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: 190 - 140

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

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:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Just out of curiosity, when (in your opinion) was the majority of man-made CO2 added to the atmosphere, and how much was that (since you have previously said you do not believe all of the added CO2 is man-made)? And if you have any references to back up your opinion, they would be appreciated. Thanks.


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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather


Again, let me thank you for keeping us abreast of the strange weather that is almost certainly caused by AGW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:

280PPM is considered to be the baseline for pre-industrial times.

400 - 280 = 120

120/400 = 30%

What I said was correct. Your comprehension was minimal.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
You are using circular reasoning, and also asserting the degree of causal relationship, where you have no evidence of that degree of relationship, because you don't have data from pre-industrial times which is accurate enough to be useful for determination of that degree of relationship.

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

Quoting RTSplayer:
Not only can my position be mathematically proven, but deriving that information for myself is what convinced me that GW was in fact happening. Moreover, the argument that the albedo feedback is the largest portion of GW is not even my own, but is widely mentioned in scientific articles, journals, and other programming regarding GW.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
It was the oceanographer's and geologists historical data of what "Global Average Sea Level" was. Subsidence and other geological forcing are already accounted, because they are reported as separate phenomena.

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


Quoting RTSplayer:
Agriculture has nothing to do with it, certainly not in the ancient world, unless you're trying to blame all sea level rise in the past 8,000 years on humans as well.

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. 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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
The graph (which is provided by the author of the Wikipidedia article, not myself,) shows that although the long term warming and sea level rise slowed down about 8,000 years ago, it continued linearly with a lower slope over the remainder of time since then. It is interrupted by "noise", nothing else.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
AGW is an accusation against humans.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
"AGW" can only refer to the portion of GW which is caused by humans, if any. You cannot rightly blame the first foot sea level rise per century on humans, and you cannot blame the first degree of temperature rise per century on humans, because both of those trends were already in place in the past. The present rate of sea level rise is not significantly greater than pre-industrial times.

Your last sentence is factually incorrect, as demonstrated above.

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

Quoting RTSplayer:
The past trend shows it can easily be explained without blaming humans. If sea level rose by tens of meters a few thousand years ago, when humans could not possibly have had any significant influence, then there is no need for a "new" cause to explain GW, particularly since the present rate of GW isn't even as fast as what happened then...

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

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. I don't expect such a proposal to appear.

Quoting RTSplayer:
It rose much more quickly 8,000 years ago and previously, even as CO2 was much lower.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
This fact undermines a fundamental claim of AGW theory, which is the claim that the majority of the warming and melting is being caused as a consequence of man-made CO2, because the two changes, SLR and CO2 concentration, are actually negatively correlated over the long term, and only weakly correlated in the post-industrial era.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
So are you claiming Dr. Hansen is a layperson now?

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

Quoting RTSplayer:
He's the one who claimed 10C worth of average warming was possible by 2100, which 10C worth of warming would certainly lead to unprecedented sea level rise. You can't disassociate alleged future warming of that magnitude from alleged future sea level rise.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
Not according to that graph.

That graph is SLR, not temperature.

Quoting RTSplayer:
Do you seriously believe enough ice melted to produce 50 meters worth of sea level rise, even as the temperature did not rise?

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
The rate of sea level rise in that 3,000 year period greatly exceeds the present day rate by a factor of between 5 and 7 vs 1.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
There are no sensible arguments against that, so don't even try to make one up.

You did everything but address my point: Extreme weather events are increasing. That is an observed fact. Devolving into this or that metric of dollars or deaths has nothing to do with the fact of increasing occurrence of extreme weather.

Quoting RTSplayer:
The science of climate change that past trends are in fact relevant. That's the whole point of the science. You can't pick and choose which past evidence you want to consider.

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.

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:

A few years ago, they blamed the floods in Australia on GW, now they blame the heatwave and drought in Australia on AGW. Neither event was unprecedented, though the word unprecedented was thrown around a lot. There was historical precedent for events of roughly the same magnitude previously, for example the flooding actually had historical precedent of almost a clone copy of itself, and the droughts and heat waves happen in Australia every few years anyway. Those past events happened when CO2 levels were much lower.

Link: Worst Australian floods

If you compare the timing of the events in that article to the CO2 curve, then between seven and nine of the ten worst floods happened before the majority of man-made CO2 was added to the atmosphere.
Just out of curiosity, when (in your opinion) was the majority of man-made CO2 added to the atmosphere, and how much was that (since you have previously said you do not believe all of the added CO2 is man-made)? And if you have any references to back up your opinion, they would be appreciated. Thanks.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2317
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Joe Romm takes on recent NOAA report:

Yes, Climate Change Is Worsening U.S. Drought %u2014 NOAA Report Needlessly Confuses The Issue

"NOAA has issued a report on a small part of the recent brutal droughts that have hit the United States over the past few years. The report %u2014 %u201CAn Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought%u201D %u2014 is needlessly confusing, scientifically problematic, and already leading to misleading headlines.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, former head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has sent to reporters a Commentary on the report, which I repost below. He concludes:


This report has some useful material in it describing aspects of the drought in 2012 in the central US. But it is quite incomplete in many respects, and it asks the wrong questions. Then it does not provide very useful answers to the questions that are asked.

Indeed, it seems odd to do a 44-page report on the drought in the Central Great Plains (in the spring and summer of 2012) when so much of the Great Plains %u2014 and Southwest %u2014 have also been in a brutal extended drought that continues to this day."

There are numerous links to other sources which contradict Dr. Hoerling's paper.


So, when NOAA presents evidence or studies which appear to support GW or AGW theory claims, they are deemed to be trustworthy, but whenever they present evidence, models, or studies which either do not support some aspect of GW or AGW theory, or do no support correlation between GW and a disaster, you want to ignore, discredit, and otherwise discard the findings.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that they (NOAA scientists) are now less credible than they were in the past on other studies?


"This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years," said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-global-didnt-big-drou ght.html#jCp

...

Other scientists have linked recent changes in the jet stream to shrinking Arctic sea ice, but Hoerling and study co-author Richard Seager of Columbia University said those global warming connections are not valid. Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn't. So that means it was a random event, he said.


Wow.

Kevin Trenberth's attempt at a rebuttal:

"This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming," Trenberth said in an email. "That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia."


Now this is an excerpt, cited by the article's author, but it's a perfect example of faulty reasoning.

This assertion of "That is true of all such events," is unreasonable, because it lacks any definitive scope for what is or is not attributed to Global Warming, and more importantly, it specifically claims all such (exceptional?) events are caused by Global Warming. This is not only obviously false, but it is also a Begging the Question fallacy.

A few years ago, they blamed the floods in Australia on GW, now they blame the heatwave and drought in Australia on AGW. Neither event was unprecedented, though the word unprecedented was thrown around a lot. There was historical precedent for events of roughly the same magnitude previously, for example the flooding actually had historical precedent of almost a clone copy of itself, and the droughts and heat waves happen in Australia every few years anyway. Those past events happened when CO2 levels were much lower.

Link: Worst Australian floods

If you compare the timing of the events in that article to the CO2 curve, then between seven and nine of the ten worst floods happened before the majority of the man-made CO2 was added to the atmosphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Not sure just how this is relevant to this blog, but some folks apparently think it is and proves something. So my contribution.

Link

I think it would be better suited to Dr. Masters blog, but what the hay........

addendum...........this link is only relevant for a few hours and then it will change.

Edit the second; 175. Naga5000 This game is fun

You are going to get banned, no fun allowed here. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
178. pintada........You are welcome.

JohnLonergan got this before I did, but I could not resist the opportunity.

Obligatory sarcastic remark: Obviously those China scientists are part of the US/UK/European Union Liberal scientist conspiracy to wreck modern Civilization. The fact that they got published in English proves it.

I added the bold in the abstract cut and past.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50 285/abstractLink

Detecting human influence on extreme temperatures in China

Qiuzi Han Wen1,*,
Xuebin Zhang2,
Ying Xu3,
Bin Wang1

Article first published online: 26 MAR 2013

Keywords:

detection and attribution;
extreme temperature;
optimal fingerprint

Abstract

[1] This study compares observed and model-simulated spatiotemporal patterns of changes in Chinese extreme temperatures during 1961%u20132007 using an optimal detection method. Four extreme indices, namely annual maximum daily maximum (TXx) and daily minimum (TNx) temperatures and annual minimum daily maximum (TXn) and daily minimum (TNn) temperatures, are studied. Model simulations are conducted with the CanESM2, which include six 5-member ensembles under different historical forcings, i.e., four individual external forcings (greenhouse gases, anthropogenic aerosol, land use change, and solar irradiance), combined effect of natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic activity), and combined effect of all external forcings (both natural and anthropogenic forcings). We find that anthropogenic influence is clearly detectable in extreme temperatures over China. Additionally, anthropogenic forcing can also be separated from natural forcing in two-signal analyses. The influence of natural forcings cannot be detected in any analysis. Moreover, there are indications that the effects of greenhouse gases and/or land use change may be separated from other anthropogenic forcings in warm extremes TXx and TNx in joint two-signal analyses. These results suggest that further investigations of roles of individual anthropogenic forcing are justified, particularly in studies of extremely warm temperatures over China.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Joe Romm takes on recent NOAA report:

Yes, Climate Change Is Worsening U.S. Drought %u2014 NOAA Report Needlessly Confuses The Issue

"NOAA has issued a report on a small part of the recent brutal droughts that have hit the United States over the past few years. The report %u2014 %u201CAn Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought%u201D %u2014 is needlessly confusing, scientifically problematic, and already leading to misleading headlines.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, former head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has sent to reporters a Commentary on the report, which I repost below. He concludes:


This report has some useful material in it describing aspects of the drought in 2012 in the central US. But it is quite incomplete in many respects, and it asks the wrong questions. Then it does not provide very useful answers to the questions that are asked.

Indeed, it seems odd to do a 44-page report on the drought in the Central Great Plains (in the spring and summer of 2012) when so much of the Great Plains %u2014 and Southwest %u2014 have also been in a brutal extended drought that continues to this day."

There are numerous links to other sources which contradict Dr. Hoerling's paper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
#159 - Pintada - My modification of your Wikipedia link on Xenophobia: AGW/CC xenophobia:
This form of xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture." In this case, the culture is that of Anthony Watts and the rest of the hard-core anthropogenic global warming and climate change denialist community whose claims are not based on peer-reviewd science.

This AGW/CC denialist community is a culture that is unreal, stereotyped, and uses exotic and perverted methods. They promote ungrounded and false information in a futile attempt to prove that the peer-reviewed science behind the overwhelming consensus on the reality of AGW/CC is corrupt and invalid.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate

Rick's musings about happenings with Alaska's weather and climate<


He's absolutely correct!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1911maker:
158. pintada
Strategy Session
Started 30 minutes ago by Pintada


Nice, very nice. :)

Did you write this?


Yes, last year. That type of thing looks like a strategy!

Thanks
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
China’s warming ‘is from human causes’

"Work by Chinese scientists which confirms that greenhouse gases are affecting temperatures in the country may prompt more domestic political action to reverse the trend.

LONDON, 11 April – Chinese scientists have just confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions have sent the thermometer soaring in one country – China.
...


...“There is a warming in extreme temperatures over China, and this warming cannot be explained by natural variation”, said Wen. “It can only be explained by anthropogenic external forcings. These findings indicate very clearly that climate change is not just an abstract number for the globe; it is evident at regional scale.”

He said he expected warming to continue, as the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere continued to exert their influence. “This will have huge implications for China, as heat waves and drought have already become more and more of an issue in our country.

“We should expect more hardship for dry-land farming as water supply is already stressed, higher demand on energy for cooling, and increasing heat-induced health issues.” – Climate News Network"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate

Rick's musings about happenings with Alaska's weather and climate
Thursday, April 11, 2013

Coldest Morning This Late in Two Decades

I'll be posting a wrap-up of the current cold snap this weekend, but in the meantime, it's worth noting that the low (through 6am) Thursday at the Fairbanks Airport has been -20F. This is the lowest temperature this late in the season since 1992, when the temperature fell to 23 below on April 13th. It's slightly colder in the usual places, with 24 below at Goldstream Creek and the Woodsmoke CWOP near North Pole.


Link

Theme song AGW thermally challenged.

The heat is on, on the street Inside your head, on every beat And the beat's so loud, deep...

Glenn Frey


Keep listening to Glen Frey. Ask him why he thinks like NSIDC.. Ask him why the March trend has not gone up over 16.25 million square kilometers in over 25 years?

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting iceagecoming:

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate

Rick's musings about happenings with Alaska's weather and climate
Thursday, April 11, 2013

Coldest Morning This Late in Two Decades

I'll be posting a wrap-up of the current cold snap this weekend, but in the meantime, it's worth noting that the low (through 6am) Thursday at the Fairbanks Airport has been -20F. This is the lowest temperature this late in the season since 1992, when the temperature fell to 23 below on April 13th. It's slightly colder in the usual places, with 24 below at Goldstream Creek and the Woodsmoke CWOP near North Pole.


Link

Theme song AGW thermally challenged.

The heat is on, on the street Inside your head, on every beat And the beat's so loud, deep...

Glenn Frey


74 low in Melbourne, FL the other day. That's a record high low. This game is fun!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate

Rick's musings about happenings with Alaska's weather and climate
Thursday, April 11, 2013

Coldest Morning This Late in Two Decades

I'll be posting a wrap-up of the current cold snap this weekend, but in the meantime, it's worth noting that the low (through 6am) Thursday at the Fairbanks Airport has been -20F. This is the lowest temperature this late in the season since 1992, when the temperature fell to 23 below on April 13th. It's slightly colder in the usual places, with 24 below at Goldstream Creek and the Woodsmoke CWOP near North Pole.


Link

Theme song AGW thermally challenged.

The heat is on, on the street Inside your head, on every beat And the beat's so loud, deep...

Glenn Frey
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RTS, I think your thoughts are useful (mostly I do not agree with you but that is a different animal) , however............

If you do not want to get banned; succinct..........this should be your guide.

Any post longer then Rickys post is a bad idea. Put the long calculations etc in a your blog and link to them.

Keep GOD out of it. Omnipotent and omnipresent can take care of its self, mortals need not defend.

Some time ago you commented about an affliction you have to deal with, you might want to point that out again, it will give folks a better understanding of your point of view, and were you are coming from.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RevElvis:
13 Oil Spills in 30 Days (worldwide)

Tcktcktck.org


Moving oil is a dirty business, and never has that been more clear than this past month. Since March 11, the global oil industry has had 13 spills on three continents. In North and South America alone, they’ve spilled more than a million gallons of oil and toxic chemicals – enough to fill two olympic-sized swimming pools.


One way to prevent that RevElvis.I think you know what I mean...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting JupiterKen:
"Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world? Science is asking these questions (says “Popular Science Siftings”). Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitsbergen and the Eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface."

Read all about it here:
Link


What's on top of the water will. Greenland will take much longer they think but all bets are off once the tipping point has been reached. Sadly,the tipping point is already here...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
"Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world? Science is asking these questions (says “Popular Science Siftings”). Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitsbergen and the Eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface."

Read all about it here:
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
158. pintada
Strategy Session
Started 30 minutes ago by Pintada


Nice, very nice. :)

Did you write this?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
13 Oil Spills in 30 Days (worldwide)

Tcktcktck.org


Moving oil is a dirty business, and never has that been more clear than this past month. Since March 11, the global oil industry has had 13 spills on three continents. In North and South America alone, they’ve spilled more than a million gallons of oil and toxic chemicals – enough to fill two olympic-sized swimming pools.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
#164 Rev.Elvis: Appreciate your frequent links, and although this one is not directly relevant to AGW/CC, it demonstrates an example of how the atmosphere can mix and distribute gases, even to higher elevations, including CO2 and pollutants as well as benign compounds.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:
Some suggestions: Keep your comments short. Don't reply to long comments full of drivel. Quote selectively. Use the butttons (that's why they are there). Avoid complaining. Stay on topic.
If you've ever been here when the denialists are taking a break, you know that this blog is slow, on-topic and interesting.

Trolls and disruptors are often very good at their trade, and without adequate and well-implemented moderation, turn this place into swamp of untruths and misinformation, and get under the skin of sensible intelligent people who feel obligated to counter the misinformation and faulty logic to enlighten lurkers and readers. Hence the replies to long comments full of drive.

Hopefully, via judicious use of the Ignore feature, I will avoid the temptation for the time being.

But the psychology of AGW/CC denialism is still an important and valid topic here, and even the subject of some discussions by Dr.Rood in his blog posts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Organic pollutants poison the roof of the world

Nature.com

wiki Persistent organic pollutant (POP)

Toxic chemicals are accumulating in the ecosystems of the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau, researchers warn in the the first comprehensive study to assess levels of certain organic pollutants in that part of the world.

“The rigour and quality of the work are impressive,” says Surendra Singh, an ecologist at the Forest Research Institute in Dehradun. “It’s the first study to quantify the accumulation of [persistent organic pollutants] in ecosystems in the region.”

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are carbon-based compounds that are resistant to break-down. Some originate from the burning of fuel or the processing of electronic waste, and others are widely used as pesticides or herbicides or in the manufacture of solvents, plastics and pharmaceuticals. Some POPs, such as the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and the herbicide Agent Orange, can cause diseases such as cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive dysfunction and birth defects.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
#159 - Pintada - My modification of your Wikipedia link on Xenophobia:

AGW/CC xenophobia:
This form of xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture." In this case, the culture is that of Anthony Watts and the rest of the hard-core anthropogenic global warming and climate change denialist community whose claims are not based on peer-reviewd science.

This AGW/CC denialist community is a culture that is unreal, stereotyped, and uses exotic and perverted methods. They promote ungrounded and false information in a futile attempt to prove that the peer-reviewed science behind the overwhelming consensus on the reality of AGW/CC is corrupt and invalid.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some suggestions: Keep your comments short. Don't reply to long comments full of drivel. Quote selectively. Use the butttons (that's why they are there). Avoid complaining. Stay on topic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
151 - Pcola57: Thanks, I really didn't want to leave the forum, so I thought about it a lot and decided to take advantage of the Ignore feature.

I must have tweaked some nerves - I can't see 7 of the next 10 posts after mine thanks to the that "Ignore" feature - now I only see comments that are mostly intelligent and relevant.

I follow lurk & read you guys at Masters' blog, especially for the current severe weather season, and soon, hurricane season.

It's nice to have a growing number of members at the Masters' blog like you, Skye, Nea and others who are aware that AGW/CC influences weather, but does not "cause" particular events. That difference is lost on most people, and provides a HUGE strawman for rants of the denialists.

I may begin to post there occasionally, but with respect for the different kind of forum that it is.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


So, let me get this straight. You'd like a blog without real discussion? Just a bunch of hind-end-kissers carrying on a Kum ba yah session with each other? What a blog. But, given the fact that even the MSM is giving up on so-called AGW, the fifty or so believers on here had better massage each other's egos until the day when this non-science is exposed for exactly what it is: a power grab to impose new laws and make a few people rich, while simultaneously destroying the economies of advanced nations.


Right, because you have beautifully made the argument through scientific evidence that AGW is not happening. Give it a rest. It's completely absurd that you would even make this argument full well knowing where the money trail leads on your side of thought. There is no argument on AGW, it's proven science. You are only here to continue a false debate, keep beating that dead horse, we can still recognize a few of its features.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


So, let me get this straight. You'd like a blog without real discussion? Just a bunch of hind-end-kissers carrying on a Kum ba yah session with each other? What a blog. But, given the fact that even the MSM is giving up on so-called AGW, the fifty or so believers on here had better massage each other's egos until the day when this non-science is exposed for exactly what it is: a power grab to impose new laws and make a few people rich, while simultaneously destroying the economies of advanced nations.


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Your comprehension was minimal.

You are using circular reasoning

It's ironic that I got banned for making a "personal attack," when in fact you are the one who defamed me and all Americans, contrary to the law.

Given this plus your baseless assertions from your other posts, which I have herein addressed, it is truly amazing that I got banned, instead of you.


A fair and balanced rebuttal.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:



So, let me get this straight. You'd like a blog without real discussion? Just a bunch of hind-end-kissers carrying on a Kum ba yah session with each other? What a blog. But, given the fact that even the MSM is giving up on so-called AGW, the fifty or so believers on here had better massage each other's egos until the day when this non-science is exposed for exactly what it is: a power grab to impose new laws and make a few people rich, while simultaneously destroying the economies of advanced nations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RE:153...

Why is NOAA so conservative on the time when this happens?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting Birthmark:

Who you callin' "people."

That is a mix of nonsense and misused fact. It's also a display of poor logic. For one thing, the increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration is around 40% over the last 150 years or so.



280PPM is considered to be the baseline for pre-industrial times.

400 - 280 = 120

120/400 = 30%

What I said was correct. Your comprehension was minimal.

Man has contributed under one third of the present day levels.


The current global concentration of just under (and sure to surpass) 400ppm haven't been seen in at least 800,000 years --long before human beings existed.


You are using circular reasoning, and also asserting the degree of causal relationship, where you have no evidence of that degree of relationship, because you don't have data from pre-industrial times which is accurate enough to be useful for determination of that degree of relationship.


The "majority of melting" claim is patent nonsense based on an inappropriate baseline that appears to be the result of a misunderstanding of AGW says, what those statements are based upon, and what those statements indicate about the future.


Not only can my position be mathematically proven, but deriving that information for myself is what convinced me that GW was in fact happening. Moreover, the argument that the albedo feedback is the largest portion of GW is not even my own, but is widely mentioned in scientific articles, journals, and other programming regarding GW.

How many of those that can't be so explained can be explained by subsidence? How many can be explained by other local factors? How many does that leave?


It was the oceanographer's and geologists historical data of what "Global Average Sea Level" was. Subsidence and other geological forcing are already accounted, because they are reported as separate phenomena.


Well, you'll have to do better than showing me the post-glacial period. Perhaps this would be a good time to tell you that the period we're really interested in here is the time after the invention of agriculture.


Agriculture has nothing to do with it, certainly not in the ancient world, unless you're trying to blame all sea level rise in the past 8,000 years on humans as well.

The graph (which is provided by the author of the Wikipidedia article, not myself,) shows that although the long term warming and sea level rise slowed down about 8,000 years ago, it continued linearly with a lower slope over the remainder of time since then. It is interrupted by "noise", nothing else.

Your own graph demonstrates that sea-level has been fairly steady (with wiggles) over the last few thousand years.


No it doesn't.

It indicates that sea level quit rising as fast 8,000 years ago, and it continued gradually RISING for the next 8,000 years, by a matter of about 10 meters, most of which was in the next 1000 years, but there is much rise afterwards as well.

That said, the current sea-level rise cannot be explained without AGW.


Proof?

AGW is an accusation against humans.

GW in general is another matter.

"AGW" can only refer to the portion of GW which is caused by humans, if any. You cannot rightly blame the first foot sea level rise per century on humans, and you cannot blame the first degree of temperature rise per century on humans, because both of those trends were already in place in the past. The present rate of sea level rise is not significantly greater than pre-industrial times.

It is not correct to assert that AGW is necessarily true and the only explanation, when it's plain to anyone who can read that GW (Non-A) has been happening throughout the relevant time period.

The past trend shows it can easily be explained without blaming humans. If sea level rose by tens of meters a few thousand years ago, when humans could not possibly have had any significant influence, then there is no need for a "new" cause to explain GW, particularly since the present rate of GW isn't even as fast as what happened then...

And SLR is increasing.


It rose much more quickly 8,000 years ago and previously, even as CO2 was much lower.

This fact undermines a fundamental claim of AGW theory, which is the claim that the majority of the warming and melting is being caused as a consequence of man-made CO2, because the two changes, SLR and CO2 concentration, are actually negatively correlated over the long term, and only weakly correlated in the post-industrial era.

That depends upon a few things, like time-scale. Obviously, faster SLR is observed in the scientific literature, but I'm aware of no claim that current SLR is unprecedented being made in that same literature. So do you have a source for that or are scientists to be held accountable for everything laypersons say in popular literature and media?


So are you claiming Dr. Hansen is a layperson now? He was the one who started this whole AGW debate, and spent his entire career harping and complaining about it.

He's the one who claimed 10C worth of average warming was possible by 2100, which 10C worth of warming would certainly lead to unprecedented sea level rise. You can't disassociate alleged future warming of that magnitude from alleged future sea level rise.

His colleagues are also the ones who made the ridiculously false claim about the prior "immunity" of New York to hurricanes, which I have addressed elsewhere in this post.


As for temperature, the current rate of warming *is* unprecedented for the last 11,000 years at least.


Not according to that graph.

Do you seriously believe enough ice melted to produce 50 meters worth of sea level rise, even as the temperature did not rise?

The rate of sea level rise in that 3,000 year period greatly exceeds the present day rate by a factor of between 5 and 7 vs 1.


So you claim the sea level rose that much more quickly in the past, even as temperatures did not change as quickly as they are currently changing?

Just want to clarify that. It's physically impossible for that claim to be true, based on the laws of thermodynamics, because ice doesn't melt without a net thermal input, and it doesn't stay melted without long term net thermal input.


What he said was "Coastal regions and cities that have hitherto been immune to such storms may suffer great damage, as happened with Sandy to New York and could happen to Dubai." The phrase "as happened with Sandy to New York" appears to me to be describing the damage rather than the "...immune to such storms." Had the author meant it to apply to cities, then they would have placed the "as happened..." phrase nearer to "cities." I think you simply have misread the statement.


No, I have not.

The passage:

"Coastal regions and cities that have hitherto been immune to such storms may suffer great damage, as happened with Sandy to New York and could happen to Dubai."

If the "hitherto immune" phrase is not meant to be associated with New York, then why put it in the same sentence at all?

The phrase is more strongly associated with the name "New York" by the phrase "as happened" than it is to the name "Dubai" by the phrase "could happen". He associated what DID happen in New York to what COULD happen in Dubai. Further, both are associated with "Hitherto" by the comma, which seperated the first, independent clause from the second, dependent clause. The second clause is a dependent clause (actually it's composed of two dependent clauses,) and is therefore necessarily associated with the first clause. The second clause doesn't even make sense without the first clause, because it cannot make sense without the first clause.



Independent clause:

"Coastal regions and cities that have hitherto been immune to such storms may suffer great damage,"

Dependent clause:

"as happened with Sandy to New York and could happen to Dubai."

He was also missing a comma before the word "and".

The dependent clauses "as happened with Sandy to New York," and "and could happen to Dubai," are not independent, as neither of those clauses can stand on their own.

The dependent clause "as happened with Sandy to New York," has no subject without making reference to the first clause.

The clause "and could happen to Dubai," has no subject without referencing the previous clause.

If the author did not intend for the dependent clauses to be dependent on the first clause, then he is still at fault because he made a syntax error, or a composition error, or a knowledge error.

I'm not the one at fault for him writing a sentence which is patently false by the rules of the English language.


Granted, I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty sure that the end stage of starvation is death.


The terms YOU used in your post 105, referring to future deaths in other nations, were "Murdered" and "Death Sentence" are both legally false and defamatory.

A "Death Sentence" is the legal killing of a convicted criminal.

"Murder" is the unlawful killing of another person, and the legal definition requires specific, premeditated intent to kill.

It's ironic that I got banned for making a "personal attack," when in fact you are the one who defamed me and all Americans, contrary to the law.

Have you not been paying attention to the increase in extreme weather over the last few years? It is only going to get worse. Agriculture is going to become much more, um, challenging as this century progresses.


Acute drought related deaths world wide were worse 25 to 30 years ago. Prolonged drought related deaths were much worse 25, 30, and 50 years ago. Those are time periods from around the time or before the time half of the excess CO2 had been produced. There is no positive correlation between CO2 and drought related deaths. Population increase is more strongly associated with disaster victims for common sense reasons; the more people you have, the more likely that "someone" is going to get killed in a disaster.

Storm damages, in dollars, have increased because the monetary damage goes up as a double exponential when studied across multiple decades. The reason it is a double exponential is because inflation and land value are exponential, because of their relationship to population growth. Population growth directly influences storm damage, also exponentially, by increasing the average number of people affected by such strikes when they happen. Also, the probability that a storm will strike in a populated area increases with population because the less populated areas became more populated.

In addition to all of that, we have observer confirmation bias of systems which were formerly harder to verify, such as hail and small tornadoes. This is obviously caused by population increase and the rapid increase in easily accessible video recording technology, such as smartphones.

The most deadly tropical cyclones occurred before the majority of the man-made CO2 was introduced, as per Wundergrounds' own top 30 list.

Most deadly cycloens in history

There are no sensible arguments against that, so don't even try to make one up.

What do you suppose is to be gained by personalizing this discussion? I can't think of anything.


Aside from discussion boards, I very rarely read climate blogs --with one or two exceptions. I didn't read the article posted. I was responding to what you posted on this blog. Much of it is irrelevant, some is wrong-headed, and some is just wrong.

I choose to ignore the drama at this point as I don't see any humor in it.


The science of climate change that past trends are in fact relevant. That's the whole point of the science. You can't pick and choose which past evidence you want to consider.


Additionally, you are the one who first made personal attacks against me. In addition to the issues I already addressed above, we have this:

Quoting Birthmark:

What a long bizarre rant of a post that was! I should probably say something about the baseless assertions, but what is there to say?

Still, it was jolly tale filled with wondrously strange interpretations, cartoon-like paranoid conspiracy theory, and just plain silliness.

6.5/10



Given this plus your baseless assertions from your other posts, which I have herein addressed, it is truly amazing that I got banned, instead of you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:




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


April 12, 2013

Arctic sea ice.



For scientists studying summer sea ice in the Arctic, its 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.

James Overland of NOAAs Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and Muyin Wang of the NOAA Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington, looked at three methods of predicting when the Arctic will be nearly ice free in the summer. The work was published recently online in the American Geophysical Union publication Geophysical Research Letters.

Rapid Arctic sea ice loss is probably the most visible indicator of global climate change; it leads to shifts in ecosystems and economic access, and potentially impacts weather throughout the northern hemisphere,%u201D said Overland. %u201CIncreased physical understanding of rapid Arctic climate shifts and improved models are needed that give a more detailed picture and timing of what to expect so we can better prepare and adapt to such changes. Early loss of Arctic sea ice gives immediacy to the issue of climate change.

There is no one perfect way to predict summer sea ice loss in the Arctic, said Wang.So we looked at three approaches that result in widely different dates, but all three suggest nearly sea ice-free summers in the Arctic before the middle of this century.

Link


So can we get Hypercanes when the Summertime Northern Arctic Ice is gone in a few years? Who would know the answer to this? I mean if no ice was there during the summer months wouldn't the tropical oceans warm up further and create conditions for stronger hurricanes to form and could we get a 300 mph hurricane with a few degree of temperature change in SST's? Let's say the SST increase went from 93 degrees to 97 degrees...Oh and let's say less shear occurred also...











...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Moronoshere, I like that. Did you come up with that 6th grade insult by yourself Sheldon?

You know when the hand wavers get their hackles up there is probably more truth than not in the recent articles.

Wasn't it Trenberth and Dai who slammed the drought study by Sheffield, Wood and Roderick. It seems Sheffield, Wood and Roderick found Trenberth and Dai had used a bad method to come to their studies conclusions. We all know now Trenberth and Dai were wrong as many scientists said Sheffield's method was a better one. Thenberth is just trying to save his reputation at this point.

I guess Hoerling is not the only one who has been wrong in the past. I won't even go into Death train Hanson

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting Xulonn:
RE: Post#148





Xulon I respect your opinion and read your posts regularly..
You bring intelligence and facts..
And personality..
I for one hope you stay blogging here and keep contributing..
Thanks for what you do.. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RE:145

So can we get Hypercanes when the Summertime Northern Arctic Ice is gone in a few years? Who would know the answer to this? I mean if no ice was there during the summer months wouldn't the tropical oceans warm up further and create conditions for stronger hurricanes to form and could we get a 300 mph hurricane with a few degree of temperature change in SST's? Let's say the SST increase went from 93 degrees to 97 degrees...Oh and let's say less shear occurred also...

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting Xulonn's Dream:
I was delighted to see that there has been a major change at Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog at the Weather Underground website. It turns out that the recent excessive pampering and tolerance of blatherers, denialists, trolls, and spammers was actually a scientific experiment facilitated by Drs. Rood and Masters.

The purpose of the experiment was to provide data for a research paper by an associate, Psychology Ph.D candidate Ivan T. Lurn.

The discussion and comments section of the blog have returned to a balanced and well moderated state, with a focus on the science and impacts of anthropogenic global warming and mitigation/adaptation strategies. Posts based on a genuine skepticism are welcomed, but denialism-based spamming, trolling and disruption have been greatly diminished.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
With reluctance, because of the current moderation environment, I've put a number of blatherers/denialists/trolls/spammers on ignore, and the blog is again tolerable to read, even with some quoting of the above set of disruptors by respected commenters.

As a result, I came to this blog this morning and it was an enjoyable experience - I was able to read comments about AGW/CC news and science - the primary reason I come here.

I have come to the conclusion that the comments section of this AGW/CC blog has become less valuable to the public as a source of good, reliable science based blogging and discussion.

There is an obvious official attitude here, supported by the moderators, that this is a place where people come to have fun, where the playground rules allow lies and untruths, but not critical rebuttals, WHERE TRUTH AND HONESTY SEEM TO BE NEITHER IMPORTANT NOR HIGHLY VALUED, and this has diminished the value of WU/CC.

If this is what WU management and Dr. Rood want, so be it. Unfortunately, turning this website into a blatherer/denialist/troll/spammer playground diminishes its quality and value, and turns what otherwise would be an excellent contribution this site makes to the effort to understand and discuss AGW/CC into a mediocre one. Without appropriate moderation, the effort by a number of the regular commenters here to counter denialism and respond to sincere, but uninformed skeptics, is no longer a logical thing to do. I do not believe that sincere lurkers and readers who come here to learn will bother with the chaos that now reigns, and it is likely that the value of this website has been diminished.

I didn't really want to leave this place, so my strategy now no longer includes rebutting skeptics, but rather building a wall so I don't have to look at the garbage. Skyepony, the breaking point for me was when you, a moderator whom I like and respect for both your contributions and common sense, referred to my previous post on this subject as "clutter," but don't seem to have the same attitude toward the disruptors. (I may be wrong, and you might be holding your tongue due the the guidelines you have been handed.)

The study and discussion of AGW/CC denialism is a valid and active area of academic interest, and should be a part of the discussion here, and Dr. Rood has even blogged about it! The sociological and psychological aspects of AGW/CC and dealing with are valid and important scientific subjects within the realm of AGW/CC and its implications for humans and their civilization.

But we are not allowed to really dig into that subject here, because we might hurt the feelings of some blatherers/denialists/trolls/spammers - the very people who are harming the effort to deal with the study of, and adaptation to, AGW/CC.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Last years US drought not caused by CC but was natural. Drought Report

In other news Kevin Trenberth has a conniption fit over it.Article

I wonder if Dana (1981) Nuccitelli and Michael E Mann are suffering from the same affliction as Trenberth. According to JL's post above, I suspect they are.
So: a known denialist/lukewarmist--Hoerling--authors a study that focuses om just six states in a 28-state drought and concludes that that drought wasn't "caused" by climate change, but rather by something mysterious and rare--magical unicorns, maybe. A respected climate scientist--Trenberth--looks at the study and publicly notes its many flaws...and that's what the moronosphere calls "conniptions"?

Got it.

First, no one ever said the drought was "caused" by climate change. Second, those mysterious and rare atmospheric conditions that helped set up the drought didn't occur, as Hoerling would have you believe, simply due to random atmospheric magic. Third, Hoerling has been drastically wrong in the past, and has had to retract and correct; what are the odds we're going to see the same thing happen again?

Silly denialists...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RE: 115

So can we get Hypercanes when the Summertime Northern Arctic Ice is gone in a few years?


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting Skyepony:
Exxon Didn't Know Its Pipeline Ruptured Until Called by Arkansas Authorities. Or Did It?

CB~ Someone is quoted on there talking about the smell depending on how warm it was that day & all, this is emergency transcripts when it first happened. You may have been right about a small on going leak. They saw a significant pressure drop a bit earlier in the day before the residents spotted the blow out.


You would think they would hydrostatically pressure test older pipelines more often with water... Any significant pressure drop should automatically shut off transfer station pumps...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Federal Rules Don't Control Pipeline Reversals Like Exxon's Burst Pegasus

InsideClimateNews.org

InsideClimateNews.org (page dedicated to Keystone XL)

The Pegasus pipeline that ruptured and spilled thousands of gallons of tar sands crude in Mayflower was 65 years old, and was initially built to carry thinner oil at lower pressure in the opposite direction than today.

But seven years ago, when Exxon, the pipeline's operator, turned it into a higher-volume line for diluted bitumen from Canada flowing under greater pressure to refineries on the Gulf Coast, federal rules did not require a permit application or safety reviews, according to federal officials.

"Our regulations don't specify how much product a pipeline carries. There is no regulation if they want to change the type of crude they carry," said Damon Hill, a spokesman for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, a part of the Transportation Department. "As far as reversing the flow of a pipeline, it is not a safety issue."
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting bappit:

This type of criticism is a given since it is very difficult to separate "natural" from "man-made" in a weather system that is no longer what it used to be.


Actually I think that you can't separate the two; the best that can be done is to show that the changes in climate patterns increase the probablity of extreme events.

Here are three posts by Tamino regarding this subject:

One of the analogies sometimes used to explain the impact of global warming on the weather is that we’re “loading the dice.” Perhaps a better desrciption is that we’re changing the dice.

Increased Variability?

Temperature Variability part 2
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Try visiting Yahoo's "Questions and Answers" section on "Climate Change" sometime. When I am there I do not know if I should laugh or cry. .... I mostly just cry. It is really sad over there.

Don't go there, Rookie. You'll catch the rabies, guy!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:



Kevin Trenberth is very critical of the report:

Report: Global warming didn't cause big US drought

"Another scientist though, blasted the report.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a federally funded university-run research center, said the report didn't take into account the lack of snowfall in the Rockies the previous winter and how that affected overall moisture in the air. Nor did the study look at the how global warming exacerbated the high pressure system that kept the jet stream north and the rainfall away, he said.

"This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming," Trenberth said in an email. "That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia.""


This type of criticism is a given since it is very difficult to separate "natural" from "man-made" in a weather system that is no longer what it used to be.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 190 - 140

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.