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: 140 - 90

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

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:
Quoting pintada:


As I've said before, WUG is the biggest clearinghouse for denialist bilge on the internet.

Congratulations to Dr. Rood for getting the word out.


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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
Um, I think that there is some confusion here.

"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, the report appears to be talking only about the "flash drought", not the overall drought.

Looks like a case of sloppy reporting.



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.""

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Quoting nymore:
Last years US drought not caused by CC but was natural.

Sounds like the old Lou-anna cooking oil commercials: made with no chemicals!

Edit: I always wondered what was in those jars if not chemicals. Similarly, the CO2 people have added to the air has already changed the climate. It is all part of nature now.

Also reminds me of when Buckminster Fuller was asked when people would start living in space. He about had a cow: "We are in space!"

People deny reality by making artificial distinctions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Um, I think that there is some confusion here.

"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, the report appears to be talking only about the "flash drought", not the overall drought.

Looks like a case of sloppy reporting.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thank you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Back to science for a bit, two new rebuttals to the Economist op-ed of acouple of weeks ago.

Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check the Ocean

A recent article in The Economist stated that “over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.” The Economist went to great lengths to point out that “the mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures … does not mean global warming is a delusion.” But the piece was predictably lauded by climate skeptics as “further evidence” of the case against climate change.

How The Economist got it wrong

THE ECONOMIST recently published a lengthy article about Earth's climate sensitivity — how much the planet's surface will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles relative to pre-industrial levels (something that will happen in a matter of decades if we continue with business-as-usual fossil fuel burning).

While we are pleased that The Economist brought attention to this important topic, we were disappointed by the shortcomings and inaccuracies in the piece with regard to the current state of scientific understanding.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
131. Skyepony (Mod)
Amidst reports of media intimidation at the site of the Mayflower, Arkansas tar sands oil spill, ExxonMobil has now taken to bullying local Little Rock television stations into canceling the airing of a satirical but cutting advertisement critical of their business practices.

Here is the ad..


The ad was set to air on Arkansas ABC, NBC, and Fox affiliates this week, but was pulled moments before airing by the stations when Exxon threatened legal action.

“Exxon is and will always be a bully,” said David Turnbull, Campaigns Director of Oil Change International. “Instead of engaging their critics appropriately, Exxon uses its billions to hire high-priced lawyers to make scary-sounding but unsupported legal claims to suppress criticism. It’s a window into how they have preserved billions in taxpayer handouts for their industry for so many years.”

This is the second time Exxon has bullied this advertisement off the air. In February, Exxon sent a cease-and-desist letter to Comcast only hours before scheduled airings during State of the Union news coverage.

The move by Exxon marks the latest in a series of reported strong-arm tactics undertaken by Exxon to censor reporting in the days following the Mayflower tar sands oil spill.1

“Folks are tired of Exxon bullying the media in Arkansas trying to cover their latest spill – but going after TV stations over 30 seconds of ad time? They’re going to learn they can’t silence the truth: Exxon’s dirty oil and corporate welfare threaten our children’s future,” said John Sellers, Executive Director of The Other 98%.

The groups have responded to the requests from the TV stations for a rebuttal with a letter from their legal representation, outlining the clear history of protected speech that the advertisement rests upon.

“This ad has been funded by citizens from across the country who know what corporations like Exxon really stand for. Our government is providing tax breaks to companies like Exxon to spill oil in our backyards. It’s time to stand up to Exxon and allow this message to be heard,” said Drew Hudson, Executive Director of Environmental Action.

The ads were crowd-funded through the Louder platform, which gives regular citizens access to the powerful channels of advertising.


Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37433
Aerial Footage of Arkansas Exxon Oil Spill!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iIdWGGlBP8


Aerial footage has emerged of ExxonMobil's Pegasus pipeline oil spill in Mayflower, Arkansas.

A five-minute long video was posted to YouTube on April 2, three days after a flood of diluted bitumen surged from a broken tar sands pipeline. The video was taken by videojournalist Adam Randall sometime before the Federal Aviation Administration placed a No-Fly Zone over the neighborhood.

The extent of the spill is still unknown, but officials are saying thousands of barrels gushed from a 2-inch-wide, 22-foot-long gash. More than 22,000 barrels of oily water and 2,000 cubic yards of oiled debris have already been recovered.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting allahgore:


sorry I read that, I was wondering how old the pipe was. some pipe sits in a yard 5-10 yrs before ever being used.

If you decide to use a pipeline, I think you are responsible for the consequences. What happened 65 years ago is irrelevant.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
127. Skyepony (Mod)
Reporters covering the oil spill from ExxonMobil's Pegasus pipeline in Mayflower, Arkansas, are reporting that they've been blocked from the site and threatened with arrest.

On Friday morning, Inside Climate News reported that an Exxon spokesperson told reporter Lisa Song that she could be "arrested for criminal trespass" when she went to the command center to try to find representatives from the EPA and the Department of Transportation. On Friday afternoon, I spoke to the news director from the local NPR affiliate who said he, too, had been threatened with arrest while trying to cover the spill.

Michael Hibblen, who reports for the radio station KUAR, went to the spill site on Wednesday with state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. McDaniel was in the area to inspect the site and hold a news conference, and Hibblen and a small group of reporters were following him to report on the visit. Upon arrival, representatives from the county sheriff's office, which is running security at the site, directed the reporters to a boundary point 10 feet away that they should not pass. The reporters agreed to comply. But the tone shifted abruptly, Hibblen told Mother Jones on Friday:


It was less than 90 seconds before suddenly the sheriff's deputies started yelling that all the media people had to leave, that ExxonMobil had decided they don't want you here, you have to leave. They even referred to it as "Exxon Media"…Some reporters were like, "Who made this decision? Who can we talk to?" The sheriff's deputies started saying, "You have to leave. You have 10 seconds to leave or you will be arrested." more
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37433
65 years old if you keep up with what other people post on here. The company that sold the steel probably is out of business.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
125. Skyepony (Mod)
Quoting allahgore:


Do you are anyone know how old the pipeline was? and where did they purchase the steel for the pipeline?


The age of the pipeline is in the article.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37433
A slow leak before failure of the pipeline would not surprise me at all.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
122. Skyepony (Mod)
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.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37433
Daisyworld comment #100 I am afraid I agree with you. Some of the moderators (definitely NOT skyepony) seem to be--how should I say this--not evenhanded. I used to write some entries about how weather affected warfare Example One Example 2 Example 3 I haven't felt like continuing my weather and warfare series since I returned because the entries are a lot of work.

That being said it is a lot better than it was last summer when I left. However I think this site would be better if some of the moderators behaved differently.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting FLwolverine:
ENOUGH ALREADY! Come on, mods, admin, Dr Rood. How any rule violations do we have here? Ranting, insulting other members, calling another member a jackass. What does it take? Where's the line? Surely it's been crossed three or four times!

Looks to me like Dr Rood will be able to show examples of more than just denialist bilge on his blog. He will be able to demonstrate a blog's out and out destruction!

Some troll herder somewhere is laughing his ass off. A climate change blog is self-destructing and he didn't even have to waste troll power to make it happen! Sheeeesh!


A couple of threads ago Old Leatherneck suggested shunning the offenders, that is, all of us putting the most egregious on ignore.

In other words, DNFTT
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
118. Skyepony (Mod)
Ice thickness Difference March 2013-2012.


Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37433
ENOUGH ALREADY! Come on, mods, admin, Dr Rood. How any rule violations do we have here? Ranting, insulting other members, calling another member a jackass. What does it take? Where's the line? Surely it's been crossed three or four times!

Looks to me like Dr Rood will be able to show examples of more than just denialist bilge on his blog. He will be able to demonstrate a blog's out and out destruction!

Some troll herder somewhere is laughing his ass off. A climate change blog is self-destructing and he didn't even have to waste troll power to make it happen! Sheeeesh!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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
Volume is the correct answer.. Why? Because you can have a greater extent with less volume if the ice is thinner....See how simple that was... No math...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting RTSplayer:

You people are demonizing humans for making some CO2 (less than 1/3rd of present concentrations,) while the overwhelming majority of the melting trend is natural anyway, and has been on-going for thousands of years, and was only interrupted in the Little Ice Age due to volcanism.

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. 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.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
We know this to be true because of sunken cities and other benchmarks, and not all of them can be explained by tectonic activity.

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?

Quoting RTSplayer:
The Global sea level rise has been on-going. Do you deny that too?

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. Your own graph demonstrates that sea-level has been fairly steady (with wiggles) over the last few thousand years.That said, the current sea-level rise cannot be explained without AGW. And SLR is increasing.

Quoting RTSplayer:
The claim that the post-industrial sea level rises or warming are unprecedented is patently false, and for example, according to this data, Sea levels rose by about an average of 2 CENTIMETERS per year, between 11,000 and 8,000 years ago, and have continued to rise more slowly ever since then. The reason for this slowing is because the amount of ice available to melt at mid latitudes has been almost entirely depleted.

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?

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

Quoting RTSplayer:
No. He specifically named New York as having been previously "Immune" to storms of Sandy's magnitude. He further suggests, based on context, that something like that would happen in Dubai.


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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
What "Death Sentence"?

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

Quoting RTSplayer:
You haven't presented evidence that AGW will get that bad. You are just throwing around alarmist terms.

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.

Quoting RTSplayer:
So what? Now you're blaming me for deaths in Africa or Asia? Where? Who? Myanmar maybe?

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

Quoting RTSplayer:
The author of the article is the one who was making unsupported assertions. I pointed out how unsupported they were, as the burden of proof was on him, and I immediately showed historical evidence that the basis of his claims were wrong.

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
That is meaningless. It is akin to saying that most people die of natural causes, therefore, we shouldn't worry about those few who are murdered. It's poor logic.


FALSE.

You people are demonizing humans for making some CO2 (less than 1/3rd of present concentrations,) while the overwhelming majority of the melting trend is natural anyway, and has been on-going for thousands of years, and was only interrupted in the Little Ice Age due to volcanism.

We know this to be true because of sunken cities and other benchmarks, and not all of them can be explained by tectonic activity.

Probably, eh? Evidence?


Lol.

What happened to all the ice over the past several thousand years, which melted at much the same rate?


This suffers from the same logical deficiency as noted above.


Venice isn't the world.


The Global sea level rise has been on-going. Do you deny that too?

You're the first person I've encountered who denies sea level rise has occurred globally over the past several thousand years.


Also, are you sure sea level is rising there, or is Venice sinking, or some combination of the two? A little documentation would be nice.


It's a combination fo the two, but so what?

You can nearly say that for every location on the planet, except places where uplift is occurring, or where ice is melting faster than water rises, because water inundation pushes the land down for the same reason ice does.

Since when is documentation required for well known facts?

Are you now denying that sea level rise happened in the Mediterranean, not only over the past several centuries, but also over the past 2000 years?



and



That scale is in meters, and because of the vertical scale, it's a bit misleading. However, what you'll notice is the sea level rise was going on throughout all of human history.

The claim that the post-industrial sea level rises or warming are unprecedented is patently false, and for example, according to this data, Sea levels rose by about an average of 2 CENTIMETERS per year, between 11,000 and 8,000 years ago, and have continued to rise more slowly ever since then. The reason for this slowing is because the amount of ice available to melt at mid latitudes has been almost entirely depleted.

I think that you are misinterpreting the statement made and the intent of the statement.


No. He specifically named New York as having been previously "Immune" to storms of Sandy's magnitude. He further suggests, based on context, that something like that would happen in Dubai.

First of all, Dubai is on the leeward side of a peninsula, so it's protected from tropical cyclones.

Secondly, they have more to be concerned about baseline sea level rise, since they were stupid enough to build "land reclamation" projects out of pure sand on the ocean.

Hey, don't blame Europeans or Americans because the rulers of Dubai decided to build like that.




As opposed to the wisdom of spouting 30gt C into the atmosphere each year? Either way a death sentence for people who did very little of the spouting seems both unfair and disproportionate.


What "Death Sentence"?

You haven't presented evidence that AGW will get that bad. You are just throwing around alarmist terms.

So what? Now you're blaming me for deaths in Africa or Asia? Where? Who? Myanmar maybe?

The U.S. has also made a disproportionate number of food exports to those same countries over the years. If not for that, many of them would never have been born in the first place, as their parents would have starved to death.

Look, the U.S. produces chemicals, technology, and food and other products, all of which the rest of the world demands and in many cases requires. We already have among the cleanest emission standards in the world, and have for my entire life, and moreover we also have among the most efficient energy standards in the world, and have for decades, and we're making improvements. So if people want our exports how can they complain about the pollution we make as a requirement of thermodynamic and physical realities?

The pollution would not exist if we didn't make the things everyone else needs, but if we didn't make the things everyone else needs, they probably wouldn't exist.

Wind and solar were not practical in the past, because they did not have 40% efficient boilers, nor the technology to make thousands of kilometers worth of 95% efficient mirrors and vacuum tubes to make it work, and past wind turbines weren't 30% efficient with 75 meter blades.

Somebody else can handle the rest. I've only so much time to waste on bum logic, unsupported assertions, cherry picking, misinterpretations, and vitriolic contempt.


Ah you must truly dislike the other leftists on this blog then, right?

After all, they have much more of those attributes than myself.

The author of the article is the one who was making unsupported assertions. I pointed out how unsupported they were, as the burden of proof was on him, and I immediately showed historical evidence that the basis of his claims were wrong.

Yes, I am sick of unsupported assertions as well. I'm sick of them coming from radical alarmists.



The sad thing about you people is you're naive enough to think that once the west cuts it's use of oil and coal, that someone else won't want it after initial demand drops and prices drop. Sure they'll want it. African nations will want to use all the cheap oil and coal, and owners of those resources will be perfectly in their rights to sell it to them as well.

If "developed nation" demand for oil and coal drops low enough, I'd easily expect to see a massive rebound as the price gets low enough for 3rd world nations to be able to pay for it. Additionally, western multi-national corporations will install modern systems in those nations to provide the power they demand.



Let's propose a scenario:

God forbid, but what happens in New York, circa 2035, on a blazing hot August day, when they are presumably going to be majority wind powered, and a heat wave parks in a bad spot; the air stagnates and the wind dies down over much of the grid, and people start having heat stroke because brownouts screw up air conditioning and other cooling alternatives?

I picked a random number for the year, because it would be impossible to know the exact year, but historically this sort of thing happens every several years or so. How do you deal with it without coal or nuclear, since they are planning for wind to be the baseline power? Supposedly, "100% carbon neutral" is the goal.

Do tell me there's a better plan than "we'll have 10 million car-sized batteries per city."

Effective smart grid technology requires massive parallelism and redundancy, which drives up initial costs. Moreover, a smartgrid is still limited by the power available, so that even if you used it to swap power from region to region or city to city, "somebody" would have a major brownout eventually.

While rooftop solar is better than nothing, it's nowhere near enough to take up the slack in cities with millions of people living in high rise apartments and condos.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pintada:


As I've said before, WUG is the biggest clearinghouse for denialist bilge on the internet.

Congratulations to Dr. Rood for getting the word out.

It's not the amount that bothers me, it's the poor quality of the bilge. I've seen much higher quality denialist bilge on websites that I think are inferior to WU. I find this to be either pure laziness or a direct insult to WU by the denialist bilge peddlers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
A subjective color scale, which says nothing about relationship to past climate scenarios before modern records.

A completely irrelevant point that has no bearing on the current situation for a variety of reasons.

Quoting RTSplayer:
First of all, it's not proper to say "sea ice" without clarifying whether you're talking volume or area. I assume it's volume since that's the closest fit to the reduction from 16,900km^3 to 3300km^3.

Volume is the correct answer.

Quoting RTSplayer:
Secondly, how much sea ice volume disappeared between the heart of the Little Ice Age and 1850?!

Another case of irrelevancy to current situation.

Quoting RTSplayer:
They haven't shown that the past few decades worth of melt deviates significantly from the trend that would be expected from the heart of the Little Ice Age to 1850.

Nor do they need to, again, for a variety of reasons.

Quoting RTSplayer:
They can't claim to know the real values, since there weren't space-based microwave imagery* and other satellites, and there weren't subs with sonar, and there weren't teams of climatologists and oceanographers studying the problem at that time either.


What was the average arctic sea ice thickness for each month in the year 1500?

Yet another irrelvancy.

Quoting RTSplayer:
What was the volume?

What percentage reduction, for both thickness and volume, would that represent between the year 1500 and the year 1979?

More irrelevancy that has nothing to do with anything and betrays a basic misunderstanding of the entire subject of AGW.

Quoting RTSplayer:
It must obviously have been greater during the Little Ice Age.

It's the alarmists who are claiming to have knowledge you don't actually have.

Your conclusion is based upon your misunderstanding of the subject and relies upon irrelevant claims. Unsurprisingly, it is wrong.

Quoting RTSplayer:
Also, percentage-wise characterizations of changes which are occurring at the end of a depleting cycle are misleading in the greater context of the entire cycle.

100 - 10 = 90, is a 10% change.

50 - 10 = 40, is a 20% change.

Thanks for the irrelevant math lesson.

Quoting RTSplayer:
Nothing alarming about that, because it is evident that changes as big or bigger happened in the past.

Once again exposing your basic misunderstanding of AGW and why it is a problem.

Quoting RTSplayer:
Anyway, a person making a preposterous claim, such as Dr. Hansen, is the one who has the burden to provide the evidence. While his formula was fairly good for the past few decades, there's no evidence to suggest that a temperature change of 9C or 10C (depending on whether he was using present or pre-industrial as the baseline,) would actually happen over the next 87 years.

Nor is there evidence that says it won't happen...which is rather the point.

NOTE: I believe RTS has me on ignore. I think it would be courteous if someone pointed out to him that I am, um, answering his posts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:


Somebody else can handle the rest. I've only so much time to waste on bum logic, unsupported assertions, cherry picking, misinterpretations, and vitriolic contempt.


As I've said before, WUG is the biggest clearinghouse for denialist bilge on the internet.

Congratulations to Dr. Rood for getting the word out.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pintada:
Another great article.

This article seems especially apropos given the recent barrage of bizarreness.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pintada:
Great Guy Good article.


Okay, let's look at the opening paragraph.

It got so hot in Australia in January that the weather service had to add two new colors to its charts.


A subjective color scale, which says nothing about relationship to past climate scenarios before modern records. I

A few weeks later, at the other end of the planet, new data from the Cryosat satellites showed 80% of Arctic sea ice has disappeared.


First of all, it's not proper to say "sea ice" without clarifying whether you're talking volume or area. I assume it's volume since that's the closest fit to the reduction from 16,900km^3 to 3300km^3.

Secondly, how much sea ice volume disappeared between the heart of the Little Ice Age and 1850?!

They haven't shown that the past few decades worth of melt deviates significantly from the trend that would be expected from the heart of the Little Ice Age to 1850. They can't claim to know the real values, since there weren't space-based microwave imagery* and other satellites, and there weren't subs with sonar, and there weren't teams of climatologists and oceanographers studying the problem at that time either.


What was the average arctic sea ice thickness for each month in the year 1500? What was the volume?

What percentage reduction, for both thickness and volume, would that represent between the year 1500 and the year 1979?

It must obviously have been greater during the Little Ice Age.

It's the alarmists who are claiming to have knowledge you don't actually have.


Also, percentage-wise characterizations of changes which are occurring at the end of a depleting cycle are misleading in the greater context of the entire cycle.

100 - 10 = 90, is a 10% change.

50 - 10 = 40, is a 20% change.

20 - 10 = 10, is a 50% change.

That's how subtraction works. Each subtraction of the same amount reduces the previous value by a larger fraction. There's nothing surprising or alarming about that.


16.9 - 13.6 = 3.3, is an 80.5% change

Nothing alarming about that, because it is evident that changes as big or bigger happened in the past.

Anyway, a person making a preposterous claim, such as Dr. Hansen, is the one who has the burden to provide the evidence. While his formula was fairly good for the past few decades, there's no evidence to suggest that a temperature change of 9C or 10C (depending on whether he was using present or pre-industrial as the baseline,) would actually happen over the next 87 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
The majority of the forcing has been going on for centuries.

That is meaningless. It is akin to saying that most people die of natural causes, therefore, we shouldn't worry about those few who are murdered. It's poor logic.
Quoting RTSplayer:
This has probably been going on since the ice age ended, with only some cold periods caused by volcanism intervening.

Probably, eh? Evidence?
Quoting RTSplayer:
About 1/2 to 3/4 of the forcing would be happening even without the man made component of industrial CO2 and Methane anyway, as is evidenced by the sea level rise from 1800 to 1900.

This suffers from the same logical deficiency as noted above.

Quoting RTSplayer:
If anyone questions that, just go take a look at Venice. The water level started changing centuries ago, and at about the same rate.

Venice isn't the world.

Also, are you sure sea level is rising there, or is Venice sinking, or some combination of the two? A little documentation would be nice.

Quoting RTSplayer:
Look at this misleading information, from his abstract:

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.


Source

BS.

New York has been devastated by major hurricanes in the past, both known and unknown.

I think that you are misinterpreting the statement made and the intent of the statement.

Quoting RTSplayer:
That's a wisdom problem, not a climate problem. Only a fool relies on one crop anyway.

As opposed to the wisdom of spouting 30gt C into the atmosphere each year? Either way a death sentence for people who did very little of the spouting seems both unfair and disproportionate.

Somebody else can handle the rest. I've only so much time to waste on bum logic, unsupported assertions, cherry picking, misinterpretations, and vitriolic contempt.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Another great article.

This article seems especially apropos given the recent barrage of bizarreness.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Great Guy Good article.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The government is refusing to accept clear evidence that the situation is deteriorating so quickly that strenuous efforts must be made to cool the Arctic this summer or otherwise risk that it is too late for any action to prevent an absolute catastrophe. The government does not need further evidence - and any delay could jeopardise chance of success.


Lol.

How much CO2 and Methane do you plan on producing for energy and transportation whilst attempting the global and regional geoengineering schemes so far proposed?

That paragraph reflects a shocking basic misunderstanding of the nature of the forcing.

The majority of the forcing has been going on for centuries. The long term average (satellite era) sea ice melt volume is 400km^3. The average before 2006 was about 300km^3. The rate of melt in Greenland has been accelerating linearly for the past several years by about 17km^3 to 20km^3. This has probably been going on since the ice age ended, with only some cold periods caused by volcanism intervening.

About 1/2 to 3/4 of the forcing would be happening even without the man made component of industrial CO2 and Methane anyway, as is evidenced by the sea level rise from 1800 to 1900. If anyone questions that, just go take a look at Venice. The water level started changing centuries ago, and at about the same rate.

The amount of mitigation the alarmist author is demanding is both impractical and irrational.

Supposing we did dump enough sulfur into the atmosphere to offset the albedo feedback, it would eventually fall out and acidify the oceans and rivers even faster than the CO2. I know of no other way of "cooling the arctic" within one year's time, so I assume he's demanding sulfur injection, since he didn't say. Sulfuric acid is much more potent than carbonic acid. Moreover, you would need to keep replacing the sulfur compounds in the atmosphere year by year in order to sustain the net change in albedo.

Yah think there's maybe, just maybe, something wrong with the guy who demands we save the environment by taking actions which will first destroy that environment?


Look at this misleading information, from his abstract:

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.


Source

BS.

New York has been devastated by major hurricanes in the past, both known and unknown. Including well-knowns like the Long Island Express, as well as previously unknowns like the "Hog Island" hurricane.

His claim is based on a false premise, that Sandy was somehow out of the ordinary, when history shows storms which were just as powerful, or more powerful, hit the same region previously, even multiple generations prior, when the SST was lower.

What is the deal with these people not being able to tell the truth about well known information?!


Countries which rely heavily on one crop for income are liable to be heavily hit by weather changes.


That's a wisdom problem, not a climate problem. Only a fool relies on one crop anyway.

And the permafrost forms the cap on an even larger carbon store already in the form of methane. Most scientists now accept that Northern Hemisphere land permafrost will thaw entirely this century. There is the potential for the release of enough methane into the atmosphere to cause runaway global warming, with temperatures rising well over ten degrees C.


There's the potential that a microscopic black hole could devour the Sun tomorrow, but it's highly, highly unlikely.

So where is his tin foil hat, and his subterranean ark to preserve humanity and the animals? I'd like to know so that just on the off chance, the very far off chance, I'd know where to go if this absurdity started to verify.

If there really is that much Methane in the arctic, then it would be in our interest to extract it and burn it as quickly as possible, since CO2 is much weaker of a GHG than Methane. The amounts that he is claiming (with his other cited scientists in other works) is like 4 times as much as the Carbon content of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. He's further assuming that all of it will somehow magically pop out of the ground and go int the atmosphere, apparently within a few days or so.

While a "mini-bomb" may have happened in the Arctic year before last, there's no evidence it significantly effected global Methane levels, because the curve was not significantly altered by it. Which means the release is NORMAL based on past trends. Further, the rate of increase in Methane in the atmosphere was greater 35 to 40 years ago than it is now, and the scientists directly in the field admit they don't know why; Kyoto doesn't explain it, because the inflection point occurred before Kyoto even happened.



In 1984 there was about 55 to 60PPM less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now, and there were nearly 3 billion humans than there are now, AND there was much more sea ice area and sea ice volume, but the annual rate of increase in Methane was much higher at that time than it is now. That doesn't fit with his "blame it on humans" runaway theory, because the Methane release was not human caused, AND half the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was put in the atmosphere AFTER the rate of Methane increase actually decreased and leveled off.

If A allegedly causes B, then you can't blame A's existence on event B, because B hadn't happened yet, and further, the graphs indicate that the causal relationship in the past was the opposite of what he is suggesting.

It's absolutely ridiculous.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
I remember that and dissented at the time. But even under this new regime, a general discussion of a study of observed psychological phenomena ought to be acceptable......


Yes, you'd think so. I'm not against the moderation of this forum, as they have some really good moderators that keep the reader engaged. But in my opinion, I think there are also a few people who should never have been granted moderator status in the first place.

I've tried complaining to WunderBlogAdmin and WunderYakuza about it, but it just falls on deaf ears. Either they're too busy or too disinterested in responding to a lowly non-paying free-blogger account. I left my opinion on the feedback forums and left it at that.

Since then, it's just taken the wind out of my sails, and I'm just not so interested in Wundergound as much anymore. Though it's still worth an occasional read, being part of the conversation doesn't have its appeal when you can be anonymously muzzled on a whim without any accountability or explanation whatsoever.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 852
Quoting FLwolverine:
I remember that and dissented at the time. But even under this new regime, a general discussion of a study of observed psychological phenomena ought to be acceptable......

I think it's probably okay as long as the phenomena isn't attributed to a particular poster or group of posters. But I think that the existence of D-K is important general information for the readers of this blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
At least you don't have to document the observations or substantiate the facts. That should save you some time.

/sarcasm off

That really is a time saver, isn't it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Daisyworld:


I wrote an entire entry in my WU blog about the D-K effect, though last time I tried to talk about it in here with respect to climate change denialism, the moderators saw it fit to delete the comments.
I remember that and dissented at the time. But even under this new regime, a general discussion of a study of observed psychological phenomena ought to be acceptable......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Now there's a weird and utterly meaningless nonsensical phrase!

Please excuse me for now. I need to go and rationally observe some obvious and well-known facts so I can interpret them. I'll be right back when I have new-found truth to share with everyone here.

After all, isn't that how real science works?
At least you don't have to document the observations or substantiate the facts. That should save you some time.

/sarcasm off
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looks like I may have to take cover today as it looks like some tornadoes are forming to the SW of the Oxford/Talledega Alabama area right now.....

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting RTSplayer:
{long bizarre rant and baseless assertions edited for space}

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

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Posted by Joe Romm at ClimateProgress:

Nike, Starbucks, Intel: “We Cannot Risk Our Kids’ Futures On The False Hope The Vast Majority Of Scientists Are Wrong”

The Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) coalition released a Declaration with the above headline.

The full declaration by nearly 3 dozen brand-name companies is:


What made America great was taking a stand. Doing the things that are hard. And seizing opportunities. The very foundation of our country is based on fighting for our freedoms and ensuring the health and prosperity of our state, our community, and our families. Today those things are threatened by a changing climate that most scientists agree is being caused by air pollution.

We cannot risk our kids’ futures on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong. But just as America rose to the great challenges of the past and came out stronger than ever, we have to confront this challenge, and we have to win. And in doing this right, by saving money when we use less electricity, by saving money to drive a more efficient car, by choosing clean energy, by inventing new technologies that other countries buy, and creating jobs here at home, we will maintain our way of life and remain a true superpower in a competitive world.

In order to make this happen, however, there must be a coordinated effort to combat climate change–with America taking the lead here at home. Leading is what we’ve always done. And by working together, regardless of politics, we’ll do it again.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Quoting Xulonn:
#89 Xandra: Your link to the 2010 post and comments on the D-K effect a the skepticalscience website is fascinating, and still quite germane with respect to the denialist and climate-troll posts we see here. I agree that the biggest area where those suffering from D-K symptoms is AGW/CC denial.


I wrote an entire entry in my WU blog about the D-K effect, though last time I tried to talk about it in here with respect to climate change denialism, the moderators saw it fit to delete the comments.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 852
#89 Xandra: Your link to the 2010 post and comments on the D-K effect a the skepticalscience website is fascinating, and still quite germane with respect to the denialist and climate-troll posts we see here. I agree that the biggest area where those suffering from D-K symptoms is AGW/CC denial.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
rational observations of obvious and well known facts
Now there's a weird and utterly meaningless nonsensical phrase!

Please excuse me for now. I need to go and rationally observe some obvious and well-known facts so I can interpret them. I'll be right back when I have new-found truth to share with everyone here.

After all, isn't that how real science works?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 140 - 90

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.