Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts: What Can I Do? (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 2:33 AM GMT on April 10, 2013

Share this Blog
21
+

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts: What Can I Do? (3)

This is the continuation of a series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” I thank Doug Glancy who helped me out last week with a blog Smoking, Marriage and Climate, which discussed the role of peer pressure and social networking to organize and develop a growing movement. These are ideas I will come back to later in the series.

In the first entry of the series, I set up the discussion with the definition of mitigation and adaptation. In this blog, I will focus on what individuals can do to mitigate climate change. That is, what can individuals do to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases?

The easy answer is to be more efficient. I included a complicated graph in the first blog that provided a foundation for thinking about efficiency. The message of that blog is that insulation improvements in building, fuel efficiency in transportation, elimination of standby losses, and more efficient lighting, air conditioning and water heating not only reduce emissions in a significant way but in a very short time they save money. “Standby losses” refers to computers that are left in a state of reduced power rather than being turned off. Chargers and adapters that are left plugged in when they are not being used also contribute to standby losses. According to Energy Star the average U.S. household spends about $100 per year on standby energy.

More efficient use of energy means less money spent buying energy. Over time, the savings in energy will pay for the upfront cost, for example, of installing better insulation or a more efficient water heater. Earlier, I wrote about personal barriers to taking action. Happily, federal and local governments and corporations have taken steps to reduce upfront costs, which many people cite as the reason they don’t spend on more efficient buildings and appliances. In other cases, there are local regulations and coding requirements that demand improving efficiency. A place, therefore, that an individual can contribute is to advocate and to support policies and corporations that advance more efficient use of energy. This helps to provide an environment that encourages better use of resources.

Individuals can and do make choices about fuel-efficient cars, public transportation, appliances and light bulbs. If your concern, however, is climate change, then you make these decisions and then don’t see immediate benefit to the climate. In fact, mostly we hear that carbon dioxide emissions continue to go up and that the planet is warming and changing in profound ways. Therefore, it is easy to become discouraged that an individual does not have a lot of impact. Turning this problem around, however, provides a different framing. Our individual behavior in the consumption of energy has, collectively, led to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it has made the problem. Therefore, we have ample evidence that the collective behavior of individuals can have global consequences. This suggests that individuals should look at ways to promote the emergence of groups of people to enhance adoption of more energy-efficient buying and behavior.

Many individuals have the opportunity to contribute to the emergence of societal groups because they are part of organizations ranging from community associations to civic organizations – the list is long. As a member or leader of local organizations, you have opportunity to have a more direct impact. Students of mine have worked in efforts to improve insulation in entire neighborhoods and in the development of recycling and composting programs. Working in small organizations is also a place where people can take advantage of our natural competitive instincts and peer pressure to incorporate the power of social behavior.

A local activity that especially appeals to me is to get involved in local government and schools boards. This can either be as a citizen speaking at the meetings, volunteering, seeking appointments to committees or even getting elected. Activities range from working to assure excellent science education to asking for and developing weather and climate preparedness plans. Thinking about weather and climate in planning (adaptation) is a good way to make mitigation seem real.

Finally, individuals are often not individual in the resources they influence and control. People own businesses and work in management in companies. These are places where there is often strong attention to reducing cost; hence, efforts to reduce cost through efficiency are likely to be well received. Good businesses are often thinking long term – energy costs, appeal to customers who might be environmentally interested, emerging technology, protection of property, buildings and resources; therefore, business might see advantage in taking up initiatives that are beneficial to climate change. Businesses are places where individual influences have impacts that are far greater than that of a single person (UPS and Sustainability).

Here, I have provided a list of possibilities where the influence of an individual can reach beyond that of a single person. However, referring back to an earlier entry, I would argue that rather than a list of things that one can do, it is at least as important to state what to do and then provide the skills on how to do it. I need some help on skills of how to get things done, people with experience - perhaps the next guest blogger.

r

Some Resources

Here are a couple of the better web sites I have found with the basic information of what individuals can do. Please send me more.

EPA: What You Can Do

Union of Concerned Scientists: What You Can Do About Climate Change

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: 240 - 190

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

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So, why not do a "call the numbers" thing on GW, much like is done in Dr. Masters' tropical blog with the numbers for tropical season?

For example, I might say warming by 2100 will be just 2C at a maximum.

Now I'll bet my 2C ends up being much closer to the real change than Dr. Hansen's fanatically exaggerated numbers.

I also doubt the IPCC's new assessment which claims a global average change of what, 4C to 6C?! We'll "C" about that. Now their average if 5C, so if I say 2C and the real number is anything less than 3.5C, then I've won, because I will have been closer than their average.

I have very rational and science based arguments for why that is the case. However, I'll no longer be bothered with that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Mother Jones:

Is a "Game of Thrones" Winter Coming?

Frozen sheep, slowing jet streams, record snowfalls—all signs, climate scientists say, of a stark new reality.

By Chris Mooney


Game of Thrones

George R.R. Martin's wildly popular Game of Thrones saga—whose third season just launched on HBO—is, on the broadest level, a story driven by climatic change. "Winter is coming," warn the ill-fated Starks, a family of northern nobles who help guard the realm from the frozen beyond. In Martin's world, winters and summers vary in length and can for last years or even a generation—and as the books advance, a devastating winter begins to descend, forcing southward migrations and an intense test of mettle to see who can literally stand against the cold.

Back on Planet Earth, our own weather has felt distinctly Game of Thrones-like lately—depending heavily, of course, upon where you live. But if you're in the northeastern United States, 2012 felt like a long summer, with scarce any winter at all—whereas early 2013 featured a snowy winter that has felt like it won't end (though it finally does now seem to be letting up). See here for a graphic of March temperature anomalies in 2012 and 2013, courtesy of Climate Central, proving this perception isn't merely subjective >>

The United Kingdom—a kind of homeland for Game of Thrones, in that the books are inspired by England's historic "Wars of the Roses," and the gigantic ice wall in the north of the fictional Westeros is modeled on Hadrian's Wall, built by the Roman emperor to protect against tribes of Britons—is also undergoing a staggering winter this year. A recent Daily Mail report features disturbing pictures and video of sheep frozen to death in giant snow drifts, noting that the current freeze is threatening to persist throughout April.

So what's going on here? Could climate change actually give us a Game of Thrones world with longer, or at least more variable, winters and summers? On an admittedly much more modest scale—we're working with mere physics here, not a recurring meteorological conflagration between good (heat) and evil (cold)—the answer may be yes.

One key factor behind the UK's and East Coast's supercharged winter of 2013 is the odd behavior of the jet stream, the high-level river of air that meanders from west to east in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at Rutgers University, explains that climate change is weakening the jet stream through an unexpected mechanism—the dramatic melting of ice in the Arctic. And this, in turn, is leading to more fixed weather patterns—whether hot or, alternatively, intensely cold—across the globe.

[…]

Of course, the jet stream isn't the only factor helping to deliver more intense winters. There's also more water vapor in the atmosphere as it heats, and that means that when you have a snowstorm, it can dump more precipitation. So if you have wintry weather patterns stuck in a given place, and more water vapor in the atmosphere—well. Winter is coming, says the forecast.

I asked Francis about Game of Thrones, and she confessed she doesn't watch it. But as I explained the basic scenario, she commented: "There will always be a summer and a winter. But it could be that the transition seasons, the springs and the falls, will not be as gradual. There might be a tendency to go from a pretty chilly situation right into a very warm situation." And, as usual, human civilization wasn't built for any of this. Our buildings, our cities, our rhythms of ordinary life: They're kind of like those crumbling, unmanned towers along the Wall in Game of Thrones. And our climate scientists? They're kind of like the Starks and the Night's Watch: The only ones who can see the danger that's coming, but amid all the petty politics, they're being totally ignored.

Complete article here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Expect more of this with higher sea levels..Could be bad news for East Coast of USA...


El Hierro Volcano activity report Strongly felt M4.1 earthquake the day after PEVOLCA changed to green alert






Link







..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Sounds like we will have to force the planet very hard the other way just to get ice back......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
OK. And the answer is no. We won't get hypercanes because the world will not be that warm at the time the last arctic sea ice disappears.


How do you know this? Once the ice is gone what is there left to keep the planet cool? No more ice to reflect the heat back out to space... So the planet keeps warming up.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
OK


OK. So how do we know we don't get one as the Ice disappears during summer months? What happens when it is gone during the summer?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
OK. And the answer is no. We won't get hypercanes because the world will not be that warm at the time the last arctic sea ice disappears.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
You haven't defined what a 'hypercane' is or its parameters. So provide wind, diameter, pressure.



In general..

Link





...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
You haven't defined what a 'hypercane' is or its parameters. So provide wind, diameter, pressure.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Simple question? Do we get hypercanes once Northern Summertime Arctic Ice is gone folks?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Climate change included in US science teaching guidelines for the first time

guardian.co.uk

Blogs.NYTimes.com

Worried that public schools are failing to prepare students for a complex and changing world, educators unveiled new guidelines Tuesday that call for sweeping changes in the way science is taught in the United States, emphasizing hands-on learning and critical scrutiny of scientific evidence.

Among many other changes, the guidelines call for introducing climate science into the curriculum starting in middle school, and teaching high school students in detail about the effects of human activity on climate.

The guidelines also take a firm stand that children must learn about evolution, the central organizing idea in the biological sciences for more than a century, but one that has rallied state lawmakers and some religious conservatives to insist that alternative notions like intelligent design be taught.

Though they could become a focus of political controversy, the climate and evolution standards are just two aspects of a set of guidelines containing hundreds of new ideas.

– The new standards seek to teach students about both climate change and evolution, starting in middle school, and some states, like Texas, very likely won’t adopt them because of this. Do you already teach these topics? Why or why not? How do you address them now, and how might that change?


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
A very interesting post at Dan Satterfield's Wild Science Journal

I know some really excellent broadcast meteorologists around the country and I sometimes avoid mentioning any one name because I’m afraid to fend someone I might leave out. Mike Nelson is one of the giants however, and has worked at KMGH in Denver for years. When it comes to weather, he is trusted like no one else in Colorado. Besides that, he really cares about his viewers and is one heck of a nice person.

Mike posted his thoughts on climate change on his Facebook page and I asked him if I could re-post them as a guest blog. Because a minority of people think it’s a hoax, or a political plot, many on air meteorologists avoid the topic completely. Unfortunately, we are now seeing the effects of the changes everyday when we forecast, and the effects of a warming planet will continue to grow. You cannot report the weather anymore, and ignore the rapidly growing Lion in the room. Mike has written something in between a blog post and a short book. It’s a basic “why we know” with links to some good science that explains why any skeptical comments you may have read or heard about the subject are probably ridiculously wrong. (Embedded pics are mine)


Denver Meteorologist Mike Nelson & Climate Change-Guest Post


This was an article in our local free paper, The Orlando Weekly. It's from December 2012, the main portion is an interview with Paul Douglas and then the Weekly interviewed some our our local mets about climate change for the article. The mets opinions look rather similar to what we see here on Dr. Rood's blog. Anyways, your link made me think about it, so here you go. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Arctic Nearly Free of Summer Sea Ice During First Half of 21st Century, Experts Predict

Apr. 12, 2013 %u2014 For scientists studying summer sea ice in the Arctic, it's not a question of "if" there will be nearly ice-free summers, but "when." And two scientists say that "when" is sooner than many thought -- before 2050 and possibly within the next decade or two.

Link


So do we get hypercanes?




...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
A very interesting post at Dan Satterfield's Wild Science Journal

I know some really excellent broadcast meteorologists around the country and I sometimes avoid mentioning any one name because I’m afraid to fend someone I might leave out. Mike Nelson is one of the giants however, and has worked at KMGH in Denver for years. When it comes to weather, he is trusted like no one else in Colorado. Besides that, he really cares about his viewers and is one heck of a nice person.

Mike posted his thoughts on climate change on his Facebook page and I asked him if I could re-post them as a guest blog. Because a minority of people think it’s a hoax, or a political plot, many on air meteorologists avoid the topic completely. Unfortunately, we are now seeing the effects of the changes everyday when we forecast, and the effects of a warming planet will continue to grow. You cannot report the weather anymore, and ignore the rapidly growing Lion in the room. Mike has written something in between a blog post and a short book. It’s a basic “why we know” with links to some good science that explains why any skeptical comments you may have read or heard about the subject are probably ridiculously wrong. (Embedded pics are mine)


Denver Meteorologist Mike Nelson & Climate Change-Guest Post
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3188
Quoting Naga5000:



I'm patiently waiting for the peer reviewed paper substantiating the claims and knowledge that is being spewed forth.


Bet you'll be waiting a long time, every new paper that I've seen indicates it's getting worse.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3188
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Just ignored a handle for the first time. Makes the comments section so much more readable!

Seems the only logical choice. When someone's entire repertoire in a discussion boils down to bum logic based on bum premises, with a healthy dose of "Nuh-uh!", then there's probably little point in paying much attention.

I think I'll join you. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


{EDITED}

I'm sorry, I had no idea that your feelings were superior to peer-reviewed science. My mistake. lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:



I'm patiently waiting for the peer reviewed paper substantiating the claims and knowledge that is being spewed forth.


You're more patient than me. Perhaps that will be my demise! :-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Daisyworld:


That must be very convenient for you. You lay down the line on your own opinion, characterizing it as "fact", then call any reasonable data that contracts your opinion as "blatant lies." Then, in the same breath, you deliberately confuse the argument, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along.

This is a common propaganda technique performed by conservative media outlets and unscrupulous politicians. It is not science, and should not be treated as such.

Welcome to my ignore filter.



I'm patiently waiting for the peer reviewed paper substantiating the claims and knowledge that is being spewed forth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Why do the deniers and their allies want to shut down and shout down any talk of a link between climate change and extreme weather?

Because extreme weather is one of the first, visible signs of a changing climate and one that the public experiences most directly"


~ Joe Romm ~
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Daisyworld:


That must be very convenient for you. You lay down the line on your own opinion, characterizing it as "fact", then call any reasonable data that contracts your opinion as "blatant lies." Then, in the same breath, you deliberately confuse the argument, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along.

This is a common propaganda technique performed by conservative media outlets and unscrupulous politicians. It is not science, and should not be treated as such.

Welcome to my ignore filter.


I didn't say those things. You did.

the author of the video lied.

I don't know what to tell you, ignore away, and I'll thank you for doing so.

It wasn't even my evidence. Your side's evidence contradicted your sides' claims.

Are you guys going to deny those past, pre-1850's cyclones happened?

I don't need any more than that to expose how big a lie the claim in that video really was. It wasn't even a good lie.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

False premise, poor logic, all around inaccuracy.

It works closer to this:

1. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG)
3. Therefore, atmospheric temperature should increase.

That is pretty much unassailable in any reasoned or reasonable way. It is an observed fact in both the land and satellite observations.


Fallacy. Correlation =/= causation.

You have not proven the causes for past warming, up to 1850, have not continued.

Since those rates of warming and sea level rise are about the same as they always have been, there is no need for a new cause to explain the warming.

Your explanation is less simple and less rational than the observation that past trends have simply continued.

You haven't dealt with that, and I'm not changing my position on that, until you offer definitive proof that the past cause disappear. That would need to be very convenient, too convenient, for the previous cause to disappear, and your alleged new cause to appear at the same time, and with about the same strength.

There was no national hurricane center, NOAA, etc, and no flask data for CO2 or Methane, and no satellites to tell exactly where sea ice was to determine what pre-industrial albedo feedbacks were as the ice from the little ice age was melting. Yet OBVIOUSLY the cumulative positive albedo feedbacks from those melts must be continuing presently, as there is less ice now than in 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, etc. The ice decreased throughout that entire period, except in immediate response to volcanoes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:



There are more false claims in that video than even I expected.

He started with a false premise and ended with false premises.

He stated that humans were going to push CO2 levels to more than twice the natural long term of the planet, which is false, since the real natural long term average is actually higher than what the current levels are.

He claims the weather disasters are worse than they've ever been in human history, which is a blatant lie.

I don't have to deal with that again, because I already proved that claim to be patently false. The evidence to prove that claim false is all throughout history.

There is even very good evidence on this site which helps prove that claim to be a falsehood.

[...]


That must be very convenient for you. You lay down the line on your own opinion, characterizing it as "fact", then call any reasonable data that contradicts your opinion as "blatant lies." Then, in the same breath, you deliberately confuse the argument, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along.

This is a common propaganda technique performed by conservative media outlets and unscrupulous politicians. It is not science, and should not be treated as such.

Welcome to my ignore filter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The history of climate change science with pictures at SKS



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3188
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Here is another NOAA report issued today.


Arctic nearly free of summer sea ice during first half
of 21st century

Here is a link to the abstract:
Abstract
[1] The observed rapid loss of thick, multi-year sea ice over the last seven years and September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent reduction of 49 % relative to the 1979-2000 climatology are inconsistent with projections of a nearly sea ice free summer Arctic from model estimates of 2070 and beyond made just a few years ago. Three recent approaches to predictions in the scientific literature are: 1) extrapolation of sea ice volume data, 2) assuming several more rapid loss events such as 2007 and 2012, and 3) climate model projections. Time horizons for a nearly sea ice free summer for these three approaches are roughly 2020 or earlier, 2030± 10 yrs, and 2040 or later. Loss estimates from models are based on a subset of the most rapid ensemble members. It is not possible to clearly choose one approach over another as this depends on the relative weights given to data versus models. Observations and citations support the conclusion that most Global Climate Models results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.

As Dylan would say "The climes, they are a changin."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3188
Just ignored a handle for the first time. Makes the comments section so much more readable!
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting Daisyworld:


RTS, you obviously do not know what you are talking about. I suggest a remedial climate change class:




There are more false claims in that video than even I expected.

He started with a false premise and ended with false premises.

He stated that humans were going to push CO2 levels to more than twice the natural long term of the planet, which is false, since the real natural long term average is actually higher than what the current levels are.

He claims the weather disasters are worse than they've ever been in human history, which is a blatant lie.

I don't have to deal with that again, because I already proved that claim to be patently false. The evidence to prove that claim false is all throughout history.

There is even very good evidence on this site which helps prove that claim to be a falsehood.

The 30 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in World History
Rank Name / Areas of Largest Loss Year Ocean Area Deaths
1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 Bay of Bengal 500,000
2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 300,000
3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000
3. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000
5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000
6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000
7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000
8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 West Pacific 171,000
9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 Bay of Bengal 140,000
9. Cyclone Nargis, Myanmar 2008 Bay of Bengal 140,000
11. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000
12. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000
13. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000
14. Swatlow, China 1922 West Pacific 60,000
15. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000
15. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000
15. India 1833 Bay of Bengal 50,000
15. India 1854 Bay of Bengal 50,000
19. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000
19. Bangladesh 1912 Bay of Bengal 40,000
19. Bangladesh 1919 Bay of Bengal 40,000
22. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000
23. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000
24. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000
25. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000
26. Devi Taluk, SE India 1977 Bay of Bengal 20,000
26. Great Coringa Cyclone, India 1789 Bay of Bengal 20,000
28. Bangladesh 1965 (11 May) Bay of Bengal 19,279
29. Nagasaki Typhoon, Japan 1828 Western Pacific 15,000
30. Bangladesh 1965 (31 May) Bay of Bengal 12,000


It doesn't make sense to blame the worst disasters on CO2, because the majority of the worst disasters happened before changes in CO2 could have been relevant. Many of these pre-date the industrial period by centuries.

A new explanation for extreme weather is not needed, because the weather was just as extreme in the past. There's the evidence.

The claim is absurd, because in the pre-industrial era there was no way to count, quantify, or otherwise monitor annual tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, thunderstorms and other extreme events to the degree of accuracy we have today. They had a horse. We have digital satellites, radar, digital thermometers, digital rain gauges, over a billion camera phones with video features, cable and satellite news media and internet.


The lame model of Earth in a glass jar is invalid because it attempts to treat the Earth as a closed system, when the Earth is an open system. There is no glass jar on the real Earth, and there is no pipe of CO2 coming from some locaton off-planet either.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is another NOAA report issued today.


Arctic nearly free of summer sea ice during first half
of 21st century
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting allahgore:


Ok thanks; I will be confused if certain people use NOAA data from this day forward concerning AGW.
Dr Hoerling's conclusions are being questioned, not NOAA's data. Hope that helps.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2335
Quoting allahgore:


Ok thanks; I will be confused if certain people use NOAA data from this day forward concerning AGW.

I don't have a problem with the NOAA report. It may be right, it may be wrong. That's not the issue here.

The issue is that the report covers a limited area and time, but has been misreported. Dr. Masters has a very nice blog on it.

If anything is to be learned from this it is that you shouldn't trust what people say about science, but rather go read the science for yourself. It requires some effort, but your probability of getting the right information in context rises dramatically.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
goosegirl1 of course not really! It's a bunch of nonsense.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting RTSplayer:
The false logic of the AGW argument:

Claim A: "Global Warming is caused by CO2."

Claim B: "We know CO2 is the cause, because GW is occurring." (or anything equivalent).

Claim A requires independent, empirical evidence, which must also exclude all past causes as the present cause, which the claimants have not provided.

Claim B is a fallacy, because it is circular logic.

False premise, poor logic, all around inaccuracy.

It works closer to this:

1. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG)
3. Therefore, atmospheric temperature should increase.

That is pretty much unassailable in any reasoned or reasonable way. It is an observed fact in both the land and satellite observations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
**My statement stands because the worst historical disasters in the U.S. all took place prior to 1981**

Really??

Link

Link

Please keep in mind- both climate change and disasters happen all over the globe, not just in the US.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thank you.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting RTSplayer:
The false logic of the AGW argument:

Claim A: "Global Warming is caused by CO2."

Claim B: "We know CO2 is the cause, because GW is occurring." (or anything equivalent).

Claim A requires independent, empirical evidence, which must also exclude all past causes as the present cause, which the claimants have not provided.

Claim B is a fallacy, because it is circular logic.


RTS, you obviously do not know what you are talking about. I suggest a remedial climate change class:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
re #198 Oh dear.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
The false logic of the AGW argument:

Claim A: "Global Warming is caused by CO2."

Claim B: "We know CO2 is the cause, because GW is occurring." (or anything equivalent).

Claim A requires independent, empirical evidence, which must also exclude all past causes as the present cause, which the claimants have not provided.

Claim B is a fallacy, because it is circular logic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Wrong on both counts. I said, "the increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration is around 40%." So the correct way to calculate the *increase* is 120/280. Calculated correctly, the increase (using those inexact) numbers is 42.85714...%. So "around 40%" is correct.


Nonsense. I am relying on the scientific literature. It is doubtful that exercises in rhetoric or parlor logic is going to overturn scientific papers.
Link
Link


Your statement was that the majority of the melting was "natural". That is not the case for the current warming. In the current case CO2 is the primary cause. The albedo isn't changing itself.

Now, if you mean since the end of the last Ice Age, well, that's true. It's completely irrelevant but true.


A little real evidence would be helpful. I don't find personal assertion very persuasive as source material.



Um, again no. Agriculture is used here as the beginning of the time period we're interested in. That is because what we're doing here is the result of agriculture, as is the fact that there are now over seven billion human beings on Earth.


And there it is, folks, the blogger is literally blaming the existence of human civilization itself for the alleged future "murder and death sentence", according to his previous position I had responded to.

Without this "evil" CO2 producing civilization you hate so much, you wouldn't be here to complain about it.


That last is why most of us have any interest in CC, rather than leaving it as one of those "nerdy" topics discussed only in academia.


That is correct...the twentieth century. From your source:


It is plain to see that the rise is increasing. There is much scientific literature explaining why.


I suppose that that's one way of looking at it. But it's a valid accusation supported by the scientific literature. So, I can go with the science or I can go with disliking that I, as a human, am being "accused" of causing the warming. My choice is to go with the science. Others may feel differently but that has little effect on the physics involved and just wastes time, IMO.


Your choice is to go with a narrow and far left leaning view of the facts, which is being pushed on everyone primarily by ecological and environmental activists who are over reacting.


Your last sentence is factually incorrect, as demonstrated above.


It's perfectly correct, as demonstrated by your own graph, as well as the one on wikipedia and others.

There hasn't been some massive positive change in the slope of the curve, and the slope is not even as high as it was in the proxy data.

How can you not see that?

The rest seems to be a statement of feeling, based on an apparent misunderstanding of the facts and poor logic. The temperature record is reasonably well known, and doesn't support your claim about the temperature. The causes of the warming in the early 20th century was a combination of things, including the Sun and AGW. The Sun no longer is playing a role in the warming. We've already been over the SL. Your logical error appears to be that you believe (or at least imply) that trends exist on their own, without regard for the physical environment. They don't, so if you believe that you are wrong.


Actually, you're the one saying that (below) by disregarding relevance and continuity of past changes.

You violate your own standards.

The relevance of past changes is a physical environmental fact which you wrongfully disregard.

I was not the one who disregarded evidence, you were, and blatantly and repeatedly too.


Your position could only be salvaged by demonstrating that the forces responsible for the previous trend is still at work.


Albedo change has been negative, therefore a positive feedback, throughout the entire history and pre-history. The only exception was the little ice age.

You haven't proven than forces responsible for the previous trends are not still at work, and you have offered no rational alternative.

Your argument is less simple and less rational than the argument that past forcings are still in play.


That is epically poor logic coupled with a misunderstanding of the situation. Sea levels don't rise magically. There are physical reasons for SLR. Thousands of years ago, the primary reason was the melting of the Ice Age glaciers. That certainly isn't the primary cause of the current SLR!

The end of the last Ice Age wasn't magical. There were physical reasons for it. Those reasons aren't in play currently.


I never said sea levels rose magically.
You are attacking a strawman again, which makes you the one who is being illogical.

Further, I know where the past sea level rise came from. I don't know why you are acting as though I did not.



The rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the primary cause for the current warming. That is the *physical* reason.


That's called "Begging the Question".

You are citing a claim as evidence of its own alleged validity.

All manner of other possible reasons have been looked at in the scientific literature; none of them can explain the current warming. CO2 increase, and its secondary effects, can.


The ongoing albedo change goes all the way back to the ice age. The albedo feedback has always been net positive for tens of thousands of years, except in cases of exceptional volcanism.

We know this because ice over a mile thick is believed by geologists to have existed all throughout much of North America. Obviously the positive albedo feedback from all of that melted ice has been in play ever since it melted, and it makes not sense to assume it hasn't been continuing gradually since then. Perhaps peaks and valleys along the way, but there is no good reason to introduce a new explanation when the old one has been happening the entire time.

Any other proposal must not only explain the current warming, but it must simultaneously dispose of the warming that we *know* is caused by CO2.


You don't know the warming is caused by CO2, and you don't know that the net increase in CO2 is caused by humans.

Once again, begging the question is a logical fallacy. You are not allowed to cite a claim as evidence of itself.

I don't expect such a proposal to appear.


You think that's something, you ought to see what the dinosaurs had to put up with! Why anyone believes either of those situations is relevant to the current warming (as anything more than demonstrating possible ways that AGW might unfold) is a complete mystery to me. They just aren't relevant as causes of the current AGW-caused Climate Change.


Maybe it's a complete mystery to you because you refuse to think about it.

The laws of physics have not changed. The relationships between elemental properties haven't changed, so why do you think those past climates are not relevant?

Your argument makes no sense, because it requires special pleading to disregard evidence of past changes.


Bafflegab. Complete bafflegab. Such an explanation requires us to ignore observation and measurement and substitute logical parlor tricks in their place. That would be a move of dubious wisdom if one cares about getting things right.


Nope. Dr. Hansen is a well-respected scientist with an enviable body of work in the literature.




Unless you can demonstrate that a warming of 10ºC isn't possible and/or that it can't lead to unprecedented SLR, then you have no cause for complaint. "Possible" means under certain circumstances. It does not mean under all or most circumstances. So unless his statement is based on physically impossible circumstances, it is a valid statement.


A cosmic event would be required to raise the average annual temperature of this planet by 10C within 87 years. It would require some kind of ridiculously stupid scenario like massive change in the Sun's luminosity or such, because the atmosphere cannot warm by 10C for the planetary average without first heating the ocean. Heat can't accumulate in the atmosphere indefinitely without dumping into the ocean or ice, and we have evidence that the heating which does exist is in fact being taken into the deep ocean. This proves that heating cannot accumulate indefinitely in the atmosphere or in the surface water without being taken into the deep oceans. Increasing global atmospheric temperatures by 10C within 87 years requires a global average forcing of approximately 64 watts per square meter, which is over 30 times larger than the real average forcing...assuming the alleged forcing is actually real and man-caused.

That graph is SLR, not temperature.


Melting ice caps requires temperature rise, obviously. Are you denying the laws of thermodynamics?


What I believe is of little interest to anyone, particularly within science. However, what I know is that the temperature wasn't the only factor involved. Nor can it be demonstrated that the rise in temperature was as rapid as the current warming.


So far, anyway. But that only demonstrates that there was a lot of ice melting over a 3000 year period. It doesn't say anything directly about how much or how fast the warming was --only that it got warm enough to melt ice. You did everything but address my point: Extreme weather events are increasing. That is an observed fact.


No it isn't an observed fact.

What possible evidence can you have for that claim? The present active period for TC weather is only slightly elevated compared to past active periods, and drought activity is actually lower than in the past, and mass casualties are much lower recently compared to the past. Where do you get the ridiculous assertion that weather disasters are more common now than previously?

Where are your scientific records of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc, in Africa or N. America from 1400 to 1900, or for that matter any of the past 2000 years before modern records?

You have none, so you have no basis to make a claim of an increase.

Devolving into this or that metric of dollars or deaths has nothing to do with the fact of increasing occurrence of extreme weather.


That isn't true at all. Even the climatologists do that. You're holding a double standard again.


No, the entire history of the Earth isn't relevant to the current warming. Sorry, it's just not. In science, you use what's relevant to what is being studied. You appear to be having difficulty with concept of relevance.


You don't get to set the terms of the debate, nor the definition of words.

Past trends ARE relevant because they show what is NORMAL for the planet. That's what climatology is purportedly about.


Unless you can come up with something other than naked assertion and personal incredulity, I think we're pretty much done here.

If we don't stop, we'll be getting long-winded.


Reported.

I'm sick of this.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Stephen Colbert (Comedy Central) "Exxon is employing a time-honored clean-up technique, pioneered by drunk guys," Colbert said. "You just throw some paper towels down on whatever you spill and just get out of there."

Huffingtonpost.com (Hulu)

(you have to endure a :30 second commercial to view the content)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
List of billion dollar disasters in the USA with adjustments for inflation. It shows the trend.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Utah governor rejects Nevada water agreement


http://www.businessweek.com (AP)


After four years of negotiations, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert on Wednesday rejected an agreement with Nevada that would allow Las Vegas to pump massive amounts of groundwater from the states' shared border.

The water comes from an ice-age aquifer under the 120-mile-long Snake Valley, which supports ranching and farming on both sides of the border.

Nevada has already signed the agreement, which took four years to negotiate and allows the Southern Nevada Water Authority to build a 263-mile pipeline stretching from rural areas on the Utah-Nevada border to Las Vegas.

In a statement announcing his decision, Herbert said he could not sign the agreement because Utah residents in the affected area oppose the deal.

"A majority of local residents do not support the agreement with Nevada," Herbert said, "Therefore, I cannot in good conscience sign the agreement because I won't impose a solution
on those most impacted that they themselves cannot support.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Worst weather disasters in the USA all before 1981? How about Hurricanes Andrew, Katrina, Ike and Sandy? And the drought of 1988?

Furthermore we know that human activity is the cause of all the CO2 rise in the atmosphere. We know how much CO2 we are emitting and releasing. And we know from changes in the isotope ratios of carbon contained within atmospheric CO2 due to emissions from buried fossil fuels is the source of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

That's been known for many years. A basic bit of information understood by those knowledgeable about the issue.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting RTSplayer:


Based on the claims that 280PPM is the pre-industrial baseline, and the present day levels of 400PPM, then even if you blame the entire change on humans, then that would be 120PPM.

Now they are claiming that the change from 280PPM to 400PPM is entirely caused by humans, without any real evidence.

In this case, 60PPM lower than today's levels would be the mid-point of the portion allegedly "caused by humans".

We can therefore look at the curve and find all dates on or before any given level of CO2, for example, present day minus 60PPM.

I hope I'm not required to prove basic maths, such as mid-point theorem.



We find that is on or about 1981. The worst drought in the past half century happened in the mid 80's, which is offset by a bit less, about 1/3rd of the alleged change since 1850.

My statement stands because the worst historical disasters in the U.S. all took place prior to 1981. Additionally, world famines and disaster in general were worse before that time. Again, for cyclones, see Dr. Masters' top 30 deadliest, see droughts in China, see hurricanes wiping developed islands in the U.S. in the 19th century, see Typhoon Tip and several other major pacific hurricanes. See Labor Day and Camille continuing to be the strongest Atlantic basin hurricane landfalls.

I had several more paragraphs, but I removed it. People already complain about long posts as is, so I'm done for now.

Why do you think "worst" matters more than frequency of extreme events?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting allahgore:



Does Hoerling work at NOAA?

Yes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Another falsehood promoted on this website: last year's drought was caused by global warming. NOAA has just released it's findings destroying the myth.

Link

Ah, I see you're having difficulty with that article. That's not surprising since it is promoted as saying something it didn't. So, it can hardly be blamed on you.

" NOAA-led report: 2012 Central Great Plains 'flash drought' a result of natural variations in weather
NOAA-led report: 2012 Central Great Plains 'flash drought' a result of natural variations in weather

At its peak last summer, moderate to extreme drought gripped 61 percent of the Lower 48, but a "flash drought" brought exceptionally intense conditions to the Central Great Plains. Today, a new report by the NOAA Drought Task Force and the NOAA-led National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) finds natural variations in weather patterns caused this sudden “flash drought,” and is rules out global ocean conditions, as well as human-induced climate change, as major culprits."
Link

So you see, that report covered only a small part of the drought. I know that some unscrupulous denialists purposely conflate the "flash drought" with the overall drought, but I'm sure you'd never do that. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 240 - 190

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.