Durban – Conference of Parties – An Ethical Problem:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:24 AM GMT on December 02, 2011

Share this Blog
12
+

Durban – Conference of Parties – An Ethical Problem:

This week is the start of the Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa. The Conference of the Parties' (COP) are the annual meetings that are part of the governing body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Two years ago, November 2009, I was planning a trip to the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. Before Copenhagen there was great energy, with some notion that the Copenhagen meeting would lead to a breakthrough on international climate change agreements. Of course, that did not happen and while there was spin that the meeting was a success, most people that I know were not enthusiastic about the outcome. (The Copenhagen Accord) My take of the outcome was that there was symbolic political recognition that global warming needed to be addressed, but no substantive steps were taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Plus, the political, economic and technological realities are that we will not see international agreement on reducing emissions anytime soon. It will be much longer before there is any real reduction of emissions.

In 2010 the COP was in Cancun, Mexico. What were the results of that meeting? In my opinion, we continue to meet and that is good. There was continued recognition that we needed to curb our carbon dioxide emissions and there were voluntary commitments to do that. (Here is an All Things Considered interview with Todd Stern) The voluntary targets focused on keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius, which is both an ambiguous and impossible goal. My dedicated readers might recall that last year in my climate change class I decided it is disingenuous to continue to talk about limiting warming to 2 degrees, and I started my students reading the papers that look at the 4 degree warmer world (see this entry).

What do I expect at the start of the COP-17? There is no doubt that the chronic economic turmoil since 2008 has deflated interest in climate change. We want economic stability, and in a growing population economic stability means economic growth. And for the most part economic growth, still, means burning more fossil fuels. With this, the Durban meeting is welcomed with record high growth of carbon dioxide concentrations – we can say that we are ahead of the curve (in Washington Post, and World Meteorological Organization Greenhouse Gas Bulletin).

Ahead of the curve is where I expect we will stay for a while. It is interesting to think about where we would be without the Kyoto Protocol and the countries which made some effort. We would likely be way ahead of the historic emissions curve. We simply do not have the alternatives in place, yet, that allow us to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

There are, in fact, substantial resources going in the installation of renewable energy resources. According the Bloomberg New Energy Finance there are now more initial investments in renewable energy than in fossil fuel energy (Press Release and Report). Europe is the leading market for money spent on these projects, and China will take over the lead in a couple of years. With this seeming shift in our energy infrastructure, in 20 years the amount of energy produced from renewable energy will be 15.7 % of the total.

One of the reasons for the rapid increase in renewable energy is because solar panels are becoming cheap. There is a large manufacturing base, much of it in China, and this is rapidly reducing the cost of solar energy. This has set off much consternation in U.S. solar industry (interesting story on Talk of the Nation). Also as people really start to think about solar energy and move away from the naïve arguments that have driven the discussion for a decade, it becomes clear that solar can fit into the existing energy infrastructure. Solar can be placed on houses, and it can scale to large solar fields that can address peak energy capacity in Texas.

Growth – this growth in renewable energy use is hopeful, ultimately, for the climate change problem. Alternative energy takes care of part of our required economic growth. But it does not take all of the growth, and it does not displace the existing capacity for decades. Again, for the present time we, at best, aim to not get too far ahead of the historical emissions curve.

For now long trains of coal lumber along the rails from Colorado and Wyoming to Texas and the Gulf ports. Growth – we require growth for economic stability. We require growth to have an economy for growing populations. Growth – we require growth to support our investment strategies and credit-based businesses.

But back to Durban and the Conference of the Parties: There is a big issue for Durban. Back in 2009 for the meeting in Copenhagen, the big ticket item was supposed to be what would follow the Kyoto Protocol? Effectively the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, and for the countries that have made the attempt to reduce CO2, there would be interest in having some standards, some policy that follows. It would provide order, stability, continuity. It is unlikely that anything global will come from Durban. The way the U.N. works, I think that it is more likely that the Conference of Parties will cease to be in their current form than there will be any sort of global policy – even as a guideline.

More and more climate change moves to an issue of ethics and opportunity. In my course ethics is always a tough issue. In the climate change problem ethics often arise in the sense that the Island Nations which are being flooded are not the ones responsible for the rising seas. More generally, the rich CO2 emitting nations are not the ones that suffer the consequences most severely.

Ethical issues, however, are far broader that this simple rich-poor tension. One of the roles of environmental policy is to represent the ethical values of society. Ultimately, climate change, the control of emissions represents the importance that we give to consumption. This became even more clear to me in a recent article on the decline of the birthrate in Brazil in National Geographic. Brazil is an example of what is practically a truism, which is that economic development is associated with the reduction of birth rates. This is part of the mantra of those who advocate economic development as a precondition for addressing climate change (for example, The Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg). In that National Geographic article it is stated, however, that reduction of the growth of population is to allow more consumption, more use of energy, by a smaller number of people. (Note that Bjorn Lomborg is reportedly changing his evaluation of the climate change problem in a forthcoming book - article in Guardian.)

This consumption of much by a few is, of course, consistent with our history. While we point to growing population and growing CO2 emissions, the historical increase in CO2 emissions is only associated with a relatively small part of the population. And when we think about displaced consumption, meaning that much of the manufacturing in China and the developing world is to support consumption (cheap consumption) in the developed world, there is no reason to believe that economic development leads in any direct path to addressing the climate change problem. We can rest assured that we will pursue economic development more aggressively and directly than we will pursue mitigation to climate change.

In this framing, therefore, climate change is first and foremost a problem of ethics; that is, it is a problem of consumption, equitable consumption, excess consumption. If we have an imperative to consume, and I believe that as a whole we do, then we must have renewable energy; we must have resources whose use does not deplete and degrade the world.

This frames, strongly, both our history and our future. We will have to manage the climate. We are averse to geo-engineering, but we engineer a warmer and warmer climate every day. At the forefront we need to think about how to manage our waste, because there is little evidence that we are going to stop making our waste. Therefore, we must know how to remove carbon dioxide from the air and safely place it back into to the Earth. Likewise, at the forefront is the development of adaptation strategies that, globally, include less land, more extreme weather, and displaced people. All of these things are possible, and those with the foresight and the acumen to take advantage of opportunity will benefit. The benefactors will be those who look at the knowledge and are smart about using it – not the ones that look at the knowledge and deny its existence.

r


Prior to the Durban meeting the WMO issued its Provisional Statement of the Climate.

Here is the sub-title of the document

2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña on record, second-lowest Arctic sea ice extent. (and the link)





Figure 1: From WMO Provisional Statement. Temperature difference (anomaly) calculated for 1961-1990 average. La Niña years are marked. La Niña years should be cooler that average based on natural variability. 2010 was the warmest La Niña year on record, and the 10th warmest year on record.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 462 - 412

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

462. Marqueteer
11:02 PM GMT on January 15, 2012
Hello out there fellow humans,
There is truth in each and everyone of your very limited thoughts,this includes mine as well.
Now, THINK for a moment about your claims, pro and con as to climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it. To you skeptics are you really serious when you say that we humans are not effecting the climate, come on use your noodle instead of the other end to think, of course we are effecting change, its impossible not to. As for all you out there who are saying that if we continue on the path we are on the earth as we know it will be distroyed ,dah, how many times has that happened in earths history and what are you personally doing to stop it except bitching about it.
Member Since: April 17, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
461. Patrap
5:07 PM GMT on December 12, 2011
There are now 374 Giorni Days until the 2012 Winter Solstice.

Enjoy your Monday.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133394
460. cyclonebuster
1:41 PM GMT on December 12, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:



.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20673
459. cyclonebuster
1:39 PM GMT on December 12, 2011
Quoting Xandra:

One more Carl Sagan video,



Sadly Carl didn't know of this Link back then as I thought of the idea a few years before he died. This would have been his number one choice to stop the GHG blanket!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20673
458. Xandra
11:53 AM GMT on December 12, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:

One more Carl Sagan video,

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1830
457. Ossqss
1:04 AM GMT on December 12, 2011
Sunday between football intermission ?

BTW, this whole series is on Netflix.

Part 3, since there is really nothing to participate in here :>

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
456. Neapolitan
1:03 AM GMT on December 12, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
Neo, it's over. Nobody's going to buy it anymore. The Earth is cooling, the ice will surge past the mean. And it's going to happen very quickly. Your hopes for a socialist world are dying with the cooling and the demise of europe's economies. For a short time you will be able to find a picture or a graph that depicts your hopes, but in a few months even those will disappear.
Oh, before I forget, go "The Shepherd" yourself.

Seriously?!?!?! "The Earth is cooling"?! "The ice will surge past the mean"?! "It's going to happen very quickly."?! Oh, dear lord, stop the presses!!!!! Martinitony alone has found the truth that has escaped so many others!!!! Martinitony, you simply must share your findings and your data sources with the tens of thousands of earth scientists who obviously have access only to false information!!!!! All they have are millions of data points that indicate fast heating, rapid melting of polar and glacial ice, quick sea level rise, increasing ocean acidification!!! Those idiots!!!!! Please, for the good of the world, produce those data!!!! Of course, doing so will thwart the socialist plot that for some reason tens of thousands of scientists are all in on, but it'll be worth it!!!! You'll win the Nobel Prize for sure!!!!! The world will forever be grateful!!!!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
455. calypso404
10:41 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

Wait a sec. You're chastising a person who's been a member for 19 months--when you yourself have been registered (under this alias, at least) for a whopping four whole days?

Seriously? ;-)

I've found the majority of spbloom's climate change comments to be lucid, insightful, and spot-on. And anyone who is truly a "newbie" will soon recognize and agree with that, I think.


I suppose length of membership and agreement with you qualifies anything?

Member Since: December 7, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
454. LowerCal
7:00 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
387. parkplaza 6:18 PM PST on December 09, 2011 +4
Long time lurker. Decided to sign up a few days ago. Do don't get my sign-up date confused with all the rest of the trolls that are infesting the site. You guys seem like a passionate bunch. About a passionate subject!!

Neapolitan. First off. I love you posts and things you bring to the table. Rock on dude. Though I am not on your side of the battleline, I respect what you say. But your last post makes no sense. I remember cat5hurricane, Rusty whoever his name, and dbagjohn and their arguments. For years you put up with those quacks. While they put up quite a fight against you and won many of their fair share of arguments , I sure hope this calling a wounded duck out when he's down and clearly banned is not retaliation.

I like your posts, but don't want you to get banned or nothing either.

As to the rest of you guys, I hope to be part of the discussion as I take in more of this intriguing topic! A topic affecting us now and for the future.

Jimbo
Action: Quote | Ignore User
Member Since: December 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 0


".... the rest of the trolls ...."?

Interesting misspeaking on your part.
Member Since: July 26, 2006 Posts: 59 Comments: 9693
453. iceagecoming
6:28 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
The draft called for launching a negotiating process "to develop a legal framework applicable to all" after 2020.

But the language proved too soft for the Europeans, and Nkoana-Mashabane was drafting a new formula.

Both China and the U.S. have said publicly they would be amenable to the EU proposal to negotiate a post-2020 agreement, but each attached tough conditions.

The United States is concerned about conceding any competitive business advantage to China. Beijing is resisting any suggestion to change its status as a developing country, saying it still has hundreds of millions of impoverished people.

India, which lags behind China in development even though its economy also is expanding rapidly, was taking 'a relatively tough stand here,' Hedegaard said.

Negotiators said India and the U.S. softened their positions during the day, but that China has refused to affirm its future commitments will be regulated under the foreseen international regime.

The U.S., where climate change is a delicate issue for the administration of President Barack Obama, says it does not want to agree that it will accept binding commitments as part of a deal that has not yet been negotiated.

The content of the deal is more important than its legal standing, U.S. envoy Todd Stern has told reporters. Under Kyoto, rich countries are legally bound to reduce carbon emissions while developing countries take voluntary actions.

Hedegaard said the EU's proposal was intended to dismantle the 20th century division of the world into camps of rich and poor, and to make adjustments that reflect the realities of the 21st century balance of economic power — and emissions.

Three Kyoto countries — Japan, Canada and Russia — already have announced that they will not extend their reduction commitments for another period because of Kyoto's imbalances.


Hmmm in BOLD.

Whatever happened to that vision?

Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1140
452. greentortuloni
6:20 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
Neo, it's over. Nobody's going to buy it anymore. The Earth is cooling, the ice will surge past the mean. And it's going to happen very quickly. Your hopes for a socialist world are dying with the cooling and the demise of europe's economies. For a short time you will be able to find a picture or a graph that depicts your hopes, but in a few months even those will disappear.
Oh, before I forget, go "The Shepherd" yourself.


hee hee, you're an idiot. cling to your hopes of world fascism dictated by the oil boys. maybe they will even let you have a token job so you can struggle to pay for the problems your kids have growing up in a polluted environment.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
451. iceagecoming
6:13 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting Patrap:
Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes

New research into the Earth's paleoclimate history by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies director James E. Hansen suggests the potential for rapid climate changes this century, including multiple meters of sea level rise, if global warming is not abated.

By looking at how the Earth's climate responded to past natural changes, Hansen sought insight into a fundamental question raised by ongoing human-caused climate change: "What is the dangerous level of global warming?" Some international leaders have suggested a goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times in order to avert catastrophic change. But Hansen said at a press briefing at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco on Tues, Dec. 6, that warming of 2 degrees Celsius would lead to drastic changes, such as significant ice sheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica.

Based on Hansen's temperature analysis work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Earth's average global surface temperature has already risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880, and is now warming at a rate of more than .1 degree Celsius every decade. This warming is largely driven by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide, emitted by the burning of fossil fuels at power plants, in cars and in industry. At the current rate of fossil fuel burning, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have doubled from pre-industrial times by the middle of this century. A doubling of carbon dioxide would cause an eventual warming of several degrees, Hansen said.

In recent research, Hansen and co-author Makiko Sato, also of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, compared the climate of today, the Holocene, with previous similar "interglacial" epochs – periods when polar ice caps existed but the world was not dominated by glaciers. In studying cores drilled from both ice sheets and deep ocean sediments, Hansen found that global mean temperatures during the Eemian period, which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.

"The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient," Hansen said. "It would be a prescription for disaster."

Hansen focused much of his new work on how the polar regions and in particular the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland will react to a warming world.



Two degrees Celsius of warming would make Earth much warmer than during the Eemian, and would move Earth closer to Pliocene-like conditions, when sea level was in the range of 25 meters higher than today, Hansen said. In using Earth's climate history to learn more about the level of sensitivity that governs our planet's response to warming today, Hansen said the paleoclimate record suggests that every degree Celsius of global temperature rise will ultimately equate to 20 meters of sea level rise. However, that sea level increase due to ice sheet loss would be expected to occur over centuries, and large uncertainties remain in predicting how that ice loss would unfold.

Hansen notes that ice sheet disintegration will not be a linear process. This non-linear deterioration has already been seen in vulnerable places such as Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica, where the rate of ice mass loss has continued accelerating over the past decade. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite is already consistent with a rate of ice sheet mass loss in Greenland and West Antarctica that doubles every ten years. The GRACE record is too short to confirm this with great certainty; however, the trend in the past few years does not rule it out, Hansen said. This continued rate of ice loss could cause multiple meters of sea level rise by 2100, Hansen said.

Ice and ocean sediment cores from the polar regions indicate that temperatures at the poles during previous epochs – when sea level was tens of meters higher – is not too far removed from the temperatures Earth could reach this century on a "business as usual" trajectory.

"We don’t have a substantial cushion between today's climate and dangerous warming," Hansen said. "Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying feedbacks in response to moderate additional global warming."

Detailed considerations of a new warming target and how to get there are beyond the scope of this research, Hansen said. But this research is consistent with Hansen's earlier findings that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would need to be rolled back from about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere today to 350 parts per million in order to stabilize the climate in the long term. While leaders continue to discuss a framework for reducing emissions, global carbon dioxide emissions have remained stable or increased in recent years.

Hansen and others noted that while the paleoclimate evidence paints a clear picture of what Earth's earlier climate looked like, but that using it to predict precisely how the climate might change on much smaller timescales in response to human-induced rather than natural climate change remains difficult. But, Hansen noted, the Earth system is already showing signs of responding, even in the cases of "slow feedbacks" such as ice sheet changes.

The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they've never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels – a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about .0001 parts per million per year – in other words, one hundred parts per million every million years. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.

"Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales," Hansen said.



Patrick Lynch
NASA's Earth Science News Team



Vostok data seems to match ch4 with temp, not co2.
What else is new from occupier Hansen, not much except arrest record in Keystone debacle.






Source: data from the Vostok ice core, according to Petit, Fisher and many more
delta Ts (corr) is the corrected temperature, according to Jouzel ea.
Zero temperature is current average global temperature.
d18Oatm (measured in N2O) is inversely correlated with ice sheet formation (here already inverted, to show ice sheet growth and decline).
The garph is interesting, as it indicates that temperature and methane (CH4) levels were already near minimum and ice sheets were near maximum,
at around 113 kyr BP, before CO2 levels starts to decline. This points to a low influence of CO2 on temperature.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1140
450. martinitony
6:02 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting Patrap:


How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.

These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.

A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels."


More Here:


Your link is simply outdated.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
449. iceagecoming
5:54 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:



OUCH! Again you point out a regional condition which has little to do with a global warming problem.




Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.



Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.



Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.



Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world %u2014 including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
Record high temperatures increasing.


Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11
The carbon dioxide content of the Earth%u2019s oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent.


Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.


Link


Never mind that, get busy with your tunnels, I need a new investment direction.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1140
448. Patrap
5:26 PM GMT on December 11, 2011


How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.

These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.

A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels."


More Here:
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133394
447. martinitony
5:23 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
Neo, it's over. Nobody's going to buy it anymore. The Earth is cooling, the ice will surge past the mean. And it's going to happen very quickly. Your hopes for a socialist world are dying with the cooling and the demise of europe's economies. For a short time you will be able to find a picture or a graph that depicts your hopes, but in a few months even those will disappear.
Oh, before I forget, go "The Shepherd" yourself.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
446. overwash12
3:10 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
"lowest ever" ? Ever is a very long time,you mean since 1979 satellite era?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1498
445. Neapolitan
2:30 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
It's interesting to note that yet another ice record has been broken: last month saw global sea ice area reach its lowest maximum peak ever, as indicated by the black line:

Uh-oh

Ouch.

And in other ice news, Arctic Sea ice area (not extent, a different metric) continues scraping the bottom. In fact, given current conditions, it will fall below the 2007 minimum again this week, as seen below. The ice has already gained back about 7 million km2 of the 10 million km2 or so that'll be added, and since we're now about 2.5 months from the plateau, it's not so long until the melt starts again. My early guess is that 2012 will see more record lows, with an area around 2.6 or 2.7 million km2, and an extent of about 4.0 to 4.1 million km2. If not less. (It's sobering to consider that a child born today will almost certainly be witness to an ice-free Arctic by the time he or she is through with first grade.)

Uh-oh
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
444. Neapolitan
1:33 PM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting calypso404:
I'm a newbie. I have no problem with the appearance of comments. The Ignore User option is too convenient a feature to ignore.

Has anyone ever told you that you can be a tad overbearing?

Considering your born on date of May 2010, I wouldn't exactly think of you as an old timer having brought forth a treasure trove of knowledge or constructive debate to either support or question an author's blog entry.

Wait a sec. You're chastising a person who's been a member for 19 months--when you yourself have been registered (under this alias, at least) for a whopping four whole days?

Seriously? ;-)

I've found the majority of spbloom's climate change comments to be lucid, insightful, and spot-on. And anyone who is truly a "newbie" will soon recognize and agree with that, I think.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
443. martinitony
11:53 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Hey, Cyclone. What's it mean to be within one standard deviation? Do you know? If so, please explain.

Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
442. calypso404
11:01 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting spbloom:


I'd say it's a little more than just fluff for someone who's hitting 100k comments in the next day or two! :)

Anyway, possibly it's a non-issue for you personally, but the problem is the appearance of the comments to newbies or passersby. Some of us care about that.

Obviously Jeff does too, at least for the main blog, or he wouldn't have bothered with the purge.


I'm a newbie. I have no problem with the appearance of comments. The Ignore User option is too convenient a feature to ignore.

Has anyone ever told you that you can be a tad overbearing?

Considering your born on date of May 2010, I wouldn't exactly think of you as an old timer having brought forth a treasure trove of knowledge or constructive debate to either support or question an author's blog entry.

There are many popular blogs out there that do not allow the option of placing someone on ignore or even allow you to have your own blog, let alone allow you to ban someone you find bothersome from leaving a comment in your own blog entry.

When you think about it, the Weatherunderground is quite a remarkable opportunity to create your own space within a highly visited site and have your thoughts published worldwide.

Maybe you should just start your own blog entry here at Weatherunderground. Doing this allows you total control with who can post on your blog. It would also allow you a unique opportunity to capture the world with your knowledge.

Maybe Dr Rood and Dr Masters really don't care what you think. Is that concept too difficult to grasp? Or does your ego not allow you to accept being ignored?

Member Since: December 7, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
441. greentortuloni
7:18 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
All the warmists truly want is world government and more taxes. Not to mention that the only way we would achieve emissions this low is to ban motorized vehicles:

Link


I predicted this comment. All the NIMBY tools paint protecting your backyard as fascism/socialism/whatever.

But Gob forbid something goes near their house!
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
440. Patrap
6:03 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Tazaroo is our Chief Blogging Executive.

I shall put the request in, in triplicate too.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133394
439. BaltimoreBrian
6:01 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
You better check with Tazmanian to get those stock options approved ;)
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 10490
438. Patrap
5:56 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting spbloom:


I'd say it's a little more than just fluff for someone who's hitting 100k comments in the next day or two! :)

Anyway, possibly it's a non-issue for you personally, but the problem is the appearance of the comments to newbies or passersby. Some of us care about that.

Obviously Jeff does too, at least for the main blog, or he wouldn't have bothered with the purge.


Datz a good point.

100k...., Huh, seems like only 2500 a few years ago too.

I hope some stock options kick in or sumting.

: )




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133394
437. BaltimoreBrian
5:18 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
spbloom, call me cynical, but I wonder if the reason wunderground doesn't purge trolls more effectively is that they get boosted in rankings and advertisement revenues by all the hits the trolls generate.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 10490
436. spbloom
5:11 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting Patrap:
There is no problem.

If one dosent like a poster..use the iggy feature.


Easy as cake,

..er,wait, make dat 'pie'.



One can view the entries here on wu without enabling comments,..the entry is the important entity from a Scientist who openly shares his work and thought's with us.

Comments are just the sweet fluffy "tingular" extra's we get as a Bonus.




I'd say it's a little more than just fluff for someone who's hitting 100k comments in the next day or two! :)

Anyway, possibly it's a non-issue for you personally, but the problem is the appearance of the comments to newbies or passersby. Some of us care about that.

Obviously Jeff does too, at least for the main blog, or he wouldn't have bothered with the purge.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 447
435. BaltimoreBrian
4:54 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:


Sincerely from the Iatrolla Khomeni.


I'm using that :)

The troll infestation here is almost the worst I've seen. Sad.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 10490
434. Ossqss
1:28 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Worth the listen, even through the difficult audio. I enjoyed the old fellow's comments near the end :)

Nice assessment of the Monster Judith!



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
433. Patrap
12:45 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
There is no problem.

If one dosent like a poster..use the iggy feature.


Easy as cake,

..er,wait, make dat 'pie'.



One can view the entries here on wu without enabling comments,..the entry is the important entity from a Scientist who openly shares his work and thought's with us.

Comments are just the sweet fluffy "tingular" extra's we get as a Bonus.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133394
432. spbloom
12:34 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Hmm, where exactly is the control for hiding emails according to rating? Can't seem to find it.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 447
431. spbloom
12:26 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting Patrap:
One cant bang away on a Handle with Pluss's or Minuse's..as its a logic based algorithm.

If you repeatedly minus one member, the system recognizes that and will grey you out.

It works, and the abusers are noted by how well it works.
Thus the night of the purges 2 months ago.



There are now 376 days until the 2012 Winter Solstice.

Enjoy your Saturday


Part of the problem as I see it is that the system allows things to get bad enough to require a purge. Ricky's not interested in bothering with even that, apparently, so there's a remaining problem with this and perhaps other blogs.

An advantage to something along the lines of what I suggested would have the advantage of being self-policing for the whole site.

If you had your druthers, what changes would you make?
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 447
430. AlwaysThinkin
12:24 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Talk about bunk. All of that rubbish you continually post.

Link


Sincerely from the Iatrolla Khomeni.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
429. cyclonebuster
12:17 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Quoting Patrap:


How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.

These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.

A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels."


More Here:



Correct!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20673
428. cyclonebuster
12:12 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
This

Link

works as perfect as she sings! Computers will verify!


img src="">


.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20673
427. Patrap
12:00 AM GMT on December 11, 2011
Its warm, and getting warmer all da time.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133394
426. cyclonebuster
11:48 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20673
425. Ossqss
11:43 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
Quoting Patrap:
Once you've submitted, and the system has processed your new list, you'll be troll free and living the good life.

Living the "Good Life" since 2008

Stay Blogging my friend's






Necessity eh!
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
424. martinitony
11:40 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
Responding to Idontknow

Sounds like the mentally challenged Marxists have taken charge down there.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
423. JupiterKen
11:38 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
Pete,

I don't believe I know anyone who is a holocaust denier (except for that moron in Iran) or what their comments are. As a wild guess, I think I would tend to disagree.

And, you asked me if I thought "holocaust denial or anti-semitism was wrong". Although your question in no way has anything to do with climate change and I have no idea what you are trying to prove, I will answer. The holocaust did happen and I am not anti-semitic.





Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
422. overwash12
11:37 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
History gets distorted over time. Just like in a couple of centuries from now,It will be labeled as The Great Global Warming Scare of the Early 21st century!LOL
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1498
420. petewxwatcher
11:13 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
JupiterKen I asked you what you thought about comment 405 linking to a holocaust denier for his news source.

JupiterKen do you believe that an anti-semitic holocaust denier is a reliable source? All I am asking.

Seems to me if you thought that holocaust denial or anti-semitism was wrong, you would already have said so.

Do you agree with people who rely on holocaust deniers and anti-semites for their news?
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
419. JupiterKen
11:09 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
Quoting petewxwatcher:
Evidently. My comments are simple and clear.

The troll posting comment 405 uses a holocaust denier as a news source. Do you approve of using holocaust deniers as news sources?
Why are you associating me or my posts with 405? I commented on post 408. If you have a point to make to me, I suggest you make it. Are you off your feed?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
418. petewxwatcher
11:08 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
I think global warming deniers who rely on anti-semitic holocaust deniers are contemptible.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
417. petewxwatcher
11:03 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
Evidently. My comments are simple and clear.

The troll posting comment 405 uses a holocaust denier as a news source. Do you approve of using holocaust deniers as news sources?
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
416. JupiterKen
11:01 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
Quoting petewxwatcher:
JupiterKen do you believe a holocaust denier makes a reliable source for the denier side?
What are you going on about? You are too clever for me because your comment makes no sense.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
415. petewxwatcher
10:59 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
JupiterKen and martinitony do you believe that people who rely on holocaust deniers for news are decent normal people?
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
414. petewxwatcher
10:58 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
JupiterKen do you believe a holocaust denier makes a reliable source for the denier side?
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
413. JupiterKen
10:56 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
Re: 408 - April Fools?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
412. petewxwatcher
10:56 PM GMT on December 10, 2011
No fabrications JupiterKen. Although we had some nice postings about deniers fabricating data last week.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392

Viewing: 462 - 412

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog 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.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
62 °F
Scattered Clouds

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.