Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:03 PM GMT on April 03, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

This week I have a guest blogger, Doug Glancy, who was one of the student advocates responsible for starting my class on climate change problem solving. Doug’s piece continues the series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” It is a call for social organization.

What Smoking and Marriage Equality Can Teach Activists About Efforts to Catalyze Climate Action

In February, Duke University released a poll that found that more than 84% of Americans believe climate change is occurring. Climate activists were elated, and many began to say that we’ve turned the corner on efforts to catalyze action. However, beneath the encouraging headline was a far more important number: only one third of Americans support federal efforts to address the issue. I am not discounting the fact that the vast majority of Americans now believe climate change is occurring. However, overselling this statistic is fraught with peril, as it is the second number that defines our direction when the rubber hits the road.

For affirmation of this belief, one need only look at the decades-long struggle to reduce smoking. As early as the 1950’s, the majority of doctors believed smoking posed significant health risks. By the 1970’s, the majority of Americans believed that smoking had deleterious effects. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until the late 80’s that overall smoking rates began to plummet. The transition did not occur because a doctor or scientist said smoking was bad for one’s health, it occurred because smoking became socially unacceptable.

Unfortunately, in the battle to address climate change we do not have the luxury of time for opinion to sway. Fortunately, the strategic marriage of behavioral economics and technology provides the tools to speed up the pendulum. What is needed now is messaging which leverages cutting edge research into why we make the choices we do including core drivers such as moral conviction, a desire for equality and good old-fashioned peer pressure. (For a quick introduction read Contagious by Jonah Berger).

One need only look to the events of last week to see how opinions can change in a timeframe exponentially quicker than in the past. As recently as the late 90’s, the vast majority of American opposed extending marriage rights to the LBGT community. Just over a decade later, over half the nation supports marriage rights.

There is little doubt that some of the explanation for this remarkable achievement lies with Americans expanding their view of morality and furthering equality. However, it would be shortsighted to discount the tremendous impact of peer pressure. Last week, despite little coordinated effort, nearly 3 million Americans changed their Facebook profile to support marriage equality. These 3 million individual decisions provided a social cue to tens of millions more.

What does this all mean for the efforts to address climate change? It means that we must move beyond statistics about the beliefs of 99% scientists. It means we must move beyond over-reliance on frames, such as the plight of the polar bear, which only speak to certain segments of society. It means we must make addressing climate the moral imperative of the day and use technology-assisted peer pressure to spread the message. We have the knowledge and technology to be good ancestors, its time to leverage it.

Doug Glancy
Principal Resileris

Doug has over a decade working on climate, energy and sustainability issues across the public, private and nonprofit sectors. He holds a BS in Political Science from Trinity College and MBA/MS from the University of Michigan, where he focused on climate change and corporate sustainability. In addition to speaking engagements, Doug has contributed to a groundbreaking report on Corporate Climate Change Strategies for the Pew Center on Climate Change, and led two delegations to the United Nations Climate Change Conference. He is an Executive Board member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

The piece also fits well with my earlier pieces

The Optimist’s Time,

The Role of Short Timers

A Bridge of Time.


Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions

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: 156 - 106

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Quoting FLwolverine:
Thank you. I will be interested in what you have to say, but I have to tell you that I've been through the "science may be lacking" argument before in relation to vaccinations. "A strong immune system is just as effective in preventing childhood diseases as are vaccines, but there's no research to prove this because it's all funded by big pharma and they want to sell vaccines."

And to other posters: please think of this as a little side conversation in the climate change saloon and don't start rebutting until we hear what Sullivan has to say. I'm not confused - I'm just trying to learn something here.


It's so hard to not respond, especially after this gem..."Some of the science to back my claims may be lacking because almost all of the state and federal funding going into climate science looks for ways to relate observations to anthropogenic causes", but I'll hold off. All I'm saying is this better be good. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2752
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


CB, 5 times on this page alone, when Auburn quoted you with a comment that questioned your tunnel concept, Auburn's post was hidden from view. Since Auburn is a moderator on this blog, I would suggest that you were immediately placing a (-) on Auburn's comment so that others would not see it.

1. It is not wise to insult moderators.
2. It is a sign of Passive Aggressive behavior on your part.

Your concept or theory is NOT proven. You have never tested a prototype, or reduced scale model in the gulfstream. You have never reduced the impact of a hurricane or tropical storm. You have never produced electricity from the energy of the gulfstream, although it is feasible.

Dr. Rood, or other owners of the Global Climate Models (GCMs) is unable to model your concept, unless you provide him with proven data, not speculative or marketing data.

FYI, I have spent years working on proposals with the engineers and scientists that developed the models for the Exo-atmospheric vehicles used in the real Star-Wars weapons as well as many guided missile programs. I know what I'm talking about.

Secondly, if you had the data Dr. Rood required to model your concept, it would take no less than $5,000,000 to adequately model the global effects of your concept.

END of subject!!


5 million to find the WORKING solution to the warming problem? You decide 5 million to find the solution or go ahead and pay 50 trillion by 2050 due to all the damage it is going to cause. I see the scale is already tipped on my side..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Re:140 OLN

"CB, 5 times on this page alone, when Auburn quoted you with a comment that questioned your tunnel concept, Auburn's post was hidden from view. Since Auburn is a moderator on this blog, I would suggest that you were immediately placing a (-) on Auburn's comment so that others would not see it."

Your concept or theory is NOT proven.


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Sorry to ruffle your feathers here folks but the purpose for Ricky's blog is to find a solution to climate change.... Why would he do that if he didn't think something was wrong and causing the warming problem??

Ricky is a professor at U Michigan and he leads a course on "climate change problem solving". He also states these articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition! Just read to the upper right where it says "About Ricky"...


Guess what folks? I won't charge you tuition either just sit back and learn how the energy in the Gulfstream can be the solution to climate change...Remember you can say goodbye to lower Summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass,higher sea levels,higher sea surface temps,higher land temperatures, higher atmospheric temperatures,lower albedo,more red tides,less coral reef area,more cancer,more asthma,more stroke,more heart attacks,lower PH levels in our oceans,more drought,more desertification,dirty energy or deal with the onslaught of larger and more destructive hurricanes as well as more severe weather...I can go on and on but I think you know what I mean here so I'll keep it short...... Anyways,the video does prove my idea works just like Dr. Hugh Willoughby said...Computer model them and I will go away because I already know what the answer is....Until then I ain't moving...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
I see cyclonebuster as part of the idiosyncratic charm of this place. He's been obsessed with tunnels since I joined. I have looked back over some of Dr. Rood's earlier entries. Cyclonebuster was also pushing his tunnel idea years before I joined. I really don't care about the tunnels. When I see him post about tunnels I just move on to the next comment. To me

Auburn came across as using his status as moderator to intimidate another blogger

(cyclonebuster) out of personal distaste.

A lot worse was going on when I left last summer and the site is about 95% better than it was. And I don't see anything about this that is a big deal.


Huh?
ROFLMAO :)))
Aubie intentionally intimidating??
He's a teddy bear.


For the record:
Moderators were selected for their propensity to be fair.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:


My position is most of the warming experienced over the last 100 years can be explained by natural causes with some of the warming due to CO2 and land-use changes. I can present why in a logical coherent way, of which I'll likely get into over the course of time. Some of the science to back my claims may be lacking because almost all of the state and federal funding going into climate science looks for ways to relate observations to anthropogenic causes. That's just how the current state of climate science operates.

Thank you. I will be interested in what you have to say, but I have to tell you that I've been through the "science may be lacking" argument before in relation to vaccinations. "A strong immune system is just as effective in preventing childhood diseases as are vaccines, but there's no research to prove this because it's all funded by big pharma and they want to sell vaccines."

And to other posters: please think of this as a little side conversation in the climate change saloon and don't start rebutting until we hear what Sullivan has to say. I'm not confused - I'm just trying to learn something here.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1903

140. OldLeatherneck 10:33 PM EDT on April 04, 2013

That was likely me with the minus button. I am tired of all the tunnel posts, and after weeks of folks feeding him, I am tired of that too. It is not my blog, so I must play by the established rules. I really like this blog, the folks here are smart and I learn a lot. However, the constant one liners and "my tunnels cure everything" has become very tiresome.

I plus any post that I think adds something to the blog. I appreciate folks trying to add to my/our knowledge and the value of the blog. On the other hand, I detest those posts that are designed to disrupt or insult and express this distaste with a minus. Yesterday, I decided to add all those posts that feed the trolls too, just like folks who seem to think that posting "poof" is somehow cool.

If for some reason staff has decided that the tunnel disruption banned in all the other blogs is okay here, then fine, I always have the option to leave, but that is not by a long shot what I want to happen. I had hoped that the redundancy would become so tiring to everyone, that staff would take the action that would remove the aggravating "I can cure everything" response to EVERY issue or impending problem post.

I found it sad that a moderator would feed a trolls actions. Auburn, I realize this was a courteous, friendly attempt to make a point, but in my mind, the point was made long ago. It is obvious to me that being nice hasn't worked, hell, being mean hasn't worked either. IMO, the incessant "cure all" posts degrade the overall quality of this blog, and I am surprised that Dr. Rood allows it.

I do not, and will not use the ignore feature. I am offered a means to express my opinion of the posts I read, and I exercise it. I consider myself supportive of this site, and have been an interested and sometimes worthy poster here on WU for a long time.

Sorry for adding my own spam to this blog, but I wanted for Old Leatherneck, and everyone else to know it was me who punched the minus button on Auburn, and probably not CB. It wasn't fair for CB to take the blame.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Do German offshore wind farms have a future?

Often hailed as the showpiece of German efforts to promote renewable energy, until recently there was general approval for the country's offshore wind farms. Now, however, the policy is falling out of favor.
German electricity is to become greener. That's the official stance of the government since its decision two years ago to go for an "energy turnaround" - opting to shut down all nuclear plants by 2022 and boost electricity from renewable sources.
It's a decision that has sparked a lot of controversy, as the path towards clean energy is lined with obstacles. Consumers complain about prices going through the roof, industry demands more financial support for the development of new technologies, while policymakers just seem rather lost. Everyone wants the turnaround, but no one seems to be able to agree on exactly how to achieve it. The latest quarrel in this affair is about offshore wind farms.

Read the whole article, if you like, on Deutsche Welle English, April 3rd
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 45 Comments: 5039
Finally, I've posted this before but since the only response from deniers seems to be running around in circles screaming "I want my dualie to drive to the other side of town because my 7-11 doesn't have cherry flavored slurpees", I don't bother responding to a lot of the comments about how would you solve global warming.

--oh, before I start, there is also a lot of snarky comments about "why don't you start then?" Ok. I am a vegitarian who takes a bus or bike to university everyday and heats mostly off pellets (theoretically local but absurdly from Canada last year). But even when I worked, i took a bike, bus or train. Sometimes i do take the car, usually when the weather is really bad, when I have a huge load to carry or every once in a while, just because. I would love to get a twizzy and do the solar recharging thing. I don't do more because like everyone else I have to earn money, etc. and society is set up now in a way that makes it hard to live free from oil. I feel like I am in an oil trap. I am however working to try to change that in my little way through makerspaces to create local goods and manufacturing, notably bikes. (This is my version of CB's plan).

So, to the plan:

Reducing Oil:

Raise taxes on gas for personal transportation to $5 per gallon. For the moment, bus lines, trucks and industry could buy diesel at reduced prices. This is similar to the WWII. (Almost revenue neutral or positive, no effect on staples such as flour, veg. oil, etc).

Create large no traffic zones in cities.

Make serious electric bikes and cars legal and subsidize them. These subsidies include special lanes for them, special parking, etc.

Subsidize local manufacturing, 3D printing, tele commuting, rooftop and local gardening (including warehouse gardening which requires no pesticides and has no runoff) etc.

Tax any product that has to be shipped more than 50 miles.

Subsidize any and all non carbon energy producing methods.

Removing CO2:

Fund biological methods for removing CO2 ro converting CO2 into liquid fuels. e.g. link and link

Fund trial schemes to cool the planet. I don't see these succeeding but they need to be done.

Fund trial schemes for any other way to stop arctic meltdown and methane hydrate release on an emergency basis.

Coordinate, proactively, all the world governments to do the same. The US right now, in my opinion as an otherwise proud American, is a hideous embarrassment to humanity in that it is sitting on its fat ass watching the world die because it is too lazy, corrupt and incompetent to act. The US could lead the world to do this, right now, and the world would follow. Even China. Come up with a plan to reduce third world poverty in an ecological way and every single effing country, less the GOP ones (Iran, N. Korea, etc) would follow.

Financing it:

In the first salvo in defending this plan: where does the money come from?

1. Defense. This is the best use of our armed forces right now in their mission of protecting the US. All soldiers pull back from other countries and start installing solar panals, putting algea ponds in the dessert, etc.

2. Cut oil subsidies. Raise taxes. Issues new securities backed by collateral: land, energy supplies, etc. Default on the rest if need be.

3. Set up out of work food lines and work programs to add manpower help for farmers and green energy programs.

Denierists need to answer this point:

Finally, this may seem crazy. This is 'do-able' however in the sense that while people are out of work, etc. no one dies and the economy has some sort of recovery plan built in.

If this isn't done, and here you need to justify your attacks (which I am assuming you deniers won't, based on historical evidence), the economy crashes even worse and many many people die. It is the difference between evacuating a building when the you smell smoke or waiting until you feel the heat. So for this argument, lets assume global warming is real and without arguing details of the plan, is there any way to justify not doing this?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
CB: I read this a while ago.

It is in Italian and unfortunately, compared to the page in print, it is pretty much a summary without all the diagrams and company names. I assumed when I read the print version that I would be able to access it online.

Anyway, the gist of it is that your idea is being developed here in Europe as well in various forms. The electronic edition is much more spread over ocean energy in general whereas the print version concentrated on deep water turbines from what I remember.

I also should note, that though I like you and have a lot of sympathy for you in that I am working on an idea that faces a lot of the same hurdles that your's does, my gosh i wish you would limit yourself to 3 posts per day.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting RevElvis:
82. Exxon controls skies over Arkansas oil spill.

This seems to be the new worry (it's ok for drones & satellites to spy on us - but not OK for us to spy on "them"

Even Hobby Drones Could Be Made Illegal In Texas


PopularScience


On a hazy day last January, an unmanned aircraft enthusiast piloted his camera-equipped drone in the vicinity of a Dallas meatpacking plant, cruising around 400 feet in the air. To test his equipment, he took some photos of the Trinity River with a point-and-shoot camera mounted to his $75 foam airframe. When he retrieved the remote-controlled aircraft, he noticed something odd in the photos: A crimson stream, which appeared to be blood, leaking into a river tributary.

The pilot, whose name has not been released, notified Texas environmental authorities, who launched an investigation. On Dec. 26, a grand jury handed down several indictments against the owners of the Columbia Packing Company for dumping pig blood into a creek. They now face hefty fines and even prison time stemming from the water pollution, and the plant has since been shuttered. Neighbors had complained about noxious fumes and other issues for a while, according to the local news. But investigators didn’t get involved until this drone pilot took his pictures.

Under a new law proposed in the Texas legislature, sponsored by a lawmaker from the Dallas suburbs, this type of activity could soon be criminal. Not the pollution--the drone.

Texas House Bill 912--and similar laws under debate right now in Oregon and elsewhere--are driving a burgeoning debate about how to use and control unmanned air systems, from an AR.Drone to a quadcopter. The Federal Aviation Administration is in the process of drafting new rules governing unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace, including military-style aircraft. But in the meantime, plenty of cheap, easy-to-use aircraft are already popular among hobbyists and, increasingly, activists and law enforcement.



Funny how guns are ok but freedom of information, which protects a lot better than guns ever will, is so difficult. i wonder if there is a way to tie personal drones into arms? If I lived in Texas that is the stance i would take.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting FLwolverine:
What is your position and why? I've been waiting for months, ever since I started reading this blog, for someone to present a logical, coherent, science-based analysis of why AGW/CC is wrong or exaggerated or not-as-bad-as-we-think.

Thanks in advance.


My position is most of the warming experienced over the last 100 years can be explained by natural causes with some of the warming due to CO2 and land-use changes. I can present why in a logical coherent way, of which I'll likely get into over the course of time. Some of the science to back my claims may be lacking because almost all of the state and federal funding going into climate science looks for ways to relate observations to anthropogenic causes. That's just how the current state of climate science operates.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting auburn:


Its not my choice to say if it stays on a shelf or not..thats yours..its your idea and your responsibility to move forward with it if you think it will work,no one is gonna do it for you no matter how many times you post about it on the internet..no one who has ever accomplished anything like this said it was easy..but knocking on the same old doors over and over isnt getting you anywhere...Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Thank you.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2752
Quoting Neapolitan:
Bearfoot,
True. But most won't roll until they're told the game has started and the clock is ticking.

Perhaps because they are too concerned with rules.
Perhaps because they consider clocks more important than life.
Perhaps because they are followers not leaders.
Perhaps because they do not allow themselves to think creatively.

Thanks for the new knick kname. If I were a bear, I'd be a grizzly and live in Mt. McKinley (Denali) National Park.

(edit for clarity after posting)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I see cyclonebuster as part of the idiosyncratic charm of this place. He's been obsessed with tunnels since I joined. I have looked back over some of Dr. Rood's earlier entries. Cyclonebuster was also pushing his tunnel idea years before I joined. I really don't care about the tunnels. When I see him post about tunnels I just move on to the next comment. To me Auburn came across as using his status as moderator to intimidate another blogger (cyclonebuster) out of personal distaste.

A lot worse was going on when I left last summer and the site is about 95% better than it was. And I don't see anything about this that is a big deal.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8067
Quoting cyclonebuster:
What you say Dr. Rood would your fine University like to "Computer Model" my fine Idea? I can start April 11th 2013...


CB, 5 times on this page alone, when Auburn quoted you with a comment that questioned your tunnel concept, Auburn's post was hidden from view. Since Auburn is a moderator on this blog, I would suggest that you were immediately placing a (-) on Auburn's comment so that others would not see it.

1. It is not wise to insult moderators.
2. It is a sign of Passive Aggressive behavior on your part.

Your concept or theory is NOT proven. You have never tested a prototype, or reduced scale model in the gulfstream. You have never reduced the impact of a hurricane or tropical storm. You have never produced electricity from the energy of the gulfstream, although it is feasible.

Dr. Rood, or other owners of the Global Climate Models (GCMs) is unable to model your concept, unless you provide him with proven data, not speculative or marketing data.

FYI, I have spent years working on proposals with the engineers and scientists that developed the models for the Exo-atmospheric vehicles used in the real Star-Wars weapons as well as many guided missile programs. I know what I'm talking about.

Secondly, if you had the data Dr. Rood required to model your concept, it would take no less than $5,000,000 to adequately model the global effects of your concept.

END of subject!!
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Survey Finds Most Republicans Seek Action on Climate Change

It's true for me.


Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8067
Quoting Xandra:

Maybe there was plenty of food then... between 1958-2010...
Has something changed? Perhaps you should write the researchers and tell them you have some new info from your recent study.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:

Well if the population has increased 84%, I am guessing they are finding plenty of food. [...]

Maybe there was plenty of food then... between 1958-2010...
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1250
Quoting Xandra:

So you think that less krill, the main diet for penguins, won't affect Adele penguin populations in the southern Ross Sea? Just the penguin populations in the west Antarctic Peninsula?
Well if the population has increased 84%, I am guessing they are finding plenty of food.

If the algae they feed on likes sea ice, Antarctica is gaining more and more every decade.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:

The two areas in the articles are roughly 2,500 miles apart. So in one area one thing may be true and in the other area the opposite thing may be true. If you are going to refute something, make sure you are talking about the same thing (area). I see no harm and no foul on your part, just a simple mistake.

So you think that less krill, the main diet for penguins, won't affect Adele penguin populations in the southern Ross Sea? Just the penguin populations in the west Antarctic Peninsula?
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1250
Quoting barbamz:
Someone who seems to be just happy with CC ;-)
Climate Change Winners: Adélie Penguin Population Expands as Ice Fields Recede
From the same Science News website, but 2 years ago:
Fluctuations in penguin populations in the Antarctic are linked more strongly to the availability of their primary food source than to changes in their habitats, according to a new study published online on April 11 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Funded in part by the Lenfest Ocean Program, this research indicates that species often considered likely "winners" of changing conditions, such as large-scale ice melting, may actually end up as the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

This is an interesting demonstration of the complex, multifaceted nature of the impacts of AGW/CC. Habitat change (less ice) and food supply (krill and the effect of AGW/CC on it) are two factors that affect Adele penguin populations, and there may be more.

I looked for papers or articles on the relationship of food supply to habitat (sea ice factors), but no one seems to have done a comprehensive study based on the habitat/food relationship.

The lesson here is that too many people often fail to consider the entire system, and only look at single factors with respect to AGW/CC. They can end up entirely being wrong outcomes, because with missing components, models are going to fail sooner or later.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:
Oxford University penguinologist Tom Hart disagrees.

"When you look at all penguins they are largely in trouble," said Hart. "We're so concerned because we're seeing massive changes to their populations. They’re probably not going to go extinct anytime soon, but the environment is changing very fast.

The two areas in the articles are roughly 2,500 miles apart. So in one area one thing may be true and in the other area the opposite thing may be true. If you are going to refute something, make sure you are talking about the same thing (area). I see no harm and no foul on your part, just a simple mistake.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Neo,
One who does not pick up the dice and roll remains at square one forever.
Bearfoot,
True. But most won't roll until they're told the game has started and the clock is ticking.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
126. auburn (Mod)
I meant no offense to you with that post..I think you are a very intelligent person CB,but perhaps its time you checked in with some one to market this idea for you..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting barbamz:

Someone who seems to be just happy with CC ;-)
Climate Change Winners [...]

Oxford University penguinologist Tom Hart disagrees.

"When you look at all penguins they are largely in trouble," said Hart. "We're so concerned because we're seeing massive changes to their populations. They’re probably not going to go extinct anytime soon, but the environment is changing very fast.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1250
124. auburn (Mod)
Quoting cyclonebuster:
What you say Dr. Rood would your fine University like to "Computer Model" my fine Idea? I can start April 11th 2013...


The point I am trying to make to you is the Dr obviously isn't interested in testing your models or he would already have done so,that was the point of my quote "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.",if one door is locked move on and try another.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What you say Dr. Rood would your fine University like to "Computer Model" my fine Idea? I can start April 11th 2013...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting auburn:


Its not my choice to say if it stays on a shelf or not..thats yours..its your idea and your responsibility to move forward with it if you think it will work,no one is gonna do it for you no matter how many times you post about it on the internet..no one who has ever accomplished anything like this said it was easy..but knocking on the same old doors over and over isnt getting you anywhere...Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


That's where the computer modeling comes in..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Greenland is as warm or warmer than many places here in Oxford Alabama....What gives???


Aasiaat, Greenland 32 °F 87% 29.98 in Clear ENE at 14 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Angisoq, Greenland 42 °F 57% 29.64 in Rain ESE at 39 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Aputiteeq, Greenland 15 °F 73% n/a Partly Cloudy ENE at 5 mph Estimated Save
Cape Harald Moltke, Greenland -18 °F 88% n/a Mostly Cloudy NW at 6 mph Estimated Save
Cape Tobin, Greenland 9 °F 57% 30.71 in Partly Cloudy NNE at 18 mph 8:50 PM EGST Save
Carey Island, Greenland 15 °F 71% 30.51 in Partly Cloudy NW at 9 mph 3:00 PM ADT Save
Daneborg, Greenland 8 °F 28% 30.73 in Clear SE at 8 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Danmarkshavn, Greenland 2 °F 63% 30.78 in Clear West at 7 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Hall Land, Greenland -6 °F 77% 30.90 in Light Snow WNW at 6 mph 2:00 PM MDT Save
Henrik Kroeyer Holme, Greenland 4 °F 51% 30.72 in Clear North at 32 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Ikermiit, Greenland 31 °F 39% 30.45 in Snow North at 2 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Ikermiuarsuk, Greenland 28 °F 98% 30.20 in Snow North at 26 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Illoqqortoormiut, Greenland 9 °F 57% 30.71 in Partly Cloudy NNE at 18 mph 8:50 PM EGST Save
Ilulissat, Greenland 45 °F 37% 29.98 in Scattered Clouds East at 31 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Kangerlussuaq, Greenland 46 °F 40% 29.98 in Clear ENE at 16 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Kangilinnguit, Greenland 41 °F 54% n/a Cloudy East at 40 mph Estimated Save
Kap Morris Jesup, Greenland -12 °F 50% 30.87 in Clear WSW at 7 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Kitsissorsuit, Greenland 14 °F 75% 30.25 in Cloudy North at 14 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Kitsissut, Greenland 45 °F 49% 29.86 in Partly Cloudy Variable at 1 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Kulusuk, Greenland 28 °F 47% 30.48 in Partly Cloudy NE at 5 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Maniitsoq, Greenland 50 °F 35% 29.86 in Scattered Clouds ENE at 18 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Mittarfik Nuuk, Greenland 52 °F 28% 29.77 in Mostly Cloudy East at 28 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Narsarsuaq, Greenland 46 °F 34% 29.83 in Mostly Cloudy ENE at 46 mph 4:50 PM WGST Save
Navy Operated, Greenland -20 °F 69% n/a Clear West at 9 mph Estimated Save
Nerlerit Inaat, Greenland 9 °F 57% 30.71 in Partly Cloudy NNE at 18 mph 8:50 PM EGST Save
Nord, Greenland -7 °F 99% n/a Fog NW at 13 mph Estimated Save
Nord Aws, Greenland -5 °F 63% 30.84 in Fog ESE at 2 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Nunarsuit, Greenland 45 °F 31% 29.63 in Rain East at 46 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Nuuk, Greenland 52 °F 28% 29.77 in Mostly Cloudy East at 28 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Nuussuaataa, Greenland 41 °F 39% 30.09 in Scattered Clouds SSE at 25 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Paamiut, Greenland 51 °F 10% 29.69 in Mostly Cloudy ESE at 21 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Pituffik, Greenland 6 °F 62% 30.37 in Clear ENE at 7 mph 5:58 PM ADT Save
Prins Christian Sund, Greenland 32 °F 100% 29.91 in Snow NNE at 33 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Qaanaaq, Greenland 2 °F 48% n/a Clear ENE at 11 mph Estimated Save
Qaarsut, Greenland 41 °F 39% 30.09 in Scattered Clouds SSE at 25 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Qaqortoq, Greenland 46 °F 34% 29.83 in Mostly Cloudy ENE at 46 mph 4:50 PM WGST Save
Sioralik, Greenland 50 °F 35% 29.86 in Scattered Clouds ENE at 18 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Sisimiut, Greenland 45 °F 49% 29.86 in Partly Cloudy Variable at 1 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Sisimiut Mittarfia, Greenland 45 °F 49% 29.86 in Partly Cloudy Variable at 1 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Summit, Greenland -19 °F 77% in Fog West at 11 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Tasiilaq, Greenland 28 °F 47% 30.48 in Partly Cloudy NE at 5 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Ukiivik, Greenland 45 °F 36% 29.72 in Cloudy ESE at 34 mph 4:00 PM WGST Save
Upernavik, Greenland 32 °F 48% 30.12 in Scattered Clouds NE at 10 mph 6:50 PM WGST Save
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
120. auburn (Mod)
Quoting cyclonebuster:


So do you want to keep it on the shelf? Remember if you do that you can say goodbye to Summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass,the days of lower sea levels,lower sea surface temps,lower land temperatures, lower atmospheric temperatures,more albedo,less red tides,loss of coral reefs,more cancer,more asthma,more strokes,more heart attacks,higher PH levels in our oceans,less drought,less desertification,cleaner energy and deal with the onslaught of larger and more destructive hurricanes as well as more severe weather...I can go on and on but I think you know what I mean here so I'll keep it short......


Its not my choice to say if it stays on a shelf or not..thats yours..its your idea and your responsibility to move forward with it if you think it will work,no one is gonna do it for you no matter how many times you post about it on the internet..no one who has ever accomplished anything like this said it was easy..but knocking on the same old doors over and over isnt getting you anywhere...Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting auburn:


Not saying it wouldn't work..but until its put in place it isn't an option...no one can buy a new product until it is put on the store shelves no matter how hard the inventor of it trys to market it.


So do you want to keep it on the shelf? Remember if you do that you can say goodbye to Summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass,the days of lower sea levels,lower sea surface temps,lower land temperatures, lower atmospheric temperatures,more albedo,less red tides,more coral reef area,less cancer,less asthma,less stroke,less heart attacks,higher PH levels in our oceans,less drought,less desertification,cleaner energy and deal with the onslaught of larger and more destructive hurricanes as well as more severe weather...I can go on and on but I think you know what I mean here so I'll keep it short......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Someone who seems to be just happy with CC ;-)
Climate Change Winners: Adélie Penguin Population Expands as Ice Fields Recede
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 45 Comments: 5039
117. auburn (Mod)
Quoting cyclonebuster:


It is not theory when it has been proven to work....


Not saying it wouldn't work..but until its put in place it isn't an option...no one can buy a new product until it is put on the store shelves no matter how hard the inventor of it trys to market it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting auburn:


Thats like asking someone if they want sugar or fairy dust in their coffee..we know one is bad for ya and the other is just a theory.


It is not theory when it has been proven to work....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
(edited out bf blather)

Naga,
In the ideal, maybe. Politics these days seems to respond to money more than anything. Politicians are not in control of this situation anyway. Laws might help but in the end, reaction, especially the overall economic influence of new laws will tell the tale.

Neo,
One who does not pick up the dice and roll remains at square one forever.

Xulonn,
Yes, human population increase is a huge factor.

In the same turn, smaller groups of ancients went down in flames behind weather/climate. Let us not lose sight that they did not have the knowledge humans have today.

Yes, in a near extinction level event, as long as water is available, societies closer to their roots (pun intended) would survive better than a giant urban area - initially anyway, until survivors arrive from elsewhere. Will humans relive the settling of Earth by explorers and adventurers in row boats and canoes, sailing ships and wagons? Who knows?

The human flaw perhaps responsible for the current state of affairs is loss of touch with survival instinct in favor of a "follow the leader" mentality. The majority of humans nowadays have also lost ability to sense their own intuition, or maybe can sense it but listen to what others tell them instead of what feels right within their own being.

I would not consider your comment a rant. More a statement of your reality, which I consider a reasonable vision that's no doubt shared by more people than you might imagine.

etxwx,
Thanks.

(edited out bf blather)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting etxwx:
In reference to greentortuloni's post (#85), this talks about churches using their economic power as well as their moral teachings:


Thanks for that, and I agree full hearted. The movement to protect nature/creation should unite people, whereever they come from. To change lifestyle in a big range will certainly require some (or better: a lot!) of asceticism, altruism, humility and readiness to make sacrifices. So churches and some other religions as well should be great allies, and actually already are. Religious belief usually should be connected with the ability to go beyond (transcend) the small horizon of our own individual and very often selfish life, and to feel and intensify responsibility. I can't even see how we could safe our world without integrating those strong forces of religious devotion. "Science" alone with it's rational reasoning is not enough to move people in this special way.

In Germany and in many other countries worldwide the movement to protect environment is connected in many ways with esp. Christians and their churches, or at least it has their counterpart amid churches. I speak from a very long experience.

(Uff, long post for me. I hope you'll acknowledge my poor verbal effort in the English language. Won't be often. I prefer posting links to eloquent articles of others, lol; much easier ...)
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 45 Comments: 5039
Quoting allahgore:


That will win them over?
It comes down many times to who has the bigger stick. It seems to me this person over compensates for their lack of a big or even average stick.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
112. auburn (Mod)
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Keystone or Gulfstream kinetic energy?


Thats like asking someone if they want sugar or fairy dust in their coffee..we know one is bad for ya and the other is just a theory.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:



?


??

Basically.....Which energy do you prefer?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
Quoting Xandra:
Exxon controls skies over Arkansas oil spill.

From DeSmogBlog:

Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has had a "no fly zone" in place in Mayflower, Arkansas since April 1 at 2:12 PM and will be in place "until further notice," according to the FAA website and it's being overseen by ExxonMobil itself. In other words, any media or independent observers who want to witness the tar sands spill disaster have to ask Exxon's permission.

[…]

This comes one day after Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said his office would be opening an investigation into the incident. It also comes one day after federal pipeline regulators barred ExxonMobil from restarting the pipeline until it receives close inspection.

It appears the Pegasus spill is becoming the BP Gulf oil disaster take two, with the responsible polluter running every step of the show.

Here is a 5-minute clip of video taken (presumably before the no-fly-zone order took effect) by videojournalist Adam Randall over Mayfield on April 1, including footage of the impacted neighborhoods and surrounding areas (H/T LeeCamp)




Complete article here.



Keystone or Gulfstream kinetic energy?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
108. etxwx
Barefoot, I also appreciate your post (#96) and that you took the time to lay out some approaches that have been applied toward solving other problems. To me, a key part of convincing people to face a problem is explaining there are things we can do to try to solve it. Otherwise, people tend to just throw up their hands. As you said, it will take awareness, and it's going to take good practical solutions. I think the two go hand in hand and I hope the blog continues to address both.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From The Huffington Post:

Steve Stockman Hopes James Hansen's NASA Retirement Will Encourage Climate Change Denial

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), a member of the House Science Committee who recently claimed that Earth's best feature was that "if you poke holes in it oil and gas come out," is glad that top NASA climate scientist James Hansen has retired. With him gone, Stockman told the Houston Chronicle on Thursday, there might be more room for those who, like the congressman, deny man-made climate change.

“I hope they investigate other causes and not be myopic about it,” Stockman told the Chronicle of his hopes for future NASA climate research. Earlier in the interview the congressman suggested that Hansen's data had been skewed by his belief that anthropogenic climate change was real, an insistence that Stockman claimed may have been influenced by financial support from environmentalists.

While Stockman sits on the House Science Committee, he, like many Republican members, is resistant to studies that show climate change to be a function of human activity. He called global warming a "new fad thing" in 2009, encouraging people to reject new studies on the issue because "we like our lifestyles." That same year, he also spoke at a conference for climate change skeptics in Denmark on behalf of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a group that funds studies that aid the cause of climate change denial.


Complete article here.


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1250
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
My apologies for this lengthy comment. I do not have time/energy to respond here. This is my last statement. My final answer.
:)
No apologies are necessary - well fleshed out posts are good when dealing with the extraordinarily complex problem we face.

My beliefs are that the world is far into in overshoot with respect to its human population, and that a huge dieoff could happen, beginning perhaps even before I would expect to die of old age (I'm 71 y/o at the present).

And I don't believe that we can stop this inevitable "downfall," but I do believe that humans will survive, and evolve into something other than what we are now.

The scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC is solid and overwhelming, and AGW/CC alone will cause massive problems. I believe that these problems are beginning to manifest, and will become quite serious sooner rather than later. It's up to modern humans to recognize the disaster we face, and the time for more gentle measures has passed.

The dreams of space travel and migrations to other planets that were so prevalent in my youth are now forgotten dreams. Those dreams included endless energy and machines to free man from labor - but when the machines began to take over, mankind was not freed to enjoy leisure, but rather thrust into a new era of fewer jobs for a steadily growing population - while the rich got richer. The utopian dreams of my youth have been shattered, and the blessing of a long and healthy life has been tainted by the specter of the now arriving AGW/CC consequences caused by burning too much fossil fuel and adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere.

If I die tomorrow, I will have lived a long and healthy life and have few regrets. But if you are young or middle aged, you will likely not have the opportunity for such a long and happy life. Denial - especially the denial of the extremely high probability of the serious consequences of AGW/CC - is what will make the adaptation so difficult. It's your future, younger people. I will support you if you want to make changes, but you are the ones that will have to do it. And it will mean going back to a much lower usage of energy that will drastically alter your lifestyles.

As occurred with the Rapa Nui people of Easter Island, flaws in human psychology will probably prevent any timely and adequate serious attempts at avoiding the consequences of the existential threat that mankind faces.

I live in an area 1,200' above a small, fairly modern town. The Ngobe people here, one of the several indigenous groups in Panama, live literally side-by-side with wealthy Panamanians and gringos. They are resourceful and intelligent, and can easily transition from their tiny concrete-block hovels back to natural building materials and food sources. I am convinced that they will survive here in the tropical highlands at 8-9 degrees north Latitude.

It's modern, civilized man with his complex infrastructure and energy-dependent lifestyles who will suffer the most and see the greatest die-off. Like the Easter Islanders, some will survive, but the infrastructure and other elements of a high civilization will disappear.

So younger people, if you don't like that scenario of voluntary sacrifice, simply hang on to your energy and current climate dependent lifestyle until it collapses and disappears. You won't be prepared for the consequences, but it's your choice.

Or you can try to do something about it - and I will do what I can do back you in your efforts.

And now its back to watching the impending train wreck.

/endrant
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 156 - 106

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog 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.