| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| It looks like we could use a little co2 to keep us from the next ice age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, maybe not:
| Quote: | By Andrew Freedman
The Boulder, Colo., area is reeling after being inundated by record rainfall, with more than half a year’s worth of rain falling over the past three days. During those three days, 24-hour rainfall totals of between 8 and 10 inches across much of the Boulder area were enough to qualify this storm as a 1 in 1,000 year event, meaning that it has a 0.1 percent chance of occurring in a given year.
At least four people have been confirmed dead so far with many more still missing, and thousands have been evacuated from their homes and businesses. All along Colorado’s Front Range from Denver northward to Boulder and in nearby areas, small creeks have been transformed into raging rivers, and surges of water, mud, and debris have blasted their way through canyons, at one point trapping a firefighter on a treetop before being rescued. Numerous longstanding records have been smashed, including the all-time 24-hour rainfall record in Boulder.
“This is clearly going to be a historic event," National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini said in an interview. “The true magnitude is really just becoming obvious now.”
Uccellini said the Weather Service has initiated a review of its performance leading up to and during the event. Although the potential for heavy rainfall was in the agency's forecasts a week in advance, he said, “Clearly the magnitude of the rainfall and the repetivieness of it in some critical areas was not pinpointed” well ahead of time. Uccellini said that this event will be the new historical high water mark for many affected rivers and streams. In a technical discussion on Thursday, the NWS described the rainfall amounts as "biblical."
On average, Boulder gets about 1.7 inches of rain during September, based on the 1981-2010 average. So far this month, Boulder has received 12.3 inches of rain. This smashes the record for the wettest month ever in Boulder, which was set in May 1995 when 9.59 inches of precipitation fell — and September isn’t even half over! Not only that, but the average yearly rainfall in Boulder is 20.68 inches. This means that Boulder picked up well over half its annual precipitation in just a couple of days.
This comes on the heels of a summer when Boulder experienced a moderate drought according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. This summer also featured the Colorado's most destructive wildfire on record. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent report Coboard.
But doesn't the sheer complexity show how simplistic 'global warming' computer models were, especially when projected into future events! (Compounding the errors of omission.)
The report acknowledges that (quote) 'the sun COULD be on the threshold of a mini Maunder right now.' And (quote) 'if the sun really is entering an UNFAMILIAR (the Russian claim) phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun climate link.'
I wouldn't bet the farm on any future certainty at present! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just from reading a Scientific American article I know that the model is very very complex and constantly in flux as data on all sides is factored in.
The only conclusions which are completely wrong are those based in politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KC is spot on. GT--people who knew about modeling knew that the initial models were pretty simplified. That is the nature of modeling--in the past fifteen years the models for San Francisco Bay have gone from crude to pretty damned good. They are very useful tools for looking at circulation, sediment movement, salinity, and so forth. You have to start somewhere. Nobody on the scientific end has claimed accuracy for modeling, particularly the early ones. Instead, the purpose was to say here is something that is happening that could be very, very bad. At that point you want to do better science to know where along the continuum of bad it is likely to be, and you want to start to adopt a series of actions that you won't regret in the long term. First is to encourage conservation, particularly with insulation. Of course the oil companies fought that in California--and lost big time. Second, you want to accelerate the technology for alternatives. I guess I don't have to tell you who fought that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GURGLETROUSERS wrote: | Excellent report Coboard.
But doesn't the sheer complexity show how simplistic 'global warming' computer models were, especially when projected into future events! (Compounding the errors of omission.)
The report acknowledges that (quote) 'the sun COULD be on the threshold of a mini Maunder right now.' And (quote) 'if the sun really is entering an UNFAMILIAR (the Russian claim) phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun climate link.'
I wouldn't bet the farm on any future certainty at present! |
Quite true GT. As I have stated a number of times, I have never been a subscriber to the "sky is falling" mentality. But, I have learned enough to realize that we need to investigate contingency plans for some of the effects of global warming where the evidence is piling up. The 1000 year storm in my State of Colorado may become more common. We need to take realistic steps to mitigate damage and loss of life where the results of the better models are compelling. Again, without breaking the bank.
Continuing to fund the scientific research is paramount. However, one of the problems with the politization of global climate change is that this funding becomes jeopardized as does efforts to reduce dependency on carbon energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I heard it was called a 100 year storm CB. Even if it were a 1000 year storm, you should expect many 1000 year storms per year on earth. That is the norm. There are thousands of micro climates and various locations for these 1000 year events. Right now things are getting very cold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | | I heard it was called a 100 year storm CB. Even if it were a 1000 year storm, you should expect many 1000 year storms per year on earth. That is the norm. There are thousands of micro climates and various locations for these 1000 year events. Right now things are getting very cold. |
What makes the flood in Colorado so rare is not an individual stream flow, it is the sheer scale of the rainfall event in duration and affected area. That is why the probability of this sort of storm is so low. Many streams experiencing 100 year floods simultaneously over such an extended time over such a large area is not what we budget for or our emergency services are prepared for.
I understand probability. I do designs based on codes that result from the study of statistical weather and geologic events. But, climate change models show that some areas, Colorado is one, will be subject to increased volatility and variability of the weather events.
Holding out hope that sun cycles will generate a cooling cycle, that will offset the effects of carbon, is one strategy. I subscribe to the strategy of preparing our infrastructure for more catastrophes. I subscribe to the strategy of reducing our dependency on carbon. The downside of my strategy is that buildings, bridges and energy sources will last longer. The downsides of waiting and seeing what might happen are less appealing.
I also must stress that I am not for a panic, full scale, leap into rebuilding infrastructure and decimating industry to change power sources. Rather move forward with deliberation and caution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
In May mrgybe ranted:
| Quote: | | this same poster relentlessly blasts the oil industry for polluting the air and water, when, for 15 years he was directly responsible for environmental matters at the Port of Oakland, the worst polluter in the entire area for decades |
In today's Chronicle, the latest emission inventory shows that particulate emissions at the port have been reduced by 70%,with other projects under way and the goal of reducing such emissions by 85% by 2020. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/New-laws-have-cleaned-up-air-at-Port-of-Oakland-4831313.php
Of course, particulate levels near freeways are now, and were then, much higher than those from the Port of Oakland. A little exaggeration? No, a lot.
What do you call someone who systematically misrepresents the facts to disparage someone whom he disagrees with if not a hater or a liar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
