Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:44 AM GMT on December 09, 2012

Share this Blog
18
+

Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things

I found out this week at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union that my friend Jerry Mahlman died in late November. Jerry was a climate scientist, and for many years, the Director of the Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory. Here is the announcement of his death, which includes a paragraph about his science life. Here is Rick Piltz's, Remembering Jerry Mahlman.

In 2003 Jerry and I hatched a plan to road trip to Big Bend National Park. Jerry liked to “bushwhack” across desolate places, and in the Lower 48, Big Bend National Park is about as remote and desolate as it gets. Big Bend is also home to a huge variety of wildlife. The wildlife is there not only because it is protected desolation, but also because its climate straddles the edge of the tropics. This means birds, and birds could be the noble goal of any Jerry adventure.

The retired Jerry set out to planning. Another flavor of road trip brought me to his house in Longmont, Colorado, and Jerry had collected a set of suitably obscure information about the places in the Larry McMurtry world through which we would venture. There would be counties where there might be 4 rooms for those passing through – identify such opportunity in advance. Jerry had descriptions that required us to pay attention to the juniper trees on the side of road at the curve 31 miles from the U.S. highway intersection. Beyond the juniper, there would be pull out and a path, and down that path, a gully, and in that gully, the footprint of a dinosaur.

The week before we were on our way, Jerry had his stroke. The rational, though perhaps without fully thinking it through – the rational Jerry called me to explain that despite the type and severity of a stroke that normally killed more than 99% of the time, he was certain that by the time I arrived in three days, he would be ready to go. He had tested his readiness, by standing and walking. Though he was dizzied and tired by more than a few steps, he was certain that by the time we arrived in Big Bend his recovery would be adequate. As a precaution we would limit our exposure to steep trails and sheer cliffs.

That trip never happened. After recovery and therapy Jerry and I did take a set of road trips into the easy hinterlands of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. We would frequently pass through Fort Collins, and he would talk about his time with Janet during graduate school. On one of the trips beyond Colorado’s Moose Viewing Capital, Walden, we happened upon a “nature” trail on, probably, Bureau of Land Management leased land. The nature trail was maintained by an oil interest, and had signs that talked about the natural warming caused by carbon dioxide, and how the oil industry removed carbon dioxide from the air, pumping it into to the ground to release, safely, more oil to be pumped. Recycling carbon dioxide.

In his backyard Jerry kept something of a rock garden, perhaps more in the style of corralled rocks than, say, the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco. In 2008 with Jerry’s short-term memory loss starting to become prominent, we set out to Capulin Volcano National Monument in New Mexico. The noble goal was large round rocks spewed from a volcano. We hiked in the National Monument, and collected large round rocks from a rancher’s field, and then set off through the dirt roads of northern New Mexico and southeastern Colorado. We drove the entire length of the Dry Cimarron River, wandering onto roadside rock crumbles and into easy gullies. We crossed the grasslands, through the windmills and settlements that are relics from the Dust Bowl. We visited dimly lit, small-town museums that were housed in repurposed general stores and gas stations. We tried to use, whenever possible, Colorado Highway 71, which ran north into Nebraska to his hometown of Crawford, and beyond to Janet’s hometown of Hot Springs, South Dakota.



Jerry Mahlman in a gully of the Dry Cimarron River, New Mexico, 2008

Our last trip was in 2009 - too early for a last trip, but lives get complicated. It was October. We started up over mountains in Wyoming, but the roads were closed to our demure vehicle. So we hiked Vedauwoo Rocks, and then we went down a barren Wyoming road that had remained solidly anchored in Jerry’s memory. We ate at a Chinese restaurant, in a town that met the required criterion of at least two Chinese restaurants – to assure some quality from competition. The hot and sour soup passed muster. The Scoville Scale was unchallenged.

From that common place where it was understood that is was OK to be Ricky, not Richard – to Jerry.

ricky



Jerry Mahlman at Vedawoo, Wyoming, 2009

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

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

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

Viewing: 139 - 89

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

139. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Actually, this is pretty much what Nea suggested I do 2 years ago. He told me to study both sides of the issue for myself. He knew this was the best way for me to learn what is science is what is only presented as science. ... What drives your thinking processes? What do you use to base your stance on the AGWT?




maybe it is time to get off your knees from polishing neap shoes and think for yourself... agwt cc agw gw ya'll change so much i am confused really neap said study both sides????? he won't even debate me.... i have called him out more than once and he hides like a quacker...all i get is his plus monkeys rebute truly sick......i would like to debate the puppet master and not the puppets...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting TomballTXPride:




It's whatever they want it to be.

Whatever tightly hand fits their agenda.

The Lords of AGW are in full swing.






IPCC - "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC." - source: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC."

Climate change has been called many things by many people over the years. Since 1988 the IPCC is about climate change.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting yoboi:


is it gw? cc? agw? agaw? neapbs?

You should probably research a couple of those terms and their history and usage. You might be surprised, for example why "climate change" gained popularity in the press and among politicians.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting yoboi:



i read it total BS maybe you should read the real story before you post i am sorry that your idol, neocon leader fraud neap has an axe to grind with the fossil fuel industry i don't know if his father or mother got fired from the exxon or shell service station....you are posting BS without researching the true story....think on your on and don't be a neap plus monkey....peace


Actually, this is pretty much what Nea suggested I do 2 years ago. He told me to study both sides of the issue for myself. He knew this was the best way for me to learn what is science is what is only presented as science. ... What drives your thinking processes? What do you use to base your stance on the AGWT?

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
134. yoboi
Quoting nymore:
I think you are reading more into it than was intended. It is not intend to prove or disprove anything. It is abnormal for a place that is traditionally cold to be this cold for this long. So i posted it I said nothing about CC.


is it gw? cc? agw? agaw? neapbs?
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


If you are looking for a perpetual heatwave to prove AGWT then, logic would suggest, that you must also look for a perpetual cold event to disprove the AGWT. As with the heatwave two years ago, so will the current cold event come to an end.
I think you are reading more into it than was intended. It is not intend to prove or disprove anything. It is abnormal for a place that is traditionally cold to be this cold for this long. So i posted it I said nothing about CC.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


If you are looking for a perpetual heatwave to prove AGWT then, logic would suggest, that you must also look for a perpetual cold event to disprove the AGWT.


Interestingly, if it has neither warmed nor cooled since 1998 we probably can be said to be in a perpetual heat-wave. Think about it.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
131. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Right. I got it. ... You were wearing gloves???? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.



yes i was wearing gloves due to the cold weather caused by agw or whatever ya'll call it this week
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
130. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I did not say it. I linked the article that makes that claim. Did you read it, or did you just comment it on it first?



i read it total BS maybe you should read the real story before you post i am sorry that your idol, neocon leader fraud neap has an axe to grind with the fossil fuel industry i don't know if his father or mother got fired from the exxon or shell service station....you are posting BS without researching the true story....think on your on and don't be a neap plus monkey....peace
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting yoboi:



you can get neap and the plus monkeys to help you it was not manmade....the gloves are off i will stoop to you and the plus monkeys name calling ways....


Right. I got it. ... You were wearing gloves???? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting nymore:
That was over 2 years ago, this is today. As for Eygpt and Libya and the whole middle east. That place is not exactly steady as she goes, I do not find it odd to have wild swings in prices in a war torn area. Also where did they come up 55,000 death no info in your link is provided for such a claim.


If you are looking for a perpetual heatwave to prove AGWT then, logic would suggest, that you must also look for a perpetual cold event to disprove the AGWT. As with the heatwave two years ago, so will the current cold event come to an end.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
127. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I did not say it. I linked the article that makes that claim. Did you read it, or did you just comment it on it first?



you can get neap and the plus monkeys to help you it was not manmade....the gloves are off i will stoop to you and the plus monkeys name calling ways....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting yoboi:



BS you can't say it was man made total BS


I did not say it. I linked the article that makes that claim. Did you read it, or did you just comment it on it first?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
125. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Nymore, why do you not also mention the Russian heat wave of 2010 that killed 55,000 and caused $15 billion in damages? Russian heat wave had both manmade and natural causes I feel certain these figures do not take into account the Egypt and Libya uprisings over what were initiated by the ever escalating costs of their staple foods. Uprisings that lead to the collapse of their governments through civil unrest.



BS you can't say it was man made total BS
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Have I not posted that I have agreed with some of your posts before when you have pointed out an error of someone else?

The purpose of correcting inaccurate posts would have less to do with which side outnumbers the other side, I would imagine.
you may agree with me but you never confront them directly.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Nymore, why do you not also mention the Russian heat wave of 2010 that killed 55,000 and caused $15 billion in damages? Russian heat wave had both manmade and natural causes I feel certain these figures do not take into account the Egypt and Libya uprisings over what were initiated by the ever escalating costs of their staple foods. Uprisings that lead to the collapse of their governments through civil unrest.
That was over 2 years ago, this is today. As for Eygpt and Libya and the whole middle east. That place is not exactly steady as she goes, I do not find it odd to have wild swings in prices in a war torn area. Also where did they come up 55,000 death no info in your link is provided for such a claim.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting nymore:
I do so because those on the AGWT side (which are the vast majority here) seem to do that very well already. I will ask you the same Question when someone on the AGWT side puts out false info why do you not jump on them.


Have I not posted that I have agreed with some of your posts before when you have pointed out an error of someone else?

The purpose of correcting inaccurate posts would have less to do with which side outnumbers the other side, I would imagine.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I understand that you want to keep both sides of the concersation honest, nymore. I agree with you that information presented by both sides should be as factual as the facts are known. Why, however, do you concentrate so heavily on correcting those that understand the science behind the AGWT as opposed to those that make non science based claims against the AGWT? Ossqss, for example, and others that will post non science based beliefs here. This, and pretty much this alone, concerns me as to how much you wish to keep the facts straight as to how much you are being influenced by the denial industry itself. Should you truly wish to act as a moderator, then you should actually moderate all conversations.
I do so because those on the AGWT side (which are the vast majority here) seem to do that very well already. I will ask you the same Question when someone on the AGWT side puts out false info why do you not jump on them.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting nymore:
What is this story and this place is not exactly the Banana Belt.

Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius. Dozens of people have already died, and almost 150 have been hospitalized.

­The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia.

Across the country, 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to hospitals. In total, 542 people were injured due to the freezing temperatures, RIA Novosti reported.

The Moscow region saw temperatures of -17 to -18 degrees Celsius on Wednesday, and the record cold temperatures are expected to linger for at least three more days. Thermometers in Siberia touched -50 degrees Celsius, which is also abnormal for December.

Here is a Link to the story


Nymore, why do you not also mention the Russian heat wave of 2010 that killed 55,000 and caused $15 billion in damages? Russian heat wave had both manmade and natural causes I feel certain these figures do not take into account the Egypt and Libya uprisings over what were initiated by the ever escalating costs of their staple foods. Uprisings that lead to the collapse of their governments through civil unrest.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting yoboi:





just like your tides funding graphs you show what's new???


Yoboi, why do you not concentrate more on the science and less on the nuances that have nothing to do with the science?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting nymore:
Like I said I have no side in the temp claims on either side but as far as length needed to separate noise is 17 years(source Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) Link


I understand that you want to keep both sides of the concersation honest, nymore. I agree with you that information presented by both sides should be as factual as the facts are known. Why, however, do you concentrate so heavily on correcting those that understand the science behind the AGWT as opposed to those that make non science based claims against the AGWT? Ossqss, for example, and others that will post non science based beliefs here. This, and pretty much this alone, concerns me as to how much you wish to keep the facts straight as to how much you are being influenced by the denial industry itself. Should you truly wish to act as a moderator, then you should actually moderate all conversations.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting yoboi:



why do you support name calling?


Do you consider calling someone a warmer or a skeptic name calling? Is calling someone a denier any different? I do not use liar, idiot, nut job or any other sort of personal attack style name calling in my posts. I once did, but not just limited to AGW discussions. I have left such name calling to my past. You know that I prefer civil conversations, by far. Should I "+" a comment that contains any name calling it is not for the name calling itself, but for the context of the post. I only "-" posts that are obvious marketing spammers.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
116. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
So long as some are throwing around graphs with start and end dates carefully selected--that is, "cherry-picked"--to show a lack of significant warming, allow me to post a few of my own cherry-picked graphs to show the opposite. First, how about this one covering a period from just a few years ago?

cherrypicking

...Or this one from a bit further back?

cherrypicking

...or this one?

cherrypicking

Wow! So much significant warming!!!

I could go on and on, of course. But I won't; I think I've made my point.

Now, because I'm feeling generous--the Christmas Spirit, don't you know--here's another chart clearly showing that The Great Fantasy Ice Age Of 1997 2000 2002 2004 2006 2009 2011 2013 is obviously right around the corner:

cherrypicking

Cherry-picking: it's no longer just for harvesters of Prunus avium...





just like your tides funding graphs you show what's new???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting nymore:
Like I said I have no side in the temp claims on either side but as far as length needed to separate noise is 17 years(source Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) Link

I think that you've misinterpreted what they say. What they say is *at least* seventeen years. In reality, it will probably be more than seventeen years before a statistically significant trend can be detected.

22 years is probably best minimum time, imo, since that encompasses two full solar cycles.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
What is this story and this place is not exactly the Banana Belt.

Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius. Dozens of people have already died, and almost 150 have been hospitalized.

­The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia.

Across the country, 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to hospitals. In total, 542 people were injured due to the freezing temperatures, RIA Novosti reported.

The Moscow region saw temperatures of -17 to -18 degrees Celsius on Wednesday, and the record cold temperatures are expected to linger for at least three more days. Thermometers in Siberia touched -50 degrees Celsius, which is also abnormal for December.

Here is a Link to the story
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
113. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Actually, nymore, I have not watched the video. I took you at your word for it.



why do you support name calling?
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting Birthmark:

That, my friend, is burden shifting. The claim to which I responded is, "So, did you know the earth has not warmed for 16 years?" My response was a request for evidence of that claim.

I made no claim of my own other than that there was no statistically significant evidence to support that claim.


Correct, which is why I wouldn't claim it warmed. The available evidence neither supports nor contradicts claims of warming, cooling, or stability with any confidence.

It should be noted that it would be very unusual to have statistically significant warming for a time period as short as that cited. From the poking around in the data that I've done, I can only find a couple of instances in a couple of data sets that show statistical significance over time-frames of 17 years or less.
Like I said I have no side in the temp claims on either side but as far as length needed to separate noise is 17 years(source Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) Link
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Birthmark:
Correct, which is why I wouldn't claim it warmed. The available evidence neither supports nor contradicts claims of warming, cooling, or stability with any confidence.
Well, when talking about the unadjusted data, I tend to mostly agree with you. But once the data is adjusted for ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions, the picture becomes substantially clearer:

Hot, hot, hot
Foster & Rahmstorf 2011

FTW
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So long as some are throwing around graphs with start and end dates carefully selected--that is, "cherry-picked"--to show a lack of significant warming, allow me to post a few of my own cherry-picked graphs to show the opposite. First, how about this one covering a period from just a few years ago?

cherrypicking

...Or this one from a bit further back?

cherrypicking

...or this one?

cherrypicking

Wow! So much significant warming!!!

I could go on and on, of course. But I won't; I think I've made my point.

Now, because I'm feeling generous--the Christmas Spirit, don't you know--here's another chart clearly showing that The Great Fantasy Ice Age Of 1997 2000 2002 2004 2006 2009 2011 2013 is obviously right around the corner:

cherrypicking

Cherry-picking: it's no longer just for harvesters of Prunus avium...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Please show the Statistical Warming.

That, my friend, is burden shifting. The claim to which I responded is, "So, did you know the earth has not warmed for 16 years?" My response was a request for evidence of that claim.

I made no claim of my own other than that there was no statistically significant evidence to support that claim.

Quoting nymore:
Has it warmed, yes about 0.08 or so. Is it Statistically significant, no.

Correct, which is why I wouldn't claim it warmed. The available evidence neither supports nor contradicts claims of warming, cooling, or stability with any confidence.

It should be noted that it would be very unusual to have statistically significant warming for a time period as short as that cited. From the poking around in the data that I've done, I can only find a couple of instances in a couple of data sets that show statistical significance over time-frames of 17 years or less.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Yes, I am absolutely sure of that --and "absolutely" is not a word that I frequently use. There is no temperature data set that supports the claim of flat temperatures for the last 15-17 years with statistical significance. But feel free to waste as much time as you like looking for such evidence.
Please show the Statistical Warming.

Has it warmed, yes about 0.08 or so. Is it Statistically significant, no

Btw not taking sides on this one, just pointing it out.

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting nymore:
Are you sure about that. I will let you check before I post it. tick tock, tick tock, tick tock

Yes, I am absolutely sure of that --and "absolutely" is not a word that I frequently use. There is no temperature data set that supports the claim of flat temperatures for the last 15-17 years with statistical significance. But feel free to waste as much time as you like looking for such evidence.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

That's what the sorority gals called me back in my college days.

Hey, it's better than "man-slut".
That will probably get you banned around here but I enjoyed it
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Birthmark:

Rubbish. Please show any statistically significant evidence that it has not warmed for 16 years. (Hint: You can't.)
Are you sure about that. I will let you check before I post it. tick tock, tick tock, tick tock
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting TomballTXPride:




Easy, Birthmark.





That's what the sorority gals called me back in my college days.

Hey, it's better than "man-slut".
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:
http://www.hidmet.gov.rs/eng/prognoza/index.php




Nothing like warming.

So I guess the theory of Serbian Warming is wrong...for now. Not that there is such a theory, but don't let that stop you.

At least you're consistent in your misunderstanding.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Ossqss: So, did you know the earth has not warmed for 16 years?

Rubbish. Please show any statistically significant evidence that it has not warmed for 16 years. (Hint: You can't.)

Quoting Ossqss: Do your homework before you look foolish from the influence of some you think legitimate.


You'd do well to take your own advice. Had you done that, you wouldn't have made the rather silly claim above.

To everyone else, howdy! I've been pretty busy the last couple of months. I've moved to Florida...again. The older one gets the harder such moves seem to be. Or maybe that's just me. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Daisyworld:


You make a decent point, but aren't you being rather selective? You may want to include a more universal audience in your admonishment instead of just one individual...

For instance, it seems to me that nearly everyone commenting as of late has lost sight of what Dr. Rood's original blog post was about. Whether it's Iceagecoming cutting and pasting tangential (and agonizingly long) opinion pieces that weren't even his own work, Ossqss being his usual deceitful self by condescendingly refuting every climatological axiom in existence (despite universal facts sitting right under his nose), or even Nymore, who slings loaded words like "liar", "fraud", and "hypocrite" around this forum while claiming himself a victim of ad hominem. Each of these commenters (as well as others) have sullied this blog entry by planting disinformation that relies on emotion and prejudice intended to make the reader believe only their side of the argument, and not offer any actual understanding (of ANY subject). Don't even get me started on NeapolitanFan's atrocious disparage in #36...

Maybe people need to be reminded that this was a REMEMBRANCE blog post intended to mark the passing of a fellow climate scientist, and NOT a soapbox for pushing individual agendas!


Rather selective yourself I see. I think you left out the biggest stone thrower of them all. I wonder why?

Perhaps its because you missed these gems: Little Anthony, idiot/liar, blathering, blithering, bleating buffoon...

If someone want to call me names believe me I can take it. I have been called much much worse by far better.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Completely unnecessary, SLBloom. Drive by, snide remarks from you are not welcome in this forum, nor anywhere on this website. Not too mention, they are against the forum rules. Experience tells me that those who feel the need to frantically log-on to make a point to everyone else about your speculation upon another doesn't bode well for anything positive you can bring to the discussion. You can respond to Yoboi without immature insults, as I'm sure he/she and others here would appreciate it. Thanks.


You make a decent point, but aren't you being rather selective? You may want to include a more universal audience in your admonishment instead of just one individual...

For instance, it seems to me that nearly everyone commenting as of late has lost sight of what Dr. Rood's original blog post was about. Whether it's Iceagecoming cutting and pasting tangential (and agonizingly long) opinion pieces that weren't even his own work, Ossqss being his usual deceitful self by condescendingly refuting every climatological axiom in existence (despite universal facts sitting right under his nose), or even Nymore, who slings loaded words like "liar", "fraud", and "hypocrite" around this forum while claiming himself a victim of ad hominem. Each of these commenters (as well as others) have sullied this blog entry by planting disinformation that relies on emotion and prejudice intended to make the reader believe only their side of the argument, and not offer any actual understanding (of ANY subject). Don't even get me started on NeapolitanFan's atrocious disparage in #36...

Maybe people need to be reminded that this was a REMEMBRANCE blog post intended to mark the passing of a fellow climate scientist, and NOT a soapbox for pushing individual agendas!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Really?! OMG!! Did you also know that the earth is flat?!

Your turn!


I understand your frustration. The ultimate facts are hard to avoid in the end.

You just can't buy that stairway to Heaven any longer with this new fangled technology now days.

Hummm, it really makes me wonder if you may learn something beyond the box you put yourself into considering the knowledge available right now.



Peace>
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://www.hidmet.gov.rs/eng/prognoza/index.php




Nothing like warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting vanwx:


I don't think I still want to appeal to all of society. Denialists reguardless of motivation, the Westboro Baptist Church and functional idiots are interesting in their own way but I'm more interested in thinking people. There are many who will not rebuild after Sandy because their work would just be washed away in the next event. There must be about 1/2 the cattle in the drought zone. The Mississippi will be down for a long time. I don't think farming or fishing will ever be the same after the last ten years. CO2 has nearly doubled in my life time. The two thousand year old cedars of my youth are seeing their final drouth. We just had sea wall washouts today in my town. I only want to appeal to those that are willing to see and change how we do business.


Functional lapse such as Todd Stern or Mr Pershing??

Doha

By Craig Rucker
December 11, 2012 4:15 P.M.

COP-18 in Doha is over. On to Warsaw for COP-19!

The latest chapter in the seemingly interminable climate change negotiation saga has sputtered to a close. Whether it ended with a bang or a whimper (or something in between) depends on one’s perspective.

For those who believe humans are causing catastrophic climate change — or simply crave control over the world’s energy and “unsustainable” economic systems — Doha resulted in bitter failure.

Only 37 of 194 nations signed the treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, which expires December 31. That means the new agreement is legally non-binding and covers only 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. While the European Union joined in and remains committed to “carbon trading” (making former UNFCC chair Yvo DeBoer happier in his new role as a carbon trader, á la Al Gore), the United States, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Canada, Japan, and other major emitters refused to sign, and the treaty sets no specific emission limits. Atmospheric CO2 levels will thus continue to climb — causing climate campaigners to express consternation over disastrous weather events, imminent devastation, species extinctions, injustice for the world’s poor, and the disappearance of island nations beneath the waves.

For those who say computer models are meaningless, climate change and weather extremes are natural, and economic growth should be sustained to lift more billions out of poverty, Doha represents a partial success. Few nations signed the treaty, the Obama Administration did not commit to it, the document is not binding, and countless billions of dollars will be available for continued economic development and disaster relief — instead of being squandered on fruitless attempts to control Earth’s infinitely complex climate and weather.

Even Christina Figueres, DeBoer’s successor at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, could proclaim victory. She wants to keep the planet’s temperature from rising more than the internationally agreed maximum of two degrees Celsius. That goal has arguably been reached already. There has been no detectable increase in average global temperatures for 16 years.

In fact, while last summer was hot and dry in much of the continental USA, nearing records set during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, it was a very cold summer in Alaska and parts of Europe. Winter 2012 was snowy and nasty in Central Europe and very cold in South Africa and South America, where the seasons are reversed. Britain just had its coldest autumn in nineteen years, leaving 2012 on course to be second coldest year since 1996. Himalayan glaciers are growing, interior Greenland is not melting, summer Antarctic sea ice is near record extent, and seas are not rising any faster than for the past 100 years.

All this helps explain why climate alarmists keep changing their rhetoric: from global cooling to global warming, to climate change to climate disruption, and now to extreme weather. Indeed, they are now trying to link every unusual weather event to CO2 (and now methane, or natural gas, the fuel produced through hydraulic fracturing or fracking). However, as Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has noted, when the Atlantic hurricane season starts next June 1, it will have been 2,777 days since the last time a category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane made landfall along the U.S. coast — the longest such period since 1900. 2012 also marked the quietest U.S. tornado season on record; only twelve tornadoes touched down in the United States in July 2012, shattering the July 1960 record low of 42.

Of course, there are always disasters and human tragedies at the hands of a not-always-benevolent Mother Nature. Hardly a year has ever gone by without many such weather events somewhere on Planet Earth.

This year, however, climate alarmists have blamed virtually all of them on humans and CO2 emissions – from Sandy in the USA to 2011 and 2012 typhoons in the Philippines, and droughts in Africa. It’s easy to see why. As a Greenpeace director cogently explained, “The key issue is money” – as in the redistribution of wealth from rich, formerly rich and soon-to-be formerly rich nations to still poor countries. The other issue is power and control: as in who gets to make energy, economic, and human health and welfare decisions: individuals, families, communities and nations – or eco-activists and UN bureaucrats.

That brings us to the in-between: the uncharted waters separating “bitter failure” and “partial success.”

As climate activists and media “journalists” have observed, there is no legally binding agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The world’s two biggest CO2 emitters, China and the United States, did not sign. What was agreed to contains only vague promises that, “beginning in 2020, at least $100 billion a year will flow from public, private and other sources” to poor countries, supposedly to help them cope with the “devastating effects” of climate change and “extreme weather.” There is no agreement as to where that $1 trillion per decade will come from, or how much will be available annually between now and 2020, especially if the global economic downturn continues.

But don’t believe the vague promises, bitter failure, and bitterly disappointed rhetoric. The climate alarmists got a lot of what they came for, they gave up little or nothing, they’ll be back for more, and in the meantime they will still get billions of dollars annually from taxpayers — to conduct climate change causation, mitigation, adaptation, and compensation “research,” issue “balanced reports,” and attend many more conferences (all expenses paid) where virtually no one except alarmists is allowed to speak or participate in official “discussions” and “negotiations.”

More than 7,000 environmental NGO activists attended the Doha confab — and next time around they won’t forget who sent them, now that Jonathan Pershing, chief U.S. negotiator for climate change at Doha, has pointedly reminded them who paid for their presence in Qatar. They and the official delegates will be there for specific objectives: more money, more power, more control.

In Doha, they reached several benchmarks that they had achieved during previous COP events. Most important, they enshrined in the treaty the concept of “loss and damage” supposedly resulting from “manmade climate change” — and secured pledges from “rich” nations that poor countries would receive billions of dollars per year in “aid” to repair any “loss and damage,” as part of a “climate compensation mechanism.” They also incorporated “principles” of “equity” and “justice” and “common but differentiated responsibilities”– to distinguish between nations that “caused” climate change and “extreme weather events” and countries that presumably did not or are “especially vulnerable.”

It is true that words like “compensation,” “fault,” and “liability” were excised from the final treaty language and that it will be all but impossible to determine how much, if any, loss and damage from a tornado, hurricane, typhoon, flood, or drought was due to “manmade climate change” versus how much from natural climate change and natural, normal extreme weather events. Who will pay how much, from existing aid programs versus new programs, and through what U.N. or other conduits, will likewise have to be decided at one of the presumably many future Conferences Of Parties to the new climate agreement.

“This is just the beginning of the process,” a Greenpeace activist, helpfully explained.

Indeed, the “parties” — and thus their taxpayers, food, and energy consumers, and citizens hoping to pursue their dreams — are slowly but surely, piece by piece, surrendering their rights, freedoms, sovereignty, and hard-earned wealth to a gaggle of unelected and unaccountable activists, agitators, bureaucrats, autocrats, and kleptocrats. The slippery slope is just ahead, if we are not already on it.

The scientific case for manmade global warming disasters grows weaker by the day. But no one should ever underestimate the desperation, audacity and political brilliance of those who have staked their careers, reputations, salaries, and pensions on the notion that our energy use and quest for improved living standards for all humanity have somehow usurped the natural forces that have driven climate changes from time immemorial. We underestimate the alarmists at our peril.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NICAR ESL Climate & Global Dynamics
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From: David A Gabel, ENN
Published November 30, 2012 08:56 AM
New Climate Model Reveals "Discernible Human Influence"


The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a federally funded research and development center located in Livermore, California. Their mission, in part, is to respond with vision, quality, integrity, and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance. One such issue, which is tough to dispute, is the changing climate. The top-rate researchers at LLNL created a new climate model by comparing 20 different computer models to satellite observations. They found that tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes are clearly related to human activities.

The troposphere is the portion of the atmosphere closest to the Earth's surface, where all life forms live and breathe. The stratosphere rests just above the troposphere, between 6 and 30 miles above the Earth's surface.
Three different research groups produced the satellite temperature data sets, relying on microwave emissions of oxygen molecules. The raw data was processed in different ways by the three groups, accounting for complex effects such as instrument calibrations in different ways.
Together, their new climate model simulations will form the scientific backbone for the upcoming 5th assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014.

The researchers found that the lower stratosphere has been cooling over the past 33 years in response to human-caused depletion of the ozone layer. They also found large-scale warming of the lower troposphere, with the largest increases over the Arctic and much lesser warming (if not cooling) over Antarctica. The conclusion was that the temperature increase in the lower troposphere was due to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases.
"It's very unlikely that purely natural causes can explain these distinctive patterns of temperature change," said Laboratory atmospheric scientist Benjamin Santer, who is lead author of the paper. "No known mode of natural climate variability can cause sustained, global-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere."


The LLNL study has been published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Link to video showing the LLNL climate model animation

Earth Atmosphere image via Shutterstock
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spbloom:
For some reason yoboi believes idiots require back-up idiots.



you really have some deep rooted issues that you need help with.....hope you find the right direction...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting pcola57:


Well put Nea..
some people cannot see the forest 'cause of the trees..
I'm alarmed by the lack of intelligent discussions instead all we get are arguments..
Someone has to step up and take this to another level..one that appeals to all of society..JMO..


I don't think I still want to appeal to all of society. Denialists reguardless of motivation, the Westboro Baptist Church and functional idiots are interesting in their own way but I'm more interested in thinking people. There are many who will not rebuild after Sandy because their work would just be washed away in the next event. There must be about 1/2 the cattle in the drought zone. The Mississippi will be down for a long time. I don't think farming or fishing will ever be the same after the last ten years. CO2 has nearly doubled in my life time. The two thousand year old cedars of my youth are seeing their final drouth. We just had sea wall washouts today in my town. I only want to appeal to those that are willing to see and change how we do business.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 139 - 89

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

Top of Page

About RickyRood

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

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.