The Role of Short Timers

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

Share this Blog
24
+

The Role of Short Timers

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


r

Rood Interview: Saga of Climate Change


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

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

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


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

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

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

Viewing: 277 - 227

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

277. greentortuloni
8:27 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:


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

None of those links even comes close to disprove my original point on Fox News being one of the most honest News Networks out there.

Not even close.





I didn't base my opinions on links or studies. I based my opinion on personal reading of Fox. I read it sometimes because it entertains me in a morbid way. But my take on Fox is that it is very pseudo conservative and spins issues to fit that view point.

It seems that Fox's mantra is that news must address itself to the broad masses of the people in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. I believe that Fox thinks the art of news-sites consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses.

The broad masses of the people are not made up of intellectuals or even simply persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

Thus you get a lot of readers along the lines of people who think because Al Gore commutes everyday by 747 around filled with waterbeds that therefore the earth isn't warming. Thus in Fox news you get "Liberals are bad", "conservatives save America", etc. along the lines of The New York Banner, feeding emotional pablum to adults who don't have thier intellectual feet underneath themselves. If you don't believe me, read the comments below the articles. Whether Fox news tries to achieve those results or not, the result is the same.

Oh, by the way, here is a link that happened to be the first one I found. You could find many more if you bothered trying to research Fox's record on honesty. I was actually looking for the Canadian lawsuit where Fox defended itself based on the fact that it was entertainment not news and therefore had no restrictions on its honesty. I just took the first one I found.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
276. Birthmark
6:17 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:



Here is reality, open your eyes and put on your jackets.


You mean it's cold in winter? Oh, no! I guess that means AGW isn't happening...for those who have no idea about the subject, anyway.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
275. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:54 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
274. iceagecoming
5:40 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the science.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annu rev-marine-120308-081105

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712 -011-9119-1?LI=true

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/f ull/nature10847.html

There are many more such papers.



Here is reality, open your eyes and put on your jackets.

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
273. Birthmark
4:18 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:




*Sigh*

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

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

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




Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the science.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annu rev-marine-120308-081105

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712 -011-9119-1?LI=true

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/f ull/nature10847.html

There are many more such papers.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
272. etxwx
2:44 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Hello Rookie,
Yes, that is a heartening statement. I hope it will dawn on more and more influential people that their actions (or lack of action) will greatly affect their descendents - not just other people's.

Whether such realizations will happen in time remains to be seen. Reactions, solutions, mitigation, and adaptations will, by necessity, be many and varied. I'm often struck by that when reading the news...a brief mention of a public building recycling water, farmers adapting to reduced water supplies, LEDs gaining popularity and other small scale but significant changes in attitude. Such changes are often driven by economics - which is fine as long as the changes happen. People don't have to be - *gasp* - "tree huggers" - they just need to be pragmatic and care about their kids.

Rookie, I just want to let you know that your reasoned and polite contributions to WU are greatly appreciated. :)
Member Since: September 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
271. cyclonebuster
2:07 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Hello, etxwx.

The most heartening comment that I read in this article is where Jim Yong Kim said this, with his 3 year son in his mind: "To put it very bluntly . . . when he’s my age, he’ll be living in a world where the oceans will be 150 percent more acidic, the coral reefs will have all been melted away, the fisheries would have been completely disturbed, and probably every single day, there will be food fights and water fights all over the world," he said. "The world that I’m literally handing over to him as an adult will be one that does not exist today. For me it’s very real."

Why do I find this so heartening? This is the first time I have seen someone, with enough influence to make a difference, to start thinking more about the upcoming generations and less about them self. Even with this, if there is to be time to make any difference, these plans need to start now and not 20 years from now.


Like I said Mad Max.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
270. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:01 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting etxwx:
Nymore and others have expressed interest in not just discussing the problem but approaches to possible solutions. I think articles about mitigation are posted more frequently to Dr. Masters blog, but I'll offer one here:
World Bank looks to battle climate change with better transportation
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers January 18, 2013

Excerpt: WASHINGTON — There’s an unexpected method governments can use to reduce poverty, improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, top world leaders said Friday.

Their idea: Make transportation in the world’s megacities more available and sustainable to reduce congestion and benefit populations – and economies – that are projected to boom in the coming decades.

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, said Friday at a global transportation conference that working on sustainable transportation is part of the bank’s moral responsibility and will be a major focus of its lending in the coming years. Lifting people out of poverty is the bank’s chief mission, Kim said. But climate change caused by global warming threatens that mission, he said, particularly for future generations.

Andrew Steer, a former World Bank executive who now heads up the World Resources Institute, pointed to cities such as Lima, Peru, where congestion costs the economy 10 percent of its national income. Green transportation pays for itself, Steer said, and plenty of solutions already exist.

Complete article here.


Hello, etxwx.

The most heartening comment that I read in this article is where Jim Yong Kim said this, with his 3 year son in his mind: "To put it very bluntly . . . when he’s my age, he’ll be living in a world where the oceans will be 150 percent more acidic, the coral reefs will have all been melted away, the fisheries would have been completely disturbed, and probably every single day, there will be food fights and water fights all over the world," he said. "The world that I’m literally handing over to him as an adult will be one that does not exist today. For me it’s very real."

Why do I find this so heartening? This is the first time I have seen someone, with enough influence to make a difference, to start thinking more about the upcoming generations and less about them self. Even with this, if there is to be time to make any difference, these plans need to start now and not 20 years from now.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
269. cyclonebuster
1:48 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Nymore, we have had some good discussions. Your call to duty forestalled our last discussion.

I will quickly call someone out when they have poorly or incorrectly presented the science. Since I do not know all of the science related to the AGWT I cannot call out mistakes that I do not recognize as being a mistake. (At least not until I have researched it further) When you call someone out it is often not as much to do with the science as it is to do with conversations unrelated to the science. Such as the conversations on media news sources. Who cares who is more correct on which media service is most correct in its reporting? Certainly we should hold all media news sources accountable, but not so much each of us on our opinions on them.

Perhaps, soon, we can continue our discussions on strategies that may lead to a more survivable climate for our future generations. We may not come up with any truly workable strategies ourselves, but, perhaps, someone will recognize something in our conversations that is workable? Perhaps they will even join in the discussion? This is not about egos. This is about giving our future generations their best opportunities for the most stable climate we can leave them.


BINGO.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
268. cyclonebuster
1:43 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting etxwx:
Nymore and others have expressed interest in not just discussing the problem but approaches to possible solutions. I think articles about mitigation are posted more frequently to Dr. Masters blog, but I'll offer one here:
World Bank looks to battle climate change with better transportation
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers January 18, 2013

Excerpt: WASHINGTON %u2014 There%u2019s an unexpected method governments can use to reduce poverty, improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, top world leaders said Friday.

Their idea: Make transportation in the world%u2019s megacities more available and sustainable to reduce congestion and benefit populations %u2013 and economies %u2013 that are projected to boom in the coming decades.

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, said Friday at a global transportation conference that working on sustainable transportation is part of the bank%u2019s moral responsibility and will be a major focus of its lending in the coming years. Lifting people out of poverty is the bank%u2019s chief mission, Kim said. But climate change caused by global warming threatens that mission, he said, particularly for future generations.

Andrew Steer, a former World Bank executive who now heads up the World Resources Institute, pointed to cities such as Lima, Peru, where congestion costs the economy 10 percent of its national income. Green transportation pays for itself, Steer said, and plenty of solutions already exist.

Complete article here.



Great idea if the power comes by Gulfstream Kinetic energy...Miami can go totally green this way along with a few other major cities up along the East Coast...Perhaps,New York too..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
267. Daisyworld
1:33 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
[...] 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. [...]


I agree with this 100%, David. I've watched TomballTXPride for over a month now; studying his patterns and analyzing his methods. Indeed, he is acting very much like a troll/shill/sock-puppet/whatever, either for payment or for personal gratification, manipulating the conversation in a direction of his own choosing and dodging every rational argument presented before them.

Everyone should know that these commenters within Dr. Rood's blog -- people like NeapolitanFan, Iceagecoming, TomballTXPride, Ossqss, and even Nymore (who, judging from the recent responses, claims to be neutral about climate science, yet posts false conclusions and disparaging comments within Dr. Rood's in memoriam piece for Dr. Jerry Mahlman) -- all follow a very distinctive misinformation pattern: They (1) start up disagreements and incite arguments by posting non-sequitur and highly controversial statements with little basis in fact. They then (2) fall silent for a brief period when the arguments take on a life of their own, usually perpetuated by both climate-change realists and denialists alike (the latter being eager to maintain the illusion that there's doubt about the science behind climate change). Finally, (3) they have the gall to come back and act conciliatory about the subject and/or act sagacious regarding the behavior of others in the forum, completely diverting attention away from the main subject of the blog.

THIS IS THEIR METHOD OF CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALISM: To disrupt and manipulate the conversation through subterfuge, innuendo, and intentionally-placed disinformation, diverting it away from the main subject so as to avoid any substantial or meaningful discussion of it.

Do you see what they've done? All it takes is one non-factual and preposterous statement against the science of human-induced climate change, and they did their damage. The rest of us unintentionally perpetuate it by continuously countering their argument with fact. But fortunate for them, they need not budge on their position: They simply have additional opportunities to re-state their controversial/outrageous statements, allowing them to resonate (and re-resonate) within the blog-o-sphere, making it appear as if there is a controversy about the science WHERE THERE IS NONE.

To the climate-change realists: Relax. You've done your due-diligence. They deserve one, maybe two responses from you to help them rationally understand the subject. After that, if they're just re-hashing old arguments or using any one of Dr. Boaz's 14 propaganda techniques, then you're being manipulated. Manipulators deserve silence.

To the denialists: Congratulations. You've yet again disrupted the conversation flow within another one of Dr. Rood's blog entries. I'm sure you're proud. Have a nice day.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 851
266. Daisyworld
1:32 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride (#129):
Okay, Fine. I really don't want to argue with you, Schamemoe. I'm sorry is I ruffled some feathers here.


Um, yeah... Right... No you're not. Your behavior has proven that you revel in ruffling feathers.

Quoting TomballTXPride (#146):


Please do. You started it, so I'm going to take your word you will end it.

This childish nonsense doesn't belong in here, Barefoot.


Tomball, regardless of your suggestions to the contrary, you are not the adult here. You are not the moderator. You're not even a helpful contributor. Stop trying to act like an authoritative figure in these blogs at Weather Underground. By axiom, there is no authority in science, and you are just as guilty as anyone else for acting immature in this blog. Or have you forgotten about your spat with Neapolitan before the holidays? You know, the blog entry of Dr. Rood's where you made one of your many famous false statements (comment #138)?:

Quoting TomballTXPride:
Get moving, Mikey.
I want proof. Real proof we are responsible for 70-100% of the warming.
Think you can fill that void. Can you measure up, little man?
Not non-sense from you, either.
That really too difficult to ask?


So, back to the original subject: Have you been able to find any scientific evidence to back your claim that humans are not responsible for 70-100% of the current global warming trend?

Didn't think so...

Quoting TomballTXPride (#158):


Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Someone, please, show me the correlation:



There is none. That has been no evidence of any correlation between any warming and CO2 emissions. Not from what I've seen here in this blog anyway.

But we sit back and wait to see what they try to come up with next....



Ah, yes. We're back to this again. Very shallow lies, Tomball/NeopolitanFan.

Your unreferenced opinions are not based in reality. The assumption is well-refuted by the scientific literature. Here's a recent example:

Shakun, J.D., et. al., "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation." Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915

And if you don't believe them, here's another expert that will explain it to you in easier terms:


Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 851
265. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:27 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peep out of them, so if they won't do it I will.



Nymore, we have had some good discussions. Your call to duty forestalled our last discussion.

I will quickly call someone out when they have poorly or incorrectly presented the science. Since I do not know all of the science related to the AGWT I cannot call out mistakes that I do not recognize as being a mistake. (At least not until I have researched it further) When you call someone out it is often not as much to do with the science as it is to do with conversations unrelated to the science. Such as the conversations on media news sources. Who cares who is more correct on which media service is most correct in its reporting? Certainly we should hold all media news sources accountable, but not so much each of us on our opinions on them.

Perhaps, soon, we can continue our discussions on strategies that may lead to a more survivable climate for our future generations. We may not come up with any truly workable strategies ourselves, but, perhaps, someone will recognize something in our conversations that is workable? Perhaps they will even join in the discussion? This is not about egos. This is about giving our future generations their best opportunities for the most stable climate we can leave them.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
264. etxwx
1:26 AM GMT on January 24, 2013
Nymore and others have expressed interest in not just discussing the problem but approaches to possible solutions. I think articles about mitigation are posted more frequently to Dr. Masters blog, but I'll offer one here:
World Bank looks to battle climate change with better transportation
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers January 18, 2013

Excerpt: WASHINGTON — There’s an unexpected method governments can use to reduce poverty, improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, top world leaders said Friday.

Their idea: Make transportation in the world’s megacities more available and sustainable to reduce congestion and benefit populations – and economies – that are projected to boom in the coming decades.

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, said Friday at a global transportation conference that working on sustainable transportation is part of the bank’s moral responsibility and will be a major focus of its lending in the coming years. Lifting people out of poverty is the bank’s chief mission, Kim said. But climate change caused by global warming threatens that mission, he said, particularly for future generations.

Andrew Steer, a former World Bank executive who now heads up the World Resources Institute, pointed to cities such as Lima, Peru, where congestion costs the economy 10 percent of its national income. Green transportation pays for itself, Steer said, and plenty of solutions already exist.

Complete article here.
Member Since: September 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
263. FLwolverine
11:53 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peep out of them, so if they won't do it I will.



Thank you for your reply. It will help me understand your comments better.

I remember those discussions between you and Rookie - or rather I remember that you were having them. I'm embarrassed to say that I scrolled right by them. I'll pay more attention next time, although I don't think I will have anything to add. I'm still trying to conquer my great sense of despair over the whole GW/CC situation. But like a lot of other people on here I have kids and grandkids and can't afford to sit around and do nothing.

Have a good evening and stay warm up there!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2317
262. cyclonebuster
11:08 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yes, I have. I think that, barring some bizarre and unforeseen event, there'll be an extremely rapid meltdown this year, and records will again be set for area, extent, and volume. All the currently-growing FYI is thin and fragile as per A4R's charts, and will thus--obviously--be quick to melt/flush. (FWIW, I think area will max out around 13.4 million km2, extent will top out at 14.2 million km2, and volume won't get over about 21,000 km3 [and bottom out around 2,700 km3, with an excursion to under 1,000 km3 by summer of 2015].)


Correct extremely thin..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
261. cyclonebuster
11:07 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peek out of them, so if they won't do it I will.



Tunnels are the only solution...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
260. cyclonebuster
11:06 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Neapolitan,

Did you catch Apocalypse4Real's Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Maps at Neven's? Scary,it looks like most of the ice is quite thin.


Tunnels are the only solution to this problem folks...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
259. Neapolitan
11:04 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Neapolitan,

Did you catch Apocalypse4Real's Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Maps at Neven's? Scary,it looks like most of the ice is quite thin.
Yes, I have. I think that, barring some bizarre and unforeseen event, there'll be an extremely rapid meltdown this year, and records will again be set for area, extent, and volume. All the currently-growing FYI is thin and fragile as per A4R's charts, and will thus--obviously--be quick to melt/flush. (FWIW, I think area will max out around 13.4 million km2, extent will top out at 14.2 million km2, and volume won't get over about 21,000 km3 [and bottom out around 2,700 km3, with an excursion to under 1,000 km3 by summer of 2015].)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
258. nymore
10:55 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:

Nymore, I have some questions for you, and I'm asking them straight - I'm not being sarcastic or trying to do a "gotcha".

If you think we have identified a problem (GW), and have figured out that we are "at the very least" part of the problem, then what do you want from this blog and these discussions? Why are you here? Do you want the discussion here to be about solutions and ways to implement them? How do you personally think we can try to identify solid solutions?
I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peep out of them, so if they won't do it I will.

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
257. JohnLonergan
10:54 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Neapolitan,

Did you catch Apocalypse4Real's Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Maps at Neven's? Scary,it looks like most of the ice is quite thin.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3155
256. cyclonebuster
10:45 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Speaking of the always awesome Tamino, he just posted an excellent entry about trends and fluctuations vis-a-vis extreme extreme weather (the double usage of "extreme" intentional). Among many excellent bits, there's this about probable denialist cherry-picking of one possible warming scenario:

"The trend keeps rising, and the fluctuations keep fluctuating, but since they go sometimes up and sometimes down, and since they don't go as far as the 2012 fluctuation very often, in this particular future scenario the temperature didn't get as high as it was in 2012 for eighteen years, not breaking the 2012 record until 2031. If this is how the future unfolds-- and it could well do so, although it could also reach a new record high well before that -- we'll hear proclamations of 'No warming in the U.S. for 18 years!' Oklahoma senator James Inhofe will declare that we're in a cooling period. Anthony Watts will host a guest article by Chip Knappenberger that U.S. temperature data indicate nothing to worry about. Fox News will give them, and a lot of other crackpots, a national televised forum to spread their propaganda. Imagine if you will, the hubbub in 2022 when, just by accident, the fluctuation goes in the opposite direction to the trend and the so-called 'Heartland Institute' buys print ads in the New York Times declaring that the whole global warming idea is a scam, climate scientists are a bunch of frauds, and we should really be worried about the next ice age."

As I said, awesome as always.

(FWIW, Neven tells me he's building a house this summer, so his blog will necessarily consist of fewer and more infrequent articles, and more open forums. FWIW II: I've added a few new homegrown Arctic sea ice forecast graphics to my climate graphs page that will be accessible through Neven's site within a week or so.)



LOL! That may well happen but if it did happen there will be no more summertime Northern Arctic Ice.... All that ice heat would go to cool the atmosphere.....So for now it will be business as usual and continued ice melt...Tunnels anyone?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
255. cyclonebuster
10:41 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Xandra:
From Greenpeace International:

Point of No Return - The massive climate threats we must avoid

Publication - January 22, 2013

The world is quickly reaching a Point of No Return for preventing the worst impacts of climate change. With total disregard for this unfolding global disaster, the fossil fuel industry is planning 14 massive coal, oil and gas projects that would produce as much new carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2020 as the entire US, and delay action on climate change for more than a decade.

Continuing on the current course will make it difficult – if not impossible – to prevent the widespread and catastrophic impacts of climate change. The costs will be substantial: billions spent to deal with the destruction of extreme weather events, untold human suffering, and the deaths of tens of millions from the impacts by as soon as 2030.

Burning the coal, oil and gas from the 14 massive projects discussed in this report would significantly push emissions over what climate scientists have identified as the "carbon budget", the amount of additional CO2 that must not be exceeded in order to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.

The global renewal energy scenario developed by Greenpeace – the Energy [R]evolution – shows how to deliver the power and mobility these dirty projects are promising without the emissions and the destruction ... not only faster, but also at a lower cost. The clean energy future made possible by the development of renewable energy will only become a reality if governments rein in investments in dirty fossil fuels and support renewable energy.

The world is clearly at a Point of No Return. Either replace coal, oil and gas with renewable energy, or face a future turned upside down by climate change.

Download the Point of No Return report.



You think Greenpeace would like my tunnel idea?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
254. Neapolitan
10:06 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
Time to head over to Tamino and Neven to read some real science.
Speaking of the always awesome Tamino, he just posted an excellent entry about trends and fluctuations vis-a-vis extreme extreme weather (the double usage of "extreme" intentional). Among many excellent bits, there's this about probable denialist cherry-picking of one possible warming scenario:

"The trend keeps rising, and the fluctuations keep fluctuating, but since they go sometimes up and sometimes down, and since they don't go as far as the 2012 fluctuation very often, in this particular future scenario the temperature didn't get as high as it was in 2012 for eighteen years, not breaking the 2012 record until 2031. If this is how the future unfolds-- and it could well do so, although it could also reach a new record high well before that -- we'll hear proclamations of 'No warming in the U.S. for 18 years!' Oklahoma senator James Inhofe will declare that we're in a cooling period. Anthony Watts will host a guest article by Chip Knappenberger that U.S. temperature data indicate nothing to worry about. Fox News will give them, and a lot of other crackpots, a national televised forum to spread their propaganda. Imagine if you will, the hubbub in 2022 when, just by accident, the fluctuation goes in the opposite direction to the trend and the so-called 'Heartland Institute' buys print ads in the New York Times declaring that the whole global warming idea is a scam, climate scientists are a bunch of frauds, and we should really be worried about the next ice age."

As I said, awesome as always.

(FWIW, Neven tells me he's building a house this summer, so his blog will necessarily consist of fewer and more infrequent articles, and more open forums. FWIW II: I've added a few new homegrown Arctic sea ice forecast graphics to my climate graphs page that will be accessible through Neven's site within a week or so.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
253. Xandra
10:02 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
From Greenpeace International:

Point of No Return - The massive climate threats we must avoid

Publication - January 22, 2013

The world is quickly reaching a Point of No Return for preventing the worst impacts of climate change. With total disregard for this unfolding global disaster, the fossil fuel industry is planning 14 massive coal, oil and gas projects that would produce as much new carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2020 as the entire US, and delay action on climate change for more than a decade.

Continuing on the current course will make it difficult – if not impossible – to prevent the widespread and catastrophic impacts of climate change. The costs will be substantial: billions spent to deal with the destruction of extreme weather events, untold human suffering, and the deaths of tens of millions from the impacts by as soon as 2030.

Burning the coal, oil and gas from the 14 massive projects discussed in this report would significantly push emissions over what climate scientists have identified as the "carbon budget", the amount of additional CO2 that must not be exceeded in order to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.

The global renewal energy scenario developed by Greenpeace – the Energy [R]evolution – shows how to deliver the power and mobility these dirty projects are promising without the emissions and the destruction ... not only faster, but also at a lower cost. The clean energy future made possible by the development of renewable energy will only become a reality if governments rein in investments in dirty fossil fuels and support renewable energy.

The world is clearly at a Point of No Return. Either replace coal, oil and gas with renewable energy, or face a future turned upside down by climate change.

Download the Point of No Return report.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
252. FLwolverine
9:49 PM GMT on January 23, 2013

Quoting nymore:
 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.
Nymore, I have some questions for you, and I'm asking them straight - I'm not being sarcastic or trying to do a "gotcha".

If you think we have identified a problem (GW), and have figured out that we are "at the very least" part of the problem, then what do you want from this blog and these discussions?  Why are you here?  Do you want the discussion here to be about solutions and ways to implement them?  How do you personally think we can try to identify solid solutions?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2317
251. cyclonebuster
9:23 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
It's funny; every time someone brings up Fox's well-known--and well-deserved--anti-science reputation, some defender shouts out, "But MSNBC!" My response. Again:

A) I don't watch MSNBC much.

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

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

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


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?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
250. Xandra
9:12 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Six Aspects of Denial

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


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
249. Xulonn
8:53 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Delete duplicate post.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1415
248. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:52 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting VR46L:


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 .


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
247. Xulonn
8:48 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Getting close to 50 comments on this page (from #200), and only a couple of them on the subject of actual, relevant real AGW/CC science.

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.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1415
246. cyclonebuster
8:47 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


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.



Or it could be because of this melted ice expanding...Most likely a combination of both....



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
245. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:39 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


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.


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
244. Naga5000
8:38 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
Hey Naga5000, welcome to the world of AGW/CC denialism where carefully tuned tactics and rhetorical forms are heavily used. Those of us hear who have studied, understand, and for many of us, even worked in science, cringe daily at the ignorance, drivel and utterly stupid and false garbage that is posted here daily.

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.


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.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3251
243. Xulonn
8:36 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
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)

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.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1415
242. cyclonebuster
8:31 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting TomballTXPride:




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

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





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.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
241. nymore
8:29 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
One more thing before I go back to lurking.  Nymore, just because the UCS study contains a disclaimer doesn't make it an opinion piece.  The authors analyzed the statements from Fox News and presented the results.  They might express opinions about the results, but that doesn't mean the results are just opinions.
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!
Yes there are a lot of fools in this country. Yes the fools on the stools are lying to fit an agenda on both sides. There are three sides to ever story, two sides are opinion and the third is the truth.

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.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
240. Xulonn
8:27 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
So this is where the war REALLY goes on.
And NOTHING is gained in this discussion.

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.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1415
239. Xulonn
8:22 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:

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.
Hey Naga5000, welcome to the world of AGW/CC denialism where carefully tuned tactics and rhetorical forms are heavily used. Those of us hear who have studied, understand, and for many of us, even worked in science, cringe daily at the ignorance, drivel and utterly stupid and false garbage that is posted here daily.

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.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1415
238. schwankmoe
8:19 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
in all seriousness, how can someone with a straight face argue that there's no evidence that sea levels have risen in the last hundred years?

no wonder she thinks fox is the most truthful source out there. sheesh.

Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 676
237. FLwolverine
8:18 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
One more thing before I go back to lurking.  Nymore, just because the UCS study contains a disclaimer doesn't make it an opinion piece.  The authors analyzed the statements from Fox News and presented the results.  They might express opinions about the results, but that doesn't mean the results are just opinions.
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!
Quoting nymore:

Your first link uses an opinion piece as an actual study. ..............

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

Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2317
236. VR46L
8:16 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Anyone who has watched me as obsessively as some on here have know well and good that I will politely discuss any issue with anyone for any length of time, and will never even think of calling that person's behavior "trollish". No, trollish behavior in this venue means posting something with the sole intent not of learning or engaging in a constructive debate or adding something of value to the dialog, but merely to invoke an emotional reaction/response from one or more people. That's trolling.


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 .
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6832
235. cyclonebuster
8:16 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


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.


That is correct it is no longer our children's or grand children's problem. It is effecting us now...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
234. OldLeatherneck
8:15 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
If you're gonna devote so much effort to trolling, can you at least try to give us something challenging?

SLR

(I realize it's from one of those icky "universities", with their "professors" and "scientists" and "studies" and all that other stuff that turns off denialists, but, still, you may want to give it a few minutes of your time. Source)


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.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
233. GeorgiaStormz
8:11 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Bye the way Nea, what was your App?
Was it successful?
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9720
232. FLwolverine
8:06 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Coming out of lurking to say thank you to Nea and Xulonn and others who take the time to refute the "stuff" posted by the denialists and the disruptors on this blog and on Dr Masters' blog. I started reading these blogs and comments months ago when I was looking for information on Hurricane Isaac. I've kept reading for the weather info and the climate change discussions. I've learned a lot in both areas.

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.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2317
231. cyclonebuster
8:06 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 News 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.



Why won't they use NOAA data?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
230. Neapolitan
8:04 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
...the "savage swatting" seems to have no effect.
Many would disagree with you, I think. Combating obfuscation, scientific illiteracy, and intentional ignorance with truth, fact, and intellectual honesty is always effective. Perhaps not immediately in any measurable way, but when playing a long game, every bit helps...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
229. nymore
8:02 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
It's funny; every time someone brings up Fox's well-known--and well-deserved--anti-science reputation, some defender shouts out, "But MSNBC!" 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?)


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.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
228. GeorgiaStormz
8:00 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
And yet, here you are. Go figure... ;-)

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


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.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9720
227. Neapolitan
8:00 PM GMT on January 23, 2013
Quoting VR46L:


Please define what you mean by trollish ?

Just wondering is it everyone that disagrees with you?

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

Anyone who has watched me as obsessively as some on here have know well and good that I will politely discuss any issue with anyone for any length of time, and will never even think of calling that person's behavior "trollish". No, trollish behavior in this venue means posting something with the sole intent not of learning or engaging in a constructive debate or adding something of value to the dialog, but merely to invoke an emotional reaction/response from one or more people. That's trolling.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457

Viewing: 277 - 227

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

Top of Page

About RickyRood

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