Personal and Public Barriers in Responding to Climate Change

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 1:28 AM GMT on March 14, 2013

Share this Blog
25
+

Personal and Public Barriers in Responding to Climate Change

I want to continue on the subject of barriers to the use of information about climate change. In last week’s entry, I wrote about barriers like engineering standards and permitting processes that have not evolved to the point that they are flexible enough to take a changing climate into account. I ended with language barriers and how the political and emotional responses to climate-change knowledge influence language. For example, perhaps it is impossible to talk to city politicians about adaptation to climate change but possible to talk about vulnerability of their seashore to the increasing storm surges of the past 20 years. There is an aspect to the language barriers that is purely political. This charging of language with political purpose happens in any contentious process where there are advocates of different points of view.

I want to leave those political barriers in the realm of hopeless irrationality and explore more general barriers. There has been an enormous amount of effort to communicate about the science of climate change and global warming. I have argued before that polling data suggest that as a community we have actually done quite well in this communication path. A large majority of Americans think that global warming is real and concerning. Recent polling data suggest that a growing number of people are alarmed about climate change (Six Americas in September 2012). Yet there remains the general perception that, as a whole, we are not doing anything. One response to this is to communicate more, to educate more, with the idea that in a participatory democracy such as ours, the ultimate solution comes from the public’s demanding a policy response.

This experience suggests that there must be barriers to the public response of this knowledge of climate change. Often in environmental problems, people identify cost and inconvenience as barriers – think about recycling. In some instances, we try to reduce these barriers through policy to offset the cost or to improve convenience. A couple of years ago, for example, there were many programs of reduced cost or free distribution of compact fluorescent light bulbs. These bulbs use less energy, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and helping slow climate change (EPA on compact fluorescents). This is a typical approach that focuses on personal behavior, using essentially marketing techniques. Such approaches can be effective, but generally in a piecemeal way (Meeting Environmental Challenges).

In 2009, a group of my students looked into more systematic ways to instill the use of climate-change knowledge in day-to-day life. Their particular focus was on sustainable communities. They did a lot of analysis of energy and water use, house design, and transportation and then developed guidelines. But one of the ideas that they had in that document was the use of community associations and civic organizations to both promote and provide incentives to take behavior normally associated with individuals and to extend that behavior to communities. There were also ideas to extend across communities through, for example, competitive marketing techniques. One goal of such a strategy is to help reduce the reluctance that individuals might have to taking action in the absence of their neighbors, their social network.

An important finding from this work on building sustainable communities is that knowledge, even in combination with a receptive attitude towards sustainability, is not a strong predictor of whether or not individuals will alter their behavior to take action. Perhaps one could conclude that there is just too much anchoring in our old behavior to change. I know that I will drive by the ATM that takes deposits 10 times, thinking that the branch office has to be open to make a deposit. Perhaps reluctance to act is a matter of cost and convenience; yet in polls of those people with the positive sustainability attitude, they’re willing to pay more and be inconvenienced. These real barriers, small and large, in total retard our response to climate change.

Returning to the beginning and to the idea that communicating and educating more completely will motivate action. Though necessary, this is not sufficient. What is obvious is that there is a convergence of items that motivate any individual to take action. This is formalized in a paper by Hines and others in 1987 entitled Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior. In this work, they pose that, in addition to knowledge, there is a need for information about what to do with that knowledge and training on the skills of how to use that knowledge. They state specifically, “The erroneous assumption is often made that skills evolve naturally from knowledge.” These knowledge and skill bases then need to come together with personality factors, including attitude and perhaps situational factors that become motivators for action.

Though this work does not suggest that there is an easy formula for breaking down these barriers, it does suggest training on what to do with the knowledge and the skills on how to do it are as important as the knowledge itself. With an accompanying structure of practice, there is an increased probability that people will take action, which should then beget more action.



Figure 1: Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior – Adapted from Hines and others in 1987 entitled Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior. An individual who expresses an intention to take action will be more likely to engage in the action than will an individual who expresses no such intention. However, it appears that intention to act is merely an artifact of a number of other factors acting in combination. Before an individual can intentionally act on a particular environmental problem, that individual must be cognizant of the existence of the problem; this is prerequisite to action. However, an individual must also possess knowledge of those courses of action that are available and will be most effective in a given situation.


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: 114 - 64

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Quoting cyclonebuster:
... But I think most here understand what the tunnels do for us.....



Most here do understand that the "Tunnels" do nothing more than waste valuable time on this blog.

You have been constantly advised, by many people with professional expertise, that you concept is not mature enough to be considered. You have made no efforts to correct any deficiencies that have been pointed out to you.

If you have any consideration for the members of this blog that want to learn about the science of AGW/CC, the impacts of AGW/CC and the potential of mitigating the same or how to adapt to a dismal future, you will kindly STOP SPAMMING THE TUNNELS!"

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting indianrivguy:
The Promising Future for Solar and Wind Energy

Pretty cool stuff in this. Printable on glass solar cells.. spray-able..clear film.. Ivanpah solar thermal power plant..



Interesting article, but . . .

A report from Dutch environment group Natuur en Milieu indicates that investing in household solar panels can result in the equivalent of a 13 percent gain on the investment over a 25-year period (the estimated optimal lifespan for such a device) against a 4.5 percent long-term savings rate over the same period.

this ignores the rather important factor of the effect of fitting solar panels to a house on its value. The vast majority of people conform to the norm, and I think most people would be put off buying a house with solar panels. Whatever saving you'd make on power bills would be more than negated by the drop in property value.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From blogs.redding.com/dcraig:

The deniers prove our point again (3)

by Doug Craig

The deniers of global climate change are passionate and committed. More like members of a religion than students of science. They believe so strongly that humans are not responsible for global climate, they are blind to any evidence that suggests otherwise. And they do not require any evidence to convince themselves. They just know it. And they are shocked at our stupidity. How can we not know it too?

They know all the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change must be false even though they cannot disprove it. And when they post their arguments everyone sees what is missing. But they don't see it. All those words they type and not any evidence. No trusted sources. No proof for a single claim. How can they be so sure? How do they know what they know? And not know it is worthless.

[...]

The deniers remind me of people who don't know how to speak a foreign language so they just yell loudly in English. They don't speak Science but they know how to yell loudly or write many words. But it isn't what they say or how they say it that matters. it's what they don't say that matters most of all.

The deniers don't have a single shred of evidence to support anything they say ever. They just boast and assert and pontificate. I can imagine the jurors leaning forward in the jury box waiting for the proof that never comes. They got nothin' and they seem to be the only ones who don't realize it. They are clowns at a circus and yet they have no clue.

Every post of a denier proves my point better than anything I could ever write. They never back up their claims with scientific evidence from trusted sources. Their only source is themselves or other deniers. And while that is good enough in the fantasy bubble of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party, the rest of us live in a real world that is undergoing rapid, cataclysmic change that is unprecedented in geologic and climatic history.

The deniers seem to exist for two reasons. Comic relief and obstruction. We may not survive the changes to come. But we will not lack for entertainment.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1911maker:
.....

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-07/c harlie-rose-talks-to-exxonmobils-rex-tillerson
Link Charlie Rose Talks to ExxonMobil's Rex Tillerson
.......
Whether it's Alaska or offshore or wherever it may be, is your philosophy "Drill, baby, drill!"?

No. My philosophy is to make money. If I can drill and make money, then that's what I want to do. For us, it's about making quality investments for our shareholders. And it's not a quality investment if you can't manage the risk around it.
........

Somewhere along the line, corporate management decided that their ONLY responsibility was to their shareholders. And since most shareholders want a monetary return on their investment, and since management compensation is based on how well they provide that monetary return**, then it's damn the employees, damn the environment, damn the customer....... how can we make a few more bucks?

Theoretically, if there were enough public understanding and concern about the consequences of climate change, people might start to demand more of corporations, either directly as shareholders or through the mutual funds they've invested in, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.


**sometimes - I'm well aware that these days CEO's seem to get paid whatever they can convince the Board of Directors to pay them, regardless of how the company or the shareholders are faring.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:




It sequesters Co2 in the form of new trees growing in regions where desertification is being caused by Fossil Fuel GHG's..... Xulonn is incorrect as he failed to recognize where GHG's trap the heat and don't allow it to escape to space and he forgot about the albedo effect that ice has... If you do not understand this I can't help that... But I think most here understand what the tunnels do for us.....


Have you ever heard of 'obsessive compulsive disorder'?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Promising Future for Solar and Wind Energy

Pretty cool stuff in this. Printable on glass solar cells.. spray-able..clear film.. Ivanpah solar thermal power plant..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting 1911maker:
CB

Better then most of your responses, but still not good enough.

How will your "dream" sequester the CO2 already in the atmosphere, as that is what is needed to reverse the melting?

You stated Xulonn's was incorrect, he was not. All your dream does is move energy around as he stated. It does not get rid of heat as you stated.

I have been reading the blog for a bit over two years. In that time frame, you have been beating on your tunnels. You have been banned from the main blog, you have been banned from other blogs not on WU. In that time frame your "not shutting up" has not convinced any one to "buy into " your dream.

My working life was engineering, I think I have a valid understanding of what you think you are doing. Your wet dream does not even begin to past muster for consideration. I have seen High School Science projects presented with better detail and thought.

In light of that much time and effort put in with out constructive results or response, you are a troll and spamming the blog.

Going forward, I ask you to please never quote or reference any thing I put on the blog. I am done with you.


It sequesters Co2 in the form of new trees growing in regions where desertification is being caused by Fossil Fuel GHG's..... Xulonn is incorrect as he failed to recognize where GHG's trap the heat and don't allow it to escape to space and he forgot about the albedo effect that ice has... If you do not understand this I can't help that... But I think most here understand what the tunnels do for us.....

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
101. RevElvis 3:58 PM EDT on March 15, 2013

Thanks for the link. I visited Phoenix in September; everything I saw coincides with what's described in The Nation article - except thankfully there weren't any dust storms while I was there. There were, however, lots and lots of cars. As we drove north to Sedona on a Sunday afternoon, the southbound freeway was packed with miles of cars driving slowly home from a weekend retreat to the cooler mountains. Phoenix is not a place I would like to stake my future, but many people have done so.

One of the comments to the article mentions a 1950s Army Corps of Engineers plan to bring water from Alaskan rivers down through Canada and Montana to the headwaters of the Colorado River. Apparently Canada squashed that idea. A more recent proposal was to pipe water from the Great Lakes to the southwest; that was earlier than the plan to pipe Great Lakes water to the drought-stricken south. I think Canada squashed those ideas too.

In Phoenix I had a moderately horrifying conversation with the "significant other" of one of my friends (horrifying because he was so sincere in what he told me). When the conversation moved from weather to climate to climate change, he said in all seriousness that we should be more concerned about a polar shift, based what he called the "Hab theory", that "approximately every 6,000–7,000 years the Earth's polar ice caps become over-burdened with ice, creating such an imbalance in the planet's center of gravity, that the Earth's poles and the Earth's equator shift positions. The former poles are soon located somewhere between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn….. the "rollover" takes place in a single day. Since the velocity of an object at the equator of the Earth is approximately 1,000 MPH (1,674 km/h), any such rapid change in rotational axis is a massive disturbance to everything from a grain of sand to a mountain or an ocean."

The quote is from the wikipedia article on "The HAB Theory", a 1978 science fiction novel by Allan W. Eckert. Yes, I checked up on the man's assertions because they seemed to me so outrageous. No, I did not tell my friend that her significant other was either gullible or [ ].
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
CB

Better then most of your responses, but still not good enough.

How will your "dream" sequester the CO2 already in the atmosphere, as that is what is needed to reverse the melting?

You stated Xulonn's was incorrect, he was not. All your dream does is move energy around as he stated. It does not get rid of heat as you stated.

I have been reading the blog for a bit over two years. In that time frame, you have been beating on your tunnels. You have been banned from the main blog, you have been banned from other blogs not on WU. In that time frame your "not shutting up" has not convinced any one to "buy into " your dream.

My working life was engineering, I think I have a valid understanding of what you think you are doing. Your wet dream does not even begin to past muster for consideration. I have seen High School Science projects presented with better detail and thought.

In light of that much time and effort put in with out constructive results or response, you are a troll and spamming the blog.

Going forward, I ask you to please never quote or reference any thing I put on the blog. I am done with you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Que the theme song for "Greedy Lying Bastards"

The first link is old, but included to show that Exxon Mobil fit the lying part.

The second link pretty much illustrates the greedy part.

I will have to only speculate that Tillerson is a bastard or not lacking substantive info for or against.

Tillerson admits that CO2 is warming the planet. IN his defense when he made the statement that it was, he claimed that we just do know how much, or how fast. Now enter the report that the graph below comes from and we have a pretty good idea of how fast it is warming the planet. Tillerson has not (to my knowledge) refuted the graph, but the puppets he funds are busy at it.

Ask yours self this question: Given a choice between excepting the statement of a person/organization that stands to make billions of dollars by lying, or a scientist who lying or not, is not in a position to make lots of money by publishing a paper. WHO are you inclined to believe?

I am sure every one will agree that CEO/large corporations have nothing but stellar reputations for honesty, integrity and the well being of society as there primary goal.

In contrast, scientists have never had a good reputation, and are all parasites on society and out to make a buck, with no regard to ethics.

One last comment on Tillerson, he stated that climate change was real, but it was something we could adapt to. He did not offer up any cash to pay for the adaptation. While he did not say that was the governments job, I expect that is his expectation. That is part of the Privatized profits, socialized risk part of Corporations they do not like to speak of.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01 /exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-fundingLink
The world's largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-07/c harlie-rose-talks-to-exxonmobils-rex-tillerson
Link

Charlie Rose Talks to ExxonMobil's Rex Tillerson
.......
Whether it%u2019s Alaska or offshore or wherever it may be, is your philosophy %u201CDrill, baby, drill!%u201D?

No. My philosophy is to make money. If I can drill and make money, then that%u2019s what I want to do. For us, it%u2019s about making quality investments for our shareholders. And it%u2019s not a quality investment if you can%u2019t manage the risk around it.


http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/06/re x-tillerson-thinks-youre-all-overreacting-climate- change
Link
Rex Tillerson on CO2
So I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact. The -- how large it is is what is very hard for anyone to predict. And depending on how large it is, then projects how dire the consequences are.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1911maker:


Xulonn's comments were specific and correct unless you can refute them.

CB, time to put up or shut up.

1 Explain how your idea will extract heat from the water, and radiate it back into outer space. If you can not do it in a short summery with out resorting to copy and past, your concept is not properly thought out.

2. Are you converting the energy in the ocean to electrical energy or some other form of energy? Provide a short summary, or you are just spamming.

Last, no links to some were else. Just get it right, and concise here and now.

Added this also, to remind you that this is not the first time you have been asked for a concise summary. You have been provided plenty of opportunity to prove you are not just spamming the blog.

96. Naga5000 6:59 PM GMT on March 15, 2013 5

Quoting cyclonebuster:


You do not know what you are talking about. I'll be glad to tutor you on how the heat is removed however.....



You haven't been able to answer just one question I have proposed to you. You really should stop spamming if you can't even explain what it is you are talking about without copy/pasting from Wikipedia...




The kinetic energy in the gulfstream is converted to electrical power and sent to the customer on shore. The kinetic energy in the flowing gulfstream is enormous more so than all the fossil fuel power and nuclear power combined. The kinetic energy in the gulfstream will substitute for the power made from fossil fuels and nuclear power thus lowering the GHG's that the fossil fuels create. Once the tunnels are in place the Arctic ice will be restored and then the heat will be allowed to flow back out to space in two ways..One way will be because the GHG blanket becomes thinner and this will not trap as much heat which will allow it to be emitted to space again thus the planet cools more. The other way is through more Arctic Ice formation. This will allow more light to be reflected back out to space due to more sea ice area/volume for albedo to occur and that solar energy will not go into warming the ocean below it anymore thus the planet cools. So to say the heat in the biosphere will stay is very inaccurate when we all know on this blog that a good portion of it is blocked from re-radiating back to space due to the GHG's. That is a small explanation. There is a whole lot more they can do for us which I have spoken of here on this blog for many years now.... See how simple that was..

BTW if you haven't guessed by now I am not going to shut up about them "EVER" until they get studied by a university. What say you Dr. Rood?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
101. RevElvis 3:58 PM EDT on March 15, 2013

Interesting, thanks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


He doesn't even understand the basics of the tunnel concept and then spouts off they don't remove heat from the biosphere. He is laughable... But still he may be tutorable...


Xulonn's comments were specific and correct unless you can refute them.

CB, time to put up or shut up.

1 Explain how your idea will extract heat from the water, and radiate it back into outer space. If you can not do it in a short summery with out resorting to copy and past, your concept is not properly thought out.

2. Are you converting the energy in the ocean to electrical energy or some other form of energy? Provide a short summary, or you are just spamming.

Last, no links to some were else. Just get it right, and concise here and now.

Added this also, to remind you that this is not the first time you have been asked for a concise summary. You have been provided plenty of opportunity to prove you are not just spamming the blog.

96. Naga5000 6:59 PM GMT on March 15, 2013 5

Quoting cyclonebuster:


You do not know what you are talking about. I'll be glad to tutor you on how the heat is removed however.....



You haven't been able to answer just one question I have proposed to you. You really should stop spamming if you can't even explain what it is you are talking about without copy/pasting from Wikipedia...


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Could Phoenix Soon Become Uninhabitable?

TheNation.com

Phoenix’s pyramid of complexities looks shakier than most because it stands squarely in the crosshairs of climate change. The area, like much of the rest of the American Southwest, is already hot and dry; it’s getting ever hotter and drier, and is increasingly battered by powerful storms. Sandy and Katrina previewed how coastal cities can expect to fare as seas rise and storms strengthen. Phoenix pulls back the curtain on the future of inland empires. If you want a taste of the brutal new climate to come, the place to look is where that climate is already harsh, and growing more so—the aptly named Valley of the Sun.

In Phoenix, it’s the convergence of heat, drought and violent winds, interacting and amplifying each other that you worry about. Generally speaking, in contemporary society, nothing that matters happens for just one reason, and in Phoenix there are all too many “reasons” primed to collaborate and produce big problems, with climate change foremost among them, juicing up the heat, the drought and the wind to ever greater extremes, like so many sluggers on steroids. Notably, each of these nemeses, in its own way, has the potential to undermine the sine qua non of modern urban life, the electrical grid, which in Phoenix merits special attention.

If, in summer, the grid there fails on a large scale and for a significant period of time, the fallout will make the consequences of Superstorm Sandy look mild. Sure, people will hunt madly for power outlets to charge their cellphones and struggle to keep their milk fresh, but communications and food refrigeration will not top their list of priorities. Phoenix is an air-conditioned city. If the power goes out, people fry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
It appears that I have been accused of not understanding how CB's tunnels work. Would they be primarily used to convert oceanic heat energy to electricity, move it to land where it would then used for other energy (heat??) releasing processes, putting much of the heat back into the biosphere? (That is what I was implying with my previous post.)

If there is a true and significant offsetting of FF burning and CO2 release, it could have some merit. However, it seems to me that his explanations are somewhat primitive and not rigorous in their consideration of total energy flows and offsets, let alone the feasibility and costs not only building his systems, but maintaining and rebuilding them after every tropical storm, Nor'easter and fish storm hurricane that damages or destroys them.

My science education was years ago and my one year of college physics was very basic. I understand concepts, but not the deeper math and mechanisms. However, I know that energy is conserved as it is converted and moved around.

A layman's explanation of the basic energy flows into and out of CB's tunnel projects - without his sales pitch - would be appreciated.

And perhaps it would enlighten others here, who, like me, have a limited understanding of physics with respect to his ideas.


He doesn't even understand the basics of the tunnel concept and then spouts off they don't remove heat from the biosphere. He is laughable... But still he may be tutorable...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Naga5000:

You haven't been able to answer just one question I have proposed to you. You really should stop spamming if you can't even explain what it is you are talking about without copy/pasting from Wikipedia...
It appears that I have been accused of not understanding how CB's tunnels work. Would they be primarily used to convert oceanic heat energy to electricity, move it to land where it would then used for other energy (heat??) releasing processes, putting much of the heat back into the biosphere? (That is what I was implying with my previous post.)

If there is a true and significant offsetting of FF burning and CO2 release, it could have some merit. However, it seems to me that his explanations are somewhat primitive and not rigorous in their consideration of total energy flows and offsets, let alone the feasibility and costs not only building his systems, but maintaining and rebuilding them after every tropical storm, Nor'easter and fish storm hurricane that damages or destroys them.

My science education was years ago and my one year of college physics was very basic. I understand concepts, but not the deeper math and mechanisms. However, I know that energy is conserved as it is converted and moved around.

A layman's explanation of the basic energy flows into and out of CB's tunnel projects - without his sales pitch - would be appreciated.

And perhaps it would enlighten others here, who, like me, have a limited understanding of physics with respect to his ideas.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
OMG, iceagecoming linked to information that supports AGW/CC!!

I plussed his comment!


I kinda think we weren't supposed to see that... :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

There is no "missing energy". Those looking for "missing heat" would do well to look in the oceans, the deeper layers to be exact.

Nor can it be demonstrated that the Earth isn't warming. You have found a journalist who appears not to understand what he is attempting to write about.

What's interesting here is that if the atmosphere doesn't warm up "enough", then there is "missing energy." If the atmosphere warms "too much" you can bet your last dollar that we'll hear, "There's too much warming. CO2 *can't* be the cause. When it warms on the exact center line of projections, we'll hear that the data is wrong.

That is a testable hypothesis. Let's see if I'm right. LOL


Also just the other day I posted an article about a study that correlated the "missing heat" with underestimation of the recent small to medium volcanic eruptions and their cooling abilities. This is not some Hardy Boys mystery of "The Case of the Missing Heat" :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3372
Quoting cyclonebuster:


You do not know what you are talking about. I'll be glad to tutor you on how the heat is removed however.....


You haven't been able to answer just one question I have proposed to you. You really should stop spamming if you can't even explain what it is you are talking about without copy/pasting from Wikipedia...
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3372
Quoting sunshinehours:
Quoting Xulonn: Generally it's valid information and data ...

Thank You.

Careful, Xulonn, this guy may post the (out-of-context) quote on his blog as an endorsement!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Which is part of the reason that I've had CB on ignore for sometime now.

His concept does not remove heat from the biosphere, but rather moves it around - with unexplored and difficult to predict consequences.


You do not know what you are talking about. I'll be glad to tutor you on how the heat is removed however.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting ScottLincoln:

3) Global temperatures are actually responding closely to what would be expected, even if you only create a very simplified model that accounts for just volcanic, solar, & anthropogenic contributions, with variability only from ENSO. This is easy to do, can be done with freely-available data, and I have done this personally.


This has been done by others:

https://sites.google.com/site/refsdefred/warming- actors

And myself:

https://sites.google.com/site/wmscottlincoln/home /other/global-temperature-contributors


The data is available for almost anyone to do this, although I'd suggest learning a bit about what you are doing before you try to start modeling a complex physical process.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Looks like Marcott shown inventing another "hockey stick."

Link

More denialist nonsense --jumping to conclusions to be specific. That's especially unwise given the link you provide. Watts has never been right about anything. Surely you've noticed?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting schwankmoe:
your posts are starting to read like the label on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.



Dr. Bronners's soap is good stuff. Your comparison of it to CB's monomania fixation on his wet dream is doing a disservice to the soap.

If nothing else, with out soap, how would we all have soap boxes to stand on?

I am short on time right now, maybe later I will post something useful...........
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

Global warming: The missing energy

Wednesday 13 March 2013, 15:35

Paul Hudson


It was autumn 2009 when I first started writing my BBC Weather and Climate blog.

My initial articles created huge interest around the world. They aimed to highlight the fact that global temperatures had levelled off at elevated levels, despite ever rising levels of greenhouse gases, a situation which remains unchanged nearly four years later.

At the time there seemed to be a reluctance to acknowledge such a levelling off in global temperatures, although this is no longer the case.

But Dr Kevin E Trenberth of University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) was one climate scientist at the time who did acknowledge this apparent lack of warming in surface temperature observations.

It%u2019s now described as the issue of %u2018missing energy%u2019 %u2013 namely with rising levels of greenhouse gases, where has the expected extra global warmth, which basic physical laws predict, gone?

There is no "missing energy". Those looking for "missing heat" would do well to look in the oceans, the deeper layers to be exact.

Nor can it be demonstrated that the Earth isn't warming. You have found a journalist who appears not to understand what he is attempting to write about.

What's interesting here is that if the atmosphere doesn't warm up "enough", then there is "missing energy." If the atmosphere warms "too much" you can bet your last dollar that we'll hear, "There's too much warming. CO2 *can't* be the cause. When it warms on the exact center line of projections, we'll hear that the data is wrong.

That is a testable hypothesis. Let's see if I'm right. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting schwankmoe:
your posts are starting to read like the label on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

Which is part of the reason that I've had CB on ignore for sometime now.

His concept does not remove heat from the biosphere, but rather moves it around - with unexplored and difficult to predict consequences.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schwankmoe:
your posts are starting to read like the label on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.



Some of those old time home remedies still work great to this day...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Looks like Marcott shown inventing another "hockey stick."

Link

Perhaps you should wait for actual scientists to look at the data and attempt to independently reach similar (or not similar) conclusions before you start coming to such conclusions?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
your posts are starting to read like the label on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

Quoting cyclonebuster:


This is responsible geo-engineering because it can subtract the same amount of heat we have added to the climate system whenever it is needed.....Pascal and Bernoulli Force 1 is greater than Force 2. Let me know when you want more summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass and weaker hurricanes hitting the US East coast...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

Global warming: The missing energy
Dr Kevin E Trenberth of University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) was one climate scientist at the time who did acknowledge this apparent lack of warming in surface temperature observations.

It%u2019s now described as the issue of %u2018missing energy%u2019 %u2013 namely with rising levels of greenhouse gases, where has the expected extra global warmth, which basic physical laws predict, gone?k
OMG, iceagecoming linked to information that supports AGW/CC!!

I plussed his comment!
Quoting iceagecoming's linked info:
This gives rise to the concept of %u201Cmissing energy%u201D (Trenberth and Fasullo 2010). Where is the energy going? New estimates of ocean heat content show a growing large discrepancy between ocean heat content integrated for the upper 300 vs 700 vs total depth. The latter continues a fairly steady upward trend while the surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content undergo a hiatus in warming after about 2004. The role of the ocean in taking up energy well below the surface is emerging as a major issue in observations and modeling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

Global warming: The missing energy

Wednesday 13 March 2013, 15:35

Paul Hudson

It%u2019s now described as the issue of %u2018missing energy%u2019 %u2013 namely with rising levels of greenhouse gases, where has the expected extra global warmth, which basic physical laws predict, gone?

Most people jumping on the "temperatures have been leveling off" mantra have been trying to use it as evidence that somehow global temperatures were not responding as expected because they were not warming at a near linear rate. Usually this would be brought up by individuals who are either deliberately trying to confuse, or really just do not understand climate variability occurring on top of climate.
Picking a specific range of dates, one could show a slower rate of global temperature increase (comparede to the 1900-present trend, for example) in the lower troposphere, but is this really the full story?

No, for a number of reasons.
1) global near-surface air temperatures are just one of the heat reservoirs of the climate system. In fact, it's smaller than the cryosphere and the oceans.
2) Heat energy is not going to move around the climate system in a uniform, linear fashion. There may be several years were it accumulations more in the ocean, there may be other years where we see the heat accumulate in the cryosphere and melt substantial amounts of ice. On a previous thread, I estimated how much energy would be required to cause the ice melt we've seen in the Arctic over the last few decades. The amount of heat energy was not trivial; in fact, if the ice were gone and the heat instead went to warming the boundary layer of the troposphere, we could see 0.5C of additional warming (these were very rough approximations).
3) Global temperatures are actually responding closely to what would be expected, even if you only create a very simplified model that accounts for just volcanic, solar, & anthropogenic contributions, with variability only from ENSO. This is easy to do, can be done with freely-available data, and I have done this personally.

We can measure the greenhouse effect directly, and can analyze how infrared energy leaving the earth changes. This energy imbalance has not magically gone away, and heat is still accumulating. Although it may seem masked in some data sets, global warming continues.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RevElvis:
Shell barred from returning to drill for oil in Arctic without overhaul

Guardian.co.uk

Shell "screwed up" drilling for oil in Arctic waters and will not be allowed back without a comprehensive overhaul of its plans, the Obama administration said on Thursday.

A government review found the oil company was not prepared for the extreme conditions in the Arctic, which resulted in a series of blunders and accidents culminating in the New Year's Eve grounding of its drill rig.

Shell announced a "pause" in Arctic drilling last month. But Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, told a reporters' conference call that the company will not be allowed to return without producing a much more detailed plan, one tailored specifically to the harsh Arctic conditions.

"Shell will not be able to move forward into the Arctic to do any kind of exploration unless they have this integrated management plan put in place," said Salazar, in one of his last acts before standing down as interior secretary. "It's that plain and simple."




BRAVO Who needs Shell oil company anyways when Pascal and Bernoulli had it right hundreds of years ago to begin with...Let's use their Force 1 is greater than Force 2 principles to drive what happens to our planets climate.... Make them adapt to Force 1 and Force 2 and let them evolve into power companies that have our planets bests interest in mind...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Looks like Marcott shown inventing another "hockey stick."

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sunshinehours:
28% higher is not "slightly".


It is "slightly" when you look at actual trends and not daily data. Comparing climatic trends with daily data provides very little in the way of useful information.

It seems like numerous people have tried to help you get good information on this topic, I'd suggest you take a pause, read up a little to get a better handle on the differences between the Arctic and Antarctic, then come back to the discussion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RevElvis:
Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change

Bloomberg.com

President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.


Yes!

The Koch brothers are probably foaming at their mouths! They will spend their fortune to keep from spending their fortune. Doesn't make any sense to me, but they must find some logic to it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Shell barred from returning to drill for oil in Arctic without overhaul

Guardian.co.uk

Shell "screwed up" drilling for oil in Arctic waters and will not be allowed back without a comprehensive overhaul of its plans, the Obama administration said on Thursday.

A government review found the oil company was not prepared for the extreme conditions in the Arctic, which resulted in a series of blunders and accidents culminating in the New Year's Eve grounding of its drill rig.

Shell announced a "pause" in Arctic drilling last month. But Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, told a reporters' conference call that the company will not be allowed to return without producing a much more detailed plan, one tailored specifically to the harsh Arctic conditions.

"Shell will not be able to move forward into the Arctic to do any kind of exploration unless they have this integrated management plan put in place," said Salazar, in one of his last acts before standing down as interior secretary. "It's that plain and simple."


Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Global warming: The missing energy

Wednesday 13 March 2013, 15:35

Paul Hudson


It was autumn 2009 when I first started writing my BBC Weather and Climate blog.

My initial articles created huge interest around the world. They aimed to highlight the fact that global temperatures had levelled off at elevated levels, despite ever rising levels of greenhouse gases, a situation which remains unchanged nearly four years later.

At the time there seemed to be a reluctance to acknowledge such a levelling off in global temperatures, although this is no longer the case.

But Dr Kevin E Trenberth of University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) was one climate scientist at the time who did acknowledge this apparent lack of warming in surface temperature observations.

It’s now described as the issue of ‘missing energy’ – namely with rising levels of greenhouse gases, where has the expected extra global warmth, which basic physical laws predict, gone?



Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change

Bloomberg.com

President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Daisyworld:
With regard to mitigation of climate change and how individuals may embark on courses of action: Two professors from Harvard and ULCA recently published an article intended to help develop international guidelines on responsible geoengineering research:

End the Deadlock on Governance of Geoengineering Research

Science 15 March 2013: Vol. 339 no. 6125 pp. 1278-1279
DOI: 10.1126/science.1232527

A good article discussing it can be found at ScienceDaily.


This is responsible geo-engineering because it can subtract the same amount of heat we have added to the climate system whenever it is needed.....Pascal and Bernoulli Force 1 is greater than Force 2. Let me know when you want more summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass and weaker hurricanes hitting the US East coast...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
With regard to mitigation of climate change and how individuals may embark on courses of action: Two professors from Harvard and ULCA recently published an article intended to help develop international guidelines on responsible geoengineering research:

End the Deadlock on Governance of Geoengineering Research

Science 15 March 2013: Vol. 339 no. 6125 pp. 1278-1279
DOI: 10.1126/science.1232527

A good article discussing it can be found at ScienceDaily.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Quoting allahgore:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ind ex .php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_hero_speaks_re leases_email_cache/

Rookie this was the only link that I could find for the passwords to the climategate e-mails.


I do appreciate your taking the time to find a link for me. When I read the article I was rather disappointed that there is no real information there to discuss. Mr. FOIA was just rambling and looking for someone that might want to become complicit in his/her endeavors. All that was said is that this person has the password and no one is getting it from this person. Unless, of course, someone wanted to join in another wild goose chase with him. I was hoping that some emails would be there for everyone to discuss. Climategate 1 & 2 was all about emails taken out of context and trying to make something out of it. I did not get to see any new straws that they could grasp and run with. ... JupiterKen needs to wait for something to report before reporting any "finds". :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Pascal and Bernoulli Force 1 is greater than Force 2 yet anyone? Let me know when you want more summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass and weaker hurricanes hitting the US East coast...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Xulonn:
Generally it's valid information and data ...


Thank You.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53611
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53611
Quoting allahgore:



What does all this amount to? Is it false information?

What isn't false is trivial. An old denialist game is to find some numbers that superficially don't fit, ignore any real explanation of those numbers, and then bang on about those numbers as if they mean something. A certain poster on this blog specializes in this tactic and utilizes winter weather. He's sort of a specialist. lol

The goal of such denialists is two-fold:

1. Deceive those who aren't knowledgeable about the science into thinking that there is some scientific objection to AGW/CC;

2. To waste the time of those who actually want to discuss AGW/CC by forcing them to provide answers to the denialists dishonest (or ignorant) ravings, thus wasting time.

Since the denialists seem to have little regard for themselves, it follows that they'll have even less regard for others who are honestly curious or who are knowledgeable.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
From World news on NBCNews.com:

Grave indicator': Penguins' survival at stake as Antarctic ice disappears

By Kerry Sanders, Correspondent, NBC News

ANTARCTIC PENINSULA — There are serious changes taking place here at the bottom of the world.

Increasingly, experts say, the ice is disappearing at a disturbing rate in the Antarctic Peninsula and that in turn impacts the future -- and perhaps the very existence — of at least half of the world’s 18 penguin species, who depend on ice and frigid waters that support krill, the penguin diet mainstay.

"When cheetahs or lions get hunted, or elephants decline, there’s a big uproar. And I think, because you see penguins in large numbers [in some places] people are ignoring the larger rate of their decline," said Oxford University penguinologist Tom Hart. "The general public doesn't realize the penguins are declining so fast."

But it’s not just the penguins we have to worry about, Hart says, it’s the health of the planet itself.

"The last wilderness on Earth is impacted by us now," he said, describing the region’s decline as a "grave indicator" of what’s to come.

Read More >>

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 114 - 64

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog 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.