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: 289 - 239

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

289. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:33 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
RickyRood has created a new entry.
288. Birthmark
4:31 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
Quite the chattering bunch.

Have a distraction, if you will.

Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD

Yay! More opinion!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
287. Ossqss
4:14 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
Quite the chattering bunch.

Have a distraction, if you will.

Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
286. nymore
2:33 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:


I find your comment amusing!

You are aware that this is a blog dedicated to climate change, are you not?

You are aware that the link you posted refers to AGW, are you not?

You are aware that the global thermohaline circulation system, which includes the Gulf Stream, is a critical component of global climate - and is critical to Western Europe's temperate climate, are you not?

Sheesh, I try to be civil and acknowledge your contribution, and you are offended? I give up!
It also says many things about natural variability. But you notice I did not cherry pick that part of the article to post. I just thought it was interesting finding. Your right it does refer to climate change it says COULD not WILL.

There is a big difference between offended and disgusted
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
285. Xulonn
2:06 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Does everything posted have to have CC brought onto it. I mean really.


I find your comment amusing!

You are aware that this is a blog dedicated to climate change, are you not?

You are aware that the link you posted refers to AGW, are you not?

You are aware that the global thermohaline circulation system, which includes the Gulf Stream, is a critical component of global climate - and is critical to Western Europe's temperate climate, are you not?

Sheesh, I try to be civil and acknowledge your contribution, and you are offended? I give up!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
284. nymore
12:55 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:


Good link - thanks!

Although anyone remotely familiar with global climate issues is aware of the role of the Gulf Stream in tempering the Climate of Western Europe, the article presents some interesting new information on some aspects of the winds that drive this surface current. There is no discussion, however, of any changes in the understanding of the role of Gulf Stream in the global thermohaline circulation system. Perhaps that will be a follow up study.

The last paragraph includes an acknowledgement of the dangers posed by AGW:
Does everything posted have to have CC brought onto it. I mean really.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
283. Xulonn
12:53 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I am not sure if this has been posted here before but it is an interesting read. Props to Bappit for pointing it out

Phys.org)—The Gulf Stream and the warm waters it brings are one reason the climate is milder along the Norwegian coastline than other places so far north. Researchers now know that the Gulf Stream is not only driven from the south, but also drawn northward by Arctic winds. Link


Good link - thanks!

Although anyone remotely familiar with global climate issues is aware of the role of the Gulf Stream in tempering the Climate of Western Europe, the article presents some interesting new information on some aspects of the winds that drive this surface current. There is no discussion, however, of any changes in the understanding of the role of Gulf Stream in the global thermohaline circulation system. Perhaps that will be a follow up study.

The last paragraph includes an acknowledgement of the dangers posed by AGW:

Wind conditions in the Arctic are likely to vary naturally in the future as well. During certain periods, more ice will form around the North Pole. Nevertheless, in the long term an increase in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere could bring about permanent changes that determine the fate of Arctic ice.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
282. nymore
12:30 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
I am not sure if this has been posted here before but it is an interesting read. Props to Bappit for pointing it out

Phys.org)—The Gulf Stream and the warm waters it brings are one reason the climate is milder along the Norwegian coastline than other places so far north. Researchers now know that the Gulf Stream is not only driven from the south, but also drawn northward by Arctic winds. Link
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
281. Xulonn
12:12 AM GMT on December 21, 2012
Quoting yoboi:



so you will agree with all peer reviewed data and accept it??? or is there a black list of people you avoid if it goes against how you feel?

No and no! (There! Now you can refer me to as a denialist - a yoboi denialist.)

I don't agree with "all" peer-reviewed data, but the academic peer-review/publication process usually gives more weight than a simple publication of a paper by a commercial, or even non-profit entity. I would be as skeptical of non-peer-reviewed paper that supports global warming if funded by a corporation that stands to make millions from such things as carbon offset credit trading as I would a fossil fuel industry funded paper.

Also, a newly published peer-reviewed paper does not necessarily render invalid another older one one with which it disagrees, although that is a possibility. Usually, additional research is done to see who is correct.

Although it's a bit of an incomplete and simplistic way to look at it, science searches for reasons that things exist or occur, as much exploring to find new phenomena or mechanisms. Now that AGW/CC is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, most non-commercially funded studies and research projects on AGW/CC focus on why, how, how bad is it, what are the rates of change/progression, what are the implications for human civilization, and what can we do to mitigate it.

Meanwhile, back here at WU-Land many of us are following these advancements in the science of AGW/CC, but a few folks are still stuck on the ground floor with their eyes closed.

Just my opinion, but with HUGE scientific support.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
280. yoboi
11:28 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:


If the asking is a childish method for trying to sucker another poster into saying something in writing - something that you think you could then jump on them for - yes, then it is wrong. Or certainly not a civil and intelligent form of argument.

On the other hand, if you were truly interested in supporting a point, you could simply say that "a graph posted by Neapolitan was produced by (or hosted the publication of) xyz organization, which has a particular agenda because it is funded by a particular organization. And here is evidence that that organization is publishing false or misleading information."

Simply badgering someone to admit something is like an old Perry Mason mystery TV show courtroom scene: "Your Honor, I object. The prosecution is badgering the witness!"

If you are truly interested in debating the subject, stop playing silly games and state your case with a bit of maturity.




so you will agree with all peer reviewed data and accept it??? or is there a black list of people you avoid if it goes against how you feel?
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
279. yoboi
11:22 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting VR46L:


could be worse believe it was bad around the gulf today?


yeah about 4 am this morn a strong front moved thru 50-60 mph winds....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
278. Xulonn
11:15 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting yoboi:
why is wrong to ask who funds studies???


If the asking is a childish method for trying to sucker another poster into saying something in writing - something that you think you could then jump on them for - yes, then it is wrong. Or certainly not a civil and intelligent form of argument.

On the other hand, if you were truly interested in supporting a point, you could simply say that "a graph posted by Neapolitan was produced by (or hosted the publication of) xyz organization, which has a particular agenda because it is funded by a particular organization. And here is evidence that that organization is publishing false or misleading information."

Simply badgering someone to admit something is like an old Perry Mason mystery TV show courtroom scene: "Your Honor, I object. The prosecution is badgering the witness!"

If you are truly interested in debating the subject, stop playing silly games and state your case with a bit of maturity.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
277. VR46L
11:14 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting yoboi:


yeah same ole reason.....hope you are having a great day..


could be worse believe it was bad around the gulf today?
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
276. yoboi
11:08 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting VR46L:


Similar reason as last time you were telling me ?

Its no wonder I have got very careful recently....


yeah same ole reason.....hope you are having a great day..
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
275. VR46L
11:06 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting yoboi:
back from the ban hammer......


Similar reason as last time you were telling me ?

Its no wonder I have got very careful recently....
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
274. yoboi
11:05 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


It is not wrong to ask who funds studies. The BEST Report showed me that this does not matter when the science is applied and adhered to. In the end, it is has less to do with the funding than what is valid science. As long as the science is the only concern, then the funding is less of a concern.


if you really look at the big picture both sides argue and whomever is right nothing will be done about it...guess people should learn to adapt to whatever happens...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
273. Some1Has2BtheRookie
10:57 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting yoboi:




why is it wrong to ask who funds studies???


It is not wrong to ask who funds studies. The BEST Report showed me that this does not matter when the science is applied and adhered to. In the end, it is has less to do with the funding than what is valid science. As long as the science is the only concern, then the funding is less of a concern.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
272. yoboi
10:47 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:
I've noticed that nymore and a few others who argue (not really debate) against AGW/CC also expend a lot of effort railing against the new marketing gimmick of a corporation - TWC - of naming winter storms. They don't seem to be aware that the commercial entity TWC, the owners of this website, unlike the NWS, exists to make a profit. Marketing is one of their core weapons in the battle for dollars. However, in spite of it's commercial underpinnings, many of us see a benefit in having a venue to discuss and debate various aspects of AGW/CC. I enjoy reading and posting here at Dr. Rood's blog on TWC's WU website, and I am thankful to TWC/WU for providing this website.

I'm guessing that most of the AWG/CC denialists here (and anti storm-naming WU participants) are mostly young, determined and pedantic arguers, but not well versed in the tactics of true debate. They generally display little or no ability to comprehend complex and nuanced science, and rant and rave endlessly over trivial factoids that are not very important in the big picture. Whether or not Superstorm Sandy or the storm of 1938 had the lowest sea-level barometric pressure, or whether one particular source of some of Neapolitan's information is funded by a particular organization is not significant to the overall science of AGW/CC. These are just Fox News style tactics used to obfuscate, mislead and call attention away from more important discussions.




why is it wrong to ask who funds studies???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
271. yoboi
10:45 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
back from the ban hammer......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
270. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:50 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting VR46L:


Rookie I have noticed you do not discriminate when you like a post . And I read your civil debate with Nymore . Its just that it seems that when labels get thrown around people lose their tempers and next thing the person who is being ganged up on loses it and can result in bans . Alot of people actually are these days afraid to get into those debates as it is almost a lamb to the slaughter . which is why I usually stay off this blog , and only when the mood takes me get involved in the main .


Oh, I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately the discussion of AGW is more often based on the passion that is held than on the science that is known. That is the sad reality of the situation. I understand the politics and the economics behind the debates. Science has a blind spot concerning politics and economics. Science is not concerned with how many votes it can muster in the next election or if a theory exposes some economic concerns. What I do not understand is the passion among those that wish to hold their personal beliefs in favor of what the science tells us.

The Laws of Physics show us the implications of what a 3 mile wide asteroid striking our planet would suggest for the survivability of nearly all life on Earth. We would be willing to invest all that there is to invest to advert such a disaster if the observations show us we were going to be struck by such an asteroid in another 100 years. I suggest that this is true even if there was a <10% chance to avert the disaster. Since that is our only option, we would take it. Somehow an asteroid is more tangible to people than is a greenhouse gas. But, the disaster that asteroids and greenhouse gases share is their ability to bring dire consequences to nearly all life on Earth. People need to know this. People need to have that knowledge to work with. People need to begin to behave as if they understand that greenhouse gases carry the same potentials for us as an asteroid due to strike us in another 100 years. AGW is a serious science that tells us we will be faced with serious consequences. That is where the passion should rest.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
269. VR46L
9:05 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree completely with your sentiments that civil conversations are considerably more favorable than the name calling, mud slinging exchanges that are too frequent on any public forum. I have long believed that courteous conversations are the best delivery mechanism for an exchange of information.

What stymies me concerning this is those that will make claims, such as yours, that civility should be practiced by all and then you begin to criticize only one segment of the population that is not always civil in their conversation. As I have suggested to nymore, if you choose to moderate then you must moderate all sides.

Opinions are a part of what helps to bring forth knowledge from its depths. Science is not based on opinions. Science is based on testable data and not on testy opinions. You most certainly have the right to an opinion on the science, but your opinion should be also based on the science and not on personal beliefs.


Rookie I have noticed you do not discriminate when you like a post . And I read your civil debate with Nymore . Its just that it seems that when labels get thrown around people lose their tempers and next thing the person who is being ganged up on loses it and can result in bans . Alot of people actually are these days afraid to get into those debates as it is almost a lamb to the slaughter . which is why I usually stay off this blog , and only when the mood takes me get involved in the main .
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
268. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:55 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting VR46L:


As someone who has studied Psychology and Sociology at University . I find it very interesting to see the pack mentality of some of the posters who appear to gang beat some of the minority posters . Sometimes my heart bleeds for them . I have been left very angry upset and insulted at being labelled ignorant which has happened, which I don't believe I am.

The labeling of all who question the extent of AGW and the future impact as a Denier is rather offensive and seeks to marginalize and dehumanize the person you are speaking to. I could give a historical example or two of labelling but I better not .... We are all human beings and hold a right to our own opinions .

There are a few people on the main that I have enjoyed debating with as they treat me as a fully grown adult and question my opinions without a nasty patronizing air . I respect that kind of debate and then when its a weather event we chat and plus each others input . Thats the way it should be . Not the attitude of because I disagree on one issue I will not give credit to other comments or opinions a person has but that is my opinion


I agree completely with your sentiments that civil conversations are considerably more favorable than the name calling, mud slinging exchanges that are too frequent on any public forum. I have long believed that courteous conversations are the best delivery mechanism for an exchange of information.

What stymies me concerning this is those that will make claims, such as yours, that civility should be practiced by all and then you begin to criticize only one segment of the population that is not always civil in their conversation. As I have suggested to nymore, if you choose to moderate then you must moderate all sides.

Opinions are a part of what helps to bring forth knowledge from its depths. Science is not based on opinions. Science is based on testable data and not on testy opinions. You most certainly have the right to an opinion on the science, but your opinion should be also based on the science and not on personal beliefs.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
267. VR46L
8:33 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:
VR46L: I brought storm-naming up for discussion because of observations of posts by a certain subset of WU members both here and at Dr. Master's blog.

The psychology of human reaction to global warming is of great interest to me. Observing the interesting correlation of postings of the some WU members who argue against the naming of storms at Dr. Master's blog, and against the AGW/CC here at Dr. Rood's blog, caught my attention. I can only speculate as to the significance of this. I visit Dr. Master's blog to follow major storms, but very seldom post there. However, he also touches on AGW/CC occasionally and the denialist/believer flame wars erupt there, slowing down postings here.

I'm not offended when someone disputes my observations, but I am amused at the reaction based on ego-sensitivity and over-reaction of several people based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some of my posts. It makes me realize the the high-90% range of climate scientists who recognize the reality of AGW/CC must really have thick skins - especially those who dare speak out in public!


As someone who has studied Psychology and Sociology at University . I find it very interesting to see the pack mentality of some of the posters who appear to gang beat some of the minority posters . Sometimes my heart bleeds for them . I have been left very angry upset and insulted at being labelled ignorant which has happened, which I don't believe I am.

The labeling of all who question the extent of AGW and the future impact as a Denier is rather offensive and seeks to marginalize and dehumanize the person you are speaking to. I could give a historical example or two of labelling but I better not .... We are all human beings and hold a right to our own opinions .

There are a few people on the main that I have enjoyed debating with as they treat me as a fully grown adult and question my opinions without a nasty patronizing air . I respect that kind of debate and then when its a weather event we dont hold the debate against each other. Thats the way it should be . Not the attitude of because I disagree on one issue I will not give credit to other comments or opinions a person has but that is my opinion
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
266. Xulonn
7:55 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
VR46L: I brought storm-naming up for discussion because of observations of posts by a certain subset of WU members both here and at Dr. Master's blog.

The psychology of human reaction to global warming is of great interest to me. Observing the interesting correlation of postings of the some WU members who argue against the naming of storms at Dr. Master's blog, and against the AGW/CC here at Dr. Rood's blog, caught my attention. I can only speculate as to the significance of this. I visit Dr. Master's blog to follow major storms, but very seldom post there. However, he also touches on AGW/CC occasionally and the denialist/believer flame wars erupt there, slowing down postings here.

I'm not offended when someone disputes my observations, but I am amused at the reaction based on ego-sensitivity and over-reaction of several people based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some of my posts. It makes me realize the the high-90% range of climate scientists who recognize the reality of AGW/CC must really have thick skins - especially those who dare speak out in public!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
265. Xulonn
7:32 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting MySecondHandle:

Petty name calling and an attacking tone do not lend themselves to a "logical and informed debate". They show a lack of desire on your part, in fact.

Sorry, but my experience in science and psychology/psychiatry has lead me to examine and analyze social situations - including discussions and posts on internet forums - and discuss them both objectively and subjectively without feeling a need to be politically correct.

It is fascinating that the observation of over-sensitivity to perceived slights has been quickly validated by the replies to my posts.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
264. VR46L
7:21 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:
VR46L - you are correct, I am not disputing your argument over the merits and details of "storm-naming" but rather what I consider wasting time over arguing about it at a a website of the corporation who implemented it.

OTOH, I have never in my life wasted time on an internet forum arguing over what I or others might consider pointless issues! ;-)


Actually This arguement was not even in DR Roods blog until you brought it up . It was debated in the main where the main topic of discussion is the current winter storm and therefore has a place..
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
263. nymore
7:17 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Xulonn if you could please explain what this means because I am a Moron.

I've noticed that nymore and a few others who argue (not really debate) against AGW/CC also expend a lot of effort railing against the new marketing gimmick of a corporation - TWC - of naming winter storms. They don't seem to be aware that the commercial entity TWC, the owners of this website, unlike the NWS, exists to make a profit. Marketing is one of their core weapons in the battle for dollars.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
262. Xulonn
7:15 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
VR46L - you are correct, I am not disputing your argument over the merits and details of "storm-naming" but rather what I consider wasting time over arguing about it at a a website of the corporation who implemented it.

OTOH, I have never in my life wasted time on an internet forum arguing over what I or others might consider pointless issues! ;-)
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
261. MySecondHandle
7:13 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:
I am beginning to see why it is difficult to have an logical and informed debate with denialists [snip]
Could be that the beginning of your post makes one want to skip the rest altogether, which I just did with this one.
Petty name calling and an attacking tone do not lend themselves to a "logical and informed debate". They show a lack of desire on your part, in fact.
Member Since: February 16, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 12
260. VR46L
6:56 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
259 ~~~ You have taken one point in my argument and have disregarded the major emphasis of my argument ... I, in that point also said a small weather company was already doing it and as such it was coming off as a gimmick as they (TWC) claimed they were the only ones doing it . and taking half a sentence out of a long thought out response is rather disrespectful and shows how shakey your arguement is

You have not tried to counter the rest of my argument so I guess the rest of my argument stands up to scrutiny. Thanks...

Edit added a couple of lines
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
259. Xulonn
6:49 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
I am beginning to see why it is difficult to have an logical and informed debate with denialists (and a few other folks) here. I am only writing this comment to illustrate the tendency by some people to to misinterpret comments and take personal offense at any perceived slights. This seems to take precedence over careful reading and analysis of comments. Some people just do not seem to want to try to understand and discuss the underpinnings of core elements of AGW/CC and related subjects under discussion.

When I started posting at Dr. Rood's blog, I stated that I was interested in the psychology of AGW/CC denialism. I now I see that some of the reactions are due to sloppy reading habits and an oversensitivity to the smallest perceived personal slights (not including the frequent obvious, purposeful and pointed insults).

Also there is a level of emotional involvement that brings to mind the first two stages of of loss and grief - denial and anger.

Quoting nymore:
You directly said I know nothing about marketing, Then why did I post it. Now I see your doing the backtrack trying to save face. The old Potomac Two Step as we say.

Excuse me?? That is a figment of your imagination. I am beginning to agree with Nea - I don't know whether it's a reading comprehension problem or a simple lack of focus and concentration. Your words quoted above are pure made-up b.s. What I said was - and I repeat - "I did see your comment on marketing over there. Which made me even more surprised to see you wasting your time arguing about it" I stand by that statement, but am surprised that you could not comprehend that I was saying that since you knew it to be a marketing gimmick, that I thought that it was not worth arguing about! You could have replied that even though you knew that it was a marketing gimmick, you still believed that it was worth arguing over. I have no idea why you think that I accused you of knowing nothing about marketing. In some ways it appears to be an attempt to lash back over a perceived, but untrue slight.

Quoting VR46L:
"its not an original idea and does come off as a gimmick and marketing stragery."

My point was that I think it's silly to argue endlessly about a corporate marketing gimmick - I have no objection to you're doing it, but my "opinion" is that I think it's a CWOT (Complete Waste of Time.)
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
258. VR46L
6:21 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:
It is a term a sportscaster has used here in the States. You will hear it from time to time when watching highlights of sports.


LOL . Sometimes I do misinterpret things that are said as it is can be quite a different form of language in different parts of the world.
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
257. nymore
6:18 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting VR46L:


Not Meaning to create an explosion just fed up of everyone being labeled and judged . But thank you on your compliment I posted most of it in the main as well. As that was where the arguement is topical .
It is a term a sportscaster has used here in the States. You will hear it from time to time when watching highlights of sports.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
256. VR46L
6:16 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:


And boom goes the dynamite. Well said. Excellent post


Not Meaning to create an explosion just fed up of everyone being labeled and judged . But thank you on your compliment I posted most of it in the main as well. As that was where the arguement is topical . But I dont expect a response as I seem to be ignored these days .
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
255. nymore
6:09 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting VR46L:



I have explained my objections to TWC naming storms , I will summarize ..

I have no objection to storms being named as long as its unilateral . Its a farce at the moment the NWS (who everyone really gets their warnings from) Accuweather and Fox are not naming them this leads to confusion .

People argue hurricanes and Tropical storms are named who names them ? The National Hurricane Centre and all the private weather companies take their lead on the name and refer to the storm as such .

If they used the Berlin Model were the money generated goes back to fund the education of young Meotrologists and metrological research . It would be to use a young phrase Cool (but I aint terrible young that I will accept, being patronized by people who think they have a right to talk down to me)

Any money that is being made by this company is going back into stockholders pockets rather to increase research into weather .unlike the European model....

Also It had been claimed that TWC were the first company to do so but a small weather company already does so its not an original idea and does come off as a gimmick and marketing stragery.

Also I read that people who are unsure of man influence on Climate Change is right wing fanatic not all are ... I actually find it ironic that people who regard themselves as left wing are in support of this Idea (TWC naming storms)..but maybe thats because I keep my political opinions to myself even thought someone implied that I was a right winger... I hope that is a mature answer to your comment and maybe you should think more deeply about it ..


And boom goes the dynamite. Well said. Excellent post
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
254. VR46L
5:29 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:
I've noticed that nymore and a few others who argue (not really debate) against AGW/CC also expend a lot of effort railing against the new marketing gimmick of a corporation - TWC - of naming winter storms. They don't seem to be aware that the commercial entity TWC, the owners of this website, unlike the NWS, exists to make a profit. Marketing is one of their core weapons in the battle for dollars. However, in spite of it's commercial underpinnings, many of us see a benefit in having a venue to discuss and debate various aspects of AGW/CC. I enjoy reading and posting here at Dr. Rood's blog on TWC's WU website, and I am thankful to TWC/WU for providing this website.

I'm guessing that most of the AWG/CC denialists here (and anti storm-naming WU participants) are mostly young, determined and pedantic arguers, but not well versed in the tactics of true debate. They generally display little or no ability to comprehend complex and nuanced science, and rant and rave endlessly over trivial factoids that are not very important in the big picture. Whether or not Superstorm Sandy or the storm of 1938 had the lowest sea-level barometric pressure, or whether one particular source of some of Neapolitan's information is funded by a particular organization is not significant to the overall science of AGW/CC. These are just Fox News style tactics used to obfuscate, mislead and call attention away from more important discussions.



I have explained my objections to TWC naming storms , I will summarize ..

I have no objection to storms being named as long as its unilateral . Its a farce at the moment the NWS (who everyone really gets their warnings from) Accuweather and Fox are not naming them this leads to confusion .

People argue hurricanes and Tropical storms are named who names them ? The National Hurricane Centre and all the private weather companies take their lead on the name and refer to the storm as such .

If they used the Berlin Model were the money generated goes back to fund the education of young Meotrologists and metrological research . It would be to use a young phrase Cool (but I aint terrible young that I will accept, being patronized by people who think they have a right to talk down to me)

Any money that is being made by this company is going back into stockholders pockets rather to increase research into weather .unlike the European model....

Also It had been claimed that TWC were the first company to do so but a small weather company already does so its not an original idea and does come off as a gimmick and marketing stragery.

Also I read that people who are unsure of man influence on Climate Change is right wing fanatic not all are ... I actually find it ironic that people who regard themselves as left wing are in support of this Idea (TWC naming storms)..but maybe thats because I keep my political opinions to myself even thought someone implied that I was a right winger... I hope that is a mature answer to your comment and maybe you should think more deeply about it ..
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
253. nymore
5:26 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:


Exactly, nymore! I did see your comment on marketing over there. Which made me even more surprised to see you wasting your time arguing about it. I am a bit surprised at the high level of emotional reaction there is with respect to storm naming, a European practice for many years. There are more important and interesting things to discuss with respect weather and climate.

The other thing, as I mentioned that I find amusing at Dr. Master's Blog is the endless arguments and debates regarding trivial, irrelevant data and statistics. It's kind of like the baseball nut who goes to the game with his laptop or tablet PC, and is so buried in trivial data (not really analyzed statistics) that he doesn't see and get into the real meat of the game.
I said name everything basically, why stop at winter storms.

You directly said I know nothing about marketing, Then why did I post it. Now I see your doing the backtrack trying to save face. The old Potomac Two Step as we say.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
252. Xulonn
5:17 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:


Lets look at what I posted on Dr Masters blog shall we

Here is post number 126

126. nymore 1:48 PM CST on December 19, 2012 3
Not that I actually care that they name storms just be honest with yourself it is done more for marketing than anything else. Just like us who live in the tundra (as they say) have done it as a joke for decades
Action: Quote | Modify Comment

NOTICE THE WORD MARKETING


Exactly, nymore! I did see your comment on marketing over there. Which made me even more surprised to see you wasting your time arguing about it. I am a bit surprised at the high level of emotional reaction there is with respect to storm naming, a European practice for many years. There are more important and interesting things to discuss with respect weather and climate.

The other thing, as I mentioned that I find amusing at Dr. Master's Blog is the endless arguments and debates regarding trivial, irrelevant data and statistics. It's kind of like the baseball nut who goes to the game with his laptop or tablet PC, and is so buried in trivial data (not really analyzed statistics) that he doesn't see and get into the real meat of the game.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
251. Neapolitan
4:58 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:
I've noticed that nymore and a few others who argue (not really debate) against AGW/CC also expend a lot of effort railing against the new marketing gimmick of a corporation - TWC - of naming winter storms. They don't seem to be aware that the commercial entity TWC, the owners of this website, unlike the NWS, exists to make a profit. Marketing is one of their core weapons in the battle for dollars. However, in spite of it's commercial underpinnings, many of us see a benefit in having a venue to discuss and debate various aspects of AGW/CC. I enjoy reading and posting here at Dr. Rood's blog on TWC's WU website, and I am thankful to TWC/WU for providing this website.

I'm guessing that most of the AWG/CC denialists here (and anti storm-naming WU participants) are mostly young, determined and pedantic arguers, but not well versed in the tactics of true debate. They generally display little or no ability to comprehend complex and nuanced science, and rant and rave endlessly over trivial factoids that are not very important in the big picture. Whether or not Superstorm Sandy or the storm of 1938 had the lowest sea-level barometric pressure, or whether one particular source of some of Neapolitan's information is funded by a particular organization is not significant to the overall science of AGW/CC. These are just Fox News style tactics used to obfuscate, mislead and call attention away from more important discussions.
Plus 10,000,000. Well said...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13556
250. nymore
4:57 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xulonn:
I've noticed that nymore and a few others who argue (not really debate) against AGW/CC also expend a lot of effort railing against the new marketing gimmick of a corporation - TWC - of naming winter storms. They don't seem to be aware that the commercial entity TWC, the owners of this website, unlike the NWS, exists to make a profit. Marketing is one of their core weapons in the battle for dollars. However, in spite of it's commercial underpinnings, many of us see a benefit in having a venue to discuss and debate various aspects of AGW/CC. I enjoy reading and posting here at Dr. Rood's blog on TWC's WU website, and I am thankful to TWC/WU for providing this website.

I'm guessing that most of the AWG/CC denialists here (and anti storm-naming WU participants) are mostly young, determined and pedantic arguers, but not well versed in the tactics of true debate. They generally display little or no ability to comprehend complex and nuanced science, and rant and rave endlessly over trivial factoids that are not very important in the big picture. Whether or not Superstorm Sandy or the storm of 1938 had the lowest sea-level barometric pressure, or whether one particular source of some of Neapolitan's information is funded by a particular organization is not significant to the overall science of AGW/CC. These are just Fox News style tactics used to obfuscate, mislead and call attention away from more important discussions.


Lets look at what I posted on Dr Masters blog shall we

Here is post number 126

126. nymore 1:48 PM CST on December 19, 2012 3
Not that I actually care that they name storms just be honest with yourself it is done more for marketing than anything else. Just like us who live in the tundra (as they say) have done it as a joke for decades
Action: Quote | Modify Comment

NOTICE THE WORD MARKETING
Do you have anymore lies
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
249. Xulonn
4:43 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
I've noticed that nymore and a few others who argue (not really debate) against AGW/CC also expend a lot of effort railing against the new marketing gimmick of a corporation - TWC - of naming winter storms. They don't seem to be aware that the commercial entity TWC, the owners of this website, unlike the NWS, exists to make a profit. Marketing is one of their core weapons in the battle for dollars. However, in spite of it's commercial underpinnings, many of us see a benefit in having a venue to discuss and debate various aspects of AGW/CC. I enjoy reading and posting here at Dr. Rood's blog on TWC's WU website, and I am thankful to TWC/WU for providing this website.

I'm guessing that most of the AWG/CC denialists here (and anti storm-naming WU participants) are mostly young, determined and pedantic arguers, but not well versed in the tactics of true debate. They generally display little or no ability to comprehend complex and nuanced science, and rant and rave endlessly over trivial factoids that are not very important in the big picture. Whether or not Superstorm Sandy or the storm of 1938 had the lowest sea-level barometric pressure, or whether one particular source of some of Neapolitan's information is funded by a particular organization is not significant to the overall science of AGW/CC. These are just Fox News style tactics used to obfuscate, mislead and call attention away from more important discussions.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1464
248. nymore
3:47 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:
Reanalysis suggests? What reanalysis? There's a sucker born every minute. I hate to break it to you but just posting something on a blog doesn't make it true. Perhaps you could provide a link to this reanalysis so we can all have a look at it. And for the record, I wrote the lowest pressure recorded. Even if your reanalysis actually exists, it wouldn't contradict what I wrote.

Keep the rose colored glasses on and live in your own made up world. Anyway have a nice day Gramps.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
247. misanthrope
3:34 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:


Site won't link so I will just type it
icyclone.com/now/2012/oct/30-octorber-2012.html

but here is the part that matters

Central Pressure. Sandy's estimated landfall pressure of 946 mb in New Jersey was very low but not quite as low as the landfall pressure of the Long Island Express Hurrricane of 1938. In the 1938 storm, Bellport, NY, reported 946 mb however, reanalysis suggests the actual central pressure was 941 mb. Given this, 1938 is still king by a solid margin.

Here is another Link

After reanalysis it does not seem so

Sandy 946 mb and the 1938 hurricane 941 mb

Reanalysis suggests? What reanalysis? There's a sucker born every minute. I hate to break it to you but just posting something on a blog doesn't make it true. Perhaps you could provide a link to this reanalysis so we can all have a look at it. And for the record, I wrote the lowest pressure recorded. Even if your reanalysis actually exists, it wouldn't contradict what I wrote.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
246. nymore
3:22 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:


The following is from your NWS link about the Great New England Hurricane of 1938:

"The lowest pressure at the time of landfall occurred on the south side of Long Island, at Bellport, where a reading of 27.94 inches was recorded. Other low pressures included 28.00 inches in Middletown, Connecticut and 28.04 inches in Hartford, Connecticut."

27.94 inches of mercury is equal to 946 millibars - same as Sandy, if I'm not mistaken. Which, of course, would mean Sandy made landfall with the lowest central pressure recorded north of Cape Hatteras.

Sort of what Dr. Mann said, isn't it?



Site won't link so I will just type it
icyclone.com/now/2012/oct/30-octorber-2012.html

but here is the part that matters

Central Pressure. Sandy's estimated landfall pressure of 946 mb in New Jersey was very low but not quite as low as the landfall pressure of the Long Island Express Hurrricane of 1938. In the 1938 storm, Bellport, NY, reported 946 mb however, reanalysis suggests the actual central pressure was 941 mb. Given this, 1938 is still king by a solid margin.

Here is another Link

Here is the part that matters in the previous link

Air Pressure Records:

- Sandy had a minimum central pressure of 946 mb when it made landfall, which was the second-lowest pressure of any storm to come ashore north of Cape Hatteras, N.C. Only the Hurricane of 1938 had a lower air pressure reading at landfall that far north, which was 941 mb. In general, the lower the air pressure, the stronger the storm


After reanalysis it does not seem so

Sandy 946 mb and the 1938 hurricane 941 mb

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
245. misanthrope
3:17 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting nymore:
Here you lazy bum does everyone always do your work for you.

Link

If you don't believe the NWS, Ask and I will go back and find the rest.

I'll be waiting for that apology


The following is from your NWS link about the Great New England Hurricane of 1938:

"The lowest pressure at the time of landfall occurred on the south side of Long Island, at Bellport, where a reading of 27.94 inches was recorded. Other low pressures included 28.00 inches in Middletown, Connecticut and 28.04 inches in Hartford, Connecticut."

27.94 inches of mercury is equal to 946 millibars - same as Sandy, if I'm not mistaken. Which, of course, would mean Sandy made landfall with the lowest central pressure recorded north of Cape Hatteras.

Sort of what Dr. Mann said, isn't it?

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
244. VR46L
2:44 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting ncstorm:


If you dont mind, I would like to be the "Don King" of this and will even sponsor it with a donation of $20.00 to the winner's charity..It would be interesting to see you both debate..

"Rumble In the Climate"

If Nea agrees of course.


I think I would pay to view the debate could be a money spinner for WU/TWC ..and will be ordering beer popcorn and chips it would entertaining ...
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6927
243. schwankmoe
2:18 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
sorry, i'm not going to be a part of derailing a man's eulogy into yet another back-and-forth on climate change.

there's more than enough of that in literally every other thread on this site.

give it a rest just once, out of basic respect. come on, people.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
241. schwankmoe
2:09 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
for me, it's walking into someone's online eulogy and taking a huge crap all over the place and try to make it all about themselves.

what kind of adult does this? it's like sitting in the back of a funeral arguing loudly about football.

dr. mahlman was dr. rood's friend and he felt the need to honor him with this post. at least have the basic decency to take it somewhere else, just for a day.


Quoting percylives:
I don't have the time or inclination to listen to deniers any longer. There are too many more important things to discuss, like how humanity is going to adapt to the warming that we already have and mitigate any additional warming.

Anyone who argues that the planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 or so years is not talking to me any longer. You have activated the "ignore" button. Just wanted to let you know. Get educated or talk to yourself.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
240. percylives
1:45 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
I don't have the time or inclination to listen to deniers any longer. There are too many more important things to discuss, like how humanity is going to adapt to the warming that we already have and mitigate any additional warming.

Anyone who argues that the planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 or so years is not talking to me any longer. You have activated the "ignore" button. Just wanted to let you know. Get educated or talk to yourself.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
239. Xandra
1:37 PM GMT on December 20, 2012
Quoting Xandra:

From Australian Red Cross:

World Disasters Report: 2010 death toll highest in decade

...The deadliest disasters were the Haiti earthquake (more than 220,000 deaths) and an extraordinary heatwave in Russia (more than 55,000 deaths)...

According to the report, the heatwave in Russia led to 55,736 deaths.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281

Viewing: 289 - 239

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.