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: 490 - 440

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

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
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cyclonebuster!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
I just have one thing to say:

TUNNELS


I always like a smart women... Sooner or later they will realize "THEY" are our only hope.... Checkmate.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
When cyclonebuster talks about tunnels its sorta cute. When others do it's spam to be flagged.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Hint:

We don't read your links for the same reason the Pope doesn't read the literature passed out on Saturday mornings by the nice ladies from the Jehovah's Witnesses!!
Why would that be ideology or closed mindedness? Anyway you can teach an old dog new things.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
ah some people take away some of the fun. I guess Scott found one easy enough.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


No different when a person discredits NOAA or is there two sets of standards? Nevermind don't answer there is two sets of standards!
Chapter and verse?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Quoting nymore:
I think I have given you folks your reading material for the night will check in later.


Hint:

We don't read your links for the same reason the Pope doesn't read the literature passed out on Saturday mornings by the nice ladies from the Jehovah's Witnesses!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.

Quoting Troy Masters:
Clearly, the median estimate for ECS of 1.98K seems to match some other observationally-based estimates with a lower sensitivity, and the likely (67%) range of 1.5K to 2.9K is on the lower end as well. Unfortunately, due to the large uncertainties in 0-2000m OHC data earlier in the record, this method continues to yield large uncertainties at the extremes, which due to the inverse relationship between sensitivity and the radiative restoration tends to increase the higher end of the range much more than the lower end. Hence the 90% interval of 1.2K to 5.1K is not a particularly strong constraint.


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
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
When someone is unable to provide links to validate the things they say, that's a sure sign that they're simply making things up. You know that, don't you?

Now, you stated 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". Those are very specific allegations against very specific entities, so you should have no problem finding backup--if, that is, it existed.
Quoting nymore:
Go to masters own page and read what he says. Read a few things he has written.

I've seen the blog he posts to and read one of his articles claiming to have disproven the Foster and Rahmstorf paper. I didn't see any glaring errors immediately jump out at me (I'm also not nearly the statistician that Grant Foster is), but I did give it a bit of skepticism for a few reasons. A) already discussed... when you are at outlier among many independent studies, you might be close to the right answer, but there is a higher chance that you are probably not doing it right. B) I believe Troy Masters is a computer scientist or computer hardware technician. I'd have to try and find his blog again to be sure (well, at least what he says he is). Although it doesn't mean he isn't worth listening to at all, climate scientists and people who have studied in that field all their life will continue to get higher weight than those who are enthusiasts. That's just how science works.

Just like our own resident blogger here who is soon going to show us some write-ups on how he's figured quite a bit of this out and climate change projections are overblown, I look forward to reading Masters' actual published paper.

UPDATE: From Troy Masters' blog:
"Yes, I am yet another software engineer with a climate science blog."
From a paper he co-authored with some other scientists:
"Troy Masters, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA"

So yes, Jim, he's a real live person! :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
When someone is unable to provide links to validate the things they say, that's a sure sign that they're simply making things up. You know that, don't you?

Now, you stated 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". Those are very specific allegations against very specific entities, so you should have no problem finding backup--if, that is, it existed. But since you're unable to point us to it, we're left with no other choice than to consider your allegations another pile of nonsense.

Thanks for wasting our time...
Maybe your not the internet guru you would have us believe. I can type four words into google and come up with the answer for the Skeptical Science ones, in fact it is the top two returns. For Masters page that was three words and is the eighth return on page one. Let me know if you can not find them, I don't mind helping those less fortunate

You know I can provide the link. I always have and always will. Accusations again with no backing, when will you learn. This is fun isn't it

Just for fun I will send them to Allahgore
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Go to masters own page and read what he says. Read a few things he has written. Has this crossed your mind. You can check the Jan and Feb articles at Skeptical Science also.
When someone is unable to provide links to validate the things they say, that's a sure sign that they're simply making things up. You know that, don't you?

Now, you stated 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". Those are very specific allegations against very specific entities, so you should have no problem finding backup--if, that is, it existed. But since you're unable to point us to it, we're left with no other choice than to consider your allegations another pile of nonsense.

Thanks for wasting our time...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
'Crackpot' science and hidden genius at physics meeting

"A bit of advice, should this ever come up: be wary of dubious physics theories. They can lead to murder.

In 1952, Bayard Peakes submitted a 33-page manuscript to a publication of the American Physical Society (APS).

Peakes had an unusual idea. He didn't believe electrons existed, and he had what he thought was a good explanation of why.

But the APS rejected his paper, deeming it "pointless".

Evidently, Peakes was fairly upset by this. He bought a gun and travelled to the APS offices in New York in search of the editor who had spurned him.

When he found that the editor was not around, he shot the APS' 18-year-old secretary instead."

Gives a new meaning to "Mad Scientist."

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Quoting nymore:
Well lets say I have a thermometer that reads in round numbers. Now lets say in year one the temp rose 1 degree in year two it rose 2 degrees and on and on. This would be accelerating. Now lets say the temp rose 1 degree every year that would be continuing. Now lets say it went down 1 degree every year that would be cooling. Now lets say it has not moved a full degree in these years. That would be unchanged or did unchanged never cross your mind. Sigh


The trend is not unchanged. Garbage.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3288
I think I have given you folks your reading material for the night will check in later.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Skeptical Science has already responded, there are a number of issues rought up in the comment thread.




Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition
Try reading some of the stuff posted in Jan and Feb on Sensitivity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Kindly provide links to where you believe Troy Masters "made Skeptical Science rethink their drivel", and to where he "showed [where] Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf were wrong". I only ask, because I've scoured the web, and have found nothing of the sort. Are you using an alternate internet, perhaps? Something like a worldwide Conservapedia, where facts are trinkets to be manipulated, toyed with, or discarded? Because that would explain their absence on the real internet most people know and love...
Go to masters own page and read what he says. Read a few things he has written. Has this crossed your mind. You can check the Jan and Feb articles at Skeptical Science also.

Conservapedia would that be the opposite liberaltardapedia. Just wondering
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
You stated in #431 that global warming was neither getting worse ("accelerating") nor holding steady ("continuing"). That leaves but one remaining conclusion: that you believe the globe is cooling.

(If the above analysis is wrong, please explain why you feel that way.)
Well lets say I have a thermometer that reads in round numbers. Now lets say in year one the temp rose 1 degree in year two it rose 2 degrees and on and on. This would be accelerating. Now lets say the temp rose 1 degree every year that would be continuing. Now lets say it went down 1 degree every year that would be cooling. Now lets say it has not moved a full degree in these years. That would be unchanged or did unchanged never cross your mind. Sigh
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Skeptical Science has already responded, there are a number of issues rought up in the comment thread.


Quoting Neapolitan:Gonna have to try harder, nymore. The Nic Lewis paper is but one study of many that have looked at sensitivity, and it will be incorporated into the overall body of work. But it's an outlier, and, as with any other outlier--whether on the high or low side of the mainstream--it will be viewed with some amount of skepticism until/unless it's proven correct. There are a million other papers showing greater climate sensitivity than Lewis'; as such it would be completely foolish at this point to say, "All those others are wrong, and Lewis alone has the answers."

(It's tough to get a take on the Masters paper, though it suggests climate sensitivity is on the low end of the IPCC range--directly opposite the conclusions found in a new paper by James Hansen, et al.)

The Masters and Lewis papers are, of course, all the rage around the increasingly desperate denialosphere today. My guess, however, is that, as almost always happens, the papers will be scientifically refuted and/or found in partial error, forcing the authors to retract or repair/republish--and not a single peep will be heard from the Watts/Goddard wing...

We do appreciate that you've actually spoken of peer-reviewed papers and not ridiculous anti-science blog postings. But that is, unfortunately, not enough...


Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Quoting nymore:
Troy Masters also has one out to, peer reviewed of course. You know Troy the guy who made Skeptical Science rethink their drivel. The guy who showed Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf were wrong.
Kindly provide links to where you believe Troy Masters "made Skeptical Science rethink their drivel", and to where he "showed [where] Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf were wrong". I only ask, because I've scoured the web, and have found nothing of the sort. Are you using an alternate internet, perhaps? Something like a worldwide Conservapedia, where facts are trinkets to be manipulated, toyed with, or discarded? Because that would explain their absence on the real internet most people know and love...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
That sounds exciting. Links please? I want to make sure I read the right stuff.
Check Skeptical Science
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Two new studies have come out showing climate sensitivity on the lower end of the scale. Say it ain't so.

Nic Lewis has one out peer reviewed that shows it on the low end.

Troy Masters also has one out to, peer reviewed of course. You know Troy the guy who made Skeptical Science rethink their drivel. The guy who showed Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf were wrong.

Losing more beachhead today boys and girls, your going to have to start screaming louder.
That sounds exciting. Links please? I want to make sure I read the right stuff.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Quoting nymore:
It is amazing how one can come up with something they claim someone said or inferred when it was never said or inferred. As always when you have no proof just make accusations and hope that sticks. The last desperate act of someone who knows they have nothing else.

Please please show us all where I claimed it was cooling.
Well, if you didn't mean it was cooling, what did you mean (for the third time)? And yes I read the graph, but it is obviously imprudent to try to infer your meaning, so would you please just explain? Thank you.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Quoting nymore:
It is amazing how one can come up with something they claim someone said or inferred when it was never said or inferred. As always when you have no proof just make accusations and hope that sticks. The last desperate act of someone who knows they have nothing else.

Please please show us all where I claimed it was cooling.
You stated in #431 that global warming was neither getting worse ("accelerating") nor holding steady ("continuing"). That leaves but one remaining conclusion: that you believe the globe is cooling.

(If the above analysis is wrong, please explain why you feel that way.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I just have one thing to say:

TUNNELS
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Two new studies have come out showing climate sensitivity on the lower end of the scale. Say it ain't so.

Nic Lewis has one out peer reviewed that shows it on the low end.

Troy Masters also has one out to, peer reviewed of course. You know Troy the guy who made Skeptical Science rethink their drivel. The guy who showed Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf were wrong.

Losing more beachhead today boys and girls, your going to have to start screaming louder.
Gonna have to try harder, nymore. The Nic Lewis paper is but one study of many that have looked at sensitivity, and it will be incorporated into the overall body of work. But it's an outlier, and, as with any other outlier--whether on the high or low side of the mainstream--it will be viewed with some amount of skepticism until/unless it's proven correct. There are a million other papers showing greater climate sensitivity than Lewis'; as such it would be completely foolish at this point to say, "All those others are wrong, and Lewis alone has the answers."

(It's tough to get a take on the Masters paper, though it suggests climate sensitivity is on the low end of the IPCC range--directly opposite the conclusions found in a new paper by James Hansen, et al.)

The Masters and Lewis papers are, of course, all the rage around the increasingly desperate denialosphere today. My guess, however, is that, as almost always happens, the papers will be scientifically refuted and/or found in partial error, forcing the authors to retract or repair/republish--and not a single peep will be heard from the Watts/Goddard wing...

We do appreciate that you've actually spoken of peer-reviewed papers and not ridiculous anti-science blog postings. But that is, unfortunately, not enough...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:


This is a perfect example of why denialists have become the laughable and easily-dismissed creatures they are. They have the ability to look at an image like the one above--with all the blue (cool) lines on the left (older) side of the chart, and all the red (warm) lines on the right (more recent) side of the chart--and somehow magically interpret that as indication of cooling.

How do they do it? I mean that seriously: how do they do it? What manner of ideological color blindness afflicts them? Is their ignorance purely involuntary, or do they cultivate it and nurture it? If I were a psychology major, I might very well study their bizarre behavior, for it's is truly as fascinating as it is vexing.
It is amazing how one can come up with something they claim someone said or inferred when it was never said or inferred. As always when you have no proof just make accusations and hope that sticks. The last desperate act of someone who knows they have nothing else.

Please please show us all where I claimed it was cooling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore (#431):
According to this graph, about the same as the fantasy of global warming continuing or accelerating


This is a perfect example of why denialists have become the laughable and easily-dismissed creatures they are. They have the ability to look at an image like the one above--with all the blue (cool) lines on the left (older) side of the chart, and all the red (warm) lines on the right (more recent) side of the chart--and somehow magically interpret that as indication of cooling.

How do they do it? I mean that seriously: how do they do it? What manner of ideological color blindness afflicts them? Is their ignorance purely involuntary, or do they cultivate it and nurture it? If I were a psychology major, I might very well study their bizarre behavior, for it's is truly as fascinating as it is vexing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Two new studies have come out showing climate sensitivity on the lower end of the scale. Say it ain't so.

Nic Lewis has one out peer reviewed that shows it on the low end.

Troy Masters also has one out to, peer reviewed of course. You know Troy the guy who made Skeptical Science rethink their drivel. The guy who showed Grant (Tamino) Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf were wrong.

Losing more beachhead today boys and girls, your going to have to start screaming louder.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
1998 the warmest year globally really I don't think so. Hold on let me think about it again, yea still not true. To believe some of the folks on here believed what you claimed to be true even though it is not.

I guess there really is one born every minute, at last check there would be six here.
After you get over congratulating yourself on having caught someone in an error, could you then tell me what you mean in #431?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
@ iceagecoming (#447)

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting nymore:
1998 the warmest year globally really I don't think so. Hold on let me think about it again, yea still not true. To believe some of the folks on here believed what you claimed to be true even though it is not.

I guess there really is one born every minute, at last check there would be six here.



2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998 according to NASA.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
From wunderground:


World Highest Temperature for April 18
World Lowest Temperature for April 18
5.6 earthquake Abepura
Weaverville, CA set a record low temperature of 32 for Apr 18
Casper, WY set a record low temperature of 5 for Apr 18
Rome, OR set a record low temperature of 19 for Apr 18
Wolf Creek Pass, CO set a record low temperature of 5 for Apr 18
Ord, NE set a record low temperature of 26 for Apr 18
Atwater, CA set a record low temperature of 35 for Apr 18
Hettinger, ND set a record low temperature of 17 for Apr 18
Erie, PA set a record high temperature of 84 for Apr 18
Rexburg, ID set a record low temperature of 15 for Apr 18


Whole lotta lows, Hmmm?





Freezing cold March sets records across Europe

Posted by Justin Grieser on March 29, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Traffic passes snow drifts near Colne in northern England, March 27, 2013. The weather this spring is in contrast to that of last March which was the third warmest on record. (AP Photo/Jon Super)

Like much of the eastern U.S., Europe has been stubbornly cold this March. In spring’s absence, arctic air and heavy snowfall more typical of January have kept temperatures some 3 to 4ºC below normal across the continent.

The Met Office reports this has been the UK’s coldest March since 1962, with an average temperature 3ºC (5.4 ºF) below normal. Through March 26, the mean national temperature was 2.5ºC, making it the 4th coldest March since records began in 1910.
Provisional average March temperatures recorded in the UK in 2013. (Met Office)

Provisional average March temperatures recorded in the UK in 2013. (Met Office)

Last weekend, a severe snowstorm buried parts of central England and Northern Ireland with up to a foot of snow. The storm brought whiteout conditions to some areas and caused thousands of newborn lambs to perish in the cold. Locations in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk measured 7 to 9 inches of snow on the ground as of March 24, which is exceptionally rare for so late in March.


A sheep and her lambs are pictured on a snow covered field in the hills of Domore, Northern Ireland, on March 26, 2013. A Royal Air Force helicopter was deployed in Northern Ireland in a bid to reach remote farms where estimates suggest up to 10,000 animals have been buried beneath snowdrifts 20 feet (six metres) high. (PETER MUHLY - AFP)


In Germany, the cold has been especially relentless. A new press release from the German weather service (DWD) reports that this month was the second coldest March in 50 years, behind only 1987. It’s the opposite extreme of last year, when March 2012 was the country’s third warmest on record.

Nationally, the average March 2013 temperature in Germany was a remarkable 4.1ºC (7.4ºF) below the 1981-2010 normal (6th coldest since records began in 1881). While far from an all-time record, this year was notable for its persistent cold and heavy snowfall so late in the month.
)





Berlin, for example, has had continual snow cover since March 10 – recently peaking at 7.9 inches. The DWD writes that such abundant snow cover in the final 10 days of March has not been measured in the German capital since 1892. The average March temperature in the German capital was only 31ºF, some 8 degrees F below normal.

In the Potsdam district southwest of Berlin, temperatures held below freezing for 15 consecutive days. And on March 24 the overnight low of -18.9ºC (-2ºF) set a record for all-time coldest temperature ever recorded in the state of Brandenburg during the final third of March.

Cold in central and eastern Europe

The March cold snap has been equally persistent elsewhere on the continent. Two other records worth mentioning:

Record winter snowfall in Moscow: The Russian capital has seen historic snowfall this winter. Wunderground reports nearly 118” had fallen through the end of February alone, which is 180 percent of normal. After more heavy snows this month, winter 2012-13 will likely become Moscow’s snowiest on record.

Subfreezing high temperature records in Austria: Days with high temperatures below freezing are “extremely rare” after March 20 in Austria’s major cities, writes the Austrian Meteorological Service. Earlier this week, however, several locations broke records for the latest date with a subfreezing maximum temperature. In Vienna, the high was only -1.7ºC (28ºF) on March 25. Previously, the latest date of a subfreezing high temperature in the Austrian capital was March 23, 1958 when the maximum was -1.2ºC (29ºF).



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weath er-gang/wp/2013/03/29/cold-march-sets-records-acro ss-europe/

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


He means that since the anomalous outlier year of the record El Nino in 1998 is still the warmest year globally in the NOAA record, there hasn't been any warming in 15 years.
1998 the warmest year globally really I don't think so. Hold on let me think about it again, yea still not true. To believe some of the folks on here believed what you claimed to be true even though it is not.

I guess there really is one born every minute, at last check there would be six here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


scroll back it's provided.


We need chapter and verse. We've been on this wild goose chase with you before. Chapter and verse.

You know: data.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Desertification crisis affecting 168 countries worldwide, study shows


"Severe land degradation is now affecting 168 countries across the world, according to new research released by the UN Desertification Convention (UNCCD).

The figure, based on submissions from countries to the UN, is a marked increase on the last analysis in the mid-1990s, which estimated 110 states were at risk.

In an economic analysis published last week the Convention also warns land degradation is now costing US$490 billion per year and wiping out an area three times the size of Switzerland on an annual basis.

"Land degradation and drought are impeding the development of all nations in the world," UNCCD Executive Secretary Luc Gnacadja told RTCC."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Re #437: Daisyworld, that was good information, but I'm afraid you're wasting your breath (or pixels). This isn't really about NOAA data. This is a project of the "Let's pick at Nea" club, as is readily apparent from the people who like the pick-pick-pick posts.

Fortunately, Nea seems to be well-equipped with gnat repellant.

As with other denialist statements, no evidence of NOAA bashing will ever be provided.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Quoting allahgore:


I was not the one bashing NOAA scroll back CB and then ask the same question to that person. Have a great day.


Well that's in case you do..Have a good day..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393

Viewing: 490 - 440

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.