Lets be clear about a few things:
1. Projection is not the same thing as Prediction. Coupled global climate models used in the IPCC AR4 are used for projections. They start from a climatological state of the "current" climate. They do not initialize the model with the current state of the ocean.
2. From ice core data, CO2 concentrations have varied 100 ppm (from sub 200 to sub 300) over the last 400,000 years! By 2050, in a business as usual scenario the projection is for CO2 to climb to 450, and by 2100 achieve 950 ppm.
3. Temperature responds largely to solar increase in first 800 years and combination of solar/GHG the remaining thousands of years.
4. The anthropogenic forcing change is 1-2 W/m2 and is roughly equal in magnitude to the solar forcing change (solar variability is roughly 1.6 W/m2).
5. If the sun (increase in shortwave forcing) were largely responsible for the recent observed warming, the whole atmosphere should be warming. Tropospheric temperatures aloft have been in decline for the last 35 years while surface temperatures have been warming.
6. GCMs project that GHG forcing is more significant in the currnt climate than solar variability.
7. Even in a warming scenario, it is still possible to have a neutral or negative temperature trend during a decade.
So, let us assume that warming happens. What is the big deal?
A. It is likely that food production area's will shift due to changing temperature and precipitation. This is possible over the Great Plains even if the warming isn't extreme. China could also be potentially vulnerable to this changing climate. We already know that Africa has experienced some changes like this leading to long droughts, shortfalls of food, and revolution.
B. Some other changes could be earlier snow melt combined with either less or more snowfall over the Cascade or Rocky mountains. The snowfall in the west in winter provides water during the summer when it melts. Changing this time of snowmelt may leave these vulnerable areas without water later in the summer.
So, it is for these reasons, these local reasons that scientists communicate the impacts early. It takes time to adapt to these types of changes and mitigation can only help in the short term. Longer term its all about adaptation largely based on economics.
We all have to separate the science and opinion from this issue. There are scientific facts. They are not subject to opinion without evidence via the scientific method. Although it is in the theory stage, Idon't hear much politicized discussion questioning the speed of light
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Hurricane Jimena and TS Erika
Quite an interesting week.
Hurricane Jimena rapidly intensified doubling its wind speed in 12 hours and nearly doubling again. Then it underwent eyewall replacement cycles and the intensity fluctuated and the wind field expanded. I have not read up on annular hurricanes, but there was much discussion with Hurricane Bill about this. That there were forces at play that kept the inner eyewall seperate from the harmful effects of dry air on the perimeter until enough shear caused this structure to deteriorate and allow the dry air to get inside the core.
TS Erika had a long pre-tropical storm period, fluctuating in tropical wave strength for many days. finally sunday evening a central dense overcast developed over or around the wave trough. The convection later became distorted and weakened presumably with the diurnal cycle. Then it erupted again today, somewhat displaced from its previous position closer to the center of the surface circulation. However, it was remarkable how the upper level transverse cirrus "fingers" depicted the outflow in all quadrants. There is debate on whether there was some shear present, and the surface circulation was broad, and I presume from the transects at 400 meters, more like a wave than a tropical cyclone.
Another CDO tonight, with good outflow in all quadrants. I wonder, given the scale of the outflow horizontally and its shallowness vertically, if an NWP model would benefit from its inclusion rather than simply the low level vortex insertion.
I see little in the way any "MCS" activity as I have with previous tropical cyclones. Same holds true for Jimena. Thus the asymmetry in the convective clouds appears low. Someone needs to work on that asymmetric appearance and what it means, represents, or signifies about the low level vortex interacting with its environment.
Hurricane Jimena rapidly intensified doubling its wind speed in 12 hours and nearly doubling again. Then it underwent eyewall replacement cycles and the intensity fluctuated and the wind field expanded. I have not read up on annular hurricanes, but there was much discussion with Hurricane Bill about this. That there were forces at play that kept the inner eyewall seperate from the harmful effects of dry air on the perimeter until enough shear caused this structure to deteriorate and allow the dry air to get inside the core.
TS Erika had a long pre-tropical storm period, fluctuating in tropical wave strength for many days. finally sunday evening a central dense overcast developed over or around the wave trough. The convection later became distorted and weakened presumably with the diurnal cycle. Then it erupted again today, somewhat displaced from its previous position closer to the center of the surface circulation. However, it was remarkable how the upper level transverse cirrus "fingers" depicted the outflow in all quadrants. There is debate on whether there was some shear present, and the surface circulation was broad, and I presume from the transects at 400 meters, more like a wave than a tropical cyclone.
Another CDO tonight, with good outflow in all quadrants. I wonder, given the scale of the outflow horizontally and its shallowness vertically, if an NWP model would benefit from its inclusion rather than simply the low level vortex insertion.
I see little in the way any "MCS" activity as I have with previous tropical cyclones. Same holds true for Jimena. Thus the asymmetry in the convective clouds appears low. Someone needs to work on that asymmetric appearance and what it means, represents, or signifies about the low level vortex interacting with its environment.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
meaning
So I read today that I have pursued an education that is beyond my means.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/IsYourDegreeWorth1million.aspx?page=2
My degree is worth, on average, 300K over my lifetime. I assume this is representative of a non-teaching lifestyle. I will settle for a lifetime advantage of 150K . This makes my net lifetime profit of 100K once you factor in all of the interest on loans.
But this doesnt help when I start off into my career. The starting salaries are low. The peripheral benefits are either absent (401K), or high (Insurance rates). The interest accumulated during my schooling is roughly 1/3 of my debt at variable and at times obscenely high interest rates. This is the good debt most financial people speak of.
But to say that I spent money beyond my means is ridiculous. I spent what I needed to spend to get a high quality education. Because, a high quality education is what I needed to have a career. Spending less would have resulted in a lower quality education, and thus not much hope of moving up.
Financially, though, didn't I spend beyond MY means. Yes. My parents spent a lot too. I got scholarships, financial aid, and loans. I did what I needed to, and I am paying it all back. Was it worth it?
It is worth it because I have opportunities. And will have opportunities.
My mind naturally goes to this: What if I didnt pursue my maximum potential?
I would still be poor, and I wouldnt have any opportunities. I would have been working longer, harder, for less money (per hour, over a lifetime).
So what should we tell poor kids? Don't seek an expensive degree? Dont maximize your potential? Stay poor? let your kids share in your poorness and pass on the mantra: "You cant afford education!"
The problem isnt education is expensive. Its that jobs pay too little, because companies can't give them a salary without giving them GOOD benefits. I want good benefits, too.
There are other problems too but I am tired.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/IsYourDegreeWorth1million.aspx?page=2
My degree is worth, on average, 300K over my lifetime. I assume this is representative of a non-teaching lifestyle. I will settle for a lifetime advantage of 150K . This makes my net lifetime profit of 100K once you factor in all of the interest on loans.
But this doesnt help when I start off into my career. The starting salaries are low. The peripheral benefits are either absent (401K), or high (Insurance rates). The interest accumulated during my schooling is roughly 1/3 of my debt at variable and at times obscenely high interest rates. This is the good debt most financial people speak of.
But to say that I spent money beyond my means is ridiculous. I spent what I needed to spend to get a high quality education. Because, a high quality education is what I needed to have a career. Spending less would have resulted in a lower quality education, and thus not much hope of moving up.
Financially, though, didn't I spend beyond MY means. Yes. My parents spent a lot too. I got scholarships, financial aid, and loans. I did what I needed to, and I am paying it all back. Was it worth it?
It is worth it because I have opportunities. And will have opportunities.
My mind naturally goes to this: What if I didnt pursue my maximum potential?
I would still be poor, and I wouldnt have any opportunities. I would have been working longer, harder, for less money (per hour, over a lifetime).
So what should we tell poor kids? Don't seek an expensive degree? Dont maximize your potential? Stay poor? let your kids share in your poorness and pass on the mantra: "You cant afford education!"
The problem isnt education is expensive. Its that jobs pay too little, because companies can't give them a salary without giving them GOOD benefits. I want good benefits, too.
There are other problems too but I am tired.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
energy and the gov
I received an email:
"Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ...... during the Carter Administration? The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh?????
AND NOW IT'S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER ... AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR
* THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
* AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
* Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy.
And NOW we are going to turn the Banking System & the Auto Industry over to them?
* God Help Us !!! "
End of quote.
So my gut reaction was that while "true" we are no less dependent on foreign oil, I had my doubts that DOE was all about oil, and only oil, for the last 32 years.
DOE history is long and convoluted and shrouded in politics. It is a government agency. It has flaws. But DOE's principle mission at conception was to unite all forms of energy under one roof. Nuclear. Solar. Geothermal. Carbon. Nuclear ... weapons. High energy physics. Research and development. Climate change. Efficiency. Nuclear waste cleanup. Sound environmental practice.
DOE does high impact high risk R & D because industry could not or would nut pursue these avenues because of their cost and high risk of failure.
I urge you to read the DOE history. See how Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton modified and changed the Dept.
The best summary I can offer is this:
We need energy conservation and efficiency. We need to diversify our energy portfolio. By and large Republicans have argued for less control of oil and gas, and more drilling and clean coal. Thereby reducing the percentage of imports to domestic production. Democrats have gone for the fuel efficiency, reduced drilling, energy conservation.
What I find funny is that all the presidents have had the same energy plan. Conserve. Make efficient. Invest in new tech. As with all things political, everyone is to blame from the american public [yes you too H2 owner], to the politicians, to the corporations. No one has been holier than though. No one has capitalized on an energy crisis to bring about action [let alone change]. 39 years since this discussion started.
Not too much accomplished.
If you point the finger, use the middle one. if you need to direct it somewhere ... look in the mirror.
We voted them in.we keep them there. we let nothing happen. we buy the gas. we buy the oil. we dont ask for solar on our roof. we dont ask for a wind turbine. we let the market decide whats best for us. and the market obliges by selling us stuff we want because they are not providing us the products/services/technology we NEED.
We need leaders. Leaders who work ALL year. Leaders that work together for the common good.
"Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ...... during the Carter Administration? The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh?????
AND NOW IT'S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER ... AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR
* THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
* AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
* Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy.
And NOW we are going to turn the Banking System & the Auto Industry over to them?
* God Help Us !!! "
End of quote.
So my gut reaction was that while "true" we are no less dependent on foreign oil, I had my doubts that DOE was all about oil, and only oil, for the last 32 years.
DOE history is long and convoluted and shrouded in politics. It is a government agency. It has flaws. But DOE's principle mission at conception was to unite all forms of energy under one roof. Nuclear. Solar. Geothermal. Carbon. Nuclear ... weapons. High energy physics. Research and development. Climate change. Efficiency. Nuclear waste cleanup. Sound environmental practice.
DOE does high impact high risk R & D because industry could not or would nut pursue these avenues because of their cost and high risk of failure.
I urge you to read the DOE history. See how Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton modified and changed the Dept.
The best summary I can offer is this:
We need energy conservation and efficiency. We need to diversify our energy portfolio. By and large Republicans have argued for less control of oil and gas, and more drilling and clean coal. Thereby reducing the percentage of imports to domestic production. Democrats have gone for the fuel efficiency, reduced drilling, energy conservation.
What I find funny is that all the presidents have had the same energy plan. Conserve. Make efficient. Invest in new tech. As with all things political, everyone is to blame from the american public [yes you too H2 owner], to the politicians, to the corporations. No one has been holier than though. No one has capitalized on an energy crisis to bring about action [let alone change]. 39 years since this discussion started.
Not too much accomplished.
If you point the finger, use the middle one. if you need to direct it somewhere ... look in the mirror.
We voted them in.we keep them there. we let nothing happen. we buy the gas. we buy the oil. we dont ask for solar on our roof. we dont ask for a wind turbine. we let the market decide whats best for us. and the market obliges by selling us stuff we want because they are not providing us the products/services/technology we NEED.
We need leaders. Leaders who work ALL year. Leaders that work together for the common good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)