The Optimist’s Time

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:28 AM GMT on January 06, 2013

Share this Blog
22
+

The Optimist’s Time

At the end of my last entry, I said that I anchor optimism in the students I see coming from high schools and colleges. They have environmental science and sustainability as core interests and core values. In this blog I write about time and change.

First, those students: When I was at NASA there was a time I felt that my job was marking the degradation of the Earth. I was in the ozone business at the time, and I remember, distinctly, being in the room where the proverbial smoking gun of chlorine-caused ozone loss was revealed. When I moved to the University of Michigan in 2005, I was not credentialed in climate change, but I was climate interested. Through a clanky chain of events, three students recruited me to start a climate change course that looked at the intersection of climate change and, at that beginning, business and policy. I started that course with a set of preconceptions that students needed to be educated about climate change, and with that, they would set about solving the problems of climate change.

In the first two weeks of that class, I learned that most of the students were quite climate knowledgeable. What they wanted from me was the construction of the science-based foundation on which to place their knowledge and a framework for how to use that knowledge in problem solving. Each year the students who make it to my class are different, but there is no doubt that the ones who make it to me are interested in changing the world in different ways. They see the world of many connected issues; they want to cross disciplines, but they live in a world that still rewards specialization. They know that problem solving requires connecting and rationalizing different interests. With regard to climate and the environment, more and more the sustainability of the planet is a core value.

I am impressed at how quickly this sustainability-focused group of people is emerging. Still though, this has been five years, and it is the result of, perhaps, twenty years of development and teaching of curriculum – plus advocacy. On one hand this is fast, on the other hand, many I know find this intolerably slow. But if we are going to integrate the value of our climate into our policy and behavior, then the length of time to grow the generations that internalize that value into their decisions is one of the most important measures of time.

Time: In my class I have developed a framework for problem solving. One of the essential pieces of setting up problem solving is to know the role of time. It is an easy statement to say that one of challenges of addressing climate change is that consequential change is far in the future (but see). This leads to a set of possible arguments. First, it is difficult to see how a decision we make today has any impact. If there is cost to that decision, then the benefit is far in the future. A second notion is that consequential climate change is so far in the future that we have time to develop the technological fixes. Third, there are so many unknown factors in science and population and economy that surely something will come along and disrupt any rational plans that we make today. I can list more, and the common feature of all of these notions is that they allow us easy rationalizations to do nothing about climate change. Therefore, we need those who have internalized the value of climate into their behavior to be making the decisions of policy and investment.

As a scientist, when I started the course the measures of time that seemed important to me were the ones scientists think about. For example, how long does carbon dioxide stay in the atmosphere? Or more science-policy questions: How much do we have to reduce emissions to make a difference? How long does it take before we know we have made a difference? After teaching for a while, it became clear that though these measures of time were important, they were not especially usable in the communication of the importance of climate change or in motivation in problem solving.

Above, I suggested that an important length of time would be “generational.” When I was in grade school, I was taught that the span of a generation was 35 years. In fact, I found that as a definition at The Free Dictionary. When I was at NASA, with something of a charge to change organizations, it became apparent that an important amount of time was associated with retirement. This leads to a statement most often attributed to Neils Bohr, "science progresses one death at a time." The point, an important amount of time is the human life.

I use the following figure to start to think about time.



Figure 1: Starting to think about time and climate change. Amounts of time that matter to people.

In the figure I divide time into long and short, and I choose 50 years as that division. It is generational, but it is also the amount of time that a person works and saves for retirement. It is about the longest amount of time that we seem to be able to think about. If you start to work with people planning cities and roads and levees, then a number that often comes up is fifty years. It is number to think about for infrastructure development. With respect to climate change, it is long enough that when that infrastructure is planned, we need to think about how the weather will be different.

On the left side of the figure I label energy security and economy. Both of these are issues that we have ample evidence of change over very short amounts of time. I remember feeling pretty good about my retirement savings at the end of 2007 and not so good at the end of 2008. With the onset of recession, any talk of the cost to change to renewable energy was ended – it was too much of a threat to the economy. In fact, one of the first things we wanted to do was to extract fossil fuels. It would provide energy, jobs, and with cheap energy more jobs. We see fracking explode, natural gas booms, and, now, people saying we have achieved energy security, and since we no longer are talking about climate change, there is no need to invest in renewable energy. The short-term has undermined the long-term.

Understanding the role of time in complex problems is an essential step in getting started on solutions. It is important to consider not only the times important to science, but to energy, to the economy, and, perhaps most of all, to people.

r



From the Washington Post. It says something about how we treat time. By Tom Toles.



Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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

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

Viewing: 215 - 165

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

Quoting cyclonebuster:


Climate change is expected to cost 60 trillion by 2050.I bet it will be much more than that. Sounds like a wise investment to me even at a trillion dollars to save tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars in the future. You think our economy is shambles now wait until then. It will be like Mad Max....


I agree that eventual costs of inaction will cost 10s of Trillions of dollars. I'm also not trying to dissuade you from pursuing your dreams of a viable concept. You just need to revise your concept to look more produceable and seaworthy. Then you need to change your target audience. You don't need small dollar venture capitalists for financing, you need influencial lobbyists and consultants to find significant governmental support and funding.

GOOD LUCK
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Climate change is expected to cost 60 trillion by 2050.I bet it will be much more than that. Sounds like a wise investment to me even at a trillion dollars to save tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars in the future. You think our economy is shambles now wait until then. It will be like Mad Max....


I can't argue against that point. I just do not have any investment money.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


CB, you know that I have in the past expressed some serious concerns with the produceability of your design in it's current configuration. However, what you must accept is that your design can NOT be produced for $250K. You have to look at comparable vessels and how much they cost. The footprint of you vessel is not that much different than an oil platform, although not as complex at a Deepwater Drilling Vessel which costs in excess of $500 Million. The cost to build your platform could be in as much as $250 Million. That would put the total production cost of 4000 vessels at $1 Trillion.

I'll give you an example of why $250
K is ludicrously low. 20 years ago, my wife and her ex-husband paid over $200,000 for a used 41 foot sailboat. Your vessel is at least ten times longer, much wider and must be rugged enough to survive the marine environment 24/7 for years at a time.

You may also be underestimating the annual operational costs for each vessel. Since it must be manned 24/7, you will have to have crew rotating on a weekly or monthly basis via ship or helicopter. At any given time you will need at least 10 people living aboard. Therefore you need 20 workers, several of whom must be degreed engineers, as well as highly trained technicicans and some skilled laborers. Probably have average annual salaries in the range of 80K. With the additional costs of Payroll Taxes, Medical Insurance, Life Insurance, 401K contributions and food, each employee will cost you at least $120K/year. That makes your annual personnel expenses a whopping $2.4 Million/year per vessel. For a fleet of 4000 vessels, your annual personnel expenditures will amount to $9.6 Billion.

I have not incuded cost estimates for the following:

1. Helicopter services
2. Offshore Support Vessel services
3. Logistics support
4. Routine Maintenance
5. Periodic shipyard overhaul/refurbishment/upgrades


I could provide more concerns for now but I think this should give you some food for thought.


Climate change is expected to cost 60 trillion by 2050.I bet it will be much more than that. Sounds like a wise investment to me even at a trillion dollars to save tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars in the future. You think our economy is in a shambles now wait until then. It will be like Mad Max....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20515
Quoting cyclonebuster:


#2 Dr. Willoughby also mentioned the cost of each one was around 250k.


CB, you know that I have in the past expressed some serious concerns with the produceability of your design in it's current configuration. However, what you must accept is that your design can NOT be produced for $250K. You have to look at comparable vessels and how much they cost. The footprint of your vessel is not that much different than an oil platform, although not as complex as a Deepwater Drilling Vessel which costs in excess of $500 Million. The cost to build your platform could be in as much as $250 Million. That would put the total production cost of 4000 vessels at $1 Trillion.

I'll give you an example of why $250
K is ludicrously low. 20 years ago, my wife and her ex-husband paid over $200,000 for a used 41 foot sailboat. Your vessel is at least ten times longer, much wider and must be rugged enough to survive the marine environment 24/7 for years at a time.

You may also be underestimating the annual operational costs for each vessel. Since it must be manned 24/7, you will have to have crew rotating on a weekly or monthly basis via ship or helicopter. At any given time you will need at least 10 people living aboard. Therefore you need 20 workers, several of whom must be degreed engineers, as well as highly trained technicicans and some skilled laborers. Probably have average annual salaries in the range of 80K. With the additional costs of Payroll Taxes, Medical Insurance, Life Insurance, 401K contributions and food, each employee will cost you at least $120K/year. That makes your annual personnel expenses a whopping $2.4 Million/year per vessel. For a fleet of 4000 vessels, your annual personnel expenditures will amount to $9.6 Billion.

I have not incuded cost estimates for the following:

1. Helicopter services
2. Offshore Support Vessel services
3. Logistics support
4. Routine Maintenance
5. Periodic shipyard overhaul/refurbishment/upgrades


I could provide more concerns for now but I think this should give you some food for thought.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
co2now.org


394.39ppm


Atmospheric CO2 for December 2012

Preliminary data dated January 3, 2013


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes, I know. Oil is such a staple in all aspects of our lives now that we simply do not just turn off the spicket. This should not translate into we should not be finding ways to eliminate the spicket altogether. The only way to get off of oil is by taking the steps to do so. Eventually, oil will not be there for us at all or too costly to use on a daily basis. Don't be looking to buy your ticket after the train has left the station.


No question, that is not my point at all. But we need to realize that so far, we can not turn it off with out a lot of hungry people.

It is not just about energy is the other issue. Oil is the basic feed stock for most of what makes our current standard of living. Only looking at oil as fuel is cherry picking. Oil is about 80% fuel, but we use the rest of it for just about every thing else we "have" in our society right now. So far no one has identified a replacement for that "feed stock".

Back to food. Synthetic fertilizer. see my previous post.

see you on email later this evening, I need to go off line now.
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
Quoting 1911maker:
Rookie, I sent you email before I read the comments. Discuss/argue with you later via email. :)

I am only thinking about what it takes to make food and move it around right now.

Bunker fuel and large ocean going ships to move the food to the third world. Large ships do not run on batteries.

modern farm machinery does not run on batteries. I worked on a project that involved replacing ~80 diesel HP with electric (off road "thing" that does real work). It was great until we tried to find batteries. Project stopped. We made the machine for proof of concept even though we did not have batteries. It was great piece of machinery. We had to use a diesel electric configuration for the prototype. That was for ~80hp, now days 80hp in Ag equipment is not common. 300 hp is pretty normal. 600 hp is starting to become more common.

Big trucks to move stuff from the fields to the elevator/storage.

Over the road trucks to get stuff from the rail lines to the point of use.

Electric motors are a well proven tech and we make lots of them and have for years, but we do not have a way to run them in the same applications as a diesel engine. Some thing about energy density.

We do not even run the current railroad on electric and the locomotives are already Diesel electric and have been for years.

If you do not look at the total picture of what high energy density liquid fuel is used for and what can and can not be down with solar and wind, I think you might be opening your self up to being accused of "Cherry picking".



Yes, I know. Oil is such a staple in all aspects of our lives now that we simply do not just turn off the spicket. This should not translate into we should not be finding ways to eliminate the spicket altogether. The only way to get off of oil is by taking the steps to do so. Eventually, oil will not be there for us at all or too costly to use on a daily basis. Don't be looking to buy your ticket after the train has left the station.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
Quoting Xulonn:
Electric powered trains - especially short haul?? Works well in Europe!


And twice as fast as diesel trains...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20515
Rookie, I sent you email before I read the comments. Discuss/argue with you later via email. :)

I am only thinking about what it takes to make food and move it around right now.

Bunker fuel and large ocean going ships to move the food to the third world. Large ships do not run on batteries.

modern farm machinery does not run on batteries. I worked on a project that involved replacing ~80 diesel HP with electric (off road "thing" that does real work). It was great until we tried to find batteries. Project stopped. We made the machine for proof of concept even though we did not have batteries. It was great piece of machinery. We had to use a diesel electric configuration for the prototype. That was for ~80hp, now days 80hp in Ag equipment is not common. 300 hp is pretty normal. 600 hp is starting to become more common.

Big trucks to move stuff from the fields to the elevator/storage.

Over the road trucks to get stuff from the rail lines to the point of use.

Electric motors are a well proven tech and we make lots of them and have for years, but we do not have a way to run them in the same applications as a diesel engine. Some thing about energy density.

We do not even run the current railroad on electric and the locomotives are already Diesel electric and have been for years.

If you do not look at the total picture of what high energy density liquid fuel is used for and what can and can not be down with solar and wind, I think you might be opening your self up to being accused of "Cherry picking".

Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
Quoting 1911maker:
I have yet to find a engineered implementable (in large scale way) that solar and wind can replace diesel.
Electric powered trains - especially short haul?? Works well in Europe!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1643
Quoting overwash12:
People freeze to death every year! Go to Siberia,spend a winter and come back and see how good we have it in the good ole U.S.A. !
And the relevance to AGW/CC is??
Inquiring minds want to know.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1643
Quoting overwash12:
We need to do a study to see if this is the case,no?
Please proceed - if you think it is necessary.
At the same time, you might want to ask people if the sky is blue!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1643
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


People also die of heat stress every year. This should be an indication as to what extremes we can tolerate in terms of our temperature environment. We are jacking with the thermostat and pushing more towards one extreme. 55,000 people died in Russia's 2010 heat wave alone.
That is an extreme case and heat waves happened in the past before global warming was even an issue! I get your point.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1498
Quoting 1911maker:
Doing some searching for graphs showing how Diesel is used in the US. Found this while searching.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-19/u-s-dies el-consumption-surged-in-october-api-report-shows. html
Link

“We’ve been watching the diesel demand numbers, which have been very strong,” John Felmy, chief economist with the Washington-based API, said in a telephone interview. “There’s a strong correlation between diesel consumption and economic growth. This is clearly a good sign for the economy.”


I have yet to find a engineered implementable (in large scale way) that solar and wind can replace diesel.


The longer we keep building diesel engines and not electric engines, then this will probably be the case. You cannot plug a solar panel into a diesel engine and expect it to run.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
201. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:45 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:



Rookie. Thanks for the clarification to my questions. Sounds like a mess we got ourselves in. Unfortunately.


Amen, Tomball. Amen. I still think that it is a mess we can recover from, but this will be through the citizens and not through the current Party platforms.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
200. 1911maker
5:43 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Doing some searching for graphs showing how Diesel is used in the US. Found this while searching.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-19/u-s-dies el-consumption-surged-in-october-api-report-shows. html
Link

“We’ve been watching the diesel demand numbers, which have been very strong,” John Felmy, chief economist with the Washington-based API, said in a telephone interview. “There’s a strong correlation between diesel consumption and economic growth. This is clearly a good sign for the economy.”


I have yet to find a engineered implementable (in large scale way) that solar and wind can replace diesel.
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
199. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:42 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting overwash12:
People freeze to death every year! Go to Siberia,spend a winter and come back and see how good we have it in the good ole U.S.A. !


People also die of heat stress every year. This should be an indication as to what extremes we can tolerate in terms of our temperature environment. We are jacking with the thermostat and pushing more towards one extreme. 55,000 people died in Russia's 2010 heat wave alone.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
196. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:38 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Why don't Republicans believe GW is natural and not man-made? Surely, there must be some democrats who don't believe in AGW....


I am rather certain that there are some Democrats that do not believe that the climate is changing at all. The difference is that the Democrat Party platform does not contain any language that denounces AGW. Again, there is a huge difference between what the citizens are willing to accept about their candidates and what the Party leadership will accept as language in their political platform that their candidates must support in order to have the leadership's full support.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
195. overwash12
5:29 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
People freeze to death every year! Go to Siberia,spend a winter and come back and see how good we have it in the good ole U.S.A. !
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1498
193. pintada
5:23 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting Daisyworld:
Wow. Quite the tag-team here... Yoboi, TomballTXPride, NeapolitanFan, I see even Nymore is still out there, judging from the responses people are giving. Among their tactics: multiple false statements, posting of fragmented, whimsical comments, manipulative assumptions; little of it seeking any knowledge-based understanding of climate science.

Since I've been grading papers this evening, I'm in the "grade-giving" mood. Let's see if we can shed some light on the denialism here, and offer up some critiques:

***



Completely diversionary, borderline antagonistic. Grade: F




Misleading statement. Stability is purely subjective in this sense. Grade: D. Review your understanding of the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Better yet, review Dr. Rood's series of blog entries on Bumps and Wiggles.




As Neapolitan indicated, sources were not cited. However, to be fair, I can't see if Nymore replied with sources since I have them set on "ignore" in my webjournal, but my guess is they're using sources such as the Daily Mail, which is mis-interpreting/misusing the UK Met Office data. Even Met Office stood up and refuted the misinformation, stating that the Daily Mail article was fallacious. Grade: I (incomplete because I can't see if he replied with sources -- an "F" if he cited information from the Daily Mail article, or derivations thereof).




Partially correct, but also somewhat misleading. 30 years is the adopted average by the WMO for basic surface measurements, and is not an absolute. It can vary tremendously depending upon what you are studying. Grade: C

If you're looking at satellite data, 30 years is about right. If your looking at ice cores from 100,000 years ago, you'll be lucky if your resolution is 30 years within the compressed layers.




False Statement. Many solutions have been offered, and some are even being implemented. Wunderground even offers some basics on the individual level like a grocery shopping guide and a driving guide. Grade: E




Another Anthony Watts article, NeoFan? Come on. Anthony Watts is great at getting his own word out over the web, but his credentials in climate science are sorely lacking. He does not hold a college degree, his AMS Seal-of-Approval has not been active for some time, and he is not even an active publisher in the scientific literature, only his own website (and derivatives thereof).

Result: Misleading information, non-scientific sources. Grade: E

***

That's all I feel like looking at at the moment.

So far, only TomballTXPride has a passing average grade of "D". That, at least, provides hope. Though, it would help if she would be open-minded enough to provide an answer to her claim that humans are not responsible for 70-100% of the current global warming trend (i.e., retract or explain the statement). But apparently, that's too much to ask.

Overall, I've been giving the deniers in Dr. Rood's blog the benefit of the doubt, benevolently calling their incorrect statements in the comments section as simple "misinformation", the definition being the unintentional spreading of false and/or inaccurate information.

However, based on the recent influx of denialist comments over the past 24 hours (especially within Dr. Master's blog post about 2012 US heat record, and the unprecidented Australian heatwave), I'm starting to think the plethora of incorrect statements might be more malevolent in nature. Possibly stooping to the level of "disinformation": Deliberately spreading intentionally false and/or inaccurate information.

Unfortunately, that would have some negative consequences. Individuals who maliciously spread information that is knowingly false go by another name: Frauds. But of course, I'm sure that no one here would dream of throwing that word around...


Yes, and in that context, please do not think that i would use the terms liars, psychopaths, morons, or murderers.

After all, just because people are dying because of AGW there is no cause to become rude, or for WUG to get the message that they are in fact the biggest clearinghouse for denialist propaganda on the web, and there is no reason for WUG to ban those nice folks listed and thereby get on the moral high ground.

Lets make sure the myth of a scientific debate revolving around AGW is maintained so that no action is taken. We wouldn't want to cut the profits of the fossil energy companies just to save a few lives.
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
192. overwash12
5:20 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
something that even most illiterate people could understand.
We need to do a study to see if this is the case,no?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1498
191. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:15 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:

So the problem are citizens you are saying? How do we get the word out?


The problem is that the Republican Party leadership will not support a Republican candidate that does not denounce global warming as being real. The most the Republican Party leadership will tolerate of one their candidates is that they can make a brief claim the global warming is real but mankind has nothing to do with it. Any warming is all natural warming would have to be their claim. Would the citizens vote for a Republican candidate that states the case for AGW? We may never know. The Republican Party leaders would not allow for one their candidates to run on this platform. The problem is not with the citizens, it is with the Republican Party leadership.

2012 GOP Platform - Pay close attention to page 15 through page 19.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
190. Xulonn
5:02 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting SCIENTIFIC TRUTH:
Current AGW/CC theories and models predict harsher and more frequent extreme weather events, both hot and COLD.
Thanks ICEAGECOMING, for bringing to everyone's attention some of the extreme weather events from around the globe that were predicted by, and very neatly and thoroughly supported by, AGW/CC and the theories and models that support those theories. Many people ignore the cold events, which are a very real component of the AGW/CC scenario.

I do believe that you are sufficiently intelligent and educated to be aware that I am referring to the theories that identify the cause, mechanisms and future climate and weather as a result of the influences of the current AGW/CC episode. Of course, everyone with a decent amount of intelligence and education also is aware the the current AGW/CC trend is real, and not a theory - unless they are in an emotional state of denial that prevents logical analysis of the issues.

Although it isn't directly relevant to the mechanisms discussed above, anyone who doesn't understand that snow and ice freeze and melt at 32°F (0°C), and that a 0.5° increase from, say 10°F does not pevent snow and ice from forming and sticking on the ground, is really, really ignorant of the most basic science. This is something that even most illiterate people could understand.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1643
189. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:59 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
"Unprecedented" weather, or just more hype?

Link


Yep! Little Anthony is still complaining about the weather and how it gets reported. Does Little Anthony ever show how the AGWT violates any of the Laws of science? Does he ever address the science at all relating to a changing climate? Very rarely. He would rather just talk about the weather.

Why does Little Anthony not complain about the UK MET not including France in the discussion of UK weather events and records? .... or .... does he???
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
186. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:47 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting Doxienan:
Here is a very short video of MIT's Dr. Kerry Emanuel and Dr. Peter Frumhoff of UCS speaking about finding common ground on climate change.

Who said Republicans and Democrats can't see eye-to-eye on climate change?

Link



Chris Christy has certainly made statements recently that shows he understands what a changing climate means. I seriously doubt that he would have won his election if he had campaigned on this issue. That is where the problem lies.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
184. Doxienan
4:33 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Here is a very short video of MIT's Dr. Kerry Emanuel and Dr. Peter Frumhoff of UCS speaking about finding common ground on climate change.

Who said Republicans and Democrats can't see eye-to-eye on climate change?

Link

Member Since: April 28, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 54
183. Neapolitan
3:58 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:
By honestly you mean someone who refuses to answer a question because doing so undermines there whole position, so they just put you on ignore rather than face the truth or would that be someone who make assumptions on what someone posted as links were the Daily Mail then without ever checking is arrogant enough to hand out grades.

You sir will line of the day hands down. I would lay 10 to 1 nobody will say something more ignorant or foolish today.

Well back to the grind till next time OLD FRIEND
Thanks for The Daily Dose O'Ad Hominems. Now that you've gotten those out of your system, care to comment on the science in a scientific manner?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14179
182. nymore
3:48 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
That depends; what's the color of logic? Of intellectual honesty? Of scientific truth? For those are the colors "revealed" by Daisyworld...
By honestly you mean someone who refuses to answer a question because doing so undermines there whole position, so they just put you on ignore rather than face the truth or would that be someone who make assumptions on what someone posted as links were the Daily Mail then without ever checking is arrogant enough to hand out grades.

You sir will line of the day hands down. I would lay 10 to 1 nobody will say something more ignorant or foolish today.


">

Well back to the grind till next time OLD FRIEND
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
181. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:06 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:


I hope you enjoy the links.




Link


Good day, iceage.

I read the article that you linked and it gives some information of the past glacial periods that the Earth has experienced. As fascinating as this article may be, it is also deplete of any information that pertains to AGW. The article is also quite deplete of any information that would support your claim that Earth is headed back into another ice age at any time within the near future or even within the next 10,000 years.

Did you pay any attention to the last graphic in the article?



Did you notice that the graphic ends during the early part of the 20th century? The graphic does not show the more recent and more pronounced warming that is occurring today. Since this article is not dated, and there is no reference as to who the author or authors may be, I am curious as to when the article was written and who the author(s) is. Was this article written during the early part of the 20th century? May I ask as to how this article would offer any supporting evidence to your belief that we will soon be entering another ice age?

Added - Did you also note the small temperature differences between a warm climate and a mini ice age in the last graphic. Does this bring some reality to you as to how even a small global temperature change ( 1 degree C ) can have dramatic effects on the conditions that life will live under?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
180. Xulonn
3:03 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Your true colors are beginning to reveal themselves, aren't they Daisy?


Indeed - her true color is the color of truth and sticking with scientific fact.

Aislie, I am quite disappointed in you - you're back to the same old denialist and non-scientific B.S. - spouting all the dis-proven, irrelevant, inappropriate and talking point fossil-fuel industry approved garbage.

Some day in the future, your children will look at you and say "Mother, why didn't they try to do something about global warming when there was still time to make changes?" and you will have to hide your head in shame.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1643
179. cyclonebuster
3:03 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting Daisyworld:


Hi CB: Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier about your design. I think Xulonn and OldLeatherneck gave you a really good rundown last summer on the pros and cons of it, and I agreed with many of their conclusions. I'm not a nautical engineer, nor is my discipline focused solely on oceanography, but a few of my thoughts about your design without doing calculations:

(1) I think, in order to achieve the results you want, you're going to need LOTS of them.

(2) Assuming there was the capacity to produce lots of them, my guess is that the costs to build and initially operate such a large number of them would be much higher than any preventative measures we could take right now to mitigate CO2 produced from fossil-fuel.

(3) It would be fixing a symptom, and not the problem: You're moving colder, deeper water from below to the surface. That's just moving the heat around and not actually removing it from the system (or preventing it from being trapped below the stratosphere to begin with). What would replace the colder, deeper water that you're moving to the surface? Something has to fill it's place, and that would be dispersed, slightly warmer water from higher thermal layers further away from the devices.

(4) Investment in the project doesn't mitigate the CO2 buildup, unless you generate enough power to wean us of coal power (again, you would need a LOT of them to do that, and I mean a LOT). I'll admit, though, that any little bit would help.

(5) There's a danger to moving cold water away from deeper thermoclines. You have entire ecosystems down there that we're just beginning to study. Do we even know what effect it would have on them? Remember: the base of the oceanic food chain (phytoplankton) relies on upwelling, and by changing where that upwelling occurs, we have no idea what impacts will ensue.

(6) In relation to the danger of moving cold water away from deeper thermoclines: Methane hydrates exist at these depths that rely on specific temperatures and pressure to remain in solid form. If you raise the water temperature in these areas by even a few degrees, the hydrates will turn into gas, and then you've got an excursion of methane: a greenhouse gas that's 20 times more powerful than CO2.

(7) In further relation to the danger of moving cold water away from deeper thermoclines: Colder, deeper water has a higher capacity to retain CO2. In fact, deep ocean water is a CO2 sink, and by moving it from deeper levels to the surface (where it will eventually warm up), you're robbing the oceans of their capacity to retain CO2. It would be like taking an open soda pop bottle from the refrigerator and letting it sit on the counter: As it warms the ability for the soft drink to hold it's carbonation would decrease.


Overall, I think your heart is in the right place, but I'm dubious on whether your device would do what you want it to, and there could be many, many unforeseen side effects. It would also require a huge price-tag for a payoff that's far from certain. While I'm a fan of technology in general, I'll admit that I'm not confident in geoengineering mitigation of human-induced global warming. I think it's smarter, cheaper, and more responsible to practice energy conservation and simply stop burning so much fossil fuel than to invest in the infrastructure that would be needed to implement your plan (and I think it's much bigger than you think it would be).

This is really all I have to offer on your design, and there's not much more I can say about it. I don't want to dissuade you, but this is just my take on it since you asked. Otherwise, I appreciate your input in Dr. Rood's blog, and I wish you success in finding your niche to help with the overarching problem of human-induced climate change.


Thanks for your response Daisyworld.I will have a few rebuttals on your numbered comments now. As for #1 you mentioned I would need lots of them and Dr. Hugh Willoughby at FIU mentioned to me here Link that I would need a total of 4,000 of them to weaken a hurricane from category 5 to category 3..However,that is totally dependent upon what size you want the cross section to be. The larger the cross section the fewer of them are needed.

#2 Dr. Willoughby also mentioned the cost of each one was around 250k. However,if one were to also make them hydroelectrical generating units they would start paying for themselves after the first one was built and put into operation and reduction of Co2 would start immediately.Let the profit of each one pay for the building of the next one. The power generation they provide would remove the same amount of power generation generated by fossil fuels and so those Man Made GHG's from the fossil fuels would no longer get into our atmosphere and act as blanket which is warming Gods Good Earth. This will allow Co2 levels to fall over time and allow the oceans and atmospheres heat to escape back out to space once again as efficiently as it did prior to the industrial revolution thus building more Northern Arctic Ice during the summer and winter depending on how much Control Variable is placed into TIC-026. Set Point for tunnel discharge temperature can be REGULATED anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees F..That's right I said REGULATED in order to REGULATE Arctic Ice extent something which we can not do now with business as usual burning of fossil fuels.

#3 It fixes both the symptoms and the problems at the same time by what I said in my rebuttal in #2 allowing the oceans and atmospheres heat to escape to space plus a bit more. You mentioned in #3 "What would replace the colder, deeper water that you're moving to the surface?" As the oceans surface heat is given up to the atmosphere and the atmospheres heat is radiated to space more efficiently due to the lowering of fossil fuel GHG's the oceans surface is cooler now.Therefore, the now cooler ocean surface can not warm the deep ocean and so It cools more also which is exactly what we need now as it is warming also.

#4 That is what #2 and #3 does....

#5 and #6 Remember cooling the ocean surface will also cool the ocean at depth which is what we need now because those Methane Hydrates are starting to melt already which will exacerbate the warming problem.

#7 Carbonic Acid levels caused by more Co2 in the ocean at all depths come down because the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is removed because we won't be burning the fossil fuels. The atmosphere becomes a Co2 sink for Co2 in the ocean instead of the opposite. Another thing which will help is a massive tree planting campaign to help absorb the Co2 in the atmosphere and so the corals and shell fish shells are preserved.... The devices do what we want them to do because of their ability to REGULATE sea surface discharge temperature set point anywhere between 70-90 degrees F, generate ENORMOUS electrical power and displace fossil fuel Co2 by producing an equal amount or more of hydro electrical power...

And thanks for your response. Any other Questions?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 131 Comments: 20515
178. Neapolitan
2:50 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Your true colors are beginning to reveal themselves, aren't they Daisy?
That depends; what's the color of logic? Of intellectual honesty? Of scientific truth? For those are the colors "revealed" by Daisyworld...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14179
176. Daisyworld
2:16 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:
Sorry Daisy, don't know who elected or hired you to to grade anything, but you are free to espouse your perspective as this is a blog.

In reference to several of your "opinions" I found two entertaining...

[snip]


Thank you, Iceagecoming, for revealing your real purpose for being here: Entertainment. That tells me you're just having fun slinging around misinformation rather than seeking knowledged-based information on climate science.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 909
175. Daisyworld
2:12 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Climate has always been changing and has always had extremes. That's why I can't stand it when weathermen or weatherwomen say that normal high for this day is so and so. There is no such thing as normal. That's like saying it's supposed to be that particular temperature that day. That's misleading and inaccurate.

It should be referred to as the "average" temperature. Because on that particular day during the course of weather records for that location, the temperature could have been -30F or 60F, but the average implies it is averaged out over the course of time.

Climate has always been changing, and always will. I just don't understand why some believe that climate should be stable and everything just fine and dandy.

Tomball, it's about how you define stability. My point to grading your statement was that yes, there were ups and downs in the climate system in the past, but how is that relevant to the current discussion? It's misleading to say that the climate "has always been changing, and always will" as an argument against human-induced global warming, because it's never been refuted in the climate literature that there's been climate fluctuations in the Earth's history. What matters is how much it's changed, over how long, and what the causes of the changes were. THAT'S the discussion here.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 909
173. iceagecoming
1:13 PM GMT on January 10, 2013



During the Forties when Rommel was ramping up his efforts in North Africa, do you ever recall the Brits complaining about SNOW? It was pretty cold in Europe
during that decade, but not this far south. Hmmm?
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1134
171. iceagecoming
1:02 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting Daisyworld:
Wow. Quite the tag-team here... Yoboi, TomballTXPride, NeapolitanFan, I see even Nymore is still out there, judging from the responses people are giving. Among their tactics: multiple false statements, posting of fragmented, whimsical comments, manipulative assumptions; little of it seeking any knowledge-based understanding of climate science.

Since I've been grading papers this evening, I'm in the "grade-giving" mood. Let's see if we can shed some light on the denialism here, and offer up some critiques:

***



Completely diversionary, borderline antagonistic. Grade: F




Misleading statement. Stability is purely subjective in this sense. Grade: D. Review your understanding of the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Better yet, review Dr. Rood's series of blog entries on Bumps and Wiggles.




As Neapolitan indicated, sources were not cited. However, to be fair, I can't see if Nymore replied with sources since I have them set on "ignore" in my webjournal, but my guess is they're using sources such as the Daily Mail, which is mis-interpreting/misusing the UK Met Office data. Even Met Office stood up and refuted the misinformation, stating that the Daily Mail article was fallacious. Grade: I (incomplete because I can't see if he replied with sources -- an "F" if he cited information from the Daily Mail article, or derivations thereof).




Partially correct, but also somewhat misleading. 30 years is the adopted average by the WMO for basic surface measurements, and is not an absolute. It can vary tremendously depending upon what you are studying. Grade: C

If you're looking at satellite data, 30 years is about right. If your looking at ice cores from 100,000 years ago, you'll be lucky if your resolution is 30 years within the compressed layers.




False Statement. Many solutions have been offered, and some are even being implemented. Wunderground even offers some basics on the individual level like a grocery shopping guide and a driving guide. Grade: E




Another Anthony Watts article, NeoFan? Come on. Anthony Watts is great at getting his own word out over the web, but his credentials in climate science are sorely lacking. He does not hold a college degree, his AMS Seal-of-Approval has not been active for some time, and he is not even an active publisher in the scientific literature, only his own website (and derivatives thereof).

Result: Misleading information, non-scientific sources. Grade: E

***

That's all I feel like looking at at the moment.

So far, only TomballTXPride has a passing average grade of "D". That, at least, provides hope. Though, it would help if she would be open-minded enough to provide an answer to her claim that humans are not responsible for 70-100% of the current global warming trend (i.e., retract or explain the statement). But apparently, that's too much to ask.

Overall, I've been giving the deniers in Dr. Rood's blog the benefit of the doubt, benevolently calling their incorrect statements in the comments section as simple "misinformation", the definition being the unintentional spreading of false and/or inaccurate information.

However, based on the recent influx of denialist comments over the past 24 hours (especially within Dr. Master's blog post about 2012 US heat record, and the unprecidented Australian heatwave), I'm starting to think the plethora of incorrect statements might be more malevolent in nature. Possibly stooping to the level of "disinformation": Deliberately spreading intentionally false and/or inaccurate information.

Unfortunately, that would have some negative consequences. Individuals who maliciously spread information that is knowingly false go by another name: Frauds. But of course, I'm sure that no one here would dream of throwing that word around...


Sorry Daisy, don't know who elected or hired you to to grade anything, but you are free to espouse your perspective as this is a blog.

In reference to several of your "opinions" I found two entertaining.



Quoting yoboi:
what are your thoughts with al gore selling his tv station to a big oil company?



Completely diversionary, borderline antagonistic. Grade: F


My take is pretty damn funny, the only thing that could top that would be if that Blow Hard Olbermann
worked for Al Jazeera, absolute poetic justice.

Link




Quoting TomballTXPride:
You act like the climate is supposed to be stable. It has been proven countless times that this simply isn't the case. The Earth's climate has been unstable for as long as it's been revolving around the Giant ball of gas we call the Sun.
There is no such thing as a stable climate.



Misleading statement. Stability is purely subjective in this sense. Grade: D. Review your understanding of the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Better yet, review Dr. Rood's series of blog entries on Bumps and Wiggles.

His facts are correct.A misleading statement is posted below:


Learning from the Fast Start Finance for the last two years, developing countries have learned, that certainty of finance sources is highly needed. Climate finance should be new and additional than the existing funding. Therefore, transparency, of course, should be on board for developed countries to regain the trust of developing countries.There are so many innovative resources that can be explored by the developed countries. Even the long term finance workshops that have happened twice in 2012 (not to mention the webminars), have clearly showed that those sources of fund are real and possible, to meet the USD 100 billion by 2020.

Pledge, people, pledge! Not only the financial pledge, but also your emission reduction pledge. And please, leave the hot air behind.

http://www.climatenetwork.org/CAN-blog/cop-18-doh a-pledge-people-pledge

Using your deductive reasoning skills, where next?

PS, I hope you enjoy the links.




Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1134
170. Neapolitan
12:30 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:
Warming world alert!

[SNIP]
Thanks for again pointing out how climate change theory, which has always predicted more severe and more frequent extreme weather events, is constantly being validated.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14179
169. Neapolitan
12:27 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:


You'd think that wouldn't be impossible in an ever warming world!
Assuming you meant "possible" instead of "impossible", you certainly wouldn't...if, that is, you were clueless about the earth's climate. But having said that, I promise to both take back my words and apologize profusely should you be able to link to a single peer-reviewed article claiming that global warming means the immediate cessation of all "winter" weather (cold snaps, snow, ice, etc.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14179
168. iceagecoming
12:24 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Warming world alert!




January 10, 2013 | 01:26 AM ESTAP
The coldest winter in decades is causing blizzards in northern China and threatens electric power supplies in the south.

BEIJING - The coldest winter in decades is causing blizzards in northern China and threatens electric power supplies in the south where the government is not used to dealing with such freezing temperatures, China media said Wednesday.

About 180,000 cattle have died in the north while hundreds of emergency shelters have opened in southern China to help people who do not have adequate housing or heat to survive the below-average cold.

The National Meteorological Center reiterated Wednesday that southern China will be under heavier-than-normal snow, rain and freezing temperatures for the next few days, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency. Shelters equipped with quilts, coats and food have opened in Hefei, capital of Anhui province.

"You can find shelters and aid stations for the elderly and homeless in all communities and villages in our district," Zou Zhongxian, a civil affairs official in the city's Luyang district, told Xinhua.

Record cold has struck India as well, and even the Middle East.

The fiercest winter storm to hit the Middle East in years brought a rare foot of snow to Jordan on Wednesday, caused fatal accidents in Lebanon and the West Bank, and disrupted traffic on the Suez Canal in Egypt. At least eight people have died across the region.

In Israel, snow fell outside Jerusalem, an unusual occurrence. Three feet of snow fell on Mount Hermon, and flakes were falling in Nazareth as well as in Galilee. Several roads were closed in northern Israel because of heavy snowfall.

The Weather Underground reported that the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, where New Delhi is located, has seen temperatures fall to a low of 35.4
degrees on Sunday, and the high temperature a few days before was 49.6, the coldest daily high in 44 years.

In China, freezing weather has sent temperatures diving to a national average of 25 degrees Fahrenheit since Nov. 20, the lowest average temperature in 28 years, says the China Meteorological Administration (CMA).

In China's frozen northeast, where the city of Harbin hosts a popular snow and ice festival each winter, temperatures over the same period averaged minus 5 degrees, a 43-year low, according to the CMA.

The CMA said ice had covered 10,500 square miles of the sea surface, the most expansive since 2008, when authorities began to collect ice data, and it said the ice coverage will likely continue to grow.

Blizzards were forecast for western regions along the Yangtze and Huaihe rivers, as well as the northern part of southern China. Similar cold weather hit China in the winter of 2008, when more than 120 people died.

China Southern Power Grid was working to melt ice on power lines to prevent electricity outages, Wang Xiaochun, the company's publicity manager, told Chinese state media.

About 1 million people in normally temperate south China have been going through unusually cold weather in recent days.

Thousands of travelers have endured long delays as fog and frozen runways paralyzed airports. Hundreds of irate passengers berated staff at Kunming's airport last week, according to pictures on the Caixin magazine website.

Some trains have also been halted and several highways temporarily closed due to snow and ice.

In northern China's Inner Mongolia, record-low temperatures and heavy snow have left two people dead and affected 770,000 others, Xinhua reported. More than 260,000 people were in need of emergency aid.

In eastern Shandong province, more than 1,000 ships were stuck because of thick sea ice on Laizhou Bay. The government fretted over damage to late-season crops such as winter wheat. Prices for vegetable have jumped 55% in the past 10 weeks, reported the People's Daily newspaper.

The super-low temperatures are rare but will continue for some time, said Zhang Lansheng, 85, one of China's earliest environmental and climate experts. Compared with early 2008, when south China suffered a snow and ice "disaster" that caused widespread power outages and affected more than 100 million people,

China now boasts more experience and disaster readiness, he said, "but we need to increase the accuracy of weather forecasts, and different levels of government should improve emergency facilities and organize people to boost their ability to cope with disasters."

The weather has also exposed a decades-old debate about the lack of heating in south China. A line drawn in the 1950s split China into a northern half that built and still enjoys heavily subsidized public heating, and a southern half that shivers through winter without a public heating network and must make do with private, often less effective, heating devices.

Southerners are expressing their displeasure at what they view as an unfair and arbitrary divide. Businessman Qiu Jieping, a local adviser to the city government of Wuhan, blamed the lack of heating for a brain drain of young talent.

Dating show anchorman Meng Fei was among many Internet users to criticize Shen Herong, an equipment expert in eastern Jiangsu province, who said people in south China, accustomed to wet winters, may not adapt to life with indoor radiators.

"This topic is hotter this year," said Zhang, the climate change expert, who remembers the winter cold from many years living in Shanghai.

While some officials and energy experts suggest heating the south could endanger China's energy supply, Zhang hopes southern cities with enough financial resources can build heating networks with clean energy.

"I don't think the old way to divide the heating areas is good. But it's hard to change it now, so I don't think the south will be the same as the north anytime soon," he said.

Contributing: Sunny Yang


http://thepoint.usatoday.com/hilton/en_us/news/fr ont_page/world/news-article.L2NvbnRlbnQvZ2xvYmFsL2 VuX3VzL25ld3MvbG9jYXRpb24vbm9ydGhfYW1lcmljYS91c193 b3JsZC8xODIwMDg5.local.html





Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1134
167. iceagecoming
12:08 PM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:
Thank you sir

It is easy to go fishing now, you can just drive your truck on the ice right to the fish house

Here are a couple picks of the sort of ice fishing houses we use.





Anyway have a good one sir


You'd think that wouldn't be impossible in an ever warming world!
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1134
166. Xulonn
5:45 AM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Of course this really ignores the elephant in the room by focusing solely on near-surface air temperature. The cryosphere and oceans hold far more heat, and have been accumulation much much more of it - yes, even since 1998. Even since [insert most-recent globally warmest year here].
You are absolutely correct, Scott. Our resident denialists do indeed have tunnel vision and appear to refuse to consider the complexities of AGW/CC. I don't think most of the denialists here have ever read about the multiple symptoms and mechanisms of the AGW/CC process, and have little or no comprehension of the concept of increasing heat in the biosphere.

Although the melting of Arctic sea ice is problematic and will affect climate and weather, particularly in all temperate zones of the northern hemisphere, the 2012 summer melt represents only about 0.006% of the worlds ice volume. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets represent over 99% of the world's ice volume and that is a lot of potential for absorbing heat energy as latent heat of fusion, and for mitigation of surface temperature rise. It gets so complicated, that, unlike our one-trick pony (surface temperature) denialists, I have a very difficult time comprehending all of the issues involved in AGW/CC.

And even if land surface temps change a bit, denialists try to belittle the importance of less than one degree Celsius average temperature increase. However, that is enough to move ecosystem boundaries by several hundred miles. This can disrupt agriculture and cause other serious issues.

My head hurts from trying to sort out these issues and simplify them for a reasonably concise and focused post. Time to get some sleep - see y'all in the morning.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1643
165. ScottLincoln
2:01 AM GMT on January 10, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:


[Mr.] Lincoln,What do you consider a sufficient time period to determine statistical signinicance? I have seen a number of differing opinions ranging from 20 to 30 years. At Open Mind, Tamino has stated that shorter times can by used if the natural variations(ENSO,volcanoes, and solar) are filtered out.

Sounds like Mr. Grant Foster might have already answered your question. Most studies I have read seem to indicate that >15yrs of data are needed before you start making climatic conclusions. The WMO defines climate as a 30yr period, so according to that definition we should be comparing 30yr periods (1981-2010 vs. 1971-2000, for example). I personally think that one can get a good idea of the actual trends whenever care is taken to mitigate the noise of climate variability; even comparing 5yr averages of temperature over time would be much better than looking at a time series of monthly data and getting lost in the noise.

But as far as statistical significance goes, we should defer to statisticians like Mr. Foster, as you mentioned.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3460

Viewing: 215 - 165

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

Top of Page

About RickyRood

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

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
75 °F
Scattered Clouds

RickyRood's Recent Photos

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