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: 540 - 490

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

Quoting ScottLincoln:


Hardly a "take-down" - another person trying to replicate the results finding a way that the original analysis may miss something and showing us that the original assumptions may need a closer look.
Sir you can call it anything you want if it makes you feel better but we all know what it is. If your results can not be produced time in and time out then your method is unreliable. It should not be used to make any determination. What I would call a take down.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Yoboi"?

Is this some new slang? I admit I am getting old.....but this one just went WHOOSH over my head.....like most of the hot air on this blog.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


I just don't buy into the over-hype; Just like with the Airspace debate over the oil spill. If there is a fire burning why throw gas on it?


I'm sure there were a lot of people who didn't 'buy into' the hype of the atom bomb, when it was being invented, or travellers' tales of the Black Death.

Cognitive Dissonance, a definition:

"Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:



Why do you think 1998 is the warmest year?


Was it hot, yoboi?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:




The Quote and MisQuotes
What Fatih Birol actually said
:


"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet,"

Michel Rose of Reuters first reported:

"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,"

And later, with a correction notice, changed it to:

"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (towards the end of this century), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,"
Why would anyone choose to align him- or herself with the denial machine? Can you imagine how utterly frustrating and humiliating it must be to never be right? I mean, never? How many scientific and logical defeats can someone bear before admitting the nonviability of their stance? How many smackdowns? How many embarrassments? As I wrote a few days ago, denialists would make great niche subjects for a psychologist; it must take a deeply masochistic streak to tolerate the excessive amount of abuse and scorn and derision they bring upon themselves...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Common Dreams:

Study: $6 Trillion "Carbon Bubble" Will Burn Investors and Planet Earth

World's estimated fossil fuel reserves must remain underground if the global community hopes to avoid 'climate catastrophe'

by Lauren McCauley

We are facing a $6 trillion carbon "bubble" over the next decade unless regulators, governments and investors re-evaluate our carbon-dependent energy business model and, finally, take seriously the great climate threat, says a new report published Friday.

According to the report—"Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets (pdf)— researched and presented by the nonprofit Carbon Tracker and the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, at least two-thirds of the world's estimated coal, oil and gas reserves have to remain underground if the international community hopes to keep global warming beneath the 2C degree goal and avoid the threshold for "dangerous" climate change.

The report warns, however, that the governing financial system—in its gross over-valuation of fossil fuel reserves—continues to turn its back on both the enormous risk to the planet and the financial markets that count these underground reserves as "assets."

In an op-ed published alongside the new research on Friday, 350.org's Bill McKibben and Carbon Tracker chairman Jeremy Leggett explain:

Six trillion dollars is what oil, gas, and coal companies will invest over the next ten years on turning fossil fuel deposits into reserves, assuming last year’s level of investment stays the same. Reserves are by definition bodies of oil, gas or coal that can be drilled or mined economically. Regulators allow companies, currently, to book them as assets, and on the assumption that they are at zero risk of being stranded - left below ground, "value" unrealized - over the full life of their exploitation.

The six trillion dollar bet is that [...] fossil-fuel companies will be allowed to keep pumping up the carbon bubble by investing more cash to turn resources into reserves, and continue booking them at full value, assuming zero risk of devaluation. It's a bet that effectively says to government: “nah, we don’t believe a word you say. We think you’ll do nothing about climate change for decades."


"They only believe environmental regulation when they see it," said Carbon Tracker's James Leaton. "Analysts say you should ride the train until just before it goes off the cliff. Each thinks they are smart enough to get off in time, but not everyone can get out of the door at the same time. That is why you get bubbles and crashes."

Read More>>
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The entire premise is wrong because neither Joe Romm nor Fatih Birol claimed we would have 6C warming by 2050. Because this claim - the entire basis of Dr. Happer's math - is inaccurate, there is not really much reason to dissect this further. Perhaps you should try being skeptical?




The Quote and MisQuotes
What Fatih Birol actually said
:


"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet,"

Michel Rose of Reuters first reported:

"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,"

And later, with a correction notice, changed it to:

"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (towards the end of this century), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,"
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3173
Quoting CEastwood:
Nobody willing to challenge Dr. Happer's conclusion? I suppose it's embarrassing for those supporters of Joe Romm. Where is Neapolitan to claim he has been "thoroughly debunked"? Where is Dr. Rood to present balance? Perhaps many have posted the same ridiculous forecast on this blog:

Link

The entire premise is wrong because neither Joe Romm nor Fatih Birol claimed we would have 6C warming by 2050. Because this claim - the entire basis of Dr. Happer's math - is inaccurate, there is not really much reason to dissect this further. Perhaps you should try being skeptical?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Skyepony:
More than 150 people packed the Town of Reading Court in New York on April 17 to witness what they believe is a shocking miscarriage of justice.

Three members of a group dubbed the %u201CSeneca Lake 12%u201D%u2014massage therapist Melissa Chipman of Schuyler County, farm owner Michael Dineen of Seneca County and Sandra Steingraber, PhD, author, biologist and distinguished scholar at Ithaca College%u2014were sentenced to jail terms for their resistance to the heavy industrialization of the peaceful rural region they call home.

[snip]
Steingraber and the rest are proof that, despite what we see in Washington, patriotism is far from dead.

All 12 deserve medals...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:
Another wheel falling off the AGW wagon. Warmist climate scientists predicted increased water vapor in conjunction with CO2 increase. In fact, increased H20 is necessary in their dire climate predictions. Too bad it isn't happening either:

Link

Doesn't sound that new to me, there have been issues brought up before with some datasets showing a reduction in atmospheric humidity:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD 014192/abstract

It sounds like papers about the radiosonde record have been misrepresented by "blog scientists" before as well:
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/03/global-warmi ng-is-relative-humidity.html

Other data in the scientific literature has suggested increasing humidity in the troposphere:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825212.40 0-atmospheric-humidity-increases-global-warming.ht ml
http://www.skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-w arming.htm

It almost seems like you weren't very skeptical of something you found on the internet. It almost seems like you didn't even look to see if it had truth to it at all, considering that the study you link to is actually a bit of an outlier.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Here are the links for the info. Troy Masters

Scroll down page for the Foster and Rahmstorf take down.

I'm not really sure that you read it very well. It was not a "take-down," nor did it necessarily invalidate their work. What it indicated is that in some situations, a non-linear warming contribution from human activities could cause issues with the regression technique in Foster & Rahmstorf. In particular, it would cause their regression technique to potentially estimate the wrong contributions and incorrect lags from solar activity and volcanic activity. Of course if the contribution from human activities was near linear or linear, none of this matters.

Hardly a "take-down" - another person trying to replicate the results finding a way that the original analysis may miss something and showing us that the original assumptions may need a closer look.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
526. Skyepony (Mod)
More than 150 people packed the Town of Reading Court in New York on April 17 to witness what they believe is a shocking miscarriage of justice.

Three members of a group dubbed the “Seneca Lake 12”—massage therapist Melissa Chipman of Schuyler County, farm owner Michael Dineen of Seneca County and Sandra Steingraber, PhD, author, biologist and distinguished scholar at Ithaca College—were sentenced to jail terms for their resistance to the heavy industrialization of the peaceful rural region they call home.



Sandra Steingraber’s prepared statement:

Your Honor, I am not a lawyer. I am a biologist and a human being. I am also a mother of a 14-year-old and an 11-year-old. I bring all these identities to your courtroom tonight.

I am guilty of an act of trespass. On March 18, I willfully stood on private property owned by the Inergy company and blocked access to a compressor station site that is being constructed in order to prepare explosive hydrocarbon gases, propane and butane, for storage in abandoned salt caverns that are located beside and beneath Seneca Lake.

In my field of environmental health, the word trespass has meaning. Toxic trespass refers to involuntary human exposure to a chemical or other pollutant. It is a contamination without consent. It is my belief, as a biologist, that Inergy is guilty of toxic trespass. Inergy has been out of compliance with EPA regulations every quarter for the past three years. In spite of this, Inergy applied for, and has received, from the state of New York a permit to discharge, every day, an additional 44,000 pounds of chloride into Seneca Lake.That’s 22 tons a day. That’s 8000 tons a year. Seneca Lake is a source of drinking water for 100,000 people. Those industrial discharges trespass into the bodies of those who drink it.

Additionally, Inergy’s planned 60-foot flare stack will release hazardous air pollutants, including ozone precursors, as will the fleets of diesel trucks hauling propane. This kind of air pollution is linked to heart attack and stroke risk, preterm birth, and asthma in children. Thus does Inergy trespass into our air and lungs. I see this as a real danger to my 11-year-old son, who has a history of asthma. We live 15 miles to the east—directly downwind—from this facility.

Inergy’s plans to industrialize the lakeshore will bring 24/7 light and noise pollution into a tranquil community. These forms of trespass also have health consequences, including increased risk for breast cancer and elevated blood pressure.

And because Inergy is building out infrastructure for the storage and transportation of greenhouse gases obtained by fracturing shale, Inergy trespasses into our climate and contributes to its ongoing destablization at a time when the best science show us that we need to be rapidly moving away from fossil fuels of all kinds.

Lastly, the risk of catastrophic accidents from the storage of liquefied petroleum gases in salt caverns is real. It has happened in at least 10 previous occasions. The 14-acre sinkhole in Belle Rose, Louisiana, which is now making headlines, was caused by a collapsed salt cavern. It sent crude oil gushing up into surface water and natural gas into groundwater.

As a biologist, I have submitted expert comments and petitions about Inergy’s application for permits to both the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. However, I am hampered in my efforts to judge the structural soundness of the salt caverns because the company that owns them insists that the scientific research that documents the history of these caverns—at least one of which sits on a fault line—is a trade secret.

Your honor, how can geological history become proprietary information? Without access to data, how can any member of the public evaluate the risks we are being compelled to endure by the repurposing of salt caverns into giant underground cigarette lighters?

In closing, my actions were taken to protest the trespass of Inergy into our air, water, bodies, safety, and security. My small, peaceful act of trespass was intended to prevent a much larger, and possibly violent one.

The people of Bellrose, Lousiana, are now facing relocation after the catastrophic collapse of the salt cavern there. Family homes are being abandoned. And the signs on the front lawns of the empty houses read, “No trespassing.”

To bring attention to such hazards for the Finger Lakes—and for the act of protecting water, which is life itself—I trespassed. It was an act of civil disobedience. For that, and because I have deep respect for the rule of law, which Inergy company does not, I am willing to go to jail.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:
Another wheel falling off the AGW wagon. Warmist climate scientists predicted increased water vapor in conjunction with CO2 increase. In fact, increased H20 is necessary in their dire climate predictions. Too bad it isn't happening either:

Link
Say, look, everyone! NeapolitanFan is back with yet another link to yet another non-climatologist with all the answers (this time a one-time physicist who apparently now manages a bar in Italy, which certainly qualifies him to speak knowledgeably about climate science) publishing his breathtaking findings in a denialist blog! How original! How unexpected!

Do you think it's possible that sometime in the future you just might find it within yourself to link to an article--possibly by, you know, an actual climatologist--that has gone through rigorous peer-review and is thus worthy of our time? Because I have to tell you, dozens of links to nonsensical blog posts that, frankly, wouldn't even make it into the first reader's slush pile at a real scientific journal are, in a word, boring.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Carbon "trading" is dead in Europe:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Another wheel falling off the AGW wagon. Warmist climate scientists predicted increased water vapor in conjunction with CO2 increase. In fact, increased H20 is necessary in their dire climate predictions. Too bad it isn't happening either:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Atmospheric CO2 for March 2013


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Here is one that was not found

From what I can tell, in this case, the multiple regression approach used by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) [and Lean and Rind (2008), although I haven't investigated the specifics of that paper] can produce misleading results, even failing to recognize a pause in the underlying signal. In those cases, the reconstruction can be a worse representation of the true signal than the original, unadjusted results, and should not be used to test projections.


Source Troy Masters Scratchpad

See if you can find more, oh they are there

">
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
It is Possible that someone has no research skills what so ever. It seems SL could find it, I could easily find references to Foster (Tamino) and Rahmstorf. Perhaps this person has dyslexia or is looking the the word Tamino or it may be they are simply in denial. Whatever the reason I will give them another chance to go read through the articles to see if they can find something they have clearly missed.

FWIW: This person also seems to have missed the words Foster and Rahmstorf in the Skeptical Science piece. Perhaps, Possibly, Maybe this Could Possibly do no good to have them look for the references.

This is fun isn't it
You made the accusation, so you provide the evidence. It's simple as that. (See #498) That you won't do so tells me that you can't.

And with that, I'm afraid I've wasted enough of the forum's time, as you've wasted enough of mine, so I'll once again leave you to your own thoughts...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is Possible that some have no research skills what so ever. It seems SL could find it, I could easily find references to Foster (Tamino) and Rahmstorf. Perhaps some have dyslexia or are looking the the word Tamino or it may be they are simply in denial. Whatever the reason I will give them another chance to go read through the articles to see if they can find something they have clearly missed.

FWIW: Some also seem to have missed the words Foster and Rahmstorf in the Skeptical Science piece. Perhaps, Possibly, Maybe this Could Possibly do no good to have them look for the references.

This is fun playing the word game isn't it
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Here are the links for the info. Troy Masters

Scroll down page for the Foster take down.

Evidently it was good enough for Skeptical Science to post this above two articles dealing with the Foster report.

Update 21/02/2013: Troy Masters is doing some interesting analysis on the methods employed here and by Foster and Rahmstorf. On the basis of his results and my latest analysis I now think that the uncertainties presented here are significantly underestimated, and that the attribution of short term temperature trends is far from settled. There remains a lot of interesting work to be done on this subject.

Here are the links. Skeptical Science

and Skeptical Science

Maybe now someone will settle down and stop throwing tantrums like a five year old.

FWIW: Speaking of making accusations with no evidence, guess who posted this drivel.

Anything is possible, though some experts are saying today that the timing, placement, and type of device used suggest the Boston blast could be the latest in a growing list of domestic right-wing terrorist attacks


I wonder when the retraction and Mea Culpa will come. Now I already know this person will lay the blame at others feet.
So, the author of a blog post at Skeptical Science notes that, based on recent work done by Troy Masters, he believes the uncertainties he'd written of in that post were underestimated--and that's equivalent in your mind to "making Skeptical Science rethink their drivel"?

Seriously?

Now, I indeed "scrolled down the page" at the Masters page to which you linked. The only mention of Tamino I found is in Masters' blogroll on the right. You know: blogs he finds of great value. Since that's not anything remotely close to evidence of Masters being "...the guy who showed Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf [they] were wrong", perhaps you can try again, with better luck next time?

(As to your final bit of off-topic "gotcha!!!" nonsense, you doubtless noted my use of terms such as "some" and "suggest" and "could" and "possible". I've linked to definitions to help you understand them. Hope that helps...)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
you misunderstand.... I am not harping on his tunnels....I like cyclonebuster, and I am supportive of his theories.... I think he deserves a chance.... I wish there was some way to get his ideas funded....surely Bill Gates has some money to spare....or even Al Gore....how much money did he make selling his cable channel to terrorists?



I like smart women such as you..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Here are the links for the info. Troy Masters

Scroll down page for the Foster and Rahmstorf take down.

Evidently it was good enough for Skeptical Science to post this above two articles

Update 21/02/2013: Troy Masters is doing some interesting analysis on the methods employed here and by Foster and Rahmstorf. On the basis of his results and my latest analysis I now think that the uncertainties presented here are significantly underestimated, and that the attribution of short term temperature trends is far from settled. There remains a lot of interesting work to be done on this subject.

Here are the links. Skeptical Science

and Skeptical Science

Maybe now someone will settle down and stop throwing tantrums like a five year old.

FWIW: Speaking of making accusations with no evidence, guess who posted this drivel.

Anything is possible, though some experts are saying today that the timing, placement, and type of device used suggest the Boston blast could be the latest in a growing list of domestic right-wing terrorist attacks


I wonder when the retraction and Mea Culpa will come. Now I already know it will not come and this person will lay the blame at others feet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
what would be a good image to represent a denialist?
I've got several in mind, but posting any one of them would earn me a permaban... ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Every denialist fighter needs one of these to vent their frustration so we can be civil here at Dr. Rood's blog...no matter how many times you knock 'em down with science and facts, they keep popping back up with the same b.s.

what would be a good image to represent a denialist?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
you misunderstand.... I am not harping on his tunnels....I like cyclonebuster, and I am supportive of his theories.... I think he deserves a chance.... I wish there was some way to get his ideas funded....surely Bill Gates has some money to spare....or even Al Gore....how much money did he make selling his cable channel to terrorists?


Sorry you lost me on terrorists. Al-Jazeera is hardly a terrorist organization, at least no more so than standard media outlets.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3281
you misunderstand.... I am not harping on his tunnels....I like cyclonebuster, and I am supportive of his theories.... I think he deserves a chance.... I wish there was some way to get his ideas funded....surely Bill Gates has some money to spare....or even Al Gore....how much money did he make selling his cable channel to terrorists?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This global warming is killing us here in Colorado. We've been 10-20 degrees below normal and we're expecting 4 inches of snow on Monday. I'm ready for spring.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:




why not tunnels?

I think he gives a valid solution.


Welcome back, but quit harping on his tunnels. We all ready give him a hard time as it is and for the exact same reasons.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3281




why not tunnels?

I think he gives a valid solution.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
MIT making great progress on solar cells. Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3281
Quoting JohnLonergan:


Hotwhopper is already on the case:

Knock me down with a Happer! Anthony Watts Builds a Strawman

"Anthony Goes to a Non-Expert
Maths has never been Anthony's strong point, neither is climate science. Instead of going to a climate expert, Anthony goes to a climate science denier and leader of "clueless geriatrics" William Happer, to ask him to work out some sums.

Instead of thinking about different emissions scenarios, Happer waves his magic natural logarithms and pronounces that it would take 12,800 years for the temperature to hit the plus 6 degree mark. (Yes, really! That's what he says. He fudges the climate sensitivity to the lowest he thinks he can get away with (1 degree), assumes a constant increase in CO2 of 2ppm/year, and even then messes up the calculation so badly that he decides that to get to six degrees of warming, CO2 would need to be 25,600 ppm. I kid you not.)"

And there's a lot more including links to other sites demonstating Watts" clueless mendacity.


Since 7-10,000 ppm is the threshold for suffocation, maybe we don't have anything to worry about :)
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
Quoting NRAamy:
PATENT PENDING!

Not only can the tunnels weaken a hurricane and restore summertime Northern Arctic Ice extent but they can also make many many Mega Watts to sell to the public to pay for the project and make a nice profit from them. It just depends on how much cooling you want from them while in cooling phase. A great advantage is the ability to REGULATE SST's over anytime period with them. Can also be used with OTEC technology.Importation of Fossil Fuels are are no longer needed and they can restore our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution.The benefits from them are in YOUR favor


I have a bridge you may be interested in. Contact me for details. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3281
Quoting Neapolitan:
Happer? Again? I realize that denialists don't have much on which to base their POVs, but it surely would be refreshing if they could provide better witnesses for their side than superannuated, non-practicing ex-scientists like Happer, kindly, doddering older gentlemen who have been completely out of the research loop for decades and who haven't published in many, many years (note: WSJ op-eds don't count as "publishing" where science is concerned). Happer has long been a believer in the silly "plants need CO2 so clearly the more the merrier" myth, and his longtime involvement in conservative, pro-business, and mysteriously-funded groups such as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation further detract from any remaining shred of scientific credibility he may have once earned as a practicing scientist.

So, no, I don't think I'll bother debunking Happer's flurry of magical math. But I will say this: if Happer is truly convinced he has stumbled upon something that has eluded thousands of actual climate scientists, he--and the world--would be far better served if he'd draw up an article and submit it for rigorous peer-review. Simply tossing out a bunch of formulae in a guest blog post on a denialist website may impress and dazzle that blog's simple-minded readers, but the science world at large will remain completely unswayed. With that in mind, please get back to us after he publishes his findings.

Anything else?


Hotwhopper is already on the case:

Knock me down with a Happer! Anthony Watts Builds a Strawman

"Anthony Goes to a Non-Expert
Maths has never been Anthony's strong point, neither is climate science. Instead of going to a climate expert, Anthony goes to a climate science denier and leader of "clueless geriatrics" William Happer, to ask him to work out some sums.

Instead of thinking about different emissions scenarios, Happer waves his magic natural logarithms and pronounces that it would take 12,800 years for the temperature to hit the plus 6 degree mark. (Yes, really! That's what he says. He fudges the climate sensitivity to the lowest he thinks he can get away with (1 degree), assumes a constant increase in CO2 of 2ppm/year, and even then messes up the calculation so badly that he decides that to get to six degrees of warming, CO2 would need to be 25,600 ppm. I kid you not.)"

And there's a lot more including links to other sites demonstating Watts" clueless mendacity.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3173
Quoting CEastwood:
Nobody willing to challenge Dr. Happer's conclusion? I suppose it's embarrassing for those supporters of Joe Romm. Where is Neapolitan to claim he has been "thoroughly debunked"? Where is Dr. Rood to present balance? Perhaps many have posted the same ridiculous forecast on this blog:

Link


What is it? Before you were denying warming even existed, and now you're claiming the warming is happening, but its okay, or its not happening as quickly as we think. Bad troll. Be consistent at least.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3281
PATENT PENDING!

Not only can the tunnels weaken a hurricane and restore summertime Northern Arctic Ice extent but they can also make many many Mega Watts to sell to the public to pay for the project and make a nice profit from them. It just depends on how much cooling you want from them while in cooling phase. A great advantage is the ability to REGULATE SST's over anytime period with them. Can also be used with OTEC technology.Importation of Fossil Fuels are are no longer needed and they can restore our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution.The benefits from them are in YOUR favor
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:
http://troyca.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/sensitivit y-cmip5-comparison-paper-now-in-press-at-climate-d ynamics/

Look at the abstract. Right away I noticed the confidence ranges. His ranges are quite large, such that the higher consensus climate sensitivity values are mostly within the range. It might turn out that his result is not statistically different from the consensus range due to his large uncertainty range.



The paper is behind a $40 paywall.
"Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-0 13-1770-4



I'm sorry, he is using the 90% confidence level?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3281
Quoting CEastwood:
Taken as gospel by those Romm worshipers -- a 6 degree increase in global temperatures by 2050. Too bad it can't happen. Actually, in AGW physics anything can happen; even warmth falling from the surface of the ocean to the depths. That heat passes the ARGO buoys undetected, but eventually finds itself far below the surface. Only in AGW Physics.

Link
Happer? Again? I realize that denialists don't have much on which to base their POVs, but it surely would be refreshing if they could provide better witnesses for their side than superannuated, non-practicing ex-scientists like Happer, kindly, doddering older gentlemen who have been completely out of the research loop for decades and who haven't published in many, many years (note: WSJ op-eds don't count as "publishing" where science is concerned). Happer has long been a believer in the silly "plants need CO2 so clearly the more the merrier" myth, and his longtime involvement in conservative, pro-business, and mysteriously-funded groups such as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation further detract from any remaining shred of scientific credibility he may have once earned as a practicing scientist.

So, no, I don't think I'll bother debunking Happer's flurry of magical math. But I will say this: if Happer is truly convinced he has stumbled upon something that has eluded thousands of actual climate scientists, he--and the world--would be far better served if he'd draw up an article and submit it for rigorous peer-review. Simply tossing out a bunch of formulae in a guest blog post on a denialist website may impress and dazzle that blog's simple-minded readers, but the science world at large will remain completely unswayed. With that in mind, please get back to us after he publishes his findings.

Anything else?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nymore, you seem to have once again spiraled down into spouting disturbingly inane "gotcha!" nonsense, so I am going to--also once again--leave you to yourself for awhile. But before I go, I just want to explain something to you. Now, this piece of advice is good for not just this or other internet forums, but it may very well serve you in other areas of your life as you grow and mature, so pay close attention:

It's entirely up to the person making accusations against someone or something to provide direct evidence of that for which they're accusing. If you believe your neighbor has stolen your lawnmower, for instance, the burden of proof is on you to show that he indeed did steal your stuff. You don't call him up, shout at him that he's stolen your lawnmower, then insist he provide evidence that he took it.

Do you see where I'm going here?

So, when you come into this forum and insist that Troy Masters "made Skeptical Science rethink their drivel", and that he was "the guy who showed Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf [they] were wrong", it is up to you--not me nor anyone else--to provide evidence of where you think that happened. It is not nearly enough for you to claim such things, then say, "If you don't believe me, do the research yourself."

I'm afraid that's not how it works, friend.

So please keep that in mind. As you move into adulthood, you're going to find yourself many times faced with wanting to accuse someone of something, and torn between either providing evidence of what you believe they did wrong, or simply not making the accusation at all. And please take it from me when I say: the latter choice is nearly always the right one.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:
I am confused does NWS stand for the National Weather Service or the National Warming Service?

Edit. I guess you can have a double sided vest you can wear!


You do realize that you just bashed NOAA, right? You do know that the National Weather Service is a part of NOAA, yes?

Never mind vests. A double-standard seems to abound with that comment.


Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
I am adding two more handles to my ignore list. They can be found between comments 485 and 491. The comments sections are so much easier to read again.


Agreed. I must use that WU filter tool more often...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am adding two more handles to my ignore list. They can be found between comments 485 and 491. The comments sections are so much easier to read again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


well we are up to 8; you can't really make this up!
I see even the NWS weather guru. LOL

No wonder the NWS is having a hard time making ends meet

I think they should start handing out pocket watches, so they can watch time tick away and will know what time it is when it finally goes under. (old tradition)

Maybe they could get some from the old Nasa employees
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 540 - 490

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.