Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 2:03 AM GMT on January 18, 2013 | +23 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition!
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
54 °F
Clear
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Get Free Weather Stickers® |
 |
Upload Your Photos |
 |
Weather™ API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Become a Site Member |
 |
Find us on Facebook |
 |
Follow us on Twitter |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | About Us - Contact - Support - Employment - Press Releases - Terms of Service - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
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.
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.
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.
Not very scientific, but, well, whatever floats your boat. As the seas rise...
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.
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.
And NOTHING is gained in this discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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?)
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 .
(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)
seems more than "occasional" and the "savage swatting" seems to have no effect.
I stand on my "war" comment.
And I came here because I saw there was a lot of activity here from the "community activity" widget.
I haven't argued for or against anyone.
My point is both sides spin the news to fit their viewers opinions, you can not and will not see this because you yourself are so biased in your opinion. I do not care if it is tv, radio or the web. People like you on either side are the problem and not the solution. People like me fully independent are the solution because we hold no set way of thinking and would work for a solution that makes sense without taking sides.
A good example is when I get 2 or 3 sub contractors arguing over a solution to a problem. I usually find their solution gives them some benefit. When I look at the problem and make the final call, if none of them are exactly happy about it, I probably made the right call. I am not there to play favorites I am there to solve the problem, period.
Why won't they use NOAA data?
One thing I've learned about the denialists is that there are never any facts! I follow the (very few) links they give and the most I ever find is another bunch of deniers chortling like frat boys at a bar whenever they think they've found a bit of evidence contradicting AGW - and of course the so-called evidence never holds up.
It's too bad some of you have to waste your time replying to the repeated nonsense from the denialists, but I want you to know that I - and I'm sure a bunch of other readers and lurkers - appreciate it.
Was it successful?
Neapolitan, I saw the same chart yesterday and was going to post it here, but you were quicker on the draw. I wonder if that large spike in the 2012 Sea Level Rise could be due to the fact that Net Mass Loss for Greenland was in excess of 550 Gigatonnes in 2012. For the uneducated denialists (you know who you are!!) every 330 gigatonnes of water added to the oceans results in 1mm of Sea Level rise.
That is correct it is no longer our children's or grand children's problem. It is effecting us now...
How do you know that people are not learning a little ?
I cant mind read, but like to see both sides of the story rather than just one side of the story and there is another side of the story .and we are learning about things all the time and Science fact does change .
You say in another post that an adult who cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact is a fool. If so, then there a whole lot of fools in this country, because there are a whole lot of people who accept the opinions of those Fox commentators as fact. Sometimes I do despair!
no wonder she thinks fox is the most truthful source out there. sheesh.
I'm beginning to think that perhaps TomballPride is simply a delusioned shill for the denialist industry. He/she claims to be a woman - a housewife and mother of young children. However, busy moms don't often have time for this sort of crap, certainly my step-daughter with her four young children does not. Tomball's posts reek of orchestrated denialist propaganda and techniques such as the current LOUD AND LITERALLY SCREAMING denials of common scientific facts. This of course, is based on the well-known propaganda technique that if you repeat a lie often and loud enough, some people will begin to believe it. And this is also a tactic of Fox [so-called] News.
If you enjoy the challenge of jousting with denialist fools and charlatans, this is a good place to visit. Of course there is some actual discussion of the science of AGW/CC here, but when the pack of denialists shows up and starts tweaking the scientific realists who come here to learn and discuss AGW/CC, things degenerate quickly and discussions of science are soon buried in b.s. That seems to be their goal, and they succeed quite often.
I've pretty much stopped trying to rebut obvious individual AGW/CC denialist b.s. posts here, but I enjoy studying and discussing the psychology of denialism. The psychology of irrational AGW/CC denialism creates opportunities to discuss the biggest barrier against doing something about man's HUGE contribution to GW/CC - refusal to accept an obvious truth. Until irrational denialism is finally overwhelmed with a mass understanding and acceptance of the problems we face, little will be done to stem the ominous tide. Without major changes to modern civilization, we are on a path to doom, and like a number of people here, I believe that we are getting close to the final tipping point.
It's not a discussion - it's a concerted denialist attack designed to turn rational discussion of climate science into a seething mass of ego-wars and stop the focus on science. And the denialists are succeeding today in turning this place into a mountain of useless drivel.
The real science discussions are buried in the b.s. or left behind way back there in the rear-view mirror.
Here is an how you move forward. Identify problem (We have done that we are at the very least part of the problem) now move on to ideas on how to solve said problem, (But many here would rather continue identifying the problem, and laying blame I guess it makes them feel useful) after you have identified solid solutions, move on to fixing said problem. Is that so hard to understand.
Stop listening to Fox News,WUWT and Dr. Seuss's farmer Alamanc and start listening to NOAA.....Any news station that allows sacrilegious comments on air I would be very suspect of...
Our oceans are rising and and are getting warmer..
While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.
img src="
Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.
Good post, Nea. It's good when we stop wasting time and space arguing against the lies and ignorance of those who regularly tweak us, and post pure and simple rebuttals like your graph with a linked source.
I've posted in Dr. Master's blog before, and regularly read Dr. Rood's, but this is my first time posting here, so thanks for the welcome. I'm a social scientist by trade and weather is my hobby. I'm actually quite amazed by denialism and anti-intellectualism that is prevalent, not only in the climate change debate, but across a lot of the topics I work with in the social sciences. I hope to have some engaging discussions on climate and climate change and learn some new information along the way, hopefully, without needing to shout over denialist claims too often, but if not, spreading facts and truth is always good.
I encourage you to stick around, GeorgiaStormz, if only in lurk mode. I believe that you will soon discover who are the antagonist here and who are the ones that are attempting to have serious and meaningful discussions here. We may not come to any meaningful conclusions, but we do work towards that goal.
Or it could be because of this melted ice expanding...Most likely a combination of both....
This place is much more interesting and useful when there's only a handful of real-science based posts and discussion and the denialists haven't buried it in b.s.
Time to head over to Tamino and Neven to read some real science.
I suggest that you do learn the talking points of both sides of the issue. This is exactly what Neapolitan suggested that I do when I first came here and wanting to learn more. I found that I not only learned the science faster, but , also, I learned faster how to recognize what is science in the talking points and what is merely distractions away from the science. Learning both sides of the talking points has proved itself invaluable to me in how I can communicate with others and in what is pertinent information in the discussions.
By Mike
I’ve adopted the “Six Aspects of Denial” from Sean B. Carroll’s book “The Making of the fittest”.
These are the most common non-scientific objections to the science of climate change. Actually, I will be so bold as to say these six “aspects” are pretty the only arguments the denial movement has: there is no science that supports their position.
I’ll be this framework to “tag” or categorise the type of arguments used by the denial movement in all future posts. At the end of each post I’ll nominate which aspect of denial I note, and offer a brief explanation. In this I’ll be taking a leaf from the wonderful work that John Cook has done at Skeptical Science. I’m hoping such a framework helps people identify the type of arguments used by the denial movement.
I hope this framework helps people understands the flawed logic behind many of the arguments used by the denial movement.
1. Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on in internet forums they attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All them are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change, when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.
4. Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harm” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government” into existence. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).
5. Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution decides the scientific evidence. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy – For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between having to accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsibly for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent.
Source
LOL! I forgot about Bastardi being equal to Fox News,WUWT and Dr.Seuss's farmers Almanac.....How is it he can be so stupid for so long? What's it been like 35 years now??? Does he even know that NOAA exists?
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index