The Role of Short Timers

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 2:03 AM GMT on January 18, 2013

Share this Blog
24
+

The Role of Short Timers

The previous entry described how I start to think about time and addressing the challenges of climate change. My focus was on generational time; that is, the amount of time it takes for one generation to replace the last generation. My message from that was not, “just wait,” but it is important to recognize that the fundamental changes in our behavior and energy systems will require some time.

This entry I will describe the issues that make climate change a problem in the here and now. In the following figure I highlight several items that are important in the short term. For the purpose of this article the short term is less than 10 years.



Figure 1: Thinking about time and climate change: What is important in the short-term?

1) Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide: From a climate scientist’s perspective the traditional short time issue is the “stabilization” of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is, after we get all of this figured out, what is the amount of carbon dioxide that we have in the atmosphere? I refer back to several blogs I have written on stabilization. The basic idea is that the carbon dioxide we release from fossil fuels stays with us for a very long time; it does not really go away. A number that I quote in one of those blogs is that every year we emit like we are emitting now, we will be encumbered with about nine additional parts per million of carbon dioxide. To put this in perspective, prior to the industrial revolution we had about 280 parts per million and now we have about 400 parts per million. Therefore, actions we take now have consequences on lengths of times that we more commonly associate with geology.

2) Impacts of Extreme Events: We live in a climate that is warming rapidly. The weather is changing in some basic measures, such as, extreme precipitation, the speed at which storms move, the size of storms, the paths they follow, etc. At the same time that the weather changes, sea level is rising; snow and ice are melting. Therefore, we see larger impacts of storms like Superstorm Sandy. (see Cynthia Rosenzweig Interview) In Alaska, we see enormous erosion as shores that were protected by sea ice are left unprotected as the ice melts. We need to anticipate these changes in the impacts of extreme events that come from the fact that the weather is working in a world where many things are changing. This makes sense for preparedness, and it provides us case studies to help us think about the future.

3. Fast Ecosystem Changes: I sat in a meeting this week where people were thinking about how a warming climate and changing weather patterns would impact forests. Extreme events have huge impacts on forests through drought, flooding, fire, and salt-water storm surges. We used to imagine these forests “coming back” in the same climate. But now we have to think about the forests coming back with warmer temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and with new characteristics of extreme weather, for example, an extremely warm spring. Aside from changes to these basic environmental parameters, there are new opportunities for invasive species and disease. The forests might not even come back as forests. For example, with forests currently at the boundary of the prairie, like in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the forest is likely to return as savanna. (see the amazing work of Lee Frelich, for example Climate Change, Invasive, Species and Forests). I don’t say this in the spirit that we will avoid this if we do something now, but that we need to plan now – to borrow a phrase, to plan for the best savanna possible, rather than a scrub land of invasive species.

4. Election Time Scales: In the United States at the federal level, this is two, four, and six years – thereby, effectively two years. Through policy shifts we see expression of issues of energy security and economy. We see amplification of the political interests that are backed by dollars. We see the impact of tax arguments and tax policy – the impact of research and development budgets to promote and to inhibit technology development. At the city and state level, we see, often, the more stable policy development that reflect local and regional values. The decisions we make on these two-year cycles have enormous consequences for how we deal with global, long-term problems. (See arcane note at the end.)

The decisions that we make each and every day influence our long-term response to climate change. The impact varies from how warm it will ultimately be, to how we anticipate and respond to the disruptions of weather and climate, to how we invest in the technologies and opportunities that would allow us to address, more quickly, climate change. My goal is recognize the role of all of these different factors that work at different spans of time, and how do we change the world so that things converge in an accelerated way to address climate change and sustainability.


r

Rood Interview: Saga of Climate Change


Arcane Note: I grew up in the South in a family that was more politically interested than most. I saw the emergence and growth of, for example, Regent University. I remember at the time hearing of Pat Robertson’s vision of training what now has become their motto of “Christian Leadership to Change the World.” I listened to the idea of training journalists, lawyers, educated citizens who would get elected to town councils, school boards, mayors, state legislatures, governors, and ultimately, populating the federal government in both elected and appointed positions. I remember as a much younger man thinking, “That’s a really good strategy.” My personal opinion is that this has one of the most consequential movements in U.S. politics in my life. To add a little substance to my experience here are some articles you might find interesting:

Student Body Right, 2005, C. Hayes
Who’s the Boss, 2007, D. Lithwick
Pat, Bob and Regent University, 2009

My point: With a little organization, consideration of the short-term, and a generation of time, we can make changes that are more consequential than just letting things happen.


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: 227 - 177

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

Quoting VR46L:


Please define what you mean by trollish ?

Just wondering is it everyone that disagrees with you?

I have already said my piece on Denialist labeling .. that it seeks IMO to dehumanize the person .

Anyone who has watched me as obsessively as some on here have know well and good that I will politely discuss any issue with anyone for any length of time, and will never even think of calling that person's behavior "trollish". No, trollish behavior in this venue means posting something with the sole intent not of learning or engaging in a constructive debate or adding something of value to the dialog, but merely to invoke an emotional reaction/response from one or more people. That's trolling.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Quoting TomballTXPride:
>There is nothing scientific that says the seas have risen. Yes, there are predictions that suggest they will rise at a given point. But I have been hearing that now for the past 30 years and nothing.>
If you're gonna devote so much effort to trolling, can you at least try to give us something challenging?

SLR

(I realize it's from one of those icky "universities", with their "professors" and "scientists" and "studies" and all that other stuff that turns off denialists, but, still, you may want to give it a few minutes of your time. Source)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
225. VR46L
Quoting Neapolitan:
And yet, here you are. Go figure... ;-)

But to be clear, there is no "war" here; just a lot of science-minded individuals discussing climate science and its implications, interrupted on occasion by trollish comments from the denialist set that are quickly and savagely swatted away by the adults.


Please define what you mean by trollish ?

Just wondering is it everyone that disagrees with you?

I have already said my piece on Denialist labeling .. that it seeks IMO to dehumanize the person .

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I don't like Fox News in fact I find it trash. I did not attack anything, I pointed out your study was nothing more than an opinion piece and in fact linked to it. UCS says themselves it is opinion. I am sure in your mind the prime time programming on MSNBC is not opinion based. Here is a news flash, they are both opinion based drivel.

I like how you tried to call me biased when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. You could not attack anything I posted so you attacked me. I guess that is all you had left.

It's funny; every time someone brings up Fox's well-known--and well-deserved--anti-science reputation, some defender shouts out, "But MSNBC!" My response. Again:

A) I don't watch MSNBC much.

B) The head honchos at MSNBC have not sent out memoranda ordering their employees to lie about climate change.

C) When MSNBC does talk about climate change, they tend to have on actual, you know, climate scientists, not debunked nitwits like Watts and Bastardi.

D) To the best of my knowledge--and please correct me if I'm wrong--there have been no credible university studies undertaken that point conclusively to how MSNBC's systemic and systematic dissemination of lies and propaganda have lead to its viewers having a very flimsy grasp on the issues of the day. (Care to take a guess as to which network has?)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I SOOOOO agree with you here!

If ALL opinion based shows would loudly and continuously make the claim, "This is my opinion and my opinion does not mean SQUAT!" then, perhaps, some real progress could be made. My problem is when they desire that their opinions should be taken as facts.


Three cheers for you sir.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:


I don't defend Fox News but when someone puts forth an opinion piece as evidence and then complains about Fox News or whoever. They are doing the same thing they are accusing Fox News as doing. It is called Hypocrisy, Both MSNBC and Fox have opinion based talk shows on, if you are an adult and you do not know the difference between opinion and fact, you are a fool.

Edit: Notice he said Fox should not broadcast opinion based shows but says nothing about MSNBC. He thinks he is part of the solution, when in fact he is part of the problem. If both sides would just get the hell out of the way maybe we could get something done.


I SOOOOO agree with you here!

If ALL opinion based shows would loudly and continuously make the claim, "This is my opinion and my opinion does not mean SQUAT!" then, perhaps, some real progress could be made. My problem is when they desire that their opinions should be taken as facts.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting TomballTXPride:




*Sigh*

And how many times have I been over this with all of you. Of course this is the first time I have seen you, so allow me.

Do you believe everything you see published on the internet, specifically when you "google" something.

There is nothing scientific that says the seas have risen. Yes, there are predictions that suggest they will rise at a given point. But I have been hearing that now for the past 30 years and nothing.






Here have a paper Link and you can read about sea level rise. Then post some actual scientific work on sea levels not rising. I would love to give them a read. (As a bonus, I would suggest checking out the "References" section of the paper, there are plenty of good reads in there as well)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
So this is where the war REALLY goes on.
And NOTHING is gained in this discussion.
And yet, here you are. Go figure... ;-)

But to be clear, there is no "war" here; just a lot of science-minded individuals discussing climate science and its implications, interrupted on occasion by trollish comments from the denialist set that are quickly and savagely swatted away by the adults.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Quoting TomballTXPride:

The seas haven't been rising in over 100 years. And they are still not rising. And why do I always read they will rise and then they conveniently push back the date to when they ACTUALLY WILL rise???
Something to ponder inside that cozy bubble you've been living in the past decade.
This is pure denialist drivel that doesn't even attempt to back a claim. It has absolutely no basis in science or fact. It makes no sense for anyone to even attempt to rebut this un-scientific and totally ridiculous post. It's really lame to try to foist such ridiculous false information on anyone with an IQ above the temperature of a swimming pool.

One of the most indisputable facts of AGW/CC is that sea levels are rising, and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that.

From SkepticalScience.com
Photobucket
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Quoting TomballTXPride:




*Sigh*

And how many times have I been over this with all of you. Of course this is the first time I have seen you, so allow me.

Do you believe everything you see published on the internet, specifically when you "google" something.

There is nothing scientific that says the seas have risen. Yes, there are predictions that suggest they will rise at a given point. But I have been hearing that now for the past 30 years and nothing.





Why do you hate science? It's not about believing what you see on the internet. I do research for a living. I understand what real research is versus spurious claims. You are the one that seems to not believe what is clearly observable through scientific discovery and data analysis. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
So this is where the war REALLY goes on.
And NOTHING is gained in this discussion.


"Nothing is gained" is the goal of a few posters here. There is lots to be gained when everyone focuses on the problem of the current climate change. Working on solutions should be everyone's goal even if they believe that humans are only minor contributors to the problem.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Nymore, do you defend the FOX News network on their reporting on the climate change discussions or do you just seek opportunities to attack Nea? Both could be true, or neither. Should it be "neither" then I question as to why you are always so quick to defend FOX News and attack Nea for making comments about FOX News?

I will say that I think the FOX News news broadcast of current events is as accurate as any of the other news broadcast stations. Where FOX News Network fails its listener-ship is with the talk shows it will broadcast.

TomballTxPride - Do you intend to only just flutter around in everyone's face, much as a gnat does, or do you intend to bring any relevant discussion points to this blog? As with a gnat, you are harmless, but none the less as annoying. I hope that this statement does not offend you any more than what your actions here have been.


I don't defend Fox News but when someone puts forth an opinion piece as evidence and then complains about Fox News or whoever. They are doing the same thing they are accusing Fox News as doing. It is called Hypocrisy, Both MSNBC and Fox have opinion based talk shows on, if you are an adult and you do not know the difference between opinion and fact, you are a fool.

Edit: Notice he said Fox should not broadcast opinion based shows but says nothing about MSNBC. He thinks he is part of the solution, when in fact he is part of the problem. If both sides would just get the hell out of the way maybe we could get something done.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
211 GeorgiaStormz: So this is where the war REALLY goes on. And NOTHING is gained in this discussion.

What we can't see is that there are people who read, but do not comment. And they are the ones whose opinions are the most amenable to persuasion through the presentation of facts and opinions.
Thus failure to present ones arguments is just conceding the political/economic part of the issue to those with an opposing viewpoint.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:


Your first link uses an opinion piece as an actual study. The primetime shows on Fox are opinion based and not actual news

Your next link talks about opinion based programs on Fox as if they are actual news broadcasts. The article itself is in the opinion section

Third link same thing uses a report that itself is an opinion piece. Look at back number one

Fourth one Media Matters, honestly you link to them, they are as unbiased as Drudge. I did not even waste my time

Fifth Mother Jones uses the same opinion piece as the others.

Just for fun lets see what this report from the UCS actually says. The title: Is News Corp Failing Science. It is put together by Aaron Huertas and Dena Adler, Lets see what their position are in the org. Aaron is a press secretary and Dena is an outreach intern. Now lets read the report. On Page five before the report even begins the Acknowledgements section says this.

The opinion expressed in this report are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those who funded the work. Link

You know that is the same thing hear from tv stations right before some con artist tries to sell me his latest get rich quick scheme.

So what you have done here is link to opinion pieces that study opinion based shows that link back to an opinion piece. WOW

And some still wonder why people like me hate and I mean hate both sides of the aisle.







Nymore, do you defend the FOX News network on their reporting on the climate change discussions or do you just seek opportunities to attack Nea? Both could be true, or neither. Should it be "neither" then I question as to why you are always so quick to defend FOX News and attack Nea for making comments about FOX News?

I will say that I think the FOX News news broadcast of current events is as accurate as any of the other news broadcast stations. Where FOX News Network fails its listener-ship is with the talk shows it will broadcast.

TomballTxPride - Do you intend to only just flutter around in everyone's face, much as a gnat does, or do you intend to bring any relevant discussion points to this blog? As with a gnat, you are harmless, but none the less as annoying. I hope that this statement does not offend you any more than what your actions here have been.

Added

I see your response to Nea in post #210. I reread your other post (#201). I agree that you did not make any direct attacks, but it came off as an attack just the same. Still, you did not make a direct attack and I offer you my apology for seeing it as one.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting TomballTXPride:




The seas haven't been rising in over 100 years. And they are still not rising. And why do I always read they will rise and then they conveniently push back the date to when they ACTUALLY WILL rise???

Something to ponder inside that cozy bubble you've been living in the past decade.




A simple google search can show you that sea levels have been rising. There is plenty to choose from, from academic journals to newspaper articles to verified graphs using tidal gauge data and/or satellite measurements. Sigh.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So this is where the war REALLY goes on.
And NOTHING is gained in this discussion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Then perhaps Fox "News" should stop with the prime-time opinion programming, huh? Though to be honest, that'd would leave them showing nothing but dead air. Which, on second thought, is probably a pretty good idea, and would certainly be an improvement over the non-stop dreck they broadcast now.

At any rate, I'm not surprised you wouldn't discuss the actual results of the studies, choosing instead to find fault with the sources; desperately attacking those sources is pretty much all you guys have left.

Fox has proven again and again that they are neither valid nor credible (much less fair and balanced). If nothing else convinces you of that, their election night shenanigans certainly should have. The thing about climate science is, just as with Fox's election night broadcasting, truth trumps wishful thinking. It always has, and always will.

The climate is rapidly changing primarily because of our foolish obsession with fossil fuels. No amount of Fox lies and distortions, no number of denialist "climate experts" given air time, are going to change that. The cable outlet, like much of its target audience, is on the wrong side of science and the wrong side of fact--and will eventually find itself on the wrong side of history.
I don't like Fox News in fact I find it trash. I did not attack anything, I pointed out your study was nothing more than an opinion piece and in fact linked to it. UCS says themselves it is opinion. I am sure in your mind the prime time programming on MSNBC is not opinion based. Here is a news flash, they are both opinion based drivel.

I like how you tried to call me biased when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. You could not attack anything I posted so you attacked me. I guess that is all you had left.

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
No it is not a philosophical question. If the hole itself is made of matter it should consume itself, but we know information can not be destroyed. This is what Susskind and Hawking argued about for 20 some years. We know Black Holes are vast repositories of information but other than information are they actually made of anything.

This is probably not the place for this conversation so I will leave it there.


Ah, I see what you mean now. You were talking about the debates surrounding classsical gravity theory and string theory. I suppose we could have this conversation here, but it may be boring- I know little about string theory and quantum mechanics.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1231
Nice wordplay, "...whatever floats your boat. As the seas rise..."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Incorrect on all accounts. Try again please. I am just dying of your response. The anticipation is just tickling me!

None of those links even comes close to disprove my original point on Fox News being one of the most honest News Networks out there.
Not even close.
Shorter version: "I refuse to accept facts, and choose instead to live in the fantasy world I've created."

Not very scientific, but, well, whatever floats your boat. As the seas rise...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Quoting nymore:


Your first link uses an opinion piece as an actual study. The primetime shows on Fox are opinion based and not actual news

Your next link talks about opinion based programs on Fox as if they are actual news broadcasts. The article itself is in the opinion section

Third link same thing uses a report that itself is an opinion piece. Look at back number one

Fourth one Media Matters, honestly you link to them, they are as unbiased as Drudge. I did not even waste my time

Fifth Mother Jones uses the same opinion piece as the others.

Just for fun lets see what this report from the UCS actually says. The title: Is News Corp Failing Science. It is put together by Aaron Huertas and Dena Adler, Lets see what their position are in the org. Aaron is a press secretary and Dena is an outreach intern. Now lets read the report. On Page five before the report even begins the Acknowledgements section says this.

The opinion expressed in this report are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those who funded the work. Link

You know that is the same thing hear from tv stations right before some con artist tries to sell me his latest get rich quick scheme.

So what you have done here is link to opinion pieces that study opinion based shows that link back to an opinion piece. WOW

And some still wonder why people like me hate and I mean hate both sides of the aisle.





Then perhaps Fox "News" should stop with the prime-time opinion programming, huh? Though to be honest, that'd would leave them showing nothing but dead air. Which, on second thought, is probably a pretty good idea, and would certainly be an improvement over the non-stop dreck they broadcast now.

At any rate, I'm not surprised you wouldn't discuss the actual results of the studies, choosing instead to find fault with the sources; desperately attacking those sources is pretty much all you guys have left.

Fox has proven again and again that they are neither valid nor credible (much less fair and balanced). If nothing else convinces you of that, their election night shenanigans certainly should have. The thing about climate science is, just as with Fox's election night broadcasting, truth trumps wishful thinking. It always has, and always will.

The climate is rapidly changing primarily because of our foolish obsession with fossil fuels. No amount of Fox lies and distortions, no number of denialist "climate experts" given air time, are going to change that. The cable outlet, like much of its target audience, is on the wrong side of science and the wrong side of fact--and will eventually find itself on the wrong side of history.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549


I thought I would try to bring the discussion back to the topic which Dr. Rood started this blog entry on, that is the time frame(s) related to Climate change.

As many others here who are following the dramatic change in the Arctic Region, I thought I would make a chart depicting how the loss of Arctic Sea Ice could/would impact society. Not only will global and national economies be impacted severely, societal cohesion will be stressed if not shattered.

I have purposely not placed any dates on the timeline because there is still uncertainty in the knowledgeable community about when these events will occur. For example the discussions on neven's blog seem to place an ice-free September in the 2016 timeframe, possibly sooner yet most probably well before 2020. Once we reach a perennially ice-free
Arctic Ocean we have gone far beyond the tipping point and the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will
accelerate to the point where we will be measuring Sea Level Rise in inches/year.

I'm afraid that I might live to see every milestone on this charting excepting the final state. I feel for those of you who have youngsters who will have to live through the Epic Collapse about to be brought upon this earth of ours.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
You're obviously just trolling as usual, so allow me to toss you a few tidbits so you don't feel your efforts were wasted:

--Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds
--Fox News Distorts Climate Science; In Other News, the Pope Is Catholic
--Fox News Misleads Viewers on Climate Change
--Fox News Hypes Fringe Petition Calling Global Warming A "Hoax"
--SHOCKER: Fox News Misleads Audience on Climate Change


Your first link uses an opinion piece as an actual study. The primetime shows on Fox are opinion based and not actual news

Your next link talks about opinion based programs on Fox as if they are actual news broadcasts. The article itself is in the opinion section

Third link same thing uses a report that itself is an opinion piece. Look at back number one

Fourth one Media Matters, honestly you link to them, they are as unbiased as Drudge. I did not even waste my time

Fifth Mother Jones uses the same opinion piece as the others.

Just for fun lets see what this report from the UCS actually says. The title: Is News Corp Failing Science. It is put together by Aaron Huertas and Dena Adler, Lets see what their position are in the org. Aaron is a press secretary and Dena is an outreach intern. Now lets read the report. On Page five before the report even begins the Acknowledgements section says this.

The opinion expressed in this report are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those who funded the work. Link

You know that is the same thing hear from tv stations right before some con artist tries to sell me his latest get rich quick scheme.

So what you have done here is link to opinion pieces that study opinion based shows that link back to an opinion piece. WOW

And some still wonder why people like me hate and I mean hate both sides of the aisle.





Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Dr. Ricky Rood
"To put this in perspective, prior to the industrial revolution we had about 280 parts per million and now we have about 400 parts per million. Therefore, actions we take now have consequences on lengths of times that we more commonly associate with geology."

Makes you wonder if we can even reverse what chain of events we have help set in motion. Green energy is most undeniably the pathway in which we need to start, from there the door is open to hopefully to some creative environmentally friendly ideas of our future generations.

This may be a bit off topic to your blog, but has to do with the origin of the stratosperic warming that began place late Decemember of 2012. Is it known that there are any variables that trigger such an event? This is post 164 off of Dr. Masters "Major cold blast, epic lake effect snows hit North America"



I couldn't help but notice the origin of which this event began, which led to me to think of all the media this year pointing out the ridiculous pollution that is occurring over there in China recently to the point in which the whole country is in a haze. If anyone had good information or good sources on that topic with respect to that. Google is not being too helpful at the moment. Thanks in advance.

Quoting Neapolitan:
You're obviously just trolling as usual, so allow me to toss you a few tidbits so you don't feel your efforts were wasted:

--Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds
--Fox News Distorts Climate Science; In Other News, the Pope Is Catholic
--Fox News Misleads Viewers on Climate Change
--Fox News Hypes Fringe Petition Calling Global Warming A "Hoax"
--SHOCKER: Fox News Misleads Audience on Climate Change


Ever since that particular entity joined the blog, which ironically corresponds directly to the same time frame in which Dr. Masters announced his collaboration with The Weather Channel, he or she has done nothing but cause havoc on the Dr. blogs with false facts, constant bombardment of Doctors work with The weather channel, and even further has went on rampant fits of degrading the blog because of topics of conversation. They never provide any useful information and are constantly trying to stir the pot with disinformation. I solved this a while ago. It has become very apparent that they have strong agenda. I hope that others don't become misinformed or frustrated because of that he or she, especially those acquiring of accurate knowledge that are new to the site.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Back on the Fox News bashing, huh cyclonebuster? What's wrong? Running out of AGW arguments to make. Well running dry?

In no way is Fox hellbent on denying climate change. Fox is probably one of the more truthful New Outlets.

Sounds like your on to a juicy conspiracy theory. I love a juicy, good old fashioned conspiracy theory.

Please keep it coming, cyclonebuster. We all look forward to it.

You're obviously just trolling as usual, so allow me to toss you a few tidbits so you don't feel your efforts were wasted:

--Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds
--Fox News Distorts Climate Science; In Other News, the Pope Is Catholic
--Fox News Misleads Viewers on Climate Change
--Fox News Hypes Fringe Petition Calling Global Warming A "Hoax"
--SHOCKER: Fox News Misleads Audience on Climate Change
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Thanks for this link.

FYI, last fall I took the Cousera class on "The Introduction to Sustainability" presented by the U of Illinois. Since over 26,000 people worldwide signed up for the course, the staffs at both Coursera and the U of Illiois were a bit overwhelmed and completion certificates were delayed by almost a month after course completion. Since I have been following Climate Change and Resource Depletion (Peak Oil) for years, I didn't gain a lot of new information on those two topics, however, there was good information and discussion on a wide variety of topics related to sustainabiliity on local, regional and global levels. I did, however, gain a greater appreciation for how energy security, climate change, population growth, food supplies and economics are.

For those of us who are retired and not looking for another certificate to hang on the wall or gain points towards career advancement, I recommend signing up for as many of these free courses as time permits. Read a bit of the texts provided, listen to a few of the lectures and participate in some of the discussions. It's all a part of the life-long journey of continuing to becoming more knowledgeable.


I love the courses because of tablets. I can watch, say Astronomy, for about 10 - 30 minutes before going to sleep on my tablet (nexus 7) without disturbing anyone, and then pick up where I left off the next day, or skip it if I don't feel up to it. Better and more relaxing than TV, to say nothing of putting me to sleep faster : )

I haven't earned any certificates yet, but so far it has just been for fun. The real courses start this year, if I can squeeze them in: computer vision, electronics, prob. graphical models, and one or two others... doubt I'll have time though fro more than one or two.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Back on the Fox News bashing, huh cyclonebuster? What's wrong? Running out of AGW arguments to make. Well running dry?

In no way is Fox hellbent on denying climate change. Fox is probably one of the more truthful New Outlets.

Sounds like your on to a juicy conspiracy theory. I love a juicy, good old fashioned conspiracy theory.

Please keep it coming, cyclonebuster. We all look forward to it.



"Fox is probably one of the more truthful New Outlets."

Mahahaha...

I can't believe someone actually says that in public, let alone thinks it....

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting greentortuloni:
For soem, more than others: a Coursera course on Global Warming.

It says no priors needed - but that probably assumes an open mind though.


Thanks for this link.

FYI, last fall I took the Cousera class on "The Introduction to Sustainability" presented by the U of Illinois. Since over 26,000 people worldwide signed up for the course, the staffs at both Coursera and the U of Illiois were a bit overwhelmed and completion certificates were delayed by almost a month after course completion. Since I have been following Climate Change and Resource Depletion (Peak Oil) for years, I didn't gain a lot of new information on those two topics, however, there was good information and discussion on a wide variety of topics related to sustainabiliity on local, regional and global levels. I did, however, gain a greater appreciation for how energy security, climate change, population growth, food supplies and economics are.

For those of us who are retired and not looking for another certificate to hang on the wall or gain points towards career advancement, I recommend signing up for as many of these free courses as time permits. Read a bit of the texts provided, listen to a few of the lectures and participate in some of the discussions. It's all a part of the life-long journey of continuing to becoming more knowledgeable.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Irresponsible FOX NEWS at it again with more miss information to the public.... Why won't Fox News use NOAA data?? Are they against our government? Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America.






"“In general, I don’t think reports by advocacy groups are credible,” John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said." Well said John I would think NOAA would know more about the subject. Why does Fox News insist on not doing reports with NOAA???? Why? Because Fox News is bent on creating doubt about Man Made climate change....


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting greentortuloni:
For soem, more than others: a Coursera course on Global Warming.

It says no priors needed - but that probably assumes an open mind though.


From the website: What is the coolest thing I'll learn if I take this class?

You will learn that the issue of Climate Change is incredibly complex, however it can also be very accessible if you can see it from different perspectives and approach it with an open mind and a willingness to engage in discussion and action along with others.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
For soem, more than others: a Coursera course on Global Warming.

It says no priors needed - but that probably assumes an open mind though.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Neapolitan:
I look forward to such studies with vastly more anticipation and eagerness than you or anyone else can imagine. But taking everything into consideration--the rising global population, the length of time CO2 hangs around causing warming, the growing need and hunger for more and more and more power in developing nations, human nature, political will, corporate myopia, greed, simple physics, our sudden love affair with fracking, the utter impossibility of any technological silver bullet that will save us from ourselves, lack of persistent vision, religious intolerance, environmental insensitivity, anti-science attitudes displayed by some policymakers, plain old garden variety denial, stupidity, ignorance, and idiocy--such rosy studies aren't the least bit likely to appear for decades to come, if not a century or longer.

The earth will be just fine going forward. There's no doubt about that. But the more-tenuous-than-anyone-will-admit civilization we've cobbled together over the past several thousand years--a mere eye blink in the history of the planet--is in serious trouble, the most serious trouble in which it's found itself in modern times. And that's not going to change anytime soon.


One of my biggest fears for global warming is not just the warming. If we could act together as a human rational species, we could handle what comes. The denialist's mentality and behavior, to me, are typical of what is going to happen as drought, flood, famine and disease spread: there won't be rationality and fairness, instead there will rationalizing and anarchy as those with power seek to save themselves and woe to any of us who try to have some sort of community spirit.

The kochs, the bushes, the cheneys, et all will be safe and secure somewhere. The rest of us will be starving and probably dead.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Xulonn:
The main body of current climate science seems focused not on "proving" that AGW/CC is real, but rather to examine the mechanisms, and measure where and how AGW/CC are being manifested - and to examine the feasibility of mitigation measures. An important focus of current climate science is trying to understand what often appears at first glance to be contradictions in some of the measurements. One of the most challenging areas for climate scientists is anomalous raw temperature data that appears to be in conflict with many people's expectation of a steady, easily measured atmospheric warming. This provides much provides fuel for the determined denialists jump on an opportunity to confuse those ignorant of science by refusing to question, examine and analyze the data properly. An honest and intelligent skeptic would actually look at things like temperature measurements that are lower than expected, and ask why this is happening, when all of the other symptoms of AGW/CC are in conflict with those raw measurements.

Climate science has already pretty much moved on, but denialists continue to desperately try to counter the reality of AGW/CC with feeble and/or flat out wrong arguments supported by mostly bad science. Although this blog gets some very interesting posts and discussions with regard to the actual science of studying AGW/CC, it seems to be a magnet for a pack of ill-informed and climate-illiterate denialists who keep posting the same discredited and irrelevant garbage over and over and over again. WU/CC's denialist community certainly employs the propaganda tactics of the paid denialist community with great vigor. It's amusing - but sad - to watch them display angry and indignation when called on their b.s., although some just break out a bigger shovel to try to unload their manure more quickly.

Sometimes I wonder whether it's even worth entering the fray, but I'm motivated by hoping to demonstrate to newbies and lurkers that most of the AGW/CC denialism is based on emotion and propaganda, and not solid science.



"Although this blog gets some very interesting posts and discussions with regard to the actual science of studying AGW/CC, it seems to be a magnet for a pack of ill-informed and climate-illiterate denialists who keep posting the same discredited and irrelevant garbage over and over and over again."

Garbage over and over again from WUWT,Fox News and Dr. Seuss's Farmers Almanac......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
I think so. His current blog seems to be moving that direction - part of why I can foresee studies to prove globe warming are on the wane and will end soon. The human consciousness must move toward solutions.
The main body of current climate science seems focused not on "proving" that AGW/CC is real, but rather to examine the mechanisms, and measure where and how AGW/CC are being manifested - and to examine the feasibility of mitigation measures. An important focus of current climate science is trying to understand what often appears at first glance to be contradictions in some of the measurements. One of the most challenging areas for climate scientists is anomalous raw temperature data that appears to be in conflict with many people's expectation of a steady, easily measured atmospheric warming. This provides much fuel for the determined denialists. It gives them an opportunity to confuse those ignorant of science by simply quoting and graphing raw data. They refuse to question, examine or analyze the data properly.

An honest and intelligent skeptic would actually look at things like temperature measurements that are lower than expected, and ask why this is happening, when all of the other symptoms of AGW/CC are in conflict with those raw measurements.

Climate science has already pretty much moved on, but denialists continue to desperately try to counter the reality of AGW/CC with feeble and/or flat out wrong arguments supported by mostly bad science. Although this blog gets some very interesting posts and discussions with regard to the actual science of studying AGW/CC, it seems to be a magnet for a pack of ill-informed and climate-illiterate denialists who keep posting the same discredited and irrelevant garbage over and over and over again. WU/CC's denialist community certainly employs the propaganda tactics of the paid denialist community with great vigor. It's amusing - but sad - to watch them display angry and indignation when called on their b.s., although some just break out a bigger shovel to try to unload their manure more quickly.

Sometimes I wonder whether it's even worth entering the fray, but I'm motivated by hoping to demonstrate to newbies and lurkers that most of the AGW/CC denialism is based on emotion and propaganda, and not solid science.

[1/23: Edited to revise bad composition in paragraph one.]
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Great speech Mr. President it could have been tweaked a bit to add Northern Arctic Sea ice extent is falling,ever rising Co2 levels in our atmosphere and in our oceans, but all in all it was pretty darn good...."We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries - we must claim its promise. That's how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure - our forests and waterways; our croplands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared." I am also so glad you used God as HE did create this life support system for us that HE named Earth.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Looks like Europe is determined be the technology leaders. This is something we could have done.

World%u2019s first electrically powered car ferry

"The battery will power two propeller motors, and will recharge in 10 minutes from separate dockside storage batteries that themselves slowly recharge from the electric grid."

The link is courtesy of 1911maker.


Very smart since its grid power is mostly Hydro Power that recharges the batteries........BTW Gulfstream kinetic energy would do the same...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Looks like Europe is determined be the technology leaders. This is something we could have done.

World’s first electrically powered car ferry

"The battery will power two propeller motors, and will recharge in 10 minutes from separate dockside storage batteries that themselves slowly recharge from the electric grid."

The link is courtesy of 1911maker.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting schwankmoe:
I just asked most every climate scientist in the world, and they don't think so.



I don't think so either.... I found out by accident my idea will restore that to levels prior to the industrial revolution...You would think someone would be interested.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Thanks for taking time to reply, Rookie (add:@155)
"Have you ever listened to anyone who had their finger pointed in your face?
Have you met Ossqss?...
Have you met theshepherd?...
Have you met Spathy?..."

I have not met the persons behind these handles. Though I am familiar with their personnas here, I don't know any of them well and haven't ever communicated with them outside of a rare exchanged comment over the years. I have found all of them to be polite, and they all have good taste in music.

Have you met TomballTxPride?"
Buyer beware.

We must stop the burning of fossil fuels now...
We're all on the same Earth and we must face (add: and integrate) all the realities of the present situation, not just the use of fossil fuels. I think you know this.

...I'm listening.
You also know there is no simple answer. Do not abandon hope.

Dr. Rood's main focus now appears to be on how we can best adapt to a changing climate.
I think so. His current blog seems to be moving that direction - part of why I can foresee studies to prove globe warming are on the wane and will end soon. The human consciousness must move toward solutions.

Far as the rest of this...
Yes I have tried. I'm on the side of the Earth, the Sky and all things living. We all are. For myself, I will include the spirits and the mysteries we don't yet understand.

Lord-willing, creek and all, perhaps I'll check back in another year and see how far the U.S. and the world has progressed toward a solution to the global warming puzzle.


Thank you for the reply, Barefoot. I encourage you not wait out another year to see where we are then in all of this. You are a thinker. Should you come up with ideas on your own, we all could use them.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
I just asked most every climate scientist in the world, and they don't think so.

Quoting cyclonebuster:



Is this hilarious?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schwankmoe:
still hilarious.




Is this hilarious?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
still hilarious.

Quoting cyclonebuster:


Climate scientists that is...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schwankmoe:
wow, that actually made me spit out my beer. you're the first person on the Internet who has done that in two years. bravo.



Climate scientists that is...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
wow, that actually made me spit out my beer. you're the first person on the Internet who has done that in two years. bravo.

Quoting cyclonebuster:


I have asked most all of the scientists of the world..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting goosegirl1:


Sorry, since you asked what a black hole was made of I linked a page meant for students. Do you want a more advanced link? Link
Does this answer your question, or were you of a more philosophical bent? I can't really answer questions of philosophy; they are based more on how you feel than about the reality of the universe.
No it is not a philosophical question. If the hole itself is made of matter it should consume itself, but we know information can not be destroyed. This is what Susskind and Hawking argued about for 20 some years. We know Black Holes are vast repositories of information but other than information are they actually made of anything.

This is probably not the place for this conversation so I will leave it there.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259

Viewing: 227 - 177

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.