The World Four Degrees Warmer: A New Analysis from the World Bank

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:00 AM GMT on November 19, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

The World Four Degrees Warmer: A New Analysis from the World Bank

I ended my last article with the idea that our motivation to address climate change would likely be a series of climate disasters. Each hit will be a blow, and each blow will cause us to accumulate a bit more climate fatigue.

Back in 2011 I changed my class, and I started to teach that we needed to prepare for a world four degrees Celsius warmer. I felt that describing that warm world and developing adaptation strategies would make the climate change problem more concrete. It would make the costs more real and bring the problem home to cities, communities, and people. It would motivate technology, solutions. Ultimately, I feel it will motivate us to take the reduction of greenhouse gases more seriously.

Originally, much of my material was taken from a special issue of The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. In the Introduction by Mark New and colleagues, they argue that the projected rate of population growth and our current warming trajectory work to maximize stress at the same time. With warming approaching four degrees, stress on resources and human systems related to climate change become comparable to those from population stress.

Today a new report from the World Bank gives an analysis of the world four degrees warmer and comes to the conclusion that “a 4 degree Celsius warmer world must be avoided.” (PDF of Report). If the average increase of the global surface temperature is 4 degrees, then the regional changes will be much higher. In the analysis by the World Bank, they point out that the geographical size of regions of extreme heat and drought has increased and will increase significantly. This change in area is in concert with increased frequency of occurrence. The regional changes in the summer in the continental United States will be of order six degrees Celsius, say ten degrees Fahrenheit. Think about the last two summers in the United States, and add ten degrees.

The World Bank is worried about development and poverty. They spend much of the report analyzing the intersection of climate change, climate stress, population, and population stress. For example, water stress related to both precipitation and increasing temperature occurs in regions of increasing population, where stress is already high. This brings attention that this is a problem of population and climate change, not one or the other. The report talks about the compounded effects of drought, flood, extreme weather, people, and vulnerability. The report states, “A 4°C world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally. It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today.” Each hit will be a blow, and each blow will cause us to accumulate a bit more climate fatigue.

And in the language of development bankers and economists: “Projections of damage costs for climate change impacts typically assess the costs of local damages, including infrastructure, and do not provide an adequate consideration of cascade effects (for example, value-added chains and supply networks) at national and regional scales. However, in an increasingly globalized world that experiences further specialization in production systems, and thus higher dependency on infrastructure to deliver produced goods, damages to infrastructure systems can lead to substantial indirect impacts. Seaports are an example of an initial point where a breakdown or substantial disruption in infrastructure facilities could trigger impacts that reach far beyond the particular location of the loss.”

The message of this report is that when considering the cost of a world four degrees warmer and the overlap of that warmer world with people, our built infrastructure, and fragile countries, then we must take the steps to avoid that warmer world. And, that is likely to be four degrees on the way to six degrees.

Next, I will consider this report in context of the International Energy Agency report North America leads shift in global energy balance, IEA says in latest World Energy Outlook.

r



New World Bank Report on a world four degrees warmer.

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: 76 - 26

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

76. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
2:58 AM GMT on November 27, 2012
RickyRood has created a new entry.
75. OldLeatherneck
2:54 AM GMT on November 27, 2012
Well gang, I'm back after an almost 3 month absence from blogging. Between local political activities (Election Judge), political fundraisers (The Good Guy Won!!), multiple charitible fundraising events for local scholarships and the arts as well as taking the on-line Sustainability Course from the University of Illinois, I've been too busy to participate in active blogging. However, I've been lurking frequently, so I know that the cast of characters hasn't changed much.

I'll start by copying what I just posted on Dr. Masters main blog a few minutes ago:

For Those Who Continually Lambast Dr. Masters for Discussing AGW/Climate Change

While it's been a few months since I've had the time to engage in any discussions on this forum, I have been lurking frequently. I'm still aghast at the number of individuals (deniers/skeptics/trolls) who continually bash and denigrate Dr. Masters for his posts that provide information and data that leads an educated person to believe that the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary cause.

For those of you that are still skeptical or still in denial, I have a series of questions for you to consider:

1. Do you have Dr. Master's first-hand experience tracking and forecasting tropical weather events?

2. Do you have a PhD in meteorology from a prestigious university?

3. Do you have Dr. Master's implicit and tacit knowledge about how a warming climate could impact regional and global weather patterns?

4. Have you, like Dr. Masters, had the business acumen and entrepreneurial spirit to start a business which has achieved the success of the Weather Underground?

5. If you have answered NO to 3 or 4 of the above questions,do you at least have some college-level education, beyond freshman introductory courses, in either a scientific or engineering discipline?

If you have answered NO to all 5 questions, you are entirely dependant on media sources for your scientific information. Are your sources peer-reviewed scientific journals and credible science-oriented websites or are they just cable news channels and talk-radio, hosted by individuals with little or no formal education beyond high school?

I am making the assumption that the motivation for Dr. Masters frequent posts on this topic is that he is genuinely concerned about what is happening to the earth's climate. I'm almost certain he is not getting on the "AGW Bandwagon" for any financial gain. I honestly believe that he is more more concerned about the earth we are leaving for his children and grandchildren than any financial or political considerations!
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 187
74. yoboi
1:24 AM GMT on November 27, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"Although most can make the distinction between facts and opinion." - Oh, how I wish that was true. The main intent of conveying an opinion is to try to convince your audience that these are the facts. They already know that we each have an opinion. They want your opinion to be based on their opinion and will not be so easily persuaded to say that what they are saying is also only an opinion. Does Anthony Watts, a prior Fox climate guest, state as fact or as opinion? Does the Fox host say before the show that the following guest is not a climatologist? They may introduce Watts as a "renown meteorologist", but this is only to offer some sense of authenticity and not a true disclaimer.


all tv networks do it, true reporting is long gone....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3070
73. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:21 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
59. Some1Has2BtheRookie 7:12 PM GMT on November 26, 2012

Fox News is an information service. Facts should always be relayed as accurately as possible. Opinions should be announced as such.

Agree with your post, Rookie. But wanted to touch upon what I put in italics above:

If your familiar with Fox's website, it does have a very large section reversed for opinion. It even labels this clearly on the page. Facts are facts. Opinion are opinions. Agree. Maybe they need a disclaimer is what you are saying?? I guess maybe that would help. Although most can make the distinction between facts and opinion. But ESPECIALLY when it's broken off into two very different sections on the webpage.


"Although most can make the distinction between facts and opinion." - Oh, how I wish that was true. The main intent of conveying an opinion is to try to convince your audience that these are the facts. They already know that we each have an opinion. They want your opinion to be based on their opinion and will not be so easily persuaded to say that what they are saying is also only an opinion. Does Anthony Watts, a prior Fox climate guest, state as fact or as opinion? Does the Fox host say before the show that the following guest is not a climatologist? They may introduce Watts as a "renown meteorologist", but this is only to offer some sense of authenticity and not a true disclaimer.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822
72. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:08 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Thank you. I have been on that side of the fence for quite so time.

On the fox news thing. Prime time on fox is all opinion based shows and not news, just like the opinion in the WSJ but it makes a better headline for the wackos to read Fox News lies about climate 93% of the time.

It is the same thing as the folks on here always saying 97% of scientist agree on AGWT. Then you study it a little and find out it was a sample size of less than 80 scientists not hundreds or thousands like they would have you believe the sample size was.


You can have your doubts about how much of the warming is by natural causes and how much of the warming is due to our own actions. While you are wading through these doubts, here are some things for you to ponder over:

1. What natural variations of the climate have come into play that would account for the current warming trends? Remember, short term variations will have short term impacts.
2. How does the AGWT violate of The Laws of Physics?
3. How does the AGWT violate any of the Laws of Thermodynamics?
4. How does the AGWT violate any of the Laws of Chemistry?
5. How does CO2 not become a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere?
6. How does our emitting of CO2 behave differently from natural causes of CO2 that it is not also a greenhouse gas?
7. How is it that the fastest CO2 level increase comes from the CO2 markers found in the burning of fossil fuels?

You know that I have more. Would you like to read them now, or would you like to wait until you have had the time to answer these questions first?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822
71. Daisyworld
8:58 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting nymore:
[...] It is the same thing as the folks on here always saying 97% of scientist agree on AGWT. Then you study it a little and find out it was a sample size of less than 80 scientists not hundreds or thousands like they would have you believe the sample size was.


nymore: That's not true. The paper you are incorrectly citing, Anderegg et al 2010, had an original sample size of 1,372 climate researchers. You're suggesting that just because they looked at different sub-samples of that 1,379 for further analysis and additional conclusions, that somehow their premise is only based on a few researchers. This is misrepresenting the facts.



Quoting nymore:
Thank you. I have been on that side of the fence for quite so time.

On the fox news thing. Prime time on fox is all opinion based shows and not news, just like the opinion in the WSJ but it makes a better headline for the wackos to read Fox News lies about climate 93% of the time. [...]


I'm more inclined to believe the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is a nonprofit that has actual scientists on their board of directors, rather than FoxNews, which is very much a for-profit institution, and increases their profit margin by telling their audience what they WANT to hear, and not necessarily what reality is.



Quoting auburn:
I just dont understand why its so hard to perhaps phantom the proposition that GW could be a combination of both natural and man made..


The peer-reviewed literature has NEVER suggested that GW is NOT a mix of natural and manmade components. What is in dispute between the climate scientists and denialist industry is HOW MUCH. It all comes down to the numbers, and when you state "combination of both natural and man made", that ALSO misrepresent the facts, because it IGNORES THE NUMBERS. It suggests the ratio is 50/50, when it is NOT.


Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 907
70. nymore
8:04 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting auburn:
I just dont understand why its so hard to perhaps phantom the proposition that GW could be a combination of both natural and man made..
Thank you. I have been on that side of the fence for quite so time.

On the fox news thing. Prime time on fox is all opinion based shows and not news, just like the opinion in the WSJ but it makes a better headline for the wackos to read Fox News lies about climate 93% of the time.

It is the same thing as the folks on here always saying 97% of scientist agree on AGWT. Then you study it a little and find out it was a sample size of less than 80 scientists not hundreds or thousands like they would have you believe the sample size was.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
68. auburn (Mod)
7:56 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
I just dont understand why its so hard to perhaps phantom the proposition that GW could be a combination of both natural and man made..
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 548 Comments: 51193
67. auburn (Mod)
7:53 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
No, aubie. I know you are not fighting. Not to worry.

Thats good to hear :)
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 548 Comments: 51193
64. yoboi
7:35 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting georgevandenberghe:

how about this analogy; if your in a boat that is sinking and you have a bucket do you keep saying the boat is sinking until it has sunk??? or do you use the bucket to bail out the water to keep from sinking???



No you deny the boat is sinking or

you vociferously assert that boats have sunk for thousands of years
and it's natural or

You assert that efforts to bail drain energy from efforts to make the
passengers more comfortable or

You argue that more study is needed on whether bailing is really needed

or

if one end starts to sink more you point to the other end and say it's actually higher out of the water (at least for now)

while also arguing that

your collective jumping up and down on the bottom of the boat with spiked shoes that pierced the hull (which you're still doing) has nothing to do with the current "temporary" trend towards sinking.


It may also help you feel better for a little while if you try to throw the people who say it is sinking overboard.




so ya don't use the bucket????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3070
63. 1911maker
7:32 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20408 350

Link

.
.
.
One of the report's authors, Andre Jol, head of the EEA's vulnerability and adaptation group, added: "We know that the main increase in damage costs from natural disasters has not been from climate change, as such, but more as a result of an increase in wealth, people and infrastructure in risk areas.

"But one of the key messages from the report is that in the future, with projected increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme events, we know that climate change will contribute to the increase in the cost of damage from extreme events."
.
.
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
61. georgevandenberghe
7:26 PM GMT on November 26, 2012

how about this analogy; if your in a boat that is sinking and you have a bucket do you keep saying the boat is sinking until it has sunk??? or do you use the bucket to bail out the water to keep from sinking???



No you deny the boat is sinking or

you vociferously assert that boats have sunk for thousands of years
and it's natural or

You assert that efforts to bail drain energy from efforts to make the
passengers more comfortable or

You argue that more study is needed on whether bailing is really needed

or

if one end starts to sink more you point to the other end and say it's actually higher out of the water (at least for now)

while also arguing that

your collective jumping up and down on the bottom of the boat with spiked shoes that pierced the hull (which you're still doing) has nothing to do with the current "temporary" trend towards sinking.


It may also help you feel better for a little while if you try to throw the people who say it is sinking overboard.

Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 19 Comments: 2759
60. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:16 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting yoboi:



i was just asking if you would use the bucket or not...had nothing to do with fox...


True, yoboi. I was still thinking about my comments to Tomball concerning Fox. I apologize to you.

Yes I will bail water with my hands, if need be.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822
59. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:12 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Canada isn't the U.S. of A, aubie.

I disagree. I wouldn't want posters on here being jailed for lying about Fox, making assertions that they knowingly and deliberately lie to their constituents. That would take the fun out of engaging in discussions with these folk(s). We all share that right to express our beliefs, views, opinions, and thoughts about particular subjects. We also share the freedom and liberty to refute, rebut, and present our own facts and thoughts to counter another individual's statement(s).

Freedom of speech is a great liberty.


"I wouldn't want posters on here being jailed for lying about Fox, making assertions that they knowingly and deliberately lie to their constituents." - In order to make this claim stand up in a court of law Fox would have to first show that Fox is not guilty of the claim.

As for the rest of your post, this is not true when presented as information of fact. To say that there is no bomb in the building when you do not know this to be true and has the potential to cost lives, then you will questioned later. Making a statement as an opinion is one thing. To make a claim as fact and it is not fact is another. Fox News is an information service. Facts should always be relayed as accurately as possible. Opinions should be announced as such.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822
58. yoboi
6:59 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I would bail water with the bucket. How does this analogy relate to what Fox reports? Fox is denying access to the bucket for those that choose to bail? Not really, but they try to keep the bucket a secret.



i was just asking if you would use the bucket or not...had nothing to do with fox...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3070
57. auburn (Mod)
6:47 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Canada isn't the U.S. of A, aubie.

and Rupert Murdoch isnt American..he was born in Australia..and the second largest shareholder is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal..
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 548 Comments: 51193
56. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:39 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting yoboi:




how about this analogy; if your in a boat that is sinking and you have a bucket do you keep saying the boat is sinking until it has sunk??? or do you use the bucket to bail out the water to keep from sinking???


I would bail water with the bucket. How does this analogy relate to what Fox reports? Fox is denying access to the bucket for those that choose to bail? Not really, but they try to keep the bucket a secret.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822
55. auburn (Mod)
6:38 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Canada isn't the U.S. of A, aubie.

I disagree. I wouldn't want posters on here being jailed for lying about Fox, making assertions that they knowingly and deliberately lie to their constituents. That would take the fun out of engaging in discussions with these folk(s).

Freedom of speech is a great liberty.


So your saying the media having the freedom to lie to millions of people is more important than the truth as long as it fits the agenda that you want to hear?
I am not trying to pick a fight with you,I just dont understand why you wouldn't want the truth on the information you receive from the media.
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 548 Comments: 51193
53. auburn (Mod)
6:22 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
38. misanthrope 10:45 PM GMT on November 23, 2012

Oh Gee. If that isn't a page torn right out of the MichaelSTL playbook, SSI, I mean, misanthrope. If I only had a dime for the number of times I see that nonsense.

To repeat: I want convincing evidence that Fox knowingly and deliberately lies to it's millions of viewers. Until I see that, well.....

#inept


Fox News banned from Canada..Canada’s Radio Act requires that “a licenser may not broadcast … any false or misleading news.” The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage, including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987.

We do need better news. Too bad it is legal to lie in the USA
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 548 Comments: 51193
52. yoboi
6:16 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Some things never change. Such as your countless links to junk science.

Who is Ross McKitrick? Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist. There you have it folks. Would Anthony Watts invite a true climatologist to his show to discuss the AGWT? Me thinks not. That would not work out well for his general theme of psuedo-science based "knowledge".

"Plane and simple." - Yeah, you are right. Your habitual posts of non science based and ideologically driven thinking simply will not fly. Is that not yet plain enough for you to see? ... Fly back and visit, when you can gather some actual science to share with us.

"The fact that the globe has not warmed in over 16 years, and yet CO2 has risen, fails the moment for the activists." - Let me see if I can offer you an analogy that you might more easily understand? When an alcoholic has not had a drink in 16 years, the person is still an alcoholic. The problem still persists even though it is being masked by the lack of alcohol being consumed.

Added -

I thought you would have been back by now, Ossqss. I am sure that you would want to show how an economist relates the costs of action by us now to mitigate AGW. Any economist that would be worth listening to would also show the associated future costs of inaction by is now. But, as we both know, Anthony Watts would not have had him as a featured guest if he had brought this up. So, is Ross McKitrick an economist that should be listened to, or is he just someone else with an agenda to hide the real truth?




how about this analogy; if your in a boat that is sinking and you have a bucket do you keep saying the boat is sinking until it has sunk??? or do you use the bucket to bail out the water to keep from sinking???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 3070
51. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:13 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Here is what you can do, Tomball. You can listen to what Fox reports concerning climate change and then compare this with the science. Should Fox be reporting different from what the actual science is then there are two distinct possibilities.

1. Fox has not gained the knowledge concerning climate change. The knowledge is easily enough obtained.

or

2. Fox is knowledgeable about the science and has made a conscious effort to lie about.

Once you have checked what Fox reports as to their claims on climate change and what the actual science shows us, then you will be able to decide, for yourself, if Fox is lying or is just uneducated on the subject at hand. This way you will need not feel compelled to accept anyone's determination on this. You will be able to determine this for yourself.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822
49. Daisyworld
5:17 PM GMT on November 26, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
43:

I asked for scientific evidence, not that stuff. Until I see scientific evidence regarding Fox News from either you or Neapolitan, guess what? Your argument doesn't hold any water.

#inept


Tomball:

The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists is located here:
Is News Corp. Failing Science?

And the article that summarizes it is available at LiveScience here:
Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

You should do some research on your own before you call someone "inept".
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 907
45. cyclonebuster
10:20 PM GMT on November 25, 2012
Quoting Xandra:
The History of Climate Change Negotiations in 83 seconds



Better if the scissors were bucks.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20508
44. Xandra
10:04 PM GMT on November 25, 2012
The History of Climate Change Negotiations in 83 seconds

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1512
43. Xandra
2:28 AM GMT on November 25, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:

[...]But since I see the same old baseless, frivolous nonsense that is completely void of any grounded evidence to support the claim that Fox lies to it's viewers and is not honest with regards to science[...]

Unlike your baseless nonsense, I am using facts and the facts is that UCS’s analysis finds that:

Ninety-three percent of Fox News Channel's representations of climate science were misleading from February 2012 to July 2012 (37 out of 40 references).

TYPES OF ARGUMENTS USED TO MISLEAD ON CLIMATE SCIENCE

Fox News Channel hosts and guests often made multiple arguments against climate science in the same segment. The most common form of criticism regarding climate science on Fox News Channel was to broadly dismiss the scientific conclusion that climate change is occurring or human-induced. Instances of disparaging scientists were not found in this six-month snapshot, although such instances have occurred on Fox News Channel in the past (Fox News 2012). Disparaging and mocking climate science was relatively common in this sample, including suggestions that climate change is a hoax. But fewer instances of cherry-picking were found. In addition, 10 citations were included in which a panel member expressed acceptance of climate science findings but was drowned out by hosts or other panel members who responded with multiple misleading claims.

Frequency of types of misleading representations made about climate science among 37 misleading citations on Fox News Channel February to July 2012



Source: Is News Corp. Failing Science?
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1512
42. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:37 AM GMT on November 24, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


I think the folks finally know that sounding an alarm that cannot be backed up doesn't work. Dr. Masters and Rood know that for certain.

Until the message that is attempted to be conveyed can be truly validated in a manner that means something to the populous, you waste our time.

The fact that the globe has not warmed in over 16 years, and yet CO2 has risen, fails the moment for the activists. Plane and simple.

If you want to get peoples attention, no matter how many millions you think are paying attention, you must do the math to make your point.

Here is a sample of what was recently done to help with the true understanding that is necessary to help people make decisions on such.

Yep, it was fair and balanced. Unlike what we get here.

Enough said, enjoy your weekend and pay attention to the numbers folks.





Some things never change. Such as your countless links to junk science.

Who is Ross McKitrick? Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist. There you have it folks. Would Anthony Watts invite a true climatologist to his show to discuss the AGWT? Me thinks not. That would not work out well for his general theme of psuedo-science based "knowledge".

"Plane and simple." - Yeah, you are right. Your habitual posts of non science based and ideologically driven thinking simply will not fly. Is that not yet plain enough for you to see? ... Fly back and visit, when you can gather some actual science to share with us.

"The fact that the globe has not warmed in over 16 years, and yet CO2 has risen, fails the moment for the activists." - Let me see if I can offer you an analogy that you might more easily understand? When an alcoholic has not had a drink in 16 years, the person is still an alcoholic. The problem still persists even though it is being masked by the lack of alcohol being consumed.

Added -

I thought you would have been back by now, Ossqss. I am sure that you would want to show how an economist relates the costs of action by us now to mitigate AGW. Any economist that would be worth listening to would also show the associated future costs of inaction by is now. But, as we both know, Anthony Watts would not have had him as a featured guest if he had brought this up. So, is Ross McKitrick an economist that should be listened to, or is he just someone else with an agenda to hide the real truth?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822
41. Ossqss
2:47 AM GMT on November 24, 2012
Quoting Patrap:
MASTERMIND: Dr. Jeff Masters
TANYA MUZUMDAR | WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2011




Dr. Jeff Masters, co-founder and director of meteorology at Weather Underground, has built a site that wraps his mind around the tragicomedy of whatever the atmosphere throws at us. Masters co-founded the Internet's first weather site back in 1995, and today Wunderground.com is visited by 17 million people worldwide (13 million in the U.S.) each month, ranking second only to Weather.com in U.S. web traffic. It's the 77th-most visited site in the U.S., according to Quantcast, and depending on turns of the weather, has been ranked as high as 52nd, Masters says.


Needless to say, after posting his conclusions, bundles of hate mail get dropped into his lap. But the evidence, Masters believes, is unmistakable.

"The planet is warming. Pretty much nobody disputes that. Even the skeptics," he argues. "And it is warming in ways that can only be the case if human caused emissions of heat-trapping gases are responsible. Warming is greater at the poles than on the rest of the planet. There's cooling in the stratosphere going on which you wouldn't expect to see if it were some other cause. The spring is coming earlier each year, species are moving northwards in response to the warming, and the nighttime and wintertime warming is more than the daytime and summertime warming. All these factors are consistent with what you'd expect to see from a warming planet that's due to human effect."


I think the folks finally know that sounding an alarm that cannot be backed up doesn't work. Dr. Masters and Rood know that for certain.

Until the message that is attempted to be conveyed can be truly validated in a manner that means something to the populous, you waste our time.

The fact that the globe has not warmed in over 16 years, and yet CO2 has risen, fails the moment for the activists. Plane and simple.

If you want to get peoples attention, no matter how many millions you think are paying attention, you must do the math to make your point.

Here is a sample of what was recently done to help with the true understanding that is necessary to help people make decisions on such.

Yep, it was fair and balanced. Unlike what we get here.

Enough said, enjoy your weekend and pay attention to the numbers folks.



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
37. cyclonebuster
7:36 PM GMT on November 23, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
33. Xandra 4:42 PM GMT on November 23, 2012

Hey, Xandra. I see you never responded to my previous inquiry regarding what you posted in Dr. Master's earlier blog today, but that's alright.

If you don't mind, I am going to ask this again. And don't feel compelled to answer. No biggie.

But since I see the same old baseless, frivolous nonsense that is completely void of any grounded evidence to support the claim that Fox lies to it's viewers and is not honest with regards to science, I would still like to kick this around a bit. If that was really what Fox News was doing, that is, fabricating the truth (which they are not), what would be their intention of doing so? Why would they do this?

And please, everyone is invited to share your input. In fact, the more the merrier. I would honestly like to hear from everyone.


The idiots referred to climate change as non-science..... "How To Stand Up To Al Gore" title.... "Their Baseless Global Warming Adgenda" "Fair And Balanced" for skeptics I suppose but not for America....No wonder why Romney lost....What fools FOX NEWS is........Obama is sitting in his white house chair smoking a cigarette,having a beer and laughing at their stupidity....

Link


..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20508
34. cyclonebuster
5:55 PM GMT on November 23, 2012
Quoting Xandra:

Got Science? Not at News Corporation

Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages are overwhelmingly misleading

In 2007, News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch claimed coverage of climate change in his media outlets %u2014 which include Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal opinion pages %u2014 would improve over time.

Such improvement has not been achieved. A 2012 snapshot analysis shows that recent coverage of climate science in both outlets has been overwhelmingly misleading.

The analysis finds that the misleading citations include broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and disparaging comments about individual scientists. Furthermore, much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.

Fox News Channel Coverage of Climate Science

Millions of Americans get information about climate science from the Fox News Channel. In 2011, it was the most popular cable news channel in the United States. During prime time, a median of more than 1.9 million people watched it.

%u2022 Ninety-three percent of Fox News Channel's representations of climate science were misleading from February 2012 to July 2012 (37 out of 40 references).

%u2022 The most common form of criticism regarding climate science was to broadly dismiss the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring or human-induced.

%u2022 Misleading representations also included 10 instances in which a panel member expressed acceptance of climate science findings, but was drowned out by hosts or other panel members responding with multiple misleading claims.

Wall Street Journal Opinion Page Coverage of Climate Science

The Wall Street Journal has a broad readership and enjoys the largest circulation among American newspapers %u2014 more than 2 million daily readers. Within the Journal, the opinion section operates separately from the news section.

%u2022 Eighty-one percent of letters, op-eds, columns, and editorials in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page were misleading on climate science from August 2011 to July 2012 (39 of 48 references).

%u2022 Most of the misleading editorials, op-eds, columns, and letters attempted to broadly undermine the major conclusions of climate science. Instances of attacks on individual scientists, mocking the science, and cherry picking data were all equally common.

%u2022 Denigration of climate science was routine. Instances included accusations that scientists were fudging data and claims that they are motivated by financial self-interest.

Examples of Misleading References to Climate Science

%u201CThe green energy stuff%u2014I mean, that%u2019s%u2014that%u2019s all a hoax and a fraud based on another hoax and fraud, global warming.%u201D (Fox News Channel, 3/23/12)

%u201CWe are in the middle of what you might call a global warming bubble. It is a failure of the global warming theory itself and of the credibility of its advocates%u2026%u201D (Wall Street Journal column, 3/9/2012)

%u201CThe lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade%u2026%u201D (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 5/27/12)

%u201CI thought we were getting warmer. But in the %u201870s, it was, look out, we%u2019re all going to freeze.%u201D (Fox News Channel, 4/11/12)


Coverage of Climate Action Also Overwhelmingly Negative

%u2022 Although the analysis focused primarily on representations of climate science, it also found that both outlets placed heavy emphasis on negative coverage of climate action aimed at reducing global warming emissions, including personal lifestyle decisions as well as government policies.



Source: The Union of Concerned Scientists


Where do those FOX blathering boneheads get all that misinformation and report on it? No wonder why Romney lost the election... If Romney picked Marko Rubio he would have won the Latino vote across the country and dummy FOX NEWS didn't supported that. Romney's stupidity on climate change and his thinking clean coal is clean energy also cost him many votes. Let me tell you FOX NEWS you cost him his election due to your own stupidity. America is smarter than you FOX NEWS.It is time for you to wake up and learn some science instead of listening to NON-SCIENCE and then report on it........BTW I still voted for Romney but for different reasons...It was a very hard decision for me.......In retrospect my vote was a mistake..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20508
33. Xandra
4:46 PM GMT on November 23, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Both Sean Hannity and Chris Tangey are incredibly stupid on fossil fuel GHG's....


Link


Both idiots think non-science is going on..

Got Science? Not at News Corporation

Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages are overwhelmingly misleading

In 2007, News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch claimed coverage of climate change in his media outlets — which include Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal opinion pages — would improve over time.

Such improvement has not been achieved. A 2012 snapshot analysis shows that recent coverage of climate science in both outlets has been overwhelmingly misleading.

The analysis finds that the misleading citations include broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and disparaging comments about individual scientists. Furthermore, much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.

Fox News Channel Coverage of Climate Science

Millions of Americans get information about climate science from the Fox News Channel. In 2011, it was the most popular cable news channel in the United States. During prime time, a median of more than 1.9 million people watched it.

• Ninety-three percent of Fox News Channel's representations of climate science were misleading from February 2012 to July 2012 (37 out of 40 references).

• The most common form of criticism regarding climate science was to broadly dismiss the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring or human-induced.

• Misleading representations also included 10 instances in which a panel member expressed acceptance of climate science findings, but was drowned out by hosts or other panel members responding with multiple misleading claims.

Wall Street Journal Opinion Page Coverage of Climate Science

The Wall Street Journal has a broad readership and enjoys the largest circulation among American newspapers — more than 2 million daily readers. Within the Journal, the opinion section operates separately from the news section.

• Eighty-one percent of letters, op-eds, columns, and editorials in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page were misleading on climate science from August 2011 to July 2012 (39 of 48 references).

• Most of the misleading editorials, op-eds, columns, and letters attempted to broadly undermine the major conclusions of climate science. Instances of attacks on individual scientists, mocking the science, and cherry picking data were all equally common.

• Denigration of climate science was routine. Instances included accusations that scientists were fudging data and claims that they are motivated by financial self-interest.

Examples of Misleading References to Climate Science

“The green energy stuff—I mean, that’s—that’s all a hoax and a fraud based on another hoax and fraud, global warming.” (Fox News Channel, 3/23/12)

“We are in the middle of what you might call a global warming bubble. It is a failure of the global warming theory itself and of the credibility of its advocates…” (Wall Street Journal column, 3/9/2012)

“The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade…” (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 5/27/12)

“I thought we were getting warmer. But in the ‘70s, it was, look out, we’re all going to freeze.” (Fox News Channel, 4/11/12)


Coverage of Climate Action Also Overwhelmingly Negative

• Although the analysis focused primarily on representations of climate science, it also found that both outlets placed heavy emphasis on negative coverage of climate action aimed at reducing global warming emissions, including personal lifestyle decisions as well as government policies.



Source: The Union of Concerned Scientists
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1512
32. cyclonebuster
3:05 AM GMT on November 23, 2012
Both Sean Hannity and Chris Tangey are incredibly stupid on fossil fuel GHG's....


Link


Both idiots think non-science is going on..

...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20508
31. Xandra
11:48 PM GMT on November 22, 2012
Quoting pintada:

[...]Kevin Anderson deserves all the praise anyone can give him.

VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT OF KEVIN ANDERSON'S CABOT LECTURE:

Real clothes for the Emperor: Facing the challenges of climate change

Scientists and officials are not telling the public the awful truth: we are hurtling toward catastrophic climate change. A review, summary and critique of an earth-breaking speech by Prof. Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre in Britain. Speaking to the Cabot Institute in Bristol November 6th, Anderson told the sold-out crowd our future is not possible.

Transcript [PDF, 125.8 KB]
Powerpoint presentation [PDF, 1.6 MB]



When I look at this [carbon emissions] data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet”

– Fatih Bihrol (2012) Chief economist at the International Energy Agency
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1512
30. cyclonebuster
11:25 PM GMT on November 22, 2012
Ya'll with me yet??



Link










...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20508
29. Barefootontherocks
7:20 PM GMT on November 22, 2012
Thankful to be Together on this fourth Thursday of November.

Happy Turkey Day, RickyRood and Ricky readers.

Can we really put Humpty together? - click and drag pieces.





provided by flash-gear.com
Quoting RickyRood:
But that's not true ... Whenever I go there I'm way down in the "weather blogs."

Chris and I need an agent!

You need a bump.
:)
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 162 Comments: 20039
28. cyclonebuster
3:10 AM GMT on November 22, 2012
To put this into perspective the amount of heat we need to remove to space is about 1 Yottajoule

The yottajoule (YJ) is equal to 10 to the 24 joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius. Which is ironically the amount of heat we have placed in them since the industrial revolution. Ya'll with me yet?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20508
27. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:05 AM GMT on November 22, 2012
Quoting Patrap:
Climate Reports Forecast Dire Future, Even If Action Is Taken
Posted: 11/21/2012 9:40 am EST Updated: 11/21/2012 1:21 pm EST


Reality SUCKS! I am thinking about switching to the side of the denial industry just to escape reality. .... What??? I ask what does it take for the denial industry to be informed enough that it begins to understand it is NOT about ideology. It is about REALITY!!!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4822

Viewing: 76 - 26

Page: 1 | 2Blog 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

Overcast
49 °F
Overcast

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.