“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 1:30 AM GMT on December 14, 2009

Share this Blog
5
+

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

Yesterday I got into an exchange with a person who posted a comment wishing the curse of a pox to the students writing on the UoMichigan COP15 Blog . It reminded me of Joseph Welch’s question to Senator Joe McCarthy, “You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (Welch-McCarthy Exchange from American Rhetoric)

In the United States we devolve into something that is more like tribalism with sides taken based on the color of your uniform or who pays you the most. Discussion is based not on ideas and solutions, but on who makes a statement. Issues are advocated, and ideas are placed into extremes that take on attributes such as good and evil, for and against. The other side is wrong, and their intentions are of hidden control or hidden profit. This threatens our credibility and our viability.

US Senators pursue an investigation of climate science based upon the stolen and published correspondence of a small clutch of prominent scientists. Here at the Conference of Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen the news says that we should anticipate a visit by Congressman Sensenbrenner to call for the end of “climate fascism.” This will place this US political tribe in solid alliance with, perhaps, Saudi Arabia.

For the conference as a whole, I, my students, my colleagues, new people I meet, the discussion in the plenary sessions – from all of these sources, I hear no serious discussion about any challenge the CRU emails present to the basic conclusions that the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. I have had a small number of interviews, and the question is asked almost as a curiosity. It’s more like the scandal of the emails is really a scandalous aspect of the US culture, like displays of disfigured animals in the back lot of a traveling freak show.

Some of my American colleagues, those closest to the IPCC, these people spend time developing rational responses to calls for investigations, allegations of lies, searches for conspiracies, and efforts to control the participation of individual US scientists in IPCC assessments. They work to craft rational responses to the irrational. Members of the Congress form and dissolve COP delegations. The rationalist’s response to a process that is being managed to be irrational is, itself, irrational. As the rationalist counters the irrational, their irrationality becomes more and more damaging.

It took me several years of management at NASA to realize that there were some people who thrived on the fight. There were those who were disruptive and sometimes deliberately hostile. Others, who benignly fueled chaos. These efforts to cause organizational dis-structure, to increase organizational entropy – these efforts were their strategy for success. Or if not a strategy for success, it was a strategy to keep others from succeeding, of using the distraction to outlast efforts they viewed to their disadvantage.

I spent some time as a manager of scientists trying to find the rational arguments that would help people see the intent and advantage of what I was trying to do and to develop buy in. I had some success, but there was always a group that worked, deliberately or subconsciously, to sabotage. Their strategy was often to create disorder. Their tactic was often to isolate facts or conjecture that in their isolation suggested rationality, compelled a rational response. The rational response was, ultimately, parried with the next isolated fact or conjecture. This is a tactic to build selective doubt.

While at NASA I had the experience of being on a long camping trip with a person who had a psychotic episode. My companion started to hear voices in the radio background, and transmissions through rusted cans lying on the side of the trail. There were always perceived people with weapons in groups of people near us. My first response was to discuss the inability of people speaking through rusted cans. Then I proceeded to showing that nothing bad did occur following the perceived threat. I tried to use a rational description of reality to prove a point that was motivated and fueled by extreme irrationality. Irrationality ultimately anchored in fear.

As a manager, I became more aware of fear and the fear of change. I tried to make my contribution as organizing disorganized systems. I hired a sociologist to work with me at NASA. What I learned is that this tactic of developing the rational response to the isolated assertion, conjecture, or fact was, fundamentally, ill posed. I learned that irrationality and sabotage were a natural part of getting the job down. I learned that if you allow the isolated assertions, conjectures, and facts to grow to dominate the job, then progress will be slowed, perhaps stopped. I learned that if you want to make progress then the leader has to differentiate her/his self from the turmoil, objectify the irrationality and sabotage as part of the whole – and manage it. Place the disruption in its place – the place of the disruptors.

I also learned that it is important to listen to the disruptors, to truly understand the motivation of the disruption. Almost always a sound foundation of the disruption is offered. It was my job to determine if the stated foundation was the real foundation – what is the subtext? It was my job to determine if I needed to accommodate the concerns of the disruptors into the direction the project or organization needed to take. The reason people disrupted ranged from a true conviction that a certain path was wrong to strong emotional attachments to particular ideas and, even, pieces of software. There were always some who where, often by their own admission, contrarian. And, if one is contrarian, it is usually because being contrarian has been a successful strategy in their lives. There are a host of reasons to disrupt, to resist, and to sabotage change.

As long as the community of climate scientists engages in the disruption and the creation of selective doubt, the disruptors will garner attention and an exaggerated amount of success. The march forward will be slowed. The behavior of all will be reduced to one where it makes sense to question decency. The disruptors cannot be convinced by the exposition of the rational totality; they are not looking to be convinced. Their motivations are elsewhere.

The person who made the original comment on the blog responded to me that their comments represented civility in 2009 and suggested that I would be intimidated by and unwelcoming of the language of Shakespeare. I do not, however, accept that participating in this game of personal attacks, repeated slogans, and outrageous assertions is the form of how we must now carry out deliberations of serious issues. I find no relevance of the curses of MacBeth’s witches. If I behave like a character in a tragedy, then it is likely the results will be tragic.

This behavior of disruption is an old and common tactic. It is always in present in politics and management - really throughout life. It is something one imagines as absent in the purity of science, but it is not absent in the best of worlds; it is a community peopled by scientists. We in the US have allowed it to grow to a way of doing business that threatens our relevance and our viability.

I sit here in Copenhagen, not far from Hamlet’s castle of tragedy. I hear quiet men developing community-based climate adaptation plans to link to development activities in their countries. I see interesting technology in transportation and energy from countries eager for wealth. I see policy and practices developing in other countries that promote efficiency and environmental trade. I see the US distracted and wasting its intellect and time on disruptions designed to play to people at home, and which will assure to hasten our marginalization as a great culture. We don’t even look smart to our own children.

r

Other relevant blogs

Paul Edwards: IPCC Press Briefing

Paul Edwards: "Climategate," Not IPCC

Jeff Masters: Manufactured Doubt

Jeff Masters: Don't Shoot the Messenger

Rood: Climategate Copenhagen Impacts

Rood: Update from Copenhagen


And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 283 - 233

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

283. atmoaggie
2:34 AM GMT on December 18, 2009
When a science reaches this level of maturity

WHAT!?! It is in it's infancy!
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
282. theshepherd
11:30 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
271. streamtracker
Actually I know of a few vocal people who have degrees in evolutionary biology and yet teach creationism along side biological evolution as if they were on equal footing.
**********************************************************************************************

Actually, if you would stop being so bigoted you could invision how, along with the Big Bang Theory, they indeed can all be mentioned in the same breath.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
281. paratomic
11:12 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting streamtracker:


Finer resolution data and models should improve on the spatial and temporal of predictions.

Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide in a key part of our atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft.


Source
Nice post!

Here's something from California:
Governor Delivers Remarks at Press Conference for E-Fuel's Revolutionary Fuel System

California on to something there? IDK, why I posted.
Member Since: September 17, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 182
280. abrahambenjudea
10:54 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Even if they have 20k litttle sensors in place it would be a year or more after a mayor oceanic current shift before anyone noticed such a change. Why? Because I doubt it very much if anyone is looking at the whole picture.
Heck Even now nobody is looking to see if the THC conversion point has moved or if it's still in the same area 100 yrs ago. See what I mean by beware of experts.
Comment 256 still worth repeating.
276. abrahambenjudea
8:20 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
I spend a good two hrs smiling to the point of laughter because of this line,"Salinity and ocean circulation are not well understood."
274. streamtracker
6:47 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Interesting Facebook group.

http://www.facebook.com/theclimatepool
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730
273. streamtracker
6:41 PM GMT on December 17, 2009


Finer resolution data and models should improve on the spatial and temporal of predictions.

Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide in a key part of our atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft.


Source
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730
272. streamtracker
6:07 PM GMT on December 17, 2009

Note to you know who you are.

I do not feel the need to answer the questions of folks who insult and assassinate my character.

Besides some of you are doing a fine job on your own of exposing the holes in your logic and understanding.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730
271. streamtracker
6:05 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting atmoaggie:
Well, we had one pro-AGW guy in here convince us that a narrow point of view in earth science is not acceptable for climatologists. That is how Mann got excluded. I'll give you that he, and his work, do qualify as one piece of the puzzle.

On the other hand, we have chicklet, JF, and others wanting to throw out people that have PhDs in geophysics. Do you folks know what geophysics is? (stream does, which is why he didn't get into this)
That is a broad earth science physics subject encompassing everything earth science from the thermosphere to the earth's core.

How do you discount the opinion of a Dr. of geophysics? And one that proved to have an aptitude at solar physics and atmospheric chemistry?!? (Look at his work)


Actually I know of a few vocal people who have degrees in evolutionary biology and yet teach creationism along side biological evolution as if they were on equal footing.

I don't get into it because, the over overwhelming preponderance of data and research from multiple independent lines of evidence do not support their views.

It is also quite clear from what's is going on in multiple policy fronts nationally and globally that there is a will to respond to the issue of climate change.

So, it's not worth my energy to pick through the list. In real-world terms it is irrelevant.

What I am interested in is the real scientific debates that are going on in climate science. Like for instance what will the effect of rising surface and water temperatures be on tropical storm formation and intensification.

I have no time and energy for poeple that say their is no convincing evidence that the earth's temperature is rising and that increases in CO2 levels are the primary cause. There are just too many independent lines of evidence - too many fingerprints of an anthropogenic cause.

The fact that are multiple lines of evidence for both pattern and mechanism make it very very unlikely that what we are seeing is not real and that we don't understand the basic reasons for it.

When a science reaches this level of maturity (multiple lines of evidence for pattern and mechanism) it takes some very convincing work to the contrary to overturn a paradigm. I have seen no such body evidence that would overturn the current paradigm.

Still lots of room for fine tuning our understanding - that's the nice thing about science, the questions never stop coming.





Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730
270. martinitony
5:58 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting atmoaggie:
Well, we had one pro-AGW guy in here convince us that a narrow point of view in earth science is not acceptable for climatologists. That is how Mann got excluded. I'll give you that he, and his work, do qualify as one piece of the puzzle.

On the other hand, we have chicklet, JF, and others wanting to throw out people that have PhDs in geophysics. Do you folks know what geophysics is? (stream does, which is why he didn't get into this)
That is a broad earth science physics subject encompassing everything earth science from the thermosphere to the earth's core.

How do you discount the opinion of a Dr. of geophysics? And one that proved to have an aptitude at solar physics and atmospheric chemistry?!? (Look at his work)


It is a type of McCarthyism. Anyone, no matter PHD or other significant credentials, will be disqualified for any reason that can work. This includes guilt by association if you have ever been associated with any business entity. Business, as I'm sure you agree, is an evil thing. Higher education and non profit is always ethical, moral and angelic.

I am certain that many pro AGW have previously worked for, now work for or have accepted money and grants from business, but that doesn't matter if you are pro AGW. And it certainly is not relevant if you are an educator and are pro AGW.

There is little response here to a fact if it disses AGW. If it is unquestionably true, the board will be silent for a while and then start on a new topic.

I used to go to zoning meetings and sometimes argue with a neighbor that there would be no flooding or some other issue that a neighbor might raise, that we would engineer through the issue because the law required it and we would do what the law required. It never worked. They would go on as if facts were no matter. They knew better than the engineers and it couldn't be done. Eventually, our attorney would grab me and straighten me out and to get me away from them. He wouldn't want me to screw things up politically before he did the required routine for the council or trustees. Logic was not necessary. Let him handle it.

It's pretty much the same everywhere these days.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
268. abrahambenjudea
5:49 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Come on be honest with your self. Do any of you expect changes to be made in order to offset that warming momentum in place? Will any of those changes take place within 15yrs?
Will any of those so called changes put a dent into the warming momentum? No. No. and NO.
Worth repeating. comment #256...I really don't see what all the fuzz is about. Let me throw some cold water here.
(1) Between the deniers, the activist and politics Nothing will get done.
(2) I'm/we are not going to save the Earth. The Earth will take care of itself when it shakes us off like the vermin we are.
(3)When sea levels rise and the Ice cap is gone, Ocean currents will change. With it will come new weather patterns. The Sahara Might become a Tropical forrest, and the Amazon a desert.
(3)Political...I don't see anything worth saving. Name one, Just one political entity or current regime worth standing up for.
And to those who deny that man can't affect the weather.
Some crickets here won't like reading this, but these are the factoids.
266. atmoaggie
5:01 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Well, we had one pro-AGW guy in here convince us that a narrow point of view in earth science is not acceptable for climatologists. That is how Mann got excluded. I'll give you that he, and his work, do qualify as one piece of the puzzle.

On the other hand, we have chicklet, JF, and others wanting to throw out people that have PhDs in geophysics. Do you folks know what geophysics is? (stream does, which is why he didn't get into this)
That is a broad earth science physics subject encompassing everything earth science from the thermosphere to the earth's core.

How do you discount the opinion of a Dr. of geophysics? And one that proved to have an aptitude at solar physics and atmospheric chemistry?!? (Look at his work)
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
265. biff4ugo
4:59 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
If you are keeping up with the conference in Copenhaven but don’t have a live link to what is going on. Look at oneclimate.net. It is decidedly change-admitting but it has live video, and you can ask questions of key players at the conference online instead of traveling there.
I was able to ask the President Nasheed of the Maldives about his adaptation strategy, and the Climate Change Secretary of Brazil about her growth and water resource protection.
Oneclimate.net, worth checking out.
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 113 Comments: 1496
263. martinitony
4:26 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting crucilandia:
258

streamtracker does not show is the 20% error in the measurements. therefore, the trend in the first graph is within the variability.

figure 2: the trend is also statistically insignificant. The average is 11 with a 20% error. thus range of values 1 st dev (9 to 13). Statistical tests use 1.96 st devs around the mean, thus range around the mean is (7 to 15).

the highest value in fig 2 was 12 and the min was 9.5, WELL within the statistical error.


A couple more interesting things about the November average chart:
1. The highest ice extent occurred in years where we know that average world temperatures were rising. Why? This seems to imply that atmospheric temperatures might not be the major forcing issue with Arctic ice. (That's the first time I ever used the term forcing. I hoped I used it correctly.)
2. One can eyeball the chart and eliminate the lows and highs and see that the todays ice extent is very close to the average with those highs and lows removed.

Again, here is this mornings satellite data on ice extent:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

Note that we are now at or above the last three years ice extent for the same day with extent accelerating.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
262. crucilandia
4:23 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
well within the data variability

Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
261. crucilandia
4:15 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
258

streamtracker does not show is the 20% error in the measurements. therefore, the trend in the first graph is within the variability.

figure 2: the trend is also statistically insignificant. The average is 11 with a 20% error. thus range of values 1 st dev (9 to 13). Statistical tests use 1.96 st devs around the mean, thus range around the mean is (7 to 15).

the highest value in fig 2 was 12 and the min was 9.5, WELL within the statistical error.
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
260. martinitony
4:13 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Streamtracker. You're just wrong and you posted misleading information. The last two years minimums and maximums have been higher then their respective previous annual minimums and maximums. The only way ice extent can increase its maximum is for new ice to increase annually.

Although your chart spell doom for Arctic ice, the chart only goes to show how we can distort with graphics and statistics. The ice extent is expanding faster than the last two years. November expansion was higher than the average. Those are facts, not pretty pictures. I asked for an explanation and you did the same old same old, trying to explain it away with a longer term graphic.

What will you do in 60 days if ice extent is above the average of the last 30 years? What will you do in 60 days if this winter across the northern hemisphere is the coldest since the seventies?

My guess is you will resort to more pretty pictures and avoid the questions.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
259. streamtracker
3:59 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting whosonfirst:
"AR4 has been removed from credible science as a source of climatology, sorry."

By whom, might we ask?


By wishful "thinkers".
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730
258. streamtracker
3:53 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting martinitony:


Yeah, nothing would be melting now since this is the time of year the ice cover grows. What people are concerned about is how the minimum extent each summer is on a steep declining trend.

It doesn't look to me like anything is melting right now in the Arctic. The increase in Arctic ice extent seems to be accelerating.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

How do you explain that? Don't show me historical tables that don't show the steady increase in minimum and maximum over the last two plus years.




Still well below the longer-term average for this time of year.

Last month showed a continuing decreasing long-term trend for November.



And please understand that long-term trends mean long-term - note how during the long-term downward trend there are years when it goes up temporarily. There are no long-term climate trends that show a perfect decline with each and every year - that's not how the systems work and that's not we expect.

And this doesn't include the information on extent of new versus old ice. That ratio has been steadily worsening.



Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730
257. conchygirl
3:17 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting outrocket:
it would be gods way of forcing people to pay for their sins by making them live in south alabama.

curious what's wrong with Alabama??? let me guess you think we are all stupid..... Amazing the bigots here who hate
definitely not seeing the love here, are we Outrocket?
Member Since: June 11, 2008 Posts: 24 Comments: 5910
256. abrahambenjudea
3:07 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
I really don't see what all the fuzz is about. Let me throw some cold water here.
(1) Between the deniers, the activist and politics Nothing will get done.
(2) I'm/we are not going to save the Earth. The Earth will take care of itself when it shakes us off like the vermin we are.
(3)When sea levels rise and the Ice cap is gone, Ocean currents will change. With it will come new weather patterns. The Sahara Might become a Tropical forrest, and the Amazon a desert.
(3)Political...I don't see anything worth saving. Name one, Just one political entity or current regime worth standing up for.
And to those who deny that man can't affect the weather.
Look at the earth at night. Lit up by Billions of lightbulbs. A single Metalarc light bulb burns at over 1200 degrees consuming 250 watts for 10hrs a night. Do the math. 73 million miles of road a lightpost at every 100 feet, in the US alone.
So all this back and forth argumets will amount to NOTHING.
Enjoy the sunset or sunrise that's about all you and I can do.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/NIGHTLIGHTS.html
255. outrocket
2:48 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
it would be gods way of forcing people to pay for their sins by making them live in south alabama.

curious what's wrong with Alabama??? let me guess you think we are all stupid..... Amazing the bigots here who hate
Member Since: July 15, 2005 Posts: 104 Comments: 11010
254. twhcracker
2:46 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Earth's Polar Ice Sheets Vulnerable to Even Moderate Global Warming; New Orleans, Much of Southern Florida, Expected to Be Permanently Submerged
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2009) %u2014 A new analysis of the geological record of the Earth's sea level, carried out by scientists at Princeton and Harvard universities and published in the Dec. 16 issue of Nature, employs a novel statistical approach that reveals the planet's polar ice sheets are vulnerable to large-scale melting even under moderate global warming scenarios. Such melting would lead to a large and relatively rapid rise in global sea level.

Link

It's been about five years or so and still there is no light at the end of the tunnel. What gives you with me yet?


i think south florida NEEDS to be submerged. it would be gods way of forcing people to pay for their sins by making them live in south alabama. I would worry it might ruin my neighborhood but i think the meth addicts will scare them away from relocating near me. I live 40 miles inland so maybe i will be waterfront.
Member Since: July 30, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 1448
253. martinitony
2:32 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Earth's Polar Ice Sheets Vulnerable to Even Moderate Global Warming; New Orleans, Much of Southern Florida, Expected to Be Permanently Submerged
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2009) %u2014 A new analysis of the geological record of the Earth's sea level, carried out by scientists at Princeton and Harvard universities and published in the Dec. 16 issue of Nature, employs a novel statistical approach that reveals the planet's polar ice sheets are vulnerable to large-scale melting even under moderate global warming scenarios. Such melting would lead to a large and relatively rapid rise in global sea level.

Link

It's been about five years or so and still there is no light at the end of the tunnel. What gives you with me yet?


It doesn't look to me like anything is melting right now in the Arctic. The increase in Arctic ice extent seems to be accelerating.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

How do you explain that? Don't show me historical tables that don't show the steady increase in minimum and maximum over the last two plus years.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
252. martinitony
2:28 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
JFLORIDA

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from
all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives
by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good
for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it
requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An
instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An
'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not
an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for
living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil
today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not
a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man
must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking,
which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his
own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. "

Who do you think said that, a liberal or a conservative?
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
251. cyclonebuster
1:52 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Earth's Polar Ice Sheets Vulnerable to Even Moderate Global Warming; New Orleans, Much of Southern Florida, Expected to Be Permanently Submerged
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2009) %u2014 A new analysis of the geological record of the Earth's sea level, carried out by scientists at Princeton and Harvard universities and published in the Dec. 16 issue of Nature, employs a novel statistical approach that reveals the planet's polar ice sheets are vulnerable to large-scale melting even under moderate global warming scenarios. Such melting would lead to a large and relatively rapid rise in global sea level.

Link

It's been about five years or so and still there is no light at the end of the tunnel. What gives you with me yet?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
250. theshepherd
1:27 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
I would be more inclined to believe "sworn" testimony at this point in Coppenhagen.
Certify your data under penalty of perjury...
then I'll listen.
Certify first and then "trust but verify".
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
249. tibor
1:16 PM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting atmoaggie:

That was admittedly a little mockery as abraham helped us decide
that Mann, Hansen, and Jones are not capable of climatology (3 of the
primary players in the rate to recent change in all of the IPCC
reports)... ;-)

(You did read those post, right?)

And, yes, we collectively having knee jerk reactions to IPCC...it is definitely time to explore the rest of the story.


Yes the grand united conspiracy!

Yeah Mann etc. are not capable of climatology - dream on!

Recently Mann published a really interesting paper on attributiobn for the little ice age and the medieval warm period. (contrary to what denailists would have you believe, he and other climate scientists have never denied the existence of this phenomenon)

Included in the online version is all the raw data, data analysis details, and the code. The paper was in press before "climategate".

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
Michael E. Mann et al. 2009. Science, Vol. 326, pgs. 1256 - 1260.

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of
temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes
involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.
246. Chicklit
3:12 AM GMT on December 17, 2009
Interesting that one of the professors listed in post #176 from atmoaggie is from the university of alaska where this global change student grant is currently offered:
Link

It appears that Dr. SYUN-ICHI AKASOFU of the Univ. of Alaska is knowledgeable in geophysics and astronomy, not meteorology.

This one was picked from the list at random.

Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
245. Chicklit
2:51 AM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting atmoaggie:

It is in the back of my mind to verify that these guys really are all on board with the statement and challenge...(and no, I don't want to hear what realclimate might have to say about it, unbiased source required)

If they are, I have a list of PhDs, climate scientists, and earth scientists that reaffirm most of what I have posted here in the last few years.


Would you please post their names?
Thanks.
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
244. atmoaggie
2:07 AM GMT on December 17, 2009
Quoting streamtracker:


AR4 removed - what a laugh.

All those 1000's of papers that went into AR4 all trash - all garbage. Yeah let's just burn it! Get over it!

Talk about Knee-jerk - take a look in the mirror.

I think you have been totally removed from serious science with that comment.

That was admittedly a little mockery as abraham helped us decide that Mann, Hansen, and Jones are not capable of climatology (3 of the primary players in the rate to recent change in all of the IPCC reports)... ;-)

(You did read those post, right?)

And, yes, we collectively having knee jerk reactions to IPCC...it is definitely time to explore the rest of the story.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
243. EnergyMoron
12:53 AM GMT on December 17, 2009
Why are US conservatives against conservation? As a conservative, this makes no sense whatsoever....

There was an excellent blog on the Houston Chronicle website written by an environmental engineer today about how environmentalist's sometimes don't make the point about dealing with global warming in a better manner. This is part of the problem and here is why.

When one starts looking at the CO2 abatement curve (the roadmap to get us where we need to get to) there are roughly 3 major focus areas: energy efficiency, land use, and alternative energy.

The first, energy efficiency, bring about 35% of the needed abatement, should be a no-brainer, but it is not. The US has a 7.7 trillion dollar current account deficit, a sizeable chunk being energy imports. Do conservatives like the size of the debt? It is no accident that the national debt is roughly the same order of magnitude as the current account deficit. Do we like dependence on foreign oil? Drill baby drill is not going to achieve national energy independence (I work in the oil and gas industry). Roughly 38% of our nation's energy goes to buildings. I have been through the DOE data (benchmarking my own improvements to our house to save over 60% in electricity use) and quite frankly US single dwelling homes are scandalous in their waste of energy. Why do we need cash for caulkers when a simple government loan payed out in taxes over 20 years will do? And this will do nothing for rental properties, which are the most inefficient users of energy according to the DOE data. And huge cost savings can be realized by companies... Ford, for example, went on a serious energy efficiency binge and is saving 41% in energy costs without loss of productivity. No-brainer. Indeed, it is such a no-brainer to reduce what is called energy intensity that China and India are making this the cornerpiece of their plans to reduce energy use. Both nations are energy poor.... no-brainer. So why would 35% of the abatement be controversial? Why? There are other reasons to do it.

Here's the numbers. I have run them myself (they are similar to the IEA numbers, however), and by simply becoming as efficient as the Germans worldwide the energy use worldwide will drop from 800-1300 TJ/year in 2050 to 540 TJ/Y. No-brainer. Additionally, the Germans have a trillion dollar current account SURPLUS and the standard of living is roughly the same. Oh, we could live like Japonese and save even more energy :). Despite being energy poor, like the Germans, they have even a higher current account surplus than the Germans (and a corresponding lower energy intensity!).

Since the only fossil fuel poised to grow according to the IEA is COAL (the worst from a CO2 standpoint) reducing energy intensity directly translates into SIGNIFICANT carbon abatement. In the US, for example, the reduction in electricity usage can be used to shut down old coal plants (the worst CO2 emitters).

The second item, land use, is not a major issue for the United States but is 25% of the worldwide abatement total. Here is where subsidies from the OECD can help. Improved land use does mean sustainable farming to feed the world. Nothing about CO2 once again. This has to do with feeding folks and other aspects of sustainable development. The US learned long ago that replanting forests is a good idea for forestry.

So roughly 60% of what is needed for abatement has nothing to do with CO2 abatement!

The third item, the other 40%, is going to be more difficult. Nuclear and wind are existing technologies. Shutting down Yucca mountain isn't going to help. This represents about 1/4 of this focus area. The rest is going to have to come through solar, geothermal and biofuels that use waste plant products instead of compete with the food supply. CCS, though much touted, is going to be a nitch application. If 1/2 of the US electricity generation were to come from clean coal, then an industry sticking CO2 waste into the ground twice as big as the natural gas industry would have to be created simply to deal with trash. Does anybody really think that is going to happen?

I submit that there can be well reasoned pro/cons for how to deal with the other 40% of the abatement curve (well, 30% if you consider wind/nuclear established) later. Look, I have solar water. The lookback economics are it is a turkey. Solar electricity would be worse. Run/block/tackle appliances, insulation, windows, roof and ductwork got the improvement in my case (85% for AC use!), and the 2 ton hybrid SUV getting 36 MPG is nothing short of COOL.

But there should be no discussion about the other 60%. China and India are ready to commit to energy intensity reductions since it makes good economic sense.

Where are our US "leaders"? Reducing energy intensity is a no-brainer if one is concerned about the federal deficit!
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
242. sp34n119w
12:12 AM GMT on December 17, 2009
My pleasure, J - people are fascinating :)
Hi mush! Yup :)
Member Since: January 27, 2007 Posts: 80 Comments: 4253
241. unclemush
12:11 AM GMT on December 17, 2009
Hi SP.Good read! :)
Member Since: July 7, 2001 Posts: 59 Comments: 13166
239. theshepherd
11:38 PM GMT on December 16, 2009
Geesch...
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
237. abrahambenjudea
11:14 PM GMT on December 16, 2009
Any one who can answer my previous two questions is worth some salt in my book. but If they don't know what the thermo Haline conversion point is, well you get my point. Look at my bio Pic, No...from that picture were not having any effect upon the earth's Climate right? Yes from space the whole North America looks it's on fire for goodness sakes.
236. streamtracker
10:31 PM GMT on December 16, 2009
Quoting atmoaggie:

I would call a forced reduction of CO2 an experiment, too. We would finally find out exactly how much of a contribution our CO2 really is (currently unknown, only modeled). Verrrry expensive experiment...
Quoting atmoaggie:

AR4 has been removed from credible science as a source of climatology, sorry.

Yeah, I hate the earth. And actually preferred when dolphins were caught with my chicken of the sea. (Do you people ever have me wrong.)

And my cause is good, thorough science, with careful consideration of all factors. Period. Knee-jerk science is always wrong.


AR4 removed - what a laugh.

All those 1000's of papers that went into AR4 all trash - all garbage. Yeah let's just burn it! Get over it!

Talk about Knee-jerk - take a look in the mirror.

I think you have been totally removed from serious science with that comment.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730
234. atmoaggie
10:22 PM GMT on December 16, 2009
Quoting streamtracker:
convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation

So we have to wait for the ice-caps to melt, and species to start dropping like flies?

Sounds like a plan to me. Wo hoo let the grand planetary experiment begin.

I would call a forced reduction of CO2 an experiment, too. We would finally find out exactly how much of a contribution our CO2 really is (currently unknown, only modeled). Verrrry expensive experiment...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
233. atmoaggie
10:20 PM GMT on December 16, 2009
Quoting whosonfirst:
"...recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena."

See, I'd go for a different standard here. Like showing that what we're doing today is likely to have a substantial negative impact on future generations. But, you know, there's some folks that are concerned about the world we leave for our kids and grandkids and others who just want to get while the getting is good.

But, irregardless of that, there's lots of of observational evidence presented in AR4. You may not like it but just your saying so doesn't make it go away. Again, we're not as trusting as you seem to be - when it suits your cause, that is.

AR4 has been removed from credible science as a source of climatology, sorry.

Yeah, I hate the earth. And actually preferred when dolphins were caught with my chicken of the sea. (Do you people ever have me wrong.)

And my cause is good, thorough science, with careful consideration of all factors. Period. Knee-jerk science is always wrong.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

Viewing: 283 - 233

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.