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: 90 - 40

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

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:
"One of the best titles for a scientific paper has to be the Ig Nobel prize winning "Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". The paper compares people's skill levels to their own assessment of their abilities. In hindsight, the result seems self-evident. Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence. This leads to the unfortunate result that unskilled people rate themselves higher than more competent people. The phenomenon is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, named after the paper's authors, and is often seen in the climate debate..."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Quoting #68 - RTSplayer:
I'm offering a different interpretation of the implications of warming, both socioeconomic, and biological, based on rational observations of obvious and well known facts.

I think this pretty well sums it up, and it sounds to me like no further discussion is useful or possible. Nice try, rookie, schistkicker, et al, but you're just wasting your breath (or pixels).


I have an opportunistic response for you, this gem just got published, and it's highly relevant to this blog, and wunderground in general.


Online discussions take place in echo chambers

While buying the wrong book does not have serious consequences for our democratic institutions, it exemplifies, according to professor Vincent F. Hendricks, what may happen when we give our decision-making power to information technologies and processes. And he points to other social phenomena such as 'group polarization' and 'information selection' which do pose threats to democratic discusson when amplified by online media.

"In group polarization, which is well-documented by social psychologists, an entire group may shift to a more radical viewpoint after a discussion even though the individual group members did not subscribe to this view prior to the discussion. This happens for a number of reasons - one is that group members want to represent themselves in a favourable light in the group by adopting a viewpoint slightly more extreme than the perceived mean. In online forums, this well-known phenomenon is made even more problematic by the fact that discussions take place in settings where group members are fed only the information that fits their worldview, making the discussion forum an echo chamber where group members only hear their own voices," Vincent F. Hendricks suggests.



Source Link

An example of this phenomena is the false information Dr. Rood put in his previous blog.

The radical left says "X".

An internet poll also concludes "X", but the internet is highly weighted by radical left.

The real population voted the opposite of "X" even though the false claim, based on radical left propaganda, was that the real population favored position "X".

The extreme position on climate change adopted by many members of this blog (and Neven's blog too,) and reinforced by radical "moderation" deleting dissent, are nothing more than an "echo chamber".

When people offer a RATIONAL view, which is different than your own, you guys ostracize, accuse them, call them incompetent, insult their intelligence, falsely accuse people of being "anti-science," and more, for no reason other than it's a view different from your extreme leftism.


Those are the ones who are truly anti-science, because they hijack discussion and degenerate it to a narrow minded and misinformed view, and want to censor anyone who points out obvious flaws, which they ignore and discard.

I've been saying that about this place for years, and I just found it quite hilarious that I found this article on physorg about just that topic.

It's destroying science.

It's also destroying our culture when a viral video gets an innocent person because of what a subordinate did, because of extreme leftism and mob rule.

It would prudent for Wunderground and TWC users and authors to give that article some thought, because when you read that article, I can guarantee from where I'm sitting that it's describing this site 100% accurately.


It's not even enough to destroy economics through the Carbon tax, but some of you people, if you really had your way, would even want wind and solar banned. Some of you, I've even seen in the past either on this blog or Dr. Masters' main blog, advocating forced population reduction and complaining about making a solar plant in the middle of the desert. Not only on this site, but many other science sits. Wow. The radical leftist claims to be more "rational" than myself, yet I am very centrist on this issue, and yet they want to irrationally undercut the very foundations of civilization and technology. Why?

Why do the same people who claim to want to colonize another planet also insist on everyone living like cavemen here on Earth? You can't have it both ways. Either we are going to be a high tech civilization, and we'll just have to deal with the environmental consequence and minimize those consequences in RATIONAL ways, or else we can just all go back to living at an ever decreasing standard of living. Where is the stopping point? If people's energy consumption were cut in half, several of you would still be complaining about it, and demand that everyone use even less. I know because I've already seen it on here.


you people have pushed your standards to such an absurdly irrational point, that a person can't even cut a tree he planted on his own property without one of you complaining about it. Complain about oil, complain about natural gas, complain about coal, complain about nuclear, complain about a hydroelectric dam because it changed the water temperature of the river by like one degree, and even complain about a solar farm in the desert. Then censor or ridicule anyone who points out how insane that is.

Just what the heck do you people really want? Seriously.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting #68 - RTSplayer:
I'm offering a different interpretation of the implications of warming, both socioeconomic, and biological, based on rational observations of obvious and well known facts.

I think this pretty well sums it up, and it sounds to me like no further discussion is useful or possible. Nice try, rookie, schistkicker, et al, but you're just wasting your breath (or pixels).
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2446
Bogus Academic Conferences Lure Scientists

PopSci.com

Seeing the success of legitimate open-access journals such as those published by the Public Library of Science gave some unscrupulous people ideas: why not start up a company and solicit submissions to journals that never publish the articles, or never peer-review the submitted articles, or even one that might peer-review, but charges way more money than what one might pay at another journal?

The scourge of the fake conference has spawned a number of websites dedicated to outing the false, some sites more-legit-looking than others. A couple of thoughtful blogpost by a researcher at University of Minnesota covered the unsavory news that IEEE has been sponsoring dubious conferences for awhile. On the other end of the credibility scale, someone with a lot of time on their hands (and a poor grasp on web formatting) started a number of Blogspot blogs with the same information posted over and over again lambasting IEEE and a couple of researchers in particular. Just google "fake conferences" and fall down the rabbit-hole. Set a timer for 10 minutes lest you disappear for a day in that interlinked pit of despair.

Honest scientists stand to lose the most in this unethical quagmire. When a researcher’s work is published alongside articles that are plagiarized, that report on conclusions gained from unsound methodologies or that contain altered photographic figures, it becomes tainted by association. Unethical scientists gaming the system are earning tenure and promotion at the expense of the honest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


Simple answer: you thought wrong.


No, I didn't think wrong.

You people no this site keep preaching some global catastrophe that's going to wipe out all the ocean life.

I showed modern, natural evidence that proves the organisms are already diverse enough to adapt to it.




Second simple answer: lousy analogy

Yes, over time, organisms can adapt. Take those blind crabs and bring them up to shallow water or introduce light to their environment, and they'll get annihilated by invading species that can see.

I doubt the blind crabs will even know GW or AGW happens.

"Over time" was the point of my argument. You missed it, however. Are you Naga or something? I didn't expect there were that many people on this site with such poor reading reading comprehension. I said that myself in plain text. Back up and read it again.

I write something that is plainly evident, and the reader misunderstands. I write it 2 or 3 different ways, and the reader misunderstands and draws an wrong conclusion about what I wrote anyway. Is that how this site works? Or do people just like to falsely accuse one another?


Third simple answer:

It's a really bad idea to try to argue the PETM or Mesozoic atmospheric conditions can really be a valid basis for comparison vs. modern (last 2000 years) conditions. There's no mid-continent seas, no flood basalt eruptions (initiation of MAR spreading), no Himalayan orogen. It's two worlds. You can't make a 1:1 argument here.

Though I am curious - you say that the proxy data for 1000 years ago is crap, but are perfectly happy to use those proxies to discuss the nature of global climates several orders of magnitude more ancient. I believe that's called trying to have it both ways.


Not at all.

If you trust the proxy data, you can't discount the data from other periods of time, because they are calculated using many of the same techniques.

If you do not trust the data, then it shouldn't matter too much anyway.

Those who trust the proxy data are the ones who are making the claim, therefore burden of proof is on them.

Those who distrust the proxy data have no burden of proof.

I pointed out that the (self-reported) margin of error in the proxy data is larger than the margin of error and change that the alarmists are talking about. Therefore it is largely unfair to claim that the predicted warming is unprecedented.


I made a hypothetical whereby I assumed, for the sake of argument as I laid out, that the proxy data was close enough, ONLY because if you trust that data, and you also trust the Triassic and Cretaceous data, then it's pretty obvious organisms thrived in both conditions and everything between.


Your argument helps my position, because conditions were more extreme in the past, and the organisms survived. Many aquatic organisms have been largely unchanged in basic morphology for ages since even before the dinosaur, and they lived largely unchanged, through disasters and conditions that made even the worst reputable prediction of AGW look like a joke.

AGW is a gradual warm-up and gradual temperature change.

So what if it's faster than the long term average rates of change? It's nowhere near as fast as historical catastrophe. Meteors, super-plumes and volcanoes, viruses, and other such diseases strike and wipe out populations in an instant, or a few days weeks or years. White nose bat fungus has done the deed in just a few years. Adding 2PPM CO2 per year isn't anything like that.


Speaking of catastrophism, what was the area and volume of northern hemisphere sea ice during the coldest decades of the little ice age, from the 14th century through the Year Without a Summer?

How thick was the sea ice, and how did it melt back to 1850's level? New York Harbor froze over thick enough for people to walk on in the YWAS, so that was probably at least 9 inches to a foot or so; it need not be as thick as a safety professional would demand today. Ice doesn't get anywhere near that today, and hasn't been anywhere near that in my lifetime.

How would PIOMASS model the required ice area, thickness and volume for that year? How would you explain why all that ice melted over the next couple decades, WITHOUT post-industrial GHG levels, and in spite of what would be a NEGATIVE albedo feedback? Was the total area 100% greater, and twice as thick as the 1979 average? It would look like it must have been, based on a map of the arctic and North Atlantic, how else would you explain that much ice? It didn't get there by magic, it would have had to freeze all the way down on the western side of the north atlantic, which is a hard thing to do since the ocean currents from the Gulf Stream warm the western side much more than the eastern side.

I'd seriously like to see it. Put that proxy data in PIOMASS and let it calculate the area and volume of the N. Atlantic sea ice. I think it would embarrass you guys, because it would also show how rapidly that ice melted, even without man-made GHG...

Moreover, if the ice could melt from such elevated levels under pre-industrial conditions, then how is it rational to blame all of the melting on the "excess" ghg since the industrial times, if such rapid melting was already happening anyway?

If the previous centuries sea level rise was what it is believed to be, then we can't even blame the first FOOT of the next century's sea level rise on humans (regardless of other evidence,) since that much would have melted anyway. PRESENTLY the sea level rise is averaging about 3.1mm/yr, and if we multiply the linear trend by 87 years, that gives 269.7mm, or 26.97cm, which is 0.87feet!

So you can't blame the first foot on humans, and you can't even blame at least the next several inches on humans, because you have no proof that wouldn't have happened anyway, due to 100% natural feed backs.

If humans push the sea leevl up by an extra few feet, it is not going to be the end of the world for the biosphere or ecosystems. The only thing it will do is hurt humans who built their homes, businesses, or infrastructure on the coast. In many cases that was already the wrong thing to do with or without AGW.

There's going to be 3 or 4 generations of reproductive adults between now and then, think about how much technology and sociological change would happen between now and then anyway, and you realize people will just move elsewhere gradually.

What can happen in 87 years? In the past 100 years steam engines went from 10% efficient to over 40% efficient, which means we get 4 times as much work from the same amount of fuel. Computers went from a pipe dream, to room sized calculators for the ENIAC and the Apollo program, and today we can fit that entire rooms worth of computers in the cache of one processor core on one motherboard and it wouldn't even be a significant blip. Not to mention nano-technologies which will soon be revolutionize more areas of our life, as better catalysts, better structural components, and better medical technologies reduce damage and waste.

Civilisation will adapt. Blue crabs, oysters, clams, mussels, live in the Gulf of Mexico, which is about 5C hotter than Chesapeake bay. They'll be fine too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RE: #71 comment by Schistkicker.

Strong, solid rebuttal - thanks.

Great gish-gallop schistkicking!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Je ne parle pas allemande, mais je suis assez intellegent pour ne pas manquer de respect à grand-pa Grothar!

OK, now practice with google translate like I did with German :)

On another note, it's appalling what Big Oil will do:

Link

Way to NOT mix religion and science!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:



Wer gibt Ratten Esel, solange Sie die Bedeutung verstehen kann.
Ich dachte, es war gegen die Blog Regeln, um Grothar respektlos zu sein.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2446
.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2446
Quoting Skyepony:
Turns out the ExxonMobil pipeline that broke last month, leaking oil into a neighborhood at Mayflower, has a hole in it that is 22 feet long and 2 inches wide.


Probably leaked small amounts for years then ruptured....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting Grothar:
Ich glaube, es ist wunderbar, die Leute in einer anderen Sprache zu schreiben. Aber zumindest den Versuch machen, es richtig zu schreiben. Sie zerstören eine ganz gute Sprache.



Wer gibt Ratten Esel, solange Sie die Bedeutung verstehen kann.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
78. Skyepony (Mod)
Turns out the ExxonMobil pipeline that broke last month, leaking oil into a neighborhood at Mayflower, has a hole in it that is 22 feet long and 2 inches wide.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 226 Comments: 39399
Quoting Grothar:
Ich glaube, es ist wunderbar, die Leute in einer anderen Sprache zu schreiben. Aber zumindest den Versuch machen, es richtig zu schreiben. Sie zerstören eine ganz gute Sprache.


Ich beschuldige Google übersetzen.

It's been a long time since I was last in Germany.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Ich glaube, es ist wunderbar, die Leute in einer anderen Sprache zu schreiben. Aber zumindest den Versuch machen, es richtig zu schreiben. Sie zerstören eine ganz gute Sprache.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wenn die Tür ist kaputt dann durch das Fenster genius gehen ..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting JohnLonergan:


Und wenn man lange genug in einen Abgrund blickst, wird der Abgrund blickst zurck in dich hinein.


Vielleicht ist das mein Stichwort, um diesem Blog eine Pause!
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8884
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.


Und wenn man lange genug in einen Abgrund blickst, wird der Abgrund blickst zurück in dich hinein.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8884
Quoting RTSplayer:


I thought AGW theorists taught that the crabs and other animals couldn't adapt.

That's what the theory says, right, "we're going to accidentally acidify the ocean and kill everything (well lots of things anyway)."


Simple answer: you thought wrong.

Second simple answer: lousy analogy

Yes, over time, organisms can adapt. Take those blind crabs and bring them up to shallow water or introduce light to their environment, and they'll get annihilated by invading species that can see.

Third simple answer:

It's a really bad idea to try to argue the PETM or Mesozoic atmospheric conditions can really be a valid basis for comparison vs. modern (last 2000 years) conditions. There's no mid-continent seas, no flood basalt eruptions (initiation of MAR spreading), no Himalayan orogen. It's two worlds. You can't make a 1:1 argument here.

Though I am curious - you say that the proxy data for 1000 years ago is crap, but are perfectly happy to use those proxies to discuss the nature of global climates several orders of magnitude more ancient. I believe that's called trying to have it both ways.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:
From Wott’s Up With That:

Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners!

By Ben on 2013/04/10

“Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners!” (2013-04-03). Today’s post isn’t taken from Anthony Watts’ blog, but from WordPress.com a week ago. The thirteenth annual “Bloggies”, a click-to-win people’s choice-style contest that Anthony likes to mobilize for have just concluded. You know there’s something deeply wrong with a selection process when Anthony’s nasty, malicious, misleading, personality-obsessed blog is regularly chosen as “Best Science or Technology Weblog”.

“michele w.“, on WordPress’ behalf, posted breathless congratulations to the eleven WordPress-based winners and finalists, four of which are denialist blogs. (Watts Up With That, Australian Climate Madness, Tallbloke’s Talkshop and Climate Audit) This is just the kind of PR fluff that Anthony and company hunt for and naturally they all show up in the comments, except the faux-modest Steve McIntyre, to humbly accept the acclamation.

Curiously my comment, reproduced below, remains “in moderation”. In this case I think Michele simply doesn’t want to have her lack of critical thinking highlighted any further, but it does offer an entertaining echo of Anthony’s own style of handling criticism.

I have to echo Callum’s sentiments. The “science” and “environment” winners listed here are infamous, even malicious, promoters of false information. Their ‘achievement” in the Bloggies says nothing whatsoever about their quality or integrity, just their ability to mobilize uncritical supporters.

Blindly publicizing this rigged competition merely transfers the stench onto WordPress.

I’m all for recognizing achievement, but not when it is this easily gamed. Watts Up With That, Australian Climate Madness, Tallbloke’s Talkshop and Climate Audit are examples of partisan anti-science sites that use these “awards” to simulate the recognition they crave but re unable to earn.

Don’t feed the trolls!

But yeah, WordPress is a great web content system



John Cook of Skeptical Science on the Bloggies:

Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies

The Weblog Awards, aka the Bloggies, is an annual competition honoring blogs in various categories. Finalists are chosen by online nomination and winners are chosen by online voting. This year, Skeptical Science made the finalists of the Science and Technology category. Yesterday, I requested that SkS be withdrawn from the competition, as reported in the Guardian. Why? Because the Bloggies have become inextricably associated with anti-science blogs.

In an inversion of reality, the Science and Technology category is dominated by anti-science blogs that post conspiracy theories about the scientific community, deny the full body of evidence and reject the scientific consensus. The fact that 4 out of 5 science finalists are anti-science demonstrates that the integrity of the Bloggies Award has been compromised. I, like any pro-science blogger, am not comfortable with the notion of competing for an award that has previously been won by anti-science blogs.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668







Link



Gulfstream kinetic energy yet folks?









...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"Without all of those data, you can't tell what the true heat content actually was."

Look for the physical evidence as to if the planet has been warming during the past 150 years. This should be all of the evidence that you will need to realize that it is warmer now than what it was 150 years ago. Stick your thermometer in it if your only scientific curiosity is to place a number value on how much it has warmed. Seriously, do you need absolutely accurate proxy data of the past 1000 years to realize the planet has warmed over the past 150 years?


The planet was already warming before then, although it was slightly offset following Tambora.

The Sea level rise in the past century is only marginally more than it was on average prior to the past century. The first 8 inches to a foot or so of any sea level rise between now and 2100 can't even be blamed on AGW, because it was part of the long-term natural trend anyway.

You want to take science beyond what it is now? Show the science that can negate CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Unless you can do this, you are just dodging the issues concerning AGW.


False dilemma fallacy.

You are avoiding the science!


No.


I'm offering a different interpretation of the implications of warming, both socioeconomic, and biological, based on rational observations of obvious and well known facts.

I never said it wasn't warming.

I never said GHG aren't real.

I never said I didn't care about GW or AGW.

I proved to myself several years back that, if the data was trustworthy then the warming and melting are real. I admit I'm at a disadvantage in the sense that I must trust the word of the NSIDC and PIOMASS, but that's how all access to third party data is. You have to trust that the other organisations aren't lying about their findings. Although some of the data is in question, because the five different governments and organisations data don't even agree with one another to within a margin of error of the change they're trying to measure. Which is why they "correct" the data sets and take the averages of them.

At any rate, if I assume that the researchers aren't motivated by some manner of subterfuge, then I know from comparing my own derivations of the underlying physics to that data, that the planet is in fact warming.

The amount of sea level rise that my figures show is actually slightly higher than the computer models. I think the math is close enough, within the validity of the data they presented anyway, but I don't believe the researchers actually believe their own findings. If they did believe their own findings, there would be quite different policies developed, immediately, about building locations and building codes.

Besides all that, if you cut coal and swapped to nuclear, you could cut a huge, huge portion of the U.S. contribution to CO2 anyway. But you guys don't want that either, because you make a bigger deal out of nuclear than it is.

Japan Tsunami: 20,000 deaths; 0 nuclear related.

Nuclear wasn't the problem, poor contingency planning was the problem at Fukushima on two main issues: The location of backup systems, and the location of the cooling pools. Those two obvious failures of imagination are easily fixed, and the fix in the case of the cooling pool is actually cheaper (and more obvious) than the design they had implemented.



As for the sciences of past climates and past ecosystems, you cannot deny the fact that the largest, and perhaps most diverse, land organisms in the history of this planet thrived under extreme carbon conditions.

You cannot deny the fact that present day crabs, shrimp,etc, all the other creatures I listed, have already shown themselves to be adapted to extremes even beyond the projections of the AGW models.

As for socioeconomic issues, I've been arguing for better building practices, and more rational human behaviors all my life. Build better, build in less risk areas, don't waste stuff, and don't pollute.

One must admit, that had people, businesses, and governments made rational, obvious choices regarding where to build over the past 2 centuries, especially in the past generation, then the severe hurricane damages of the past decade would have been greatly reduced. These were not difficult choices, and the rational choices were far more plain than choices related to AGW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:
From The Raw Story:

Study: Northern hemisphere summers now warmest of last 600 years

Summers in the northern hemisphere are now warmer than at any period in six centuries, according to climate research published on Wednesday in the science journal Nature.



“These and other recent extremes greatly exceed those expected from a stationary climate.”



Link to the Nature Paper. Unfortunately, it's the abstract only, the full paper is behind a paywall.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3668
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Skyepony:
Xulonn & Everyone that needs a much more moderated blog for climate change discussion please give Angela Fritz's WUnderblog a try. She doesn't put up with the things some of you all are cluttering this blog complaining about.
Thanks Skye. I've been to Angela's blog a couple of times, but not that often.

I will give it a serious try now that "Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog" has become "Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Clutter Blog."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


That's really a non-scientific statement.

The statistical parameters, such as standard deviation, mean, and median are different for a population (all years) as compared to the sample (modern records of 120 years).

If you want to use a dice comparison, a 6 is a possibility, and comes from the "population". Just because you haven't seen a 6 rolled in a very long time (your sample) doesn't mean 6 doesn't exist in the "population".

Changes in instruments change the statistics and reliability of the datasets:

Pre-thermometer anecdotes (Gee it was hot/cold today).
Mercury thermometer era
Not to mention overlaps of hygrometer and barometer
radar
digital and satellite eras

Without all of those data, you can't tell what the true heat content actually was. You can't tell the difference between a "dry heat" and a "wet heat," and you can't even tell the meteorological definition of extremes in the pre-instruments eras, such as an anecdote like, "rained on a ridiculously hot day," and so on.

You can only say what is normal for your sample. You can't say what's normal for the population, because you have not and cannot measure the population, at least not without a time machine and 600 years worth of real global data.


"Without all of those data, you can't tell what the true heat content actually was."

Look for the physical evidence as to if the planet has been warming during the past 150 years. This should be all of the evidence that you will need to realize that it is warmer now than what it was 150 years ago. Stick your thermometer in it if your only scientific curiosity is to place a number value on how much it has warmed. Seriously, do you need absolutely accurate proxy data of the past 1000 years to realize the planet has warmed over the past 150 years? You want to take science beyond what it is now? Show the science that can negate CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Unless you can do this, you are just dodging the issues concerning AGW. You are avoiding the science!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


Well, until we invent time travel and send someone back with a thermometer, proxies are what we have.

And they're not nearly as bad as you declare they are by fiat, either. Especially when you can use more than one variety (stable isotopes in lake deposits, pollen analysis documenting ranges of extant plant species, tree ring analysis, ice cores, etc) and get results that are consistent, and can be reverse-modeled, one can feel pretty confident that the results are sound, even if the details are noisy.


Yet the same techniques produce the results which show the planet has naturally produced conditions of much more CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past, even while simultaneously having more O2 in the atmosphere. This suggests that prior to the chicxulub catastrophism events and other events, this planet not only sustained life, but sustained by far the largest terrestrial organisms in it's history, carnivore, herbivore, and scavengers, not to mention the largest salt water fish and salt water reptile species in it's history during that same time.

The difference between a catastrophic change in chemistry and other conditions, as opposed to a gradual change, is that the gradual changes give much more time for both physical and genetic adaptation. Many aquatic organisms can just move. Others will just reactivate ancient genes they've had for ages, and they'll be selected on that basis. Others (fewer probably) may develop new diversity through horizontal gene transfer and such.

The pattern you see in the proxy data, such as it is, suggests that the very ancient past produced unprecedented life for eons in atmospheric and oceanic conditions much more extreme than what AGW will produce.


Now when we think of how organisms adapt, we can take the examples of the (blue) crabs, lobsters, shrimp, shelfish, and fish and look at where they live today. The most common response might be, "the live in bays and estuaries". Yet we know of crabs of other types obviously in the Bering Sea and we know of crabs which are not significantly different morphologically from the Blue Crabs, which live near hydrothermal vents and also in the deep brine in the center of the Gulf of mexico.

Vents:

Here we have crabs, shrimp, fish, lobster, shellfish, tube worms, bacterias and other creatures. Main differnce is some of them are blind now, but not all, but they are also typically white or red.

Chesapeake Bay:
Blue Crab, shrimp, oysters, clams, fish, and all the other creatures.

Gulf of Mexico deep brine environment:
Tube worms, fish, shrimp, crabs, and more.


Now what's wrong here?

I thought AGW theorists taught that the crabs and other animals couldn't adapt.

That's what the theory says, right, "we're going to accidentally acidify the ocean and kill everything (well lots of things anyway)."

Yet they (the animals) are physically very little changed, and yet they live in chemical environments that are as different as heaven and hell. Now the only reason they lost their eyes is they were in the dark, and the eyes didn't matter. If the environment were closer to the surface they might well have their eyes.

It seems to me that the crabs, the shrimp, the fish, the lobsters and the worms, as well as the shellfish and other organisms have the genetic diversity to exist in conditions at both extremes, and everything between, assuming gradual exposure.


Now the evidence shows that the animals have already adapted to more extreme conditions in the past, and it further shows that they are currently adapted to conditions, in two of the three environments, which are already more extreme than the model projections for business as usual.

So in conclusion, the proxy data gathered by science (over the entire geologic record), shows that conditions have been worse in the past, and life thrived then. Conditions are already worse in some modern environments, and some of the same life thrives there. Therefore there is no good reason to think that the organisms don't have the tools to keep living.


I am not anti-science and I am not saying we should continue business as usual. I'm just saying there's no reason to believe man made CO2 is the end of the world or something, like certain extremists think.

I also don't think the solution is to make global or national policy to cripple economies or human civilization.

meh, too long again, but whatever. I removed some for now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NPR also has/had a article about declining revenue for roads. Seems with the increase in vehicle efficiency, less driving and a flat Fed fuel tax the states are experiencing short falls for road repairs.
Every thing has a down side.
Link


http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/04/10/1768017 19/two-centuries-of-energy-in-america-in-four-grap hsLink



Population growth meant that total energy use kept increasing, though.



Graphs:
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
Credit: Lam Thuy Vo / NPR
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
61. Skyepony (Mod)
Xulonn & Everyone that needs a much more moderated blog for climate change discussion please give Angela Fritz's WUnderblog a try. She doesn't put up with the things some of you all are cluttering this blog complaining about.

If some of the posts are greyed out & you don't want them to be please adjust your filter on the upper right of the comments to "show all". If a storm is coming to your area you may want to adjust it to "show best" when you go into Dr Masters' blog..

If a post is something that you think should be removed please use the red ! button.



Oklahoma Grandmother Locks Herself to Keystone XL Heavy Machinery — Halts Construction of Tar Sands Pipeline

Oklahoma grandmother Nancy Zorn, 79, from Warr Acres, has locked herself to a piece of heavy machinery effectively halting construction on TransCanada’s Keystone XL toxic tar sands pipeline. This action comes in the wake of the disastrous tar sands pipeline spill in Mayflower Arkansas, where an estimated 80,000 gallons of tar sands spilled into a residential neighborhood and local waterways.

Using a bike-lock, Zorn has attached her neck directly to a massive earth-mover, known as an excavator, which has brought construction of Keystone XL to a stop. Zorn is the second Oklahoma grandmother this year risking arrest to stop construction of the pipeline, and her protest is the third in a series of ongoing civil disobedience actions led by the Oklahoma-based coalition of organizations, Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 226 Comments: 39399





Link





....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting Naga5000:


I see a problem here. In our small community it may always look like the same "gang" of posters hitting the minus button. I understand on the larger blogs with many unique visitors, but I don't believe we get that same kind of traffic here. Although, I may be wrong.


Unless it is a secret, I would like to know the number of "hits/lurkers" that come to the blog. Then I will know if I should be only kind of embarrassed at my ramblings, or really embarrassed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTLSNK:


Hi again,

Most people don't realize that the community removes a lot of troll comments by using the "?" and the "-" tools.

When you hit the "?" tool, an alarm goes off on the Admin computers, they pull up the comment and if it violates the community standards or rules of the road for Dr. Master's blog they can remove the comment and if its a really foul mouthed troll, the poster himself.

When enough bloggers then hit the minus button the autobot program automaticly removes the comment. We honestly have never been told how many it takes to do that but we do know that Admin can see who is hitting the minus button just like you can see the + handles. That way they stop a gang of the same posters taking out bloggers posts just for vengence.




I see a problem here. In our small community it may always look like the same "gang" of posters hitting the minus button. I understand on the larger blogs with many unique visitors, but I don't believe we get that same kind of traffic here. Although, I may be wrong.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3967
From Wott’s Up With That:

Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners!

By Ben on 2013/04/10

“Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners!” (2013-04-03). Today’s post isn’t taken from Anthony Watts’ blog, but from WordPress.com a week ago. The thirteenth annual “Bloggies”, a click-to-win people’s choice-style contest that Anthony likes to mobilize for have just concluded. You know there’s something deeply wrong with a selection process when Anthony’s nasty, malicious, misleading, personality-obsessed blog is regularly chosen as “Best Science or Technology Weblog”.

“michele w.“, on WordPress’ behalf, posted breathless congratulations to the eleven WordPress-based winners and finalists, four of which are denialist blogs. (Watts Up With That, Australian Climate Madness, Tallbloke’s Talkshop and Climate Audit) This is just the kind of PR fluff that Anthony and company hunt for and naturally they all show up in the comments, except the faux-modest Steve McIntyre, to humbly accept the acclamation.

Curiously my comment, reproduced below, remains “in moderation”. In this case I think Michele simply doesn’t want to have her lack of critical thinking highlighted any further, but it does offer an entertaining echo of Anthony’s own style of handling criticism.

I have to echo Callum’s sentiments. The “science” and “environment” winners listed here are infamous, even malicious, promoters of false information. Their ‘achievement” in the Bloggies says nothing whatsoever about their quality or integrity, just their ability to mobilize uncritical supporters.

Blindly publicizing this rigged competition merely transfers the stench onto WordPress.

I’m all for recognizing achievement, but not when it is this easily gamed. Watts Up With That, Australian Climate Madness, Tallbloke’s Talkshop and Climate Audit are examples of partisan anti-science sites that use these “awards” to simulate the recognition they crave but re unable to earn.

Don’t feed the trolls!

But yeah, WordPress is a great web content system

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Thank you for the acknowledgement and for the (probably frustrating) work you and the other mods are doing.

Could you explain about the "-" ? I know it closes up posts on my screen. Somewhere I heard that if enough people minus a post, it is "removed". Is that true, and what does that mean? That I won't see it when I'm logged in? What about lurkers or newcomers who aren't logged in? Can they see the post? And if all this works, how many minuses does it require? Thanks.


Hi again,

Most people don't realize that the community removes a lot of troll comments by using the "!" and the "-" tools.

When you hit the "!" tool, an alarm goes off on the Admin computers, they pull up the comment and if it violates the community standards or rules of the road for Dr. Master's blog they can remove the comment and if its a really foul mouthed troll, the poster himself.

When enough bloggers then hit the minus button the autobot program automaticly removes the comment. We honestly have never been told how many it takes to do that but we do know that Admin can see who is hitting the minus button just like you can see the handles. That way they stop a gang of the same posters taking out bloggers posts just for vengence.


Member Since: September 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 22150
Quoting schistkicker:


Well, until we invent time travel and send someone back with a thermometer, proxies are what we have.

And they're not nearly as bad as you declare they are by fiat, either. Especially when you can use more than one variety (stable isotopes in lake deposits, pollen analysis documenting ranges of extant plant species, tree ring analysis, ice cores, etc) and get results that are consistent, and can be reverse-modeled, one can feel pretty confident that the results are sound, even if the details are noisy.
I'm afraid your valid description of how science really works will fall on deaf ears.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Xulonn, IRG, and others - Please don't give up on this blog yet. For one thing, I'm not sure where we would find a place for general discussions and to share information (since we can't all read everything everyday). Blogs by Tamino and Neven, just for examples, tend to be specialized, and the Arctic Ice Forum is a great place to spend a whole afternoon on one subject. Great stuff, all of them, but specialized.
Second, I really don't like it when the bad guys win. We discussed this at length back in February. Perhaps if the minus sign has some teeth in it, we can do some of the cleanup ourselves - using a combination of the kind of statement Naga used in #43 (linking to solid information), a policy of not engaging, and short answers that deflect or dismiss or give good information when we do decide to answer. There's also the "!" notify button, and I do not rule out the use of ridicule when the situation warrants. (And oh the situation will warrant!)
Some trolls will go away if we don't feed them. Others won't, and those with personal grudges will keep at it until they are permanently banned. Perhaps we can help them along their way.

I would miss the discussions on this blog (I've learned a lot!), and I would really hate to see the bad guys win.
We cannot win alone. I'm willing to rebut and discredit denialist b.s., but these long and rambling spam-like posts and rants that have dominated the past few days have made the blog's discussion forum a waste of time. I'm not going away, but perhaps if some of us leave temporarily, and maybe even WU mail impassioned pleas to Dr. Rood about our issues with the current degenerated state of this discussion forum, something will be done to improve the place.

WU has a written policy that accepts AGW/CC as a science-based fact, links to places like SkepticalScience, yet the management allows non-science anti-AGW/CC b.s. dominate the discussion.

Perhaps if some of us take a leave of absence, the mods and Drs. Rood and Masters will take notice.

This is not like Dr Master's blog, where participants openly declare that they go there for fun and enjoyment - what I see as "the thrill of the chase" as they compete to out-forecast each other. That blog's discussions are like a big playground much of the time with lots of online frolicking and camaraderie. OTOH, AGW/CC is a very serious, and although we try to inject a bit of humor at times, I don't come here for "fun" - I have other things in my life for that purpose.

If the previously mentioned AGW/CC specialty blog/discussion sites (Neven, Tamino, Arctic Sea Ice) can be managed to facilitate reasoned discussion, why can't WU? The WU/CC blog's discussion component looks very amateurish with respect other science-based blogs, and I'm surprised that Dr. Rood is not embarrassed by it.

I think it's disgusting that the mods threaten serious, science aware posters with banning when they get frustrated with those who disrupt, troll and spam and call them out on it, yet allow those who discredit and disrupt this discussion forum to continue their antics. Anthony Watts and rest of the paid denialist network are probably delighted with the state of this place, and how those who run it and moderate it let his minions mess up the place.

The last time I complained about this and decided to put a few offenders on ignore, the child-like whiners complained loudly about it, but I'm about to put a couple more on ignore.

Unfortunately, too many otherwise intelligent people (and I have been guilty of this in the past), quote and respond to disruptors, trolls and spammers, and you just cannot get away from the garbage that is posted here.

Think about the several regulars who have not posted here lately, and you can see that several have silently faded away - at least for now. Clear up the clutter and garbage, and I will be back and participating regularly, and we will get the others back, and perhaps attract other serious, science minded people as well as those who want to learn and ask questions.

[Edit: I just reviewed the comments in thie blog post's discussion, and in my opinion, less then 50% are even worth reading based on the nature and stated purpose of this place. And well over 50% of the verbiage is hidden by the ignore feature.]
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Where did you get "data" for the last 1000 years?

"Proxy data" has so large of a margin of error that it remains largely useless, moreover it cannot be garaunteed to capture annual or decadal extremes.

If you had a thermometer with as large a margin of error as the proxy data, you'd throw it away, or return it to the manufacturer for a refund.


Well, until we invent time travel and send someone back with a thermometer, proxies are what we have.

And they're not nearly as bad as you declare they are by fiat, either. Especially when you can use more than one variety (stable isotopes in lake deposits, pollen analysis documenting ranges of extant plant species, tree ring analysis, ice cores, etc) and get results that are consistent, and can be reverse-modeled, one can feel pretty confident that the results are sound, even if the details are noisy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Xulonn, IRG, and others - Please don't give up on this blog yet. For one thing, I'm not sure where we would find a place for general discussions and to share information (since we can't all read everything everyday). Blogs by Tamino and Neven, just for examples, tend to be specialized, and the Arctic Ice Forum is a great place to spend a whole afternoon on one subject. Great stuff, all of them, but specialized.

Second, I really don't like it when the bad guys win. We discussed this at length back in February. Perhaps if the minus sign has some teeth in it, we can do some of the cleanup ourselves - using a combination of the kind of statement Naga used in #43 (linking to solid information), a policy of not engaging, and short answers that deflect or dismiss or give good information when we do decide to answer. There's also the "!" notify button, and I do not rule out the use of ridicule when the situation warrants. (And oh the situation will warrant!)

Some trolls will go away if we don't feed them. Others won't, and those with personal grudges will keep at it until they are permanently banned. Perhaps we can help them along their way.

I would miss the discussions on this blog (I've learned a lot!), and I would really hate to see the bad guys win.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2446
Quoting Naga5000:


Never fear, while the records don't go back as far for the Southern Hemisphere, it looks like the data "suggest that the last 30 years was the warmest multi-decadal period in the last 1 kyr, but only by a marginal degree". Looks like the other half of the earth is pretty warm as well. Link


Where did you get "data" for the last 1000 years?

"Proxy data" has so large of a margin of error that it remains largely useless, moreover it cannot be garaunteed to capture annual or decadal extremes.

If you had a thermometer with as large a margin of error as the proxy data, you'd throw it away, or return it to the manufacturer for a refund.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:


88 at my place in Orlando. You know, weather.
More weather: 78 and sunny in Ft Myers.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2446
Quoting iceagecoming:
Schleicher

Freeze Warning
Statement as of 3:31 PM CDT on April 10, 2013

... Freeze warning in effect from 2 am to 9 am CDT Thursday...

The National Weather Service in San Angelo has issued a freeze
warning... which is in effect from 2 am to 9 am CDT Thursday.

* Impacts: freezing temperatures may adversely affect sensitive
vegetation.

* Actions: bring sensitive plants indoors or cover them with
protective material.

* Temperatures: 28 to 32 degrees. River valleys and low lying
areas may experience slightly colder temperatures.

Precautionary/preparedness actions...

A freeze warning means sub-freezing temperatures are imminent or
highly likely. These conditions will kill crops and other
sensitive vegetation.



Johnson




88 at my place in Orlando. You know, weather.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3967
Schleicher

Freeze Warning
Statement as of 3:31 PM CDT on April 10, 2013

... Freeze warning in effect from 2 am to 9 am CDT Thursday...

The National Weather Service in San Angelo has issued a freeze
warning... which is in effect from 2 am to 9 am CDT Thursday.

* Impacts: freezing temperatures may adversely affect sensitive
vegetation.

* Actions: bring sensitive plants indoors or cover them with
protective material.

* Temperatures: 28 to 32 degrees. River valleys and low lying
areas may experience slightly colder temperatures.

Precautionary/preparedness actions...

A freeze warning means sub-freezing temperatures are imminent or
highly likely. These conditions will kill crops and other
sensitive vegetation.



Johnson


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTLSNK:
Look folks, somethings we can do right away, and some
things we can't. We have a lot of rules we have to
follow and some restrictions on removing bloggers. A
simple one is we can't remove someone until they post
a comment. The troll hadn't done that yet, so Admin
was notified and they have removed the troll again.

If the regulars who post here will think about it for
a moment, Dr. Rood and Dr. Master's have been telling
everyone for years about the well financed and deliberate
program to confuse the public about the facts about
Climate Change.

Dr. Rood has the perfect evidence of that right here
on his personal blog. All he has to do when he goes
somewhere to give a talk on Climate Change is copy 3 or
4 pages of his blog and there in black and white is
the evidence. The handle, the date, and the play book
comments.

If he decides he has enough evidence and tells Admin
to remove the paid shills from his blog they will be
out of here so fast it will make their little heads
spin around.

Its his blog, right now everyone is allowed to post
here. Just let them be. We know who they are just like
you all do. :)
Thank you for the acknowledgement and for the (probably frustrating) work you and the other mods are doing.

Could you explain about the "-" ? I know it closes up posts on my screen. Somewhere I heard that if enough people minus a post, it is "removed". Is that true, and what does that mean? That I won't see it when I'm logged in? What about lurkers or newcomers who aren't logged in? Can they see the post? And if all this works, how many minuses does it require? Thanks.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2446
Thanks, Dr. Rood, for another excellent blog post.

However, over the past few days, your blog has become such a gish-gallop of rambling rants, baseless opinions, and denialist b.s. that I too, will take a hiatus from posting.

I respect your opinions and teaching, but the dark-side has the upper hand for now, and we can't call them on it.

I will check in periodically, but until someone gets their act together and figures out how to make this a useful and relevant blog again, I will hang out elsewhere in the AGW/CC corners of the blogosphere.

Neven's and Tamino's blogs, and the Arctic Sea Ice blog are good places without all of the irrelevant garbage that dominates this blog recently.

I would also appreciate any links to to a more focused and troll/spam-free sites to discuss general AGW/CC science and issues.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Seriously, I gave a fair challenge.

Show significant, quantifiable benefits to humanity from those fields in the past several decades.

you can't.

You want to talk about "subjective", but you don't see how subjective those fields are. Nothing could possibly be more subjective than the value, or lack thereof, for totally obscure history and similar things for which you can't show a single shred of quantifiable value. Moreover, if you discover some obscure fact deviates from the conventional telling of history, I'd be willing to be that the vast majority of times, that detail will be of little or no practical value either. For example, if they had discovered Columbus was a Jew, nobody would care anyway. Knowing or not knowing that fact offers no benefits to anyone's livelihood.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Even if those modified, adjusted, smoothed, corrupted stats were right, you forgot about the other half of the Earth.


Never fear, while the records don't go back as far for the Southern Hemisphere, it looks like the data "suggest that the last 30 years was the warmest multi-decadal period in the last 1 kyr, but only by a marginal degree". Looks like the other half of the earth is pretty warm as well. Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3967
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Thousands of years of global temperatures demonstrate the nonexistent phenomenon of so-called "climate change." The fact is that temperatures do go up and down, but in phases, naturally. Before the nonbelievers attack the website, the website is merely the messenger. The graphs originate elsewhere:

Link


"(Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.)"
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3967
Quoting Naga5000:


Look I'm done with you. You don't get that your subjective opinion is only one thing. Yours. I'm so glad that you don't set policy on what is considered science and research. If you don't care about it fine, but don't you dare call others out and claim to know better. You think there should be less historians and social scientists...good for you, once you start restricting and classifying what is considered valid research you become, quite simply, a fascist.


Lol.

Reported.

And If I get banned for this, I will publicly complain to and about TWC and this blog, because I'm sick of mods and administrator allowing under-handed crap like what you just did to me.

I will, because I have a right to defend myself against false accusations, and I have a right to show others the way I was treated by you and the mods.

I should make a youtube video of this place.



You validated my point.

The Carbon tax picks and chooses who gets to spend what money, on what technologies and researchers!

The Carbon Tax is even a tax on life itself, since all animals produce carbon and methane as a PART OF THEIR NATURAL, GOD GIVEN LIFE CYCLE.

More hypocrisy?

Got any more lies and misrepresentations?

Let's hear it!


You could be more correct than me? On what? Not on sociology and social sciences that's for sure. I should have flatly ignored you once you ranted on atheism on Dr. Master's blog, I should have ignored you when you made comments about birthrates in third world countries being the fault of parents, and I definitely should have not engaged you on any other topic after those first two gems came out. That was my mistake, but I can assure you that won't happen again.


On Dr. Master's blog I was responding to the false claims of Neapolitan blaming all the world's evils on Christians.

Neapolitan, Xyrus, and certain others have a habit of publicly, randomly attacking all faith and "religion", and blaming everything on them.

Why Dr. Masters, being a Christian, allows Neapolitan and Xyrus to indirectly call him (by association) as the cause of all the murder and injustice in the world, I do not know. He could probably press charges for defamation if he thought about it.


And the reason I laid into Dr. Rood a few days ago is because he made a blatantly false statement, which the State and Federal public records shows is false, in his blog.

You people do the same thing to everyone, even when they have MUCH MORE VALID claims than what he wrote in the blog.

Anyway, once again, it is YOU who can't get your facts straight, and then publicly falsely accuses me of what did not happen.



If the Birthrates are not the fault of the parents, then whose are they, and why do liberals PROMOTE CONDOMS TO EVERYONE for "Responsible Family Planning"?

Are you saying all those little kids were virgin born, maybe? nobody did the deed, and nobody is responsible maybe?

Again, you violate your own standards, but falsely accuse me. I don't know why I'm surprised by that any more on this site.


All I can say, is I'm appalled at the lack of understanding and tolerance your words represent and by the all out egotism you present it with. Have a good one.


I'm appalled at your lack of understanding of what is worthwhile and what is not.

People like the ones you are defending are actually causing a disproportionate amount of the pollution they claim to be opposed to.

How much fuel does that transport use which carries all those people and equipment to Antarctica?

ONE TRIP, even averaged for the entire expedition, is a hell of a lot more per person than I've ever used in my life combined.

Show us how much "conservation" you are for, and show us how "worth it" and how "clean" and "intellectual" that type of research really is. There hasn't been a single economic benefit from it in 100 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:
From The Raw Story:

Study: Northern hemisphere summers now warmest of last 600 years

By Agence France-Presse



Summers in the northern hemisphere are now warmer than at any period in six centuries, according to climate research published on Wednesday in the science journal Nature.

Harvard University researchers analysing evidence from Arctic tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments and thermometer records said recent warm temperature extremes in high northern latitudes %u201Care unprecedented in the past 600 years%u201D both for magnitude and frequency.

%u201CThe summers of 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011 were warmer than those of all prior years back to 1400,%u201D they reported.

%u201CThe summer of 2010 was the warmest in the previous 600 years in western Russia and probably the warmest in western Greenland and the Canadian Arctic as well,%u201D they said.

%u201CThese and other recent extremes greatly exceed those expected from a stationary climate.%u201D



Even if those modified, adjusted, smoothed, corrupted stats were right, you forgot about the other half of the Earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thousands of years of global temperatures demonstrate the nonexistent phenomenon of so-called "climate change." The fact is that temperatures do go up and down, but in phases, naturally. Before the nonbelievers attack the website, the website is merely the messenger. The graphs originate elsewhere:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 90 - 40

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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
45 °F
Mostly Cloudy

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.