it has the longest continuous records. If there were serious discrepancies between the measurements of different stations you would have heard about it by now.

Oh, and the measurements do vary by a few ppm at the different stations. In general the further north you are the higher the reading and the further south the lower the reading. The Barrow, AK station reported 400 ppm a year before Mauna Loa and it will be another year or three before the South Pole Station hits that mark but the rate of increase is essentially the same for all stations.

And that's a juvenile orca skull (image at bottom of page). Googling "killer whale skull" leads to a lot of results showing very large skulls, and it's unclear whether they're prehistoric. This was clearly labeled in that link so I linked to it.

Secondly, there are different types of killer whales, ocean-going ("transients") and near-coastline ("resident") types. The ocean-going ones are the classical wolves of the sea, highly intelligent pack hunters devouring whales and other marine mammals, while the near-coastline ones typically dine on mostly fish.

Sigh.

While this guy seems to occasionally spot something not typically mentioned by science reporters, and especially seems to spot solar flare and other solar activity based upon his monitoring of various solar observatories over the internet about as good as any space weather forecaster, he has some really silly ideas about the causal relationships between solar storms and geological activity here on the Earth that goes into what could charitably called fringe science.

If you really want to see some more reliable forecasts, I'd recommend instead the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center

Still, this YouTube channel is at least worth an occasional chuckle or two. You certainly shouldn't take it too seriously.

Your point about the GFS is well-taken, but at present, I'd never use the GFS or ECMWF to forecast hurricane intensity. Yes, there's value in increasing the resolution of the model. But there's also a need to improve the data assimilation to produce better initial conditions (see this NOAA white paper). The conclusion was that there are gains to be made by bumping up the resolution, but that's only one of the recommended approaches to improving the GFS. Others included better data assimilation and improving parameterizations. Much of what the public hears has been focused on the resolution of the model. Yes, it does matter, but there are other considerations that are at least equally important.

Much of the criticism of the GFS with respect to Sandy has focused on the track forecast several days out. While increasing the resolution of the model could provide some improvement to the track forecasts, I would expect better initialization to have a larger role, especially at that forecast range. I'd believe bumping up the resolution would provide much better gains in the area of forecasting intensity.

Actually, I agree that the main problem is the initial state, and the experiences with HWRF upgrades back that hypothesis. Contrary to what the (completely wrong) article summary states, there was absolutely no HWRF resolution upgrade this year. The upgrades were all data assimilation, model physics and model dynamics. (Everything except resolution and ocean.) Our upgrade to 3km resolution was last year, in May 2012. While last year's resolution upgrade did help, it had nowhere near the impact of this year's upgrade. The lesson we learned from that is that, although resolution is needed to resolve the storm, resolution alone has no meaningful impact unless the rest of the model can handle that high resolution.

I hope the GFS developers learn the same lesson, though with our manpower shortages, it may be another year before the 13km upgraded physics makes it into the model. There are also some major data assimilation upgrades (improved initial state) planned for the GFS, but those are 2-3 years away. Partly that is due to the manpower shortages, and partly due to the small size of the new WCOSS computer- we have to wait until 2016-2018 for the later phases of the WCOSS upgrade.

The best way to predict the weather is to control it, obviously.

Actually, that was attempted, and aborted due to diplomatic reasons. NOAA tried cloud seeding experiments in the 1960s-1970s attempting to weaken or destroy a tropical cyclone when it is out to sea. Unfortunately, the experiment usually failed, and occasionally the surviving hurricanes made landfall and did significant damage. When that happened, some countries suspected that the US was doing this secretly to develop weather weapons, so the project was shut down in the early 1980s to avoid the resulting public outcry and diplomatic incidents. Why should congress keep funding a failed experiment that causes diplomatic problems? You can read about this here:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hrd_sub/stormfury_era.html

and Wikipedia has a good page with a lot more information:

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

On a positive note, the project contributed to the formation of the present-day AOML Hurricane Research Division, which now has the invaluable Hurricane Hunter aircraft, as well as some hurricane modeling experts. They contribued a lot in the past few years to callibrating the HWRF model physics and dynamics to observations.

Your point about the GFS is well-taken, but at present, I'd never use the GFS or ECMWF to forecast hurricane intensity. Yes, there's value in increasing the resolution of the model. But there's also a need to improve the data assimilation to produce better initial conditions (see this NOAA white paper). The conclusion was that there are gains to be made by bumping up the resolution, but that's only one of the recommended approaches to improving the GFS. Others included better data assimilation and improving parameterizations. Much of what the public hears has been focused on the resolution of the model. Yes, it does matter, but there are other considerations that are at least equally important.

Much of the criticism of the GFS with respect to Sandy has focused on the track forecast several days out. While increasing the resolution of the model could provide some improvement to the track forecasts, I would expect better initialization to have a larger role, especially at that forecast range. I'd believe bumping up the resolution would provide much better gains in the area of forecasting intensity.

Supercomputers need data. The forecast for US weather satellites is partly cloudy.

Turbulence Ahead for Weather Satellites

JPSS

The summary is confusing two different models: HWRF and GFS. The HWRF model is a public model you can download and run, as long as you have ~20 GB of RAM free on your computer:

http://www.dtcenter.org/HurrWRF/users/overview/hwrf_overview.php

There is a public version of the GFS, but I'm not sure where. I'm mainly an HWRF developer.

Also, you can download GFS and HWRF forecasts in real-time (ie.: files less than 10 minutes after they're created by the operational NCEP WCOSS supercomputer) here:

GFS: ftp://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/gfs/prod/gfs.*/

You want the files named gfs.t??z.pgrb2f* - those are the forecast files every 1-6 hours at 0.5 degree resolution.

The HWRF real-time data is here:

HWRF: ftp://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/hur/prod/hwrf.*/

The *.hwrfprs_* files contain model fields. The *prs_n* are the 3km domain, prs_m are combined 9&3km, prs_p are 27km, prs_i is 9km and prs_c are combined 27:9:3km. The track files are *.atcfunix for six-hourly, *.3hourly for three-hourly and *.htcf for experimental per-timestep (5 second) information.

You can also get archived track files from a three season retrospective test of the GFS and various HWRF configurations here:

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/HWRF/tracks/

Formats of the track files contained within are described well on JTWC's website (the equivalent of the NHC for everything not near mainland US):

http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/best_tracks/

The summary is confusing two different models: HWRF and GFS. The HWRF model is a public model you can download and run, as long as you have ~20 GB of RAM free on your computer:

http://www.dtcenter.org/HurrWRF/users/overview/hwrf_overview.php

There is a public version of the GFS, but I'm not sure where. I'm mainly an HWRF developer.

Also, you can download GFS and HWRF forecasts in real-time (ie.: files less than 10 minutes after they're created by the operational NCEP WCOSS supercomputer) here:

GFS: ftp://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/gfs/prod/gfs.*/

You want the files named gfs.t??z.pgrb2f* - those are the forecast files every 1-6 hours at 0.5 degree resolution.

The HWRF real-time data is here:

HWRF: ftp://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/hur/prod/hwrf.*/

The *.hwrfprs_* files contain model fields. The *prs_n* are the 3km domain, prs_m are combined 9&3km, prs_p are 27km, prs_i is 9km and prs_c are combined 27:9:3km. The track files are *.atcfunix for six-hourly, *.3hourly for three-hourly and *.htcf for experimental per-timestep (5 second) information.

You can also get archived track files from a three season retrospective test of the GFS and various HWRF configurations here:

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/HWRF/tracks/

Formats of the track files contained within are described well on JTWC's website (the equivalent of the NHC for everything not near mainland US):

http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/best_tracks/

The summary is confusing two different models: HWRF and GFS. The HWRF model is a public model you can download and run, as long as you have ~20 GB of RAM free on your computer:

http://www.dtcenter.org/HurrWRF/users/overview/hwrf_overview.php

There is a public version of the GFS, but I'm not sure where. I'm mainly an HWRF developer.

Also, you can download GFS and HWRF forecasts in real-time (ie.: files less than 10 minutes after they're created by the operational NCEP WCOSS supercomputer) here:

GFS: ftp://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/gfs/prod/gfs.*/

You want the files named gfs.t??z.pgrb2f* - those are the forecast files every 1-6 hours at 0.5 degree resolution.

The HWRF real-time data is here:

HWRF: ftp://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/hur/prod/hwrf.*/

The *.hwrfprs_* files contain model fields. The *prs_n* are the 3km domain, prs_m are combined 9&3km, prs_p are 27km, prs_i is 9km and prs_c are combined 27:9:3km. The track files are *.atcfunix for six-hourly, *.3hourly for three-hourly and *.htcf for experimental per-timestep (5 second) information.

You can also get archived track files from a three season retrospective test of the GFS and various HWRF configurations here:

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/HWRF/tracks/

Formats of the track files contained within are described well on JTWC's website (the equivalent of the NHC for everything not near mainland US):

http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/best_tracks/

I'm actually an HWRF developer and you are correct that the summary was wrong. Our innermost domain is 3km, at a size of around 600x600km, intended to resolve the storm's inner core region (the area with the dangerous winds and, typically, largest rainfall). It is within a larger 1100x1100km 9km resolution domain, for resolving the nearby environment, and there is a gigantic 7500x7500 km, 27km resolution domain to resolve large-scale systems that drive the track. Also, the 3km resolution is not just needed to resolve convection: you need it to resolve some of the processes involved in intensity change, and in concentration of the wind maximum, such as double eyewalls, mesovortices, hot towers, and vorticity sheets. The GFS is our boundary condition, and part of our initial condition. We tried using ECMWF instead as an experiment, but that causes mixed results on track, and worse intensity. The intensity issues are likely due to their model's lack of skill at intensity prediction and primitive ocean model. (GFS has better hurricane intensity than ECMWF, despite having lower resolution!) ECMWF also has completely different physics and dynamics that ours, which results in larger shocks at the boundary.

You can see a better description of our model on our website:

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/index.php?branch=HWRF

and if you're interested in running HWRF yourself, you can do that too, though it will be another week or two before the new 2013 version is publically available. HWRF is an open source model, put out by the NOAA Developmental Testbed Center (DTC), which handles the public distribution and community support. (Support of HWRF installations in other countries' forecast centers is generally handled through the NOAA Environmental Modeling Center (EMC).) Here is the webpage for user support and downloads:

http://www.dtcenter.org/HurrWRF/users/overview/hwrf_overview.php

As for your point about improved resolution not helping the GFS, that's not true, especially in the case of hurricanes. The resolution of the GFS (~27km) is so low that it cannot even resolve the structure of most storms, let alone see the complex features involved in predicting intensity, rainfall or the finer points of track. When it can resolve the storm, such as with Superstorm Sandy, it has intensity skill competitive with regional models. The upcoming GFS upgrades to 13km and later 9km resolution (~2-4 years away) will allow the model to get a good idea of the basic structure of the storm, and start having real skill at predicting intensity, even for smaller storms. That, in turn, will help the HWRF and GFDL regional hurricane models improve their track and intensity prediction since they both rely on GFS for initial and boundary conditions.

That's absolutely correct. However, with a NOAA weather radio, there's a good chance that you'll get even longer lead time.

For example, the tornado warning for Joplin was issued 17 minutes before that tornado touched the ground (source).

Obviously it's not practical to have a weather radio everywhere, and I'm certainly not going to carry one with me when I'm out and about...

But I will say this: I have seen these things be early and late. Fortunately I have other methods of getting severe weather warnings on my phone, which tend to be more reliably on time.

Great, just what we need. Another bunch of kids dreaming of space. Hello, McFly? There's nothing out there but dust, ice and rocks. Meanwhile, 99% of the planet's living space remains unexplored.

I think warning systems are one of the best new technologies for dealing with earthquakes.

The technology is pretty straightforward. You network seismic sensors together and create a system that can detect oncoming (and usually unnoticed) P-waves which have a higher velocity than the destructive S-waves that follow anywhere from 30 to 90 seconds later.

The distributed nature of the system ensures that any result is the product of multiple sensors producing the same data.

30 to 90 seconds is a lot of time. You could deploy receivers set accept the existing SAME codes and automatically send building systems into "Earthquake Mode" via simple relays. Virtually everything that would need to happen is already part of the programming of each affected system. In a lot of cases, you wouldn't even need to modify them in any significant way as they already accept inputs from external relays.

Once the alert goes out:

- Emergency messages are sent to all cell phone users - This system exists and is used for other emergencies.
- Fire station doors roll-up. - Add a simple sounding device and momentary contact to the existing door-opening circuit and you're done.
- Earthquake alarms sound in homes and small businesses - Weather radios that accept SAME codes are already programmed to do this.
- Earthquake alarms sound in major buildings - Fire alarm systems with voice evac are already customized and can accept new initiating devices and announcements with a software update.
- Emergency generators and fire pumps spin-up. Smoke handling systems activate. Stairwells are pressurized. - See above.
- Elevators go into "Fire Mode". All cars go to their recall floor, hold the doors open and refuse input. - This programming exists in every elevator installed in the past few decades. Activating a building fire alarm system will trip this anyway.
- Gas main valves are closed. - This is cheap and simple tech.
- Halt surgery - Voice evac / weather radios that accept SAME codes.
- Shut down industrial processes - Some combination of the above.

I *slightly* disagree. It's entirely appropriate that construction companies be required to preserve historic artifacts. What's not appropriate is that *particular* construction companies be so required. That's, as mentioned, counter productive, and places the burden on those who are conscientious.

Costs should be borne by the beneficiaries. If it's the public which is going to benefit from an archeological find, then it's the public which should bear the cost, not the construction company. It is not just inappropriate, but also immoral and dysfunctional to require a non-beneficiary to bear the costs of a situation they did not create.

Once you start making someone other than the beneficiary bear the cost, you get into all sorts of trouble. Whether it be bailouts for bankers who took too many risks, or people living perennially on welfare. The moment cost is decoupled from benefit, you can lose all sense of scale between cost and benefit. The beneficiaries don't bear the cost so it becomes a game of seeing how much they can get away with, and those bearing the cost start to get upset at taxation without representation and threaten to revolt.

Having the beneficiary bear the cost also makes the cost-benefit analysis crystal clear. If each discovered archeological site costs $5 million to process, but only yields $1 million worth of cultural preservation, then clearly the processing method needs to be refined to lower its cost. If it's the public footing the bill, then the government agency paying for it has an incentive to streamline the processing and their costs. If the construction companies are footing the bill, then there's no incentive for the government agency to do any streamlining.

That said, I'm not sure it should be legal to sell or rent properties lacking a tornado shelter in areas where a tornado is likely. You may not be able to install it due to lack of finances, but this doesn't mean you should be able to transfer the problem to someone else. Perhaps sale should be allowed if the purchaser signed a clear statement in 14 point type saying (approximately) "I understand that the state believes living in this place is unsafe due to the lack of a tornado shelter.".

Despite the recent news, tornadoes and especially injuries and deaths from tornadoes are actually pretty rare. If tornadoes kill 75 people per year on average, and you require all ~50 million residences in the tornado-prone areas to build $5000 shelters, and the average home lasts 50 years, you're mandating a cost of ($5000 per home * 50 million homes / (50 years * 75 people/year) ) = $67 million per life saved.

Given that the lifetime productivity of an average person is only $2-$3 million, a tornado shelter requirement would result in a net decrease in the standard of living. i.e. About 22-33 lifetimes' worth of productivity is being spent to save one life, instead of being used on other things which could save a lot more lives.

Renting is, however, a separate problem. Landlords have a long history of totally ignoring the safety of their tennants, so I don't think they should be granted ANY slack.

If you've actually been a landlord, you would also know that it's equally true that renters have a long history of totally ignoring the integrity and safety of the landlord's property. I've seen everything from tenants painting over a mold problem caused by a leak they didn't want to bother to fix or report, to cutting structural beams and "repairing" them in an unsound manner, to adding plumbing and electrical wiring which didn't comply with code without telling the landlord, to just plain leaving a mess when they leave which costs the landlord far more than the security deposit to dispose of in a way which complies with local environmental regulations.

Yes there are bad

Watch this animation from the NOAA.

It extrapolates backwards using all of the known data (ice cores, etc) and shows that over the past 100, CO2 levels began to rise almost linearly at an unprecedented rate and are now higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Just look at that linear upward trend. If that's not man-made, what the fuck is it?

The ocean contains most of the heat that drives surface temperatures. 1 unit of ocean holds more than 1000x the heat capacity as 1 unit of atmosphere, hence the huge effect of El Nino and La Nina on surface temp.

Here is a link to the raw NOAA data on ocean heat content. Download the files, and do the linear regression yourself. It is trivial to do.

The "no warming since 1998" canard is based on carefully choosing the start-end years for a surface temperature time series such that the start year is at a record El Nino, and the end year at a La Nina. The p-value for a regression is almost statistically significant warming at p=0.05, even after this blatant cherry picking.

Don't believe me, the DO IT YOURSELF. You can download the time series. You only need year 12 math to do the regression. It is EASY.

This is part of the reason why people are against global warming - when people mention reasons why they don't believe it, or ask real questions about it seeking clearer understanding, all we get is attacked, demeaned and insulted.

This is definitely a problem that all sciences face, and even any field in academia has issues in this area. I was once interested in working in science/academia, but lost taste for that after seeing how arrogant and stuck up so many seniors in the field can be.

However, GGP's post is 100% bonkers. His claim is that you can't believe in climate science because of whatever this controversy was. And I really have no idea what the controversy is, because it's totally irrelevant. This is not how science works. The facts and evidence overwhelmingly suggest that humans are causing climate change and that the consequences are disastrous. Citing a made-up controversy as a reason to deny all these facts is anti-science and anyone should understand this.

But with respect to your dilemma with asking questions and not getting good responses - I'm afraid I have no good answer. Lots of people who know the answers to these questions simply don't see the importance of sharing them with others. Perhaps the best solution is to research these questions yourself. I quickly searched duckduckgo for "global warming faq" and found this site from NOAA. I hope it'll be enlightening for you.

This is the imaginary model that you and Watts made up, right?

You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]

He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke

You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]

Search for the phrase "rule out".

No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.

Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.

Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.

Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.

Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.

Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?

In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?

As it happens I know what that is.

You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.

This is the imaginary model that you and Watts made up, right?

You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]

He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke

You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]

Search for the phrase "rule out".

No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.

Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.

Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.

Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.

Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.

Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?

In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?

As it happens I know what that is.

You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.

What don't you understand about your reference?

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

Search for the phrase "rule out".

Now, if you want to make the argument that NOAA 2008 isn't a single model, but rather a single paper, and it refers to multiple simulation runs of HADcm3, I'm happy to use more specific language to help you understand the issue. :)

You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke

You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.

Reading the messages from http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SATS/messages.html it looks like it took about 14 hours.

Try the source at http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/05/22/weather-satellite-fails/2351927/

Satellite logs are at http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SATS/messages.html, it looks like the satellite failed to return imaging two days ago and is now being put into a storage mode.

I recall that the global temperature peaked in 1998 and has not broken that record since... recall that the temperature reached in 1998 was lower than that of 1934

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I also recall that CO2 levels have reached a new peak

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth (see Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates) - it's been increasing every year. You seem to have recalled several things incorrectly.

Just one example, federal buildings in DC are heated by one of the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the federation. If they were serious about global warming then I would expect them to do something about this first before telling me what kind of heat I can use in my own home.

Problem is, energy is a private authority. I assume, based on your "2nd ammendment" signature, that you are a conservative. The government doesn't have the ability in modern times (it's more conservative now than when the TVA was around) to regulate energy. Would you rather have them force a company to build a solar/wind/etc farm around DC, or build one themselves? That's a whole different debate.

People don't want to change so they deny the credibility of the evidence staring them in the face. Are you really that dense that you cannot see the effects of global climate change around you now? Bleaching of Coral reefs[0], Hurricane frequency[1], Shrinking of one of the largest glaciers on earth[2] not to mention the rate of change in global temps[3] for the past century. Yes it's been warm in the past, but the RATE at which warming occurred has never been seen before. These are the facts and they are happening now. I guess for a lot of people it's more comforting to glue their noses to the manufactured reality of Fox News and the like rather than accept what is happening and that change is needed.

[0] - http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html
[1] - http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/hurricanefrequency.shtml
[2] - http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2013/04/21/tracking-greenlands-fast-melting-ice-sheets.html
[3] - http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173739884/since-end-of-last-ice-age-rates-of-global-warming-amazing-and-atypical
[3] -

Much bogus science has survived based on the naive expectations of experimental rigor that later turned out to be ill-advised. Cold Fusion comes to mind.

Hardly. You see, what happened with cold fusion was a couple then-scientists said they got neutron radiation out of their experiment along with heat production. They went public and it caused a sensation. However, they did this before others could duplicate their work. When other scientists tried to duplicate it, they failed. Upon review, it was shown that the original scientists at best were sloppy. Their work was summarily rejected.

In other words, science worked just the way it was supposed. Just like the recent kerfuffle over faster-than-light neutrinos.

The point is that scientists have to document, and publish, ALL of their methodology. And in this case, as far as I can tell, they haven't.

Yes they have: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html . It really isn't that hard to use Google.

Of course, I didn't pony up to the research journal paywall to read every published paper. But I have read a great deal about volcanic test stations for CO2, and their arguments seem unsupported to me.

I find this very hard to believe considering it took me all of 5 seconds to find link on the methodology.

An audience member raised his hand: "I am only a physical chemist, and so can't really speak to your separation methods. But the way we do it is to cool the air to -78C and then collect the solid precipitate."

He got a standing ovation ;)

You're either leaving out critical information or this story is pure bullshit. Dropping the temperature to -78C will NOT precipitate CO2. Try reading up on partial pressures. Not only that, but producing the right conditions to have CO2 precipitate takes quite a bit of energy in and on itself.

It doesn't. Hint: Don't read Republican-baiting tabloids like the Telegraph for science reporting. They use bloggers with grade-school level science "knowledge" as their source, like Delingpole. If you want to know about Mauna Loa and other measuring sites, why not have a look at the NRAA instead?

Fortunately for science the Mauna Loa readings are in good agreement with those taken at hundreds of other sites around the globe.

Here's a great animation from NOAA showing global CO2 distribution and putting recent changes in the context of the last million years or so. It takes a few minutes to watch, but it's worth seeing to the end, in my opinion.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

Should you take atmospheric tests for CO2 from just one spot, a volcanic spot?

Why do you think that it's only measured at one point? One station happens to be the one which has the longest series of records, but that's always going to be the case. What the reasons for actually establishing an atmospheric measurement station at Mauna Loa were ... well, why not check the website? http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcanicco2.html is telling me (I'm a geologist) that they were investigating CO2 emissions from the volcano as a tool for eruption prediction, and there's the implication that they started collecting background CO2 readings as part of that. Obviously, if you're looking for changes in the volcanic-sourced CO2 component, then you'd need to know how much non-volcanic CO2 there is too. So, they measure the volcanic CO2 near to a fumarole (small "smoking" gas pit ; common on volcanoes), and also at a convenient point appreciably away from any fumaroles to get the background reading.

Or should it be taken and averaged over several points on the planet?

Why do you think that it's not. I use atmospheric methane readings as a calibration check on the quality of service that my clients are getting from their sub-contractors while CO2 readings are a useful proxy for the working of a part of the gas detection system. It's part of my job. But I don't report these anywhere except to the clients because they're not particularly interesting. And the quality and duration of the records are not going to tell anyone anything new.

(Incidentally, all the sub-contractors claim to be able to detect the 2ppm of atmospheric methane ; none do. And most don't understand that they've been found out.)

"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

  "In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists."

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggests that the Earth will warm rapidly in the 21st century. However, this is not being borne out by observations.

No-one disputes that the earth's atmosphere is warming - this has been going on for some time now. What is disputed is the contribution that human activity makes to the degree/acceleration/rapidity of warming. The original models had man's contribution to an increase in warming as minimal at best. Then the IPCC re-jigged the models to take into account the theory that CO2 (and other emissions) would cause a climate forcing, i.e. the effect of the increasing CO2 levels would not be linear but would drive GW at a much higher rate than what would be expected naturally. These models have all predicted rapidly increasing global temperatures with no pausing. In order to account for small variations in the annual results, the IPCC et al initially said you needed 10 years of no warming to invalidate the models. Then as 10 years got close, that became 15 years.* Then 17 years. That has now come to pass. Even the most conservative of models do not match the observed results, therefore it's time to revisit the modelling.

*"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. From: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
It's a very large PDF.

Wait a minute, is there something I've been missing out on here? Should you take atmospheric tests for CO2 from just one spot, a volcanic spot?

Weather patterns combined with the jet stream keep the atmosphere well-mixed and fairly homogeneous, especially at high altitude. That's why the recording station is on Mauna Loa:

Mauna Loa was originally chosen as a monitoring site because, located far from any continent, the air sampled is a good average for the central Pacific. Being high, it is above the inversion layer where most of the local effects are present.

Volcanoes don't emit just CO2, they also emit other detectable gasses which can then be used to determine if the volcano is contaminating the measurements:

The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory, and is then removed from the background data.

Also, it should be noted that the current annual increase in CO2 is about 2 ppm, which this graph shows. And, as can be read here(in danish), the largest fluctuations in the period from A.D. 1000 - 1800 was 7 ppm. So at present we are increasing CO2 levels every four years by more than the biggest fluctuations in said time period; I'm guessing it really is man-made.

You bring up a good point.

The MLO is located 34KM WNW from and well above the summit of Kilauea. The primary volcanic emissions plume from Kilauea is driven by trade winds which blow mostly from the NE, and because of the topography of the Big Island most of that plume will bypass the observatory. However, there has to be some effect from it; the question is how much?

FWIW, I live on the Kona side of the Big Island and get to enjoy the effects of Kilauea's vog (volcanic smog) more than would like.

Persistent positive charge of the solar wind's magnetic field is preventing the storm to happen, even though conditions otherwise are favorable. Should the oncoming particles carry a negative charge things could change dramatically. The parameter is called Bz in this plot from the ACE satellite between Earth and Sun: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_24h.html The current value is also presented in the left sidebar of http://www.spaceweather.com/

As someone who was fortunate enough to see the northern lights in the lower 48 last year, this is good advice. Keep your eye on the forecast; unless you're far up north, good opportunities don't come along too often. Find a dark spot in the country with a good view, and be patient since they do ebb and flow. Although it can vary based on the space weather, your best chance is usually around midnight, and you can get frequent updates here http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/ovation/

It took me a couple tries to finally see them the first time. And even that night, for the longest time, until my eyes adjusted, I thought I was just seeing hazy clouds. Every once in a while it would light up with color overhead, but sadly those only lasted a few minutes. Most of the time it was pretty faint, but still an amazing experience, and yes a long exposure is a must to get a decent photo!

This doesn't look like a joke, but something does seem off.

On the Kp index, the flare has been categorized at 6 to 8

Flares are not categorized with the Kp index. The Kp index is a scale for rating how large of a geomagnetic storm is going on. it is a non-linear scale of how much the Earth's magnetic field is deviating from typical value, as measured at several locations. Typically to get good auroras further south, you need both a high Kp index, which pushes the parts of the magnetic field lines bringing in solar wind and other stuff further away from the magnetic poles, and a source of particles to actually produce bright aurora. Solar storms do produce both, although there are situations where you can sometimes get one or the other.

Anyway, there several ways flares are rated, but the Kp index is not one of them. But it does factor into what into what to expect as far as aurora at more southernly locations. It is rather difficult to predict accurately from solar activity. The more accurate predictions are on short time scales using satellites in front of the Earth that can measure the solar magnetic field a few hours before variations hit us as carried by the solar wind. You can see the output of a model here, and so far it looks no where near as high as what Accuweather is suggesting. Although that model can be wrong at times, so it could still happen. For predictions and watches based on the space equivalent of weather men, you can find a chart of that here. While two days ago there was a watch made for a G2 level geomagnetic storm, which would be another way of describing a Kp=6 condition, the more recent updates and aurora circle maps show that current conditions are much short of that.

This doesn't look like a joke, but something does seem off.

On the Kp index, the flare has been categorized at 6 to 8

Flares are not categorized with the Kp index. The Kp index is a scale for rating how large of a geomagnetic storm is going on. it is a non-linear scale of how much the Earth's magnetic field is deviating from typical value, as measured at several locations. Typically to get good auroras further south, you need both a high Kp index, which pushes the parts of the magnetic field lines bringing in solar wind and other stuff further away from the magnetic poles, and a source of particles to actually produce bright aurora. Solar storms do produce both, although there are situations where you can sometimes get one or the other.

Anyway, there several ways flares are rated, but the Kp index is not one of them. But it does factor into what into what to expect as far as aurora at more southernly locations. It is rather difficult to predict accurately from solar activity. The more accurate predictions are on short time scales using satellites in front of the Earth that can measure the solar magnetic field a few hours before variations hit us as carried by the solar wind. You can see the output of a model here, and so far it looks no where near as high as what Accuweather is suggesting. Although that model can be wrong at times, so it could still happen. For predictions and watches based on the space equivalent of weather men, you can find a chart of that here. While two days ago there was a watch made for a G2 level geomagnetic storm, which would be another way of describing a Kp=6 condition, the more recent updates and aurora circle maps show that current conditions are much short of that.

The first impact of the CME has hit and the boulder Kp is hovering around 3. Watch it here.and here. Here in southern Minnesota, Kp has to hit 6 before we see anything. 5 up on the Canadian border. Good luck spotting those unicorns!

The first impact of the CME has hit and the boulder Kp is hovering around 3. Watch it here.and here. Here in southern Minnesota, Kp has to hit 6 before we see anything. 5 up on the Canadian border. Good luck spotting those unicorns!

POES Auroral Activity (Refreshes every 5 minutes)
Fancy OVATION forecast (refreshes every 30 secs)

There's apparently some media outlets doing facebook/twitter updates too, but A) I don't do either one and B) They're a lot less likely to contain actual information than the above. :)

POES Auroral Activity (Refreshes every 5 minutes)
Fancy OVATION forecast (refreshes every 30 secs)

There's apparently some media outlets doing facebook/twitter updates too, but A) I don't do either one and B) They're a lot less likely to contain actual information than the above. :)

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

- Washington Post, 1922

( based on this original: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf )

Let me start by saying that I believe in reasonable limits and a exercising reasonable responsibility. Companies and industries that knowingly endanger people, don't provide reasonable warning (or hide the dangers), and don't take reasonable precautions in order to reasonably mitigate these dangers should be severely punished. I don't really object to some guy shining a laser at planes being charged with reckless endangerment, or even with manslaughter if it resulted in deaths.

However, that doesn't change the fact that we've turned into culture that is obsessed with laying blame on someone and making excessive limitations for questionable or extremely limited benefit.

I'm not heartless, but we have to face the fact that sometimes shit happens, and isn't always someone's fault. I don't have kids, but yet I'm still aware of their uncanny knack for getting into some weird stuff and do a lot of things that can get themselves hurt. It's their nature, and you try to do the best you can do but sometimes it's going to turn out bad. It's tragic, but inevitable. It isn't necessarily the fault of Bucky Balls, Clorox, the parents, or Planter's. Sometimes these things happen. It's no reason to go crazy with litigation and regulation.

Also, for perspective...

1 death and 33 emergency room surgeries due to swallowing magnets for children
40 U.S. Deaths a year, and 360 injuries from being struck by lightning
An average of about 87 babies and toddlers a year drowned in bathtubs between 2006 and 20010
160 Americans die from Peanuts (I didn't find a stat on children specifically)
2,136 Children were killed in Automobile accidents in the year 2003
2,811 Children were killed by gun violence in 2009

There are dangers out there, I'm not denying it. However, I'm not sure we prioritize them properly, and we're certainly too unwilling to admit that just being alive carries a certain amount of risk.

Either that, or we should ban magnets, peanuts, transportation, bathtubs and lightning, and of course lasers...

According to the most recent SST anomaly map found here, much of the Gulf Stream is anomalously warmer than expected.

France already does require all drivers to carry breathalysers.

And 300 people, on average, are hit each year by lightning, while in 2011 8500 people were murdered with a firearm. So no, you are not more likely to be struck (even non-fatally) by lightning than murdered with a firearm.

You're the one being stupid. Who other than you said anything about killing ALL the young?

Many of the fishes (not all) we eat produce large numbers of young of which only a small percentage survive to reproductive maturity. That's how their reproductive strategy works. See: http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr413/mfr4131.pdf

If you eat a lot of the big ones, you screw up that strategy. Such species can often cope with losing large percentages of the young - that's what happens all the time anyway. Losing a large percentage of the adults would be a bigger impact on their long term survival. You're basically removing the "factories" producing baby fish.

Losing say 50% of the baby fish per year could merely mean, 50% fewer _new_ adults per year. The population might even continue to grow with such pressure. Whereas killing 50% of the adults every year could drive the species to extinction.

The oceans contain about 20 million tons of gold, dissolved in the seawater and on the seabed, eclipsing the worlds current stock of mined gold by more than 100 times.

Ironically, those promoting a gold standard for financial stability, would ensure that hyperinflation occurs in the future; as soon as innovations in nanotechnology, make the cost of extracting gold from seawater affordable/cheap, the value of gold itself will then plummet as its availability increases, causing inflation and eventually hyperinflation.