Posting in Cities
Cal-Adapt gives people the latest information on the impacts of climate change in California. Tools show people scientific research in a visual way.
A new website called Cal-Adapt.org collects peer-reviewed climate change research to make the data available to people concerned about their local climate, decision-makers and experts. The website is interactive, so you can go in and use the tools to see how snow pack or temperature changes will impact the state of California by the end of the century.
I clicked on view local profiles to explore climate projections for San Francisco, and the map showed me this (pictured above):
You are now viewing the projected change in annual average temperatures across California under a a2 scenario low carbon emissions scenario (B1). The map above shows the projected difference in temperature between a baseline time period (1961-1990) and an end of century period (2070-2090).
Soon, the community feature will allow you to ask questions to a climate expert. The site has built-in social media functions, so if you "like" a map and want to share it, you can spread it through Facebook, Twitter or email. The scientific data is presented in a digestible, visual way. It's a tool government agencies and city planners can use to make decisions about climate change risks.
“Cal-Adapt currently synthesizes 150 years of climate data generated from a variety of models and scenarios for carbon emissions. This gives users an opportunity to explore a wide range of possible outcomes given different potential social and economic factors,” Berkeley's Brian Galey said in a statement.
I tried out another tool, which told me which areas are most vulnerable to a 100-year flood event as sea level rises. Global models have shown that the Golden State might see a 140 cm rise in sea level this century. As you can see, the areas near the coast are vulnerable to flooding:
Hopefully, websites like this will encourage users to interact and engage with the researchers, rather than make death threats. High profile Australian climate change scientists received threats stop research on climate change. Some researchers have moved offices with tightened security and had to improve their security systems at home.
“These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this,” Dick Young, the ANU vice-chancellor, told the Telegraph.
via UC Berkeley
Jun 8, 2011
That this stuff comes out of California. The least sustainable state in the country. Turn a few water valves 1,000 miles away and most of the state dies of thirst.
I find the sudden advent of a war on the important scientific discoveries of the 1830's the most remarkable (and improbable) thing that has happened in my lifetime, along with the inexplicable linkages to patriotism and Christianity. Representing them as recent political events seems even more astounding. The underlying science that declares anthropogenic global warming to be inescapably and unequivocally true is also the foundation of basic technology used every day, like the laser and mass spectrometer. What magical thinking does it take to assert that these laws can apply in all cases but one?
re: "Peer-reviewed" Are these "peers" actual climatographers, or just the usual liberal PHD's, psychiatrists, poets, economists, and other academia-with-attitude? You know, like those at the last Copenhagen symposium, such as have been predicting weather and population gloom and doom (with opinions based on 'feelings', etc, not verifiable scientific data) for the past 20 years, or so? I, for one, would like to know. It's so hard to get excited about a 0.1 degree rise in average temperature in 10 years, for instance, without even including sunspot cycle phenomia, with THEIR effects on global warming, as has been done, lately! These, plus recent volcanic eruption products, have much more direct effect than the rise in carbon dioxide, ozone, and CFCs from man-made causes. Cutting our contributions will help, but not completely solve, the situation!
Of course it is not a forecast. You could have a mathematical model of a car going north on I5 at 60 mph, and have a scenario where it is 60 miles further north after one hour. The real car might turn off at the next interchange, or smash into the back of a truck.
"I clicked on view local profiles to explore climate projections for San Francisco, and the map showed me this (pictured above):" What you looked at is not a forecast. It is not fact or even a prediction of what will happen. Their words, not mine.
http://cal-adapt.org/site/faqs/ "Cal-adapt synthesizes volumes of existing downscaled climate change scenarios Scenario:A coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold. These are not forecasts " Their own web site is full of qualifiers that the data has been manipulated to show scenarios. "These are not forecasts" is repeated often. They know they do not want to be caught in a lie and held accountable when people treat this site as presenting facts.
The reports on anthropogenic global warming are filled with the same disclaimers that this site has. They cannot prove their speculation. It is not an attack on science when you ask people to prove their theory and reproduce the results of their proof. That is called the scientific method. It is not honest scientific peer review when your report is reviewed by a person you used as a resource and reference in the report.
That's a rhetorical question. But there are no proofs in science, proofs are for mathematics. Science is always subject to change pending new information. Witness Newton's Laws of Motion. The uncertainty expressed in reports on AGW has more to do with uncertainty about the future than it does with uncertainty about their science. You can't predict how much CO2 will continue to be emitted by humans. You can't predict what kind of volcanic eruptions we will get in the time period. You can't predict with any assuredness what the Sun will do. So you make projections based on what you believe are realistic scenarios. Peer review is only the start on the road to established science. It just makes sure there are no glaring errors in the paper. After a paper gets published it is subject to criticism from anyone. A test of how well a paper and the research behind it is regarded would be to see how often it is cited by other researchers in their papers.
I'd love to see any real evidence of the corruption you believe exists. (And don't make me laugh by trotting out the "climategate" emails). I don't doubt there is the occasional scientist who is willing to be corrupted (witness those who say smoking isn't harmful) but in the general realm of science comes down pretty hard on them once they are discovered. The reason that warming will continue for a while after we stop adding to atmospheric CO2 is ocean buffering of temperatures. It will take 30-40 years for the oceans to catch up with the forcing that already exists from the additional CO2 and other GHG's in the atmosphere. The warming will continue until a new dynamic balance is reached between the atmosphere and ocean (and the land surface has a smaller role as well). I think if you asked most climate scientists about it they would be skeptical that adding SO2 to the stratosphere is a workable strategy. At best it's a stopgap giving us some time to get CO2 emissions under control but the unintended consequences may be worse than the cure. There are some people pushing it but I think they tend to be the engineering oriented people. I'd be surprised if most true climate scientists supported it.
"It's like you think scientists are so incompetent they missed considering the points you raise." It is junk science to scare people into funding them. These same scientists got up in front of the world in Cancun in 2010 and as a group said the people of the world could stop producing all man made CO2 tomorrow and the world would continue warming. The only way to save the world was to fund a massive project where they would pump millions of tons of sulfur into the upper atmosphere to counter global warming. They created the problem and miraculously we can pay them to fix it.
So what? If you want to validate your hypothesis that they always err on the side warming you need to show scientifically why their adjustments and filtering are invalid. I've seen lots of accusations about this made but nothing to back them up in a scientifically cogent argument. It's like you think scientists are so incompetent they missed considering the points you raise. I challenge you to go get the raw temperature data that climate scientists use. It's all available online from places like NOAA. Then plot it against the adjusted data that climate scientists use. You will find that the differences are small enough to not make a significant difference. The reason scientists use adjusted data is because it is slightly more accurate than the raw data. There is seldom a large difference between the two.
Have you ready the notes on many of the reports man/bear/pig is based on? 'The data used in this report was flitered for anomolies from the data used by Dr. X.' You look at Dr. X's report and his says that it filtered anomolies from the data used in Dr. Ys report. And so on and so on. If you read the details on the anomolies they are filtering, it is always 'abnormally low temps. So each report fliters the low temps out of the data. Is it any surprise that the temperature curve reported on the same core data set gets steeper with each report? And why do they never filter for high temp anomiloies like the false readings of temperature stations located on the south side of buildings or near parking lots? The devil is in the details.