Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

The Role of Short Timers

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

+23

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.

Categories: Climate Change Politics Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 151 - 201

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

151. NeapolitanFan 6:13 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Someone, please, show me the correlation: Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

152. GeorgiaStormz 6:19 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan: Of course. But my point vis-a-vis climate change is that our profligate and unimpeded burning of fossil fuels is going to force change upon even the most recalcitrant, thrust-jawed, gubmint-hatin' person out there. Forced change to our known way of life due to warming is unavoidable and inescapable at this point. Some may be able to cling to the old ways longer than others--that always happens--but everyone will eventually have to get in the boat or drown. they may have to get in the boat or drown, but the gov cannot force them to get in the boat. for someone personally, it may be simpler for them to just live out their life on the land. When it is truly easier to live on the boat, people will do so. For many right now, the boat resembles more of a cruise than anything very feasible for them to switch to. Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 7172

153. Neapolitan 6:41 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting GeorgiaStormz: they may have to get in the boat or drown, but the gov cannot force them to get in the boat. for someone personally, it may be simpler for them to just live out their life on the land. When it is truly easier to live on the boat, people will do so. For many right now, the boat resembles more of a cruise than anything very feasible for them to switch to. I see we're talking of two different things. You're talking about the government forcing people to change against their will. I'm talking about the reality of the situation forcing people to change against their will. Huge difference, no? People can rant and rail all they wish about the Big Bad Government "forcing" them to change their way of life, but that ultimately doesn't matter one bit; everyone's way of life will be forced to change in the coming decades because of our foolishness. Everybody alive then will be forced to deal with the many negative consequences of climate change. Everybody. You, your (future?) spouse, your (future?) children. All of them forced. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11174

154. GeorgiaStormz 6:44 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan: I see we're talking of two different things. You're talking about the government forcing people to change against their will. I'm talking about the reality of the situation forcing people to change against their will. Huge difference, no? People can rant and rail all they wish about the Big Bad Government "forcing" them to change their way of life, but that ultimately doesn't matter one bit; everyone's way of life will be forced to change in the coming decades because of our foolishness. Everybody alive then will be forced to deal with the many negative consequences of climate change. Everybody. You, your (future?) spouse, your (future?) children. All of them forced. people will only change when its practical and simpler for them to do so. The average person today isn't forced to, for example, buy an electric car. But when it becomes practical for them, they will. The gov could always say, well climate change is real, cars must have an electric component, but that won't end well. The gov would be much better off supporting innovation. Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 7172

155. Some1Has2BtheRookie 6:44 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting Barefootontherocks: Neo and Rookie, My apologies for addressing you both at once. I first stepped foot into Dr. Rood's blog a year ago and asked the question, "When are you gonna start talking about solutions?" The globe is warming. Human activities contribute ~~to that~~. And the pieces needed to put the solution to this puzzle together go far beyond that. Fossil fuels will not disappear from use any time soon because human survival now depends on them. We use rare earth metals and uranium. Humans need jobs and food and the earth needs to be protected. The big picture, the Earth and Sky, the economics, the global energy demand and use by a burgeoning population, that's what gets left out when AGWists point their fingers at this one or that one - "denialists," "big energy," whatever. Waste of energy. Have you ever listened to anyone who had their finger pointed in your face? I doubt it. The gesture makes most people mad. I know it makes me mad. Angry people don't hear a thing. They usually walk out the door or away from the table. Unless they lose control and punch your lights out. I suppose you both think you are doing what is needed by pushing the climate science and AGW. That is not what this Earth and its peoples need. They need a new and non-polluting energy source. We have a couple and the technology's been there for decades. But couldn't there be something more? Of course there could. Beyond monitoring data, soon global warming science will be history. We don't need any more studies to prove how much warming is human-caused vs. solar caused vs. natural. All that is needed now is data gathering. Monitoring. Improve these. Put research dollars to work backing geoscientists, physicists, biochemists, engineers, inventors - those who have the brains to come up with answers this world needs. Improve solar and wind technology for starters. Put money into new energy research not more and more and more studies to prove a point that's already known. Heck, Dr. Rood can always have a job teaching the history of global warming science. I know "climate change" is PC now, but I'm not real good with rules. Of course I know what Koch Industries does but I would not describe it with hatred or vilify it in any way. And that's the problem I see. Hatred. Hatred of those who control the gathering and distribution of the world's energy. Why hate? Because you are dependent? I'm guessing it will be private industry, and yes, energy concerns, who come up with the answer that will help mankind because... there is an answer. I'm going to change my question of a year ago and ask "When will the bickering stop and mankind allow itself to come together and create what is needed?" Ps. I have no more to say about the paper except it's a good example of wasted human energy. Barefoot, I apologize for taking so long to respond to this. Please, allow me to do so now. I know that you like to be fully quoted, so I have done so. *"When are you gonna start talking about solutions?"* There really is only one solution. We must stop the burning of fossil fuels now in order to stop the problems that AGW will bring us. We must also stop destroying the carbon sinks that we are destroying. Everyone knows that this is impossible to do today. We simply cannot just close the valve to fossil fuels today without suffering dire economic consequences for doing so. This should be the driving force that moves us towards renewable energy sources with all speed possible. Fossil fuels, on every level simply are not sustainable. As the fossil fuels become more depleted they will dictate what our economies can be without a replacement energy source already in place. We actually need fossil fuels now to build the infrastructure required for the conversion to renewable energy sources. Should we deplete the fossil fuels, before we have a well established renewable energy sources in place, then we will not have the energy source needed to build the renewable energy infrastructure that we will have to have. "The big picture, the Earth and Sky, the economics, the global energy demand and use by a burgeoning population, that's what gets left out when AGWists point their fingers at this one or that one - "denialists," "big energy," whatever." No, the fact that fossil fuels are still needed to get us to where we need to be is not overlooked by us that point to the "denialist", "big energy", or whatever. The reason the finger gets pointed towards the "denialist" is simply because the "denialist" bring absolutely nothing to the table but their unsupported opinions. The reason that the finger gets pointed at "big energy" is simply because "big energy" spends big money to buy enough political clout to maintain the status quo on supplying our energy needs. "Big energy" does this solely for their profits and with total disregards as to the cost to everyone else and to everything else. *"Have you ever listened to anyone who had their finger pointed in your face?"* Have you met Ossqss? The one that drops by and inserts his videos and points a finger at us and tells us that we need to learn to learn. Perhaps Ossqss should refine the methods of learning that he uses before he should point his finger and tell us to "learn to learn"? Have you met theshepherd? The one that claims to detest how his beautiful oceans, rivers and whatever are being fouled by pollution and then points the finger at us and claims we do not have the evidence that mankind is changing the climate. Have you met Spathy? The one that points his finger at us and tells us we are communist, liberals, socialist, Nazis and anti-capitalist because we recognize the need to remove ourselves from a dependence on fossil fuels. Have you met TomballTxPride? The one that constantly pops in and points a finger at us and tells us that we are not playing nice and then gives kudos to those that oppose the science, no matter how they present themselves. Yes, I have had the finger placed in my face and even given to me as general salute to their disdain for me and/or the science that I present. The fingers being pointed mean absolutely nothing to me. What does mean something to me is the ones that want us to stay on fossil fuels until they are all consumed or until they have consumed us all. *"Angry people don't hear a thing. They usually walk out the door or away from the table. Unless they lose control and punch your lights out."* You are correct. I totally agree with you. I never try to be condescending with anyone that wants to have an honest debate. I have no patience for those that choose not learn but would rather just stir the pot for the sake of keeping the heat distributed. Nymore, Snowlover123 and among others that I have conversed with here have had some very good and somewhat productive conversations. Where these conversations begin to fall apart is when the push for continued use of fossil fuels and attacks begin on why renewable energy sources will not solve our problems. Should it be true that renewable energy sources will not solve our problems then our problems have suddenly and completely become insurmountable. I do not accept this, if for no other reason than I will not lay day and say that I give up. All is lost. There never was any hope for us at all. I will fight for my life and the life of future generations until it is proven, beyond a doubt, that there truly is no hope for us. "I suppose you both think you are doing what is needed by pushing the climate science and AGW. That is not what this Earth and its peoples need. They need a new and non-polluting energy source. We have a couple and the technology's been there for decades. But couldn't there be something more? Of course there could." I am listening. Proceed. *"Beyond monitoring data, soon global warming science will be history. We don't need any more studies to prove how much warming is human-caused vs. solar caused vs. natural."* This would be true, if all people followed a logical path towards forming their opinions. Science tells us what we can expect if we ignore the science. How many times do you hear that the science is not yet settled? How many times do you hear that the planet is warming, but we are not the reason why? How may times do you hear that CO2 is but a trace gas in our atmosphere and therefore cannot influence the climate? How many times do you hear, "It's the sun!"? Science must always be pushed to its limits and continuously explored to better the science and to make more easily understood what the science tells us. Only doing further monitoring and data gathering is not going to convince anyone of anything as to why the climate is changing. The most this will do is to give a better time frame as to when we all turn into toast. *"Put research dollars to work backing geoscientists, physicists, biochemists, engineers, inventors - those who have the brains to come up with answers this world needs."* You will get no argument from me on this. The ones that will argue this are the ones that will say it all must be privately funded and no public money should be spent for this. This only tells me how shallow and short sighted these people truly are. Then again, if these same people were not already so shallow and short sighted then this conversation between us, two thinking and logical people, would have never had to occur over its current talking points. *"Improve solar and wind technology for starters. Put money into new energy research not more and more and more studies to prove a point that's already known."* I am on your side. Improving solar and wind energy technology is a plus for us all. However, more and more studies towards a fact that is already known may also lead to something that can help get us out of this mess. Besides, try convincing any of those that refuse to be convinced about anything that is already known concerning the AGWT. Lord knows we have tried to do so here and, for the most part, we only receive further criticism for doing so. This is not a pursuit for those that are thin skinned. *"Heck, Dr. Rood can always have a job teaching the history of global warming science."* History will speak for itself and it does not take a learned and skilled scientist to teach history. Dr. Rood does not just teach the AGWT theory. He does not just teach mitigation. Dr. Rood's main focus now appears to be on how we can best adapt to a changing climate. Trust me, when it comes to helping us to better be able to adapt to the changes that are coming, we need Dr. Rood doing exactly what he is doing now. I would hate to be thrown into a wilderness and not given any instructions on how to survive it. *"Of course I know what Koch Industries does but I would not describe it with hatred or vilify it in any way."* I would describe what the Koch brothers and others are doing as "Crimes against you humanity!". While you may not vilify crimes against humanity, I certainly have an extremely low tolerance for such actions. You can safely say that I hate it and I will express myself with such hatred and disgust for such actions. *"And that's the problem I see. Hatred. Hatred of those who control the gathering and distribution of the world's energy."* I only loath the fossil fuel industry in its gathering and distribution of its energy sources without any regards as to who it will negatively impact. Even then I only really loath the fossil fuel industry for the measures it takes to help assure that there are no other competing energy sources unless it controls them too. *"Why hate? Because you are dependent?"* No, it is because the fossil fuel industry wants to keep me dependent on it when we all know that the fossil fuel industry will not be dependable for future energy needs. Period. "I'm guessing it will be private industry, and yes, energy concerns, who come up with the answer that will help mankind because... there is an answer." Do you believe that I have closed my ears to private industry coming up with a solution for all of this? I have kept my ears open here and I hear nothing from the private industry except for the ones that want to bring renewable energy sources on line now. Not to be PC, but it is the far right members of the Republican party that is most vocal on trying to kill any measures that would not only aid us in mitigation of CO2, but, also, that would help us to become energy independent long before fossil fuels leave us high and dry. Or, perhaps in this case, low and wet. The closet thing I have heard from the fossil fuel industry concerning any answers is what Rex Tillerson said. He knows that global warming is real. He knows that ExxonMobil contributes to global warming. His answer to this? Well, it is just an engineering problem. .. Well, he not only did not offer any engineering solutions he also did not offer of his engineers to work on the problem There is your answer man from the fossil fuel industry! "When will the bickering stop and mankind allow itself to come together and create what is needed?" I wish I had an answer for you on this, Barefoot. Unfortunately, I do not. All we can do is to keep trying and hope that any efforts made are within time to make any real difference. I want to thank you for contributing to these conversations, Barefoot. I certainly appreciate that you are trying. I wish that I could say that about all that post here. Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4105

156. goosegirl1 6:45 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting Barefootontherocks: Carl Sagan's mind saw way beyond known physics. In today's real world, some theorectical physicists question black holes. When speaking of things unknown, it is best not to do so with certainty. ~bf They don't question the existence of black holes so much, but the nature of them. There is an infinite universe, so there is an infinite number of things to learn about it. I always think about the beginning of the last century, and how much science has changed since then. Undoubtedly, science will change again, and what we once "knew" will be proven incorrect. That is, after all, the whole reason science exists- to learn how and why the universe around us operates, and to advance that knowledge. Link Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 860

157. Some1Has2BtheRookie 6:51 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting nymore: What is the Universe? Is it just information being displayed. Here is one to ponder: Is a black hole made of anything? I would suggest that a black hole is more of a state of the matter it has consumed rather an assembly of all that it has consumed. Edited - changed the word assemblage to assembly. I knew there was a better way to put the sentence together. :-) Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4105

159. Some1Has2BtheRookie 7:11 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan: Someone, please, show me the correlation: How do you correlate the climate of one point on Earth to the atmospheric CO2 levels? You do not. But, Anthony Watts wants his lap dogs to think that there should be a correlation. ... Anthony keeps feeding his dogs another bone! ... Would you like a dog biscuit, for a change of flavor? Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4105

160. schwankmoe 7:41 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
not just that, a graph of CO2 levels in antarctica and one of the temperature at the top of the greenland ice sheet. nice. come on, we know CO2 causes warming. that's been understood for what, the better part of 2 centuries? Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: How do you correlate the climate of one point on Earth to the atmospheric CO2 levels? You do not. But, Anthony Watts wants his lap dogs to think that there should be a correlation. ... Anthony keeps feeding his dogs another bone! ... Would you like a dog biscuit, for a change of flavor? Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

161. Barefootontherocks 7:42 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1: They don't question the existence of black holes so much, but the nature of them. There is an infinite universe, so there is an infinite number of things to learn about it. I always think about the beginning of the last century, and how much science has changed since then. Undoubtedly, science will change again, and what we once "knew" will be proven incorrect. That is, after all, the whole reason science exists- to learn how and why the universe around us operates, and to advance that knowledge. Link Yes, it's easy (for me anyway) to believe the Universe(s) are infinite. We'll see what happens with the perceived existence and nature of black holes. As you say, scientific knowledge changes, sometimes very slowly. Mathematics and logic are important also. Though I don't understand a lot of it, I kind of like contemplating the work of Kurt Godel. Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 135 Comments: 16341

162. schwankmoe 8:40 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
so your point is that temperature over the summit of greenland is not directly caused by carbon dioxide over a point in antarctica 12,000 miles away? get this guy a nobel prize, stat. as to the actual graphs themselves, this might be a bit more accurate a way of comparing the two. Quoting NeapolitanFan: Someone, please, show me the correlation: Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

163. cyclonebuster 9:05 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe: if i had what i thought was the only possible solution to a scenario that will devastate the earth, i'd be knocking on every politician's door in the country. and even if they said no, i'd keep trying. i'd be shopping this idea around to everyone who could do something 24/7. I do... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

164. cyclonebuster 9:08 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe: i don'thave a simple remedy for climate change. i don't expect any one person to have one either. i don't expect you to have one as well. but, if someone claims to have figured out what no other person has been able to until now, to actually have a single, elegant solution to the problem, i would think they wouldn't be spending their time on some dude's weather blog. i would think they'd be moving heaven and earth to get it implemented. i would if i had such a solution. i have no issue regarding the veracity of his 'tunnels' invention. that's not to say that i automatically believe in it, but i'm not denying it offhand at all. i'd like to see it scientifically and critically analyzed. mostly, i'm saying if it really is the big solution to the world's problem, get off the blog and do something about it. and sorry, but i've never seen you say anything at all that implied any real knowledge or understanding of science. mostly you just point at others' posts and say 'what he said' or make some snide remark about climate change. asking others to 'stick to the science' is pretty thin stew coming from you, kid. At least I proved you wrong on one account.... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

165. cyclonebuster 9:12 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting GeorgiaStormz: Whether or not climate change exists, change cannot be forced. Innovation must be urged for it is necesary but you cannot force change. Incorrect you can force change as we are forcing change now... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

166. cyclonebuster 9:17 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan: Someone, please, show me the correlation: Ask WUWT or Dr.Suesses Farmers Almanac...... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

167. cyclonebuster 9:22 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: Barefoot, I apologize for taking so long to respond to this. Please, allow me to do so now. I know that you like to be fully quoted, so I have done so. *"When are you gonna start talking about solutions?"* There really is only one solution. We must stop the burning of fossil fuels now in order to stop the problems that AGW will bring us. We must also stop destroying the carbon sinks that we are destroying. Everyone knows that this is impossible to do today. We simply cannot just close the valve to fossil fuels today without suffering dire economic consequences for doing so. This should be the driving force that moves us towards renewable energy sources with all speed possible. Fossil fuels, on every level simply are not sustainable. As the fossil fuels become more depleted they will dictate what our economies can be without a replacement energy source already in place. We actually need fossil fuels now to build the infrastructure required for the conversion to renewable energy sources. Should we deplete the fossil fuels, before we have a well established renewable energy sources in place, then we will not have the energy source needed to build the renewable energy infrastructure that we will have to have. "The big picture, the Earth and Sky, the economics, the global energy demand and use by a burgeoning population, that's what gets left out when AGWists point their fingers at this one or that one - "denialists," "big energy," whatever." No, the fact that fossil fuels are still needed to get us to where we need to be is not overlooked by us that point to the "denialist", "big energy", or whatever. The reason the finger gets pointed towards the "denialist" is simply because the "denialist" bring absolutely nothing to the table but their unsupported opinions. The reason that the finger gets pointed at "big energy" is simply because "big energy" spends big money to buy enough political clout to maintain the status quo on supplying our energy needs. "Big energy" does this solely for their profits and with total disregards as to the cost to everyone else and to everything else. *"Have you ever listened to anyone who had their finger pointed in your face?"* Have you met Ossqss? The one that drops by and inserts his videos and points a finger at us and tells us that we need to learn to learn. Perhaps Ossqss should refine the methods of learning that he uses before he should point his finger and tell us to "learn to learn"? Have you met theshepherd? The one that claims to detest how his beautiful oceans, rivers and whatever are being fouled by pollution and then points the finger at us and claims we do not have the evidence that mankind is changing the climate. Have you met Spathy? The one that points his finger at us and tells us we are communist, liberals, socialist, Nazis and anti-capitalist because we recognize the need to remove ourselves from a dependence on fossil fuels. Have you met TomballTxPride? The one that constantly pops in and points a finger at us and tells us that we are not playing nice and then gives kudos to those that oppose the science, no matter how they present themselves. Yes, I have had the finger placed in my face and even given to me as general salute to their disdain for me and/or the science that I present. The fingers being pointed mean absolutely nothing to me. What does mean something to me is the ones that want us to stay on fossil fuels until they are all consumed or until they have consumed us all. *"Angry people don't hear a thing. They usually walk out the door or away from the table. Unless they lose control and punch your lights out."* You are correct. I totally agree with you. I never try to be condescending with anyone that wants to have an honest debate. I have no patience for those that choose not learn but would rather just stir the pot for the sake of keeping the heat distributed. Nymore, Snowlover123 and among others that I have conversed with here have had some very good and somewhat productive conversations. Where these conversations begin to fall apart is when the push for continued use of fossil fuels and attacks begin on why renewable energy sources will not solve our problems. Should it be true that renewable energy sources will not solve our problems then our problems have suddenly and completely become insurmountable. I do not accept this, if for no other reason than I will not lay day and say that I give up. All is lost. There never was any hope for us at all. I will fight for my life and the life of future generations until it is proven, beyond a doubt, that there truly is no hope for us. "I suppose you both think you are doing what is needed by pushing the climate science and AGW. That is not what this Earth and its peoples need. They need a new and non-polluting energy source. We have a couple and the technology's been there for decades. But couldn't there be something more? Of course there could." I am listening. Proceed. *"Beyond monitoring data, soon global warming science will be history. We don't need any more studies to prove how much warming is human-caused vs. solar caused vs. natural."* This would be true, if all people followed a logical path towards forming their opinions. Science tells us what we can expect if we ignore the science. How many times do you hear that the science is not yet settled? How many times do you hear that the planet is warming, but we are not the reason why? How may times do you hear that CO2 is but a trace gas in our atmosphere and therefore cannot influence the climate? How many times do you hear, "It's the sun!"? Science must always be pushed to its limits and continuously explored to better the science and to make more easily understood what the science tells us. Only doing further monitoring and data gathering is not going to convince anyone of anything as to why the climate is changing. The most this will do is to give a better time frame as to when we all turn into toast. *"Put research dollars to work backing geoscientists, physicists, biochemists, engineers, inventors - those who have the brains to come up with answers this world needs."* You will get no argument from me on this. The ones that will argue this are the ones that will say it all must be privately funded and no public money should be spent for this. This only tells me how shallow and short sighted these people truly are. Then again, if these same people were not already so shallow and short sighted then this conversation between us, two thinking and logical people, would have never had to occur over its current talking points. *"Improve solar and wind technology for starters. Put money into new energy research not more and more and more studies to prove a point that's already known."* I am on your side. Improving solar and wind energy technology is a plus for us all. However, more and more studies towards a fact that is already known may also lead to something that can help get us out of this mess. Besides, try convincing any of those that refuse to be convinced about anything that is already known concerning the AGWT. Lord knows we have tried to do so here and, for the most part, we only receive further criticism for doing so. This is not a pursuit for those that are thin skinned. *"Heck, Dr. Rood can always have a job teaching the history of global warming science."* History will speak for itself and it does not take a learned and skilled scientist to teach history. Dr. Rood does not just teach the AGWT theory. He does not just teach mitigation. Dr. Rood's main focus now appears to be on how we can best adapt to a changing climate. Trust me, when it comes to helping us to better be able to adapt to the changes that are coming, we need Dr. Rood doing exactly what he is doing now. I would hate to be thrown into a wilderness and not given any instructions on how to survive it. *"Of course I know what Koch Industries does but I would not describe it with hatred or vilify it in any way."* I would describe what the Koch brothers and others are doing as "Crimes against you humanity!". While you may not vilify crimes against humanity, I certainly have an extremely low tolerance for such actions. You can safely say that I hate it and I will express myself with such hatred and disgust for such actions. *"And that's the problem I see. Hatred. Hatred of those who control the gathering and distribution of the world's energy."* I only loath the fossil fuel industry in its gathering and distribution of its energy sources without any regards as to who it will negatively impact. Even then I only really loath the fossil fuel industry for the measures it takes to help assure that there are no other competing energy sources unless it controls them too. *"Why hate? Because you are dependent?"* No, it is because the fossil fuel industry wants to keep me dependent on it when we all know that the fossil fuel industry will not be dependable for future energy needs. Period. "I'm guessing it will be private industry, and yes, energy concerns, who come up with the answer that will help mankind because... there is an answer." Do you believe that I have closed my ears to private industry coming up with a solution for all of this? I have kept my ears open here and I hear nothing from the private industry except for the ones that want to bring renewable energy sources on line now. Not to be PC, but it is the far right members of the Republican party that is most vocal on trying to kill any measures that would not only aid us in mitigation of CO2, but, also, that would help us to become energy independent long before fossil fuels leave us high and dry. Or, perhaps in this case, low and wet. The closet thing I have heard from the fossil fuel industry concerning any answers is what Rex Tillerson said. He knows that global warming is real. He knows that ExxonMobil contributes to global warming. His answer to this? Well, it is just an engineering problem. .. Well, he not only did not offer any engineering solutions he also did not offer of his engineers to work on the problem There is your answer man from the fossil fuel industry! "When will the bickering stop and mankind allow itself to come together and create what is needed?" I wish I had an answer for you on this, Barefoot. Unfortunately, I do not. All we can do is to keep trying and hope that any efforts made are within time to make any real difference. I want to thank you for contributing to these conversations, Barefoot. I certainly appreciate that you are trying. I wish that I could say that about all that post here. Tunnels force the issue by forcing the fossils off line simply by tapping the kinetic energy and cold water of the gulfstream. That way we can force the climate in the other direction and with better control of it....In other words we can control it and regulate it to best suit our needs with them..... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

168. schwankmoe 9:25 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
how so? Quoting cyclonebuster: At least I proved you wrong on one account.... Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

169. cyclonebuster 9:29 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Link Any questions? ...... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

170. schwankmoe 9:36 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
my question: that's it? hardly the sort of evangelizing i'd expect from someone who claims to have the only good solution to an impending extinction-level event. this only proves my point. if i had such a solution, i wouldn't be wasting my time on some guy's weather blog. Quoting cyclonebuster: Link Any questions? ...... Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

171. cyclonebuster 9:57 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe: my question: that's it? hardly the sort of evangelizing i'd expect from someone who claims to have the only good solution to an impending extinction-level event. this only proves my point. if i had such a solution, i wouldn't be wasting my time on some guy's weather blog. What would you like to know about them? Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

172. Barefootontherocks 10:55 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
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. Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 135 Comments: 16341

173. schwankmoe 11:18 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
I'm not someone who has the power to implement this idea. You need to be asking that question to every climate scientist and politician in the country, not me. you appear to not be too excited to really shop this idea around to the people that matter. are you afraid climate scientists will tell you it won't work? Quoting cyclonebuster: What would you like to know about them? Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

174. Neapolitan 11:27 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting Barefootontherocks: I can foresee studies to prove globe warming are on the wane and will end soon. 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. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11174

175. Barefootontherocks 11:40 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
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. Hi, Neo. That part you quoted doesn't make sense with your response. I applaud your looking at many of components of the situation. Sooner we come up with solutions integrating all of the above and more, the better. Can't stay and chat. Gotta be out the door in a few. Have a nice evenink. Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 135 Comments: 16341

176. cyclonebuster 11:47 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe: I'm not someone who has the power to implement this idea. You need to be asking that question to every climate scientist and politician in the country, not me. you appear to not be too excited to really shop this idea around to the people that matter. are you afraid climate scientists will tell you it won't work? I have asked most all of the scientists of the world.. Most of them say it does work but it costs to much..... I say it is much cheaper to spend 20 billion on a solution/fix to the problem than to spend up to 60 trillion on a band aid by 2050...Example here: Link .. Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

177. nymore 11:55 PM GMT on January 22, 2013
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: 2048

178. schwankmoe 12:12 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

179. cyclonebuster 12:31 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 18782

180. schwankmoe 1:32 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
still hilarious. Quoting cyclonebuster: Climate scientists that is... Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

181. cyclonebuster 1:48 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe: still hilarious. Is this hilarious? Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18782

182. schwankmoe 2:14 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
I just asked most every climate scientist in the world, and they don't think so. Quoting cyclonebuster: Is this hilarious? Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 256

183. Some1Has2BtheRookie 2:29 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 4105

184. cyclonebuster 2:57 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 18782

185. Some1Has2BtheRookie 3:01 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 4105

186. cyclonebuster 3:07 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 18782

187. cyclonebuster 3:39 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 18782

188. Xulonn 4:45 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 415

189. cyclonebuster 4:52 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 18782

190. greentortuloni 5:39 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 1189

191. greentortuloni 9:47 AM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 1189

192. Xulonn 2:54 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 415

193. cyclonebuster 4:49 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 18782

194. OldLeatherneck 5:03 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 150

196. greentortuloni 5:26 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 1189

197. greentortuloni 5:30 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 1189

199. Neapolitan 5:32 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 11174

200. ILwthrfan 6:10 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: February 2, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1033

201. nymore 6:24 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
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: 2048

Viewing: 151 - 201

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

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy 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.

About RickyRood