We Are What We Eat: What Can I Do? (5)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:38 AM GMT on April 30, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

We Are What We Eat: What Can I Do? (5)

Revised: May 9, 2013

This is the continuation of a series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” Links to the previous entries are listed at the end.

Last week I made a list of categories to classify the types of actions that we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The second item on that list is food. But first, I want to start with some more sets of categories.

When we think of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas come to forefront. We often think of coal as dirty and natural gas as clean, in terms of air quality, climate change and general environmental damage. All of these forms of fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide when they burn, and that carbon dioxide is for practical human time in either the atmosphere or ocean permanently. Therefore we can’t simply replace coal and oil with natural gas and declare that we will avoid global warming.

If we examine how we use energy, then those uses can be divided into three categories: power generation, transportation and direct use for heat. For the past few decades, coal has dominated power generation and petroleum has dominated transportation. All three contribute to direct use for heat. Recently in the U.S., natural gas has been replacing coal for power generation, but worldwide, coal is still the dominant fuel (natural gas and coal, TON, NPR). Oil dominates transportation.

Taking another cut through our energy use, we can categorize use as residential, commercial, industrial and for transportation. Industrial uses create products from raw materials: manufacturing, cement making, mining and agriculture. Commercial uses include shops, government buildings and where governments spend money. Residential and commercial uses include a large part of electricity, heating and cooling of buildings, and heating of water. An interesting point: next to the burning of fossil fuels, cement making is the largest nonagricultural source of carbon dioxide emissions. It’s on the order of 5 percent.

If we return to the question of “What Can I Do?,” then the items discussed in the previous entries on efficiency focus primarily on the better management of buildings (residential and commercial) as well as on +choices in transportation. In fact, an alternative way to categorize use is for buildings, transportation and industry. If one were to think about government regulation, then emissions from coal-fired power plants are relatively easy to target because there are not that many power plants and they don’t move around. Transportation is harder to regulate because there are, globally, billions of cars and trucks and they do move around. The different categories I have described demonstrate both the easy opportunity for regulation, power generation, and the challenges of climate policy – that there is no single thing to fix the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now to food – If we were to make a special food and agriculture category, then agriculture is responsible for about the same amount of emissions as, say, transportation or heating. Now, however, we have to become more holistic about what we mean by emissions. For agriculture, we have carbon dioxide emissions, which come mostly from deforestation. Cutting and burning forests to make new rangeland for cattle make up about 10 percent of the total annual carbon dioxide emissions. There is some emission from the use of fossil fuels for tractors and irrigation, and about half of the agricultural carbon dioxide fossil fuel emissions come from the manufacture of fertilizer. There are also other land use and soil management decisions made in agriculture that affect carbon dioxide emissions.

Beyond carbon dioxide, agriculture is responsible for about a third of methane emissions and close to two-thirds of the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. These are greenhouse gases that are more potent than carbon dioxide; they are in much lower concentrations in the atmosphere.

So, what we eat can make a difference. When I was in college in the 1970s, I was introduced to Frances Moore Lappe’s book, Diet for a Small Planet. What I remember from that book was that if you took all of the calories needed to grow a pound of beef and instead feed those grains to people, you could feed many more people than you could with a pound of beef. It was my first introduction to sustainability. It takes much land and energy to make the well-marbled porterhouses that my father fed me in one-pound servings. No matter how you count, livestock production, in particular, beef production, releases a lot of greenhouse gases.

There are many marketing appeals in food and food supply. These appeals are to make personal decisions that affect the world, and individual choices the public makes about food and food supply do affect the world. We have appeals to buy grass-fed beef, organic meat and produce, locally produced and sustainable agriculture. We are faced with issues of packaging, preprocessing, natural, raw and prepared. There are no easy algorithms. In February, an apple from Chile might take less energy in transportation than an apple from Virginia takes in cold storage. We demand fresh fruit, vegetables and meat all winter. We demand exotic spices, fine coffee, tea and chocolate. The global demand for meat and nonlocal food increases as the world’s wealth increases.

So what rules of food selection matter? My personal evaluation is that reducing meat consumption is at the top of the list, and at the top of the meat list is beef. Pasture-raised might be better than feedlot, but life cycle studies show that beef is a relatively inefficient use of energy. Chicken is far more energy-efficient. Should we choose sustainable, local or organic meat and produce? From an emissions point of view, I hear sustainable advocated as best if there are actual standards and certification of sustainability--then local, then organic. I have made the controversial claim that since our current practice of organic, local and sustainable agriculture demands high payment for produce and meat, and since most of our generation of money requires high fossil fuel energy use, there is a hidden cost to the climate that comes from high-value crops.

It’s not easy, but what we eat does make a difference to the environment. We usually think of this difference in terms of pesticides, herbicides and erosion, but there is also a climate impact. And as is often the case, the connection is indirect, far in the future and difficult to know how to value.

r

Note: The source of much of the material in this entry is based on Livestock’s Long Shadow a 2006 publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. There has been much criticism of this report, especially in its calculation of the emissions of the transportation sector. The original authors did modify their specific statements about transportation. As noted in the next blog in this series, there is substantial controversy about the impact of agriculture. My evaluation is that the agriculture numbers in this report are as robust as any I know. My opinion would be that the agriculture emissions in this report are more likely an underestimate than an overestimate. As for comparisons to other sources of emissions, when fossil fuel emissions are broken down as described in this blog, the different sectors, residential, commercial, transportation and industrial, are all large and no single one is dominant. Therefore, the conclusion that agriculture is comparable to these sectors seems reasonable.


Previous Entries in 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


Moderation of comments: I have been getting more and more complaints about what is going on in the comments. WU and I will be addressing this. To start, here is a modified version of Dr. Master’s Blog Contents Rules.

Rood's Rules of the Road

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes.
2. Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil.
3. No spam.
4. Stay on the topic of climate change or the entry topic.
5. Foul language is not allowed.
6. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information.
7. Threats and intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with accordingly.
8. Do not circumvent a ban. Most bans last 24 hours or less; please accept the ban. If you create a new username to circumvent a ban, you will be blocked from the site completely.

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: 545 - 495

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

#542 - Snowlover123 -

Thank you. Some of this is still over my head but it's good to stretch my mind.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
Quoting allahgore:



Well just in the 1970's ;not really that long ago science was saying we were headed to an ice age, they sure missed that one. IDK maybe they got it right this time but with temps at near a flatline for the past 16 yrs, things that make you go hmmmm.
WE had a cold winter 76 - 77. That's all! We are heading into the future now. Can we have another? Yes it will happen,just as it has in the past.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
Quoting JohnLonergan:
A sobering thought for any one who says man will adapt to any thing.

ABSTRACT

An Adaptability Limit to Climate Change Due to Heat Stress
Researchers find future temperatures could exceed livable limits
Now that is scary. Lucky for us (as we've been told today) the earth is actually cooling, eh?

/sarcasm off
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
Quoting FLwolverine:


Thank you for the response, but I still have questions. Please bear with me, since I do not have much of a science background.

1). I read the introduction to the Tiwari paper, and the rest of the paper as well as I could. The beginning par. says: "Solar forcing is proposed to be a major governing factor for the southwest monsoon (SWM) strength during the Holocene. The southeastern Arabian Sea is significantly affected by monsoon run-off and is an ideal testing ground." How do you get from that localized statement to the statement "These amplification mechanisms, if sufficient, can explain a large part of the 20th Century Global Warming"?

2). What is the significance of an increase on the Geomagnetic AA Index? What does that mean?

3). Where are you going with this analysis? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that, although CO2 is an important factor in global warming, we should not address it until we understand the extent to which natural causes (ie the sun) affect GW? To take this further, would you say that IF up to 70% of GW is caused by natural forces, then there is nothing we can do to slow down or stop or reverse GW? What is your point beyond saying natural forces may be more important than we think?

Thanks for your patience.


Thanks for your response. The Tiwari paper is relevant from this quote:

It has been proposed that earth%u2019s climate is sensitive to mildchanges in solar output at decadal to millennial timescales. Currently, there has been renewed interest in climate forcing by Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which shows remarkable agreement with the smoothened global temperature of the 20th century.


If there is a large forcing mechanism for solar activity, larger than Irradiance changes, then the "remarkable agreement" may be a cause and effect agreement during the 20th Century. One of the main arguments against solar warming is that while there is a good correlation, the forcing from TSI is too small to explain the warming. Cloud Cover decreases associated with the solar cycle can provide a forcing substantial enough to contribute significantly to the 20th Century Global Warming.

An increasing Geomagnetic AA Index means that there is an increased solar activity, since this means that there are more solar storms disturbing Earth's Magnetic Field. Given that higher solar activity typically leads to warmer temperatures in the past, this has implications for past attribution in the 20th Century, and means that at least part of the warming over the 20th Century can be due to solar variation. As van Geel et al. 1999 notes, (http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/Q uatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf)

Accepting the idea of solar forcing of Holocene
and Glacial climatic shifts has major implications for our
view of present and future climate. It implies that the
climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in
solar activity than generally believed. For instance, it
could mean that the global temperature fluctuations during the last decades are partly, or completely explained by small changes in solar radiation
, as postulated by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) and Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997).


Solar Activity and Carbon Dioxide have both contributed significantly to past 20th Century Global Warming. However, I feel that we need to switch to renewable energies as quickly as possible. Even if Global Warming isn't mostly caused by humans, there are other important environmental issues, such as the Nitrogen and Sulfur dioxides from Coal power plants responsible for Acid Rain. Mercury concentrations also have become higher from Fossil Fuels. Ocean Acidification could be a problem if research about this is correct. So I believe that we should reduce our environmental impact as much as possible, and strive towards renewables as quickly as possible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:
@ Snowlover123

Neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

"That%u2019s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."

Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming , as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect


If the solar amplification mechanisms are as large as they have been measured to be through Sea Surface Temperature, Oceanic Heat Content, and Sea Level Changes, then the solar amplitude variations over the 20th Century would be sufficient to explain a large portion of the 20th Century Warming. For example, with Rao 2011, he found the Solar Forcing to be 1.22 w/m^2 over the 20th Century when the Cosmic Ray Flux is taken into consideration. This is highly comparable to the 1.6 w/m^2 forcing from Carbon Dioxide.

You should look up other mechanisms that could be causing Stratospheric Cooling, instead of reading whatever Skeptical Science has to say about Stratospheric Cooling, Xandra. Stratospheric Cooling is actually a fairly complicated process, since there are multiple variables that contribute to that cooling. Solar Storms enhancing NOx in the upper atmosphere deplete ozone, which causes cooling, since there is less ozone to absorb UVA/UVB rays. CFCs also deplete ozone as does Volcanism. Adiabatic Processes can also create cooling in the stratosphere instead of processes involving radiational cooling. Of course, the Greenhouse Effect has an effect on Stratospheric Temperatures, but it is not the only source of stratospheric cooling, some of which is probably solar related.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
wrong blog...lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Simple logic:

"If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night. Conversely, if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime temperatures. What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006, Fan 2010). This is consistent with greenhouse warming."


More warming at night than day

Climate models predict that as a consequence of anthropogenic global warming, the planet should warm more at night than during the day. This is also known as a decreasing diurnal temperature range (DTR – the difference between minimum and maximum daily temperature). Braganza et al. (2004) investigated the changes in DTR over the past 50 years and concluded as follows:


"Observed DTR over land shows a large negative trend of ~0.4°C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (~0.9°C) than maximum temperatures (~0.6°C) over the same period. Analysis of trends in DTR over the last century from five coupled climate models shows that simulated trends in DTR due to anthropogenic forcing are much smaller than observed. This difference is attributable to larger than observed changes in maximum temperatures in four of the five models analysed here, a result consistent with previous modelling studies."

Essentially Braganza et al. found that that while DTR is decreasing as expected by climate models, it’s decreasing more than they predicted because daytime temperatures are increasing less than they predict, possibly because the models omit changes in the Earth’s reflectivity from factors like cloudcover and land use change. Here you can see the observed changes in maximum, minimum, mean global temperature, and DTR vs. predictions by the four climate models used in the study.


Figure 4: Observed vs. modeled temperature trends (Braganza 2004)



This argument never makes any physical sense. In order to get a decrease in the Diurnal Temperature Range from Greenhouse Gases, Greenhouse Gases would only have to reduce the rate at which Earth radiates to space during the nighttime. Since the Earth radiates day and night, Greenhouse Gases are also slowing the rate at which heat radiates to space in the daytime as well. Thus we shouldn't see any decrease in the Diurnal Temperature Range at all with Greenhouse Warming. The decrease in the Diurnal Temperature Range is probably largely due to Land Use Changes. A recent paper also be McNider et al. 2012, ("An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends") found that when the air around a weather station is disturbed due to various anthropogenic sources such as land-use, nighttime temperatures appeared to warm due to a very complex turbulent process.

A highly cited paper, Vose et al. 2006, do note that there is an overall decrease in the DTR over the last 50 years, but they attribute it to factors that are unrelated to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Changes in cloud cover, precipitation, soil moisture, and atmospheric circulation likely accounted for much of the trend differential during the period (e.g., Dai et al., 1999; Przybylak, 2000; Braganza et al., 2004). Changes in land use also impacted the DTR in some areas (e.g., Balling et al., 1998; Bonan, 1999; Small et al., 2001).

However, the time in which the decrease in the DTR was observed is inconsistent with your theory of Greenhouse Induced Diurnal Temperature Range Variations. The decrease occured from 1950-1980 according to Vose et al. 2006, and then flatlined after 1980. We didn't warm from 1950-1980, and yet, the Diurnal Temperature Range decreased during the mid 20th Century. Then, when we did warm, the DTR did not decrease. If you are going to claim that there is a Greenhouse signature in the DTR through a decrease in the DTR, you're going to explain why the decrease in DTR occured before we actually warmed, and then flatlined from 1980-present. There are multiple inconsistencies with the DTR-Greenhouse theory.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:


My questions weren't rhetorical. The leading members of your movement agree that temperature isn't increasing. Even Revkin is bailing. Doesn't that speak volumes? When "scientists" can't even agree on input data for flawed models, it ain't science. The movement behind supposed AGW don't have the interest of mankind at heart. They have more taxes, more restrictions, and more control as their ideal. Just investigate Maurice Strong.


Your statements are pure rhetoric...I said nothing about rhetorical questions...you may want to look up the difference between the two. I have no "movement" and therefore no leaders. I have science and observations...so far...still warming. Despite what your conspiracy sites say.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:


Keep trying, your rhetoric does not work here. When you only get your "science" from not scientific, conspiracy websites you don't need evidence. Your countless links have been debunked, shown as inaccurate, and shown to be flat out lies at times. Maybe you should stick to their blogs, where you can sit in the echo chamber and feel "correct", because it doesn't fly here.


My questions weren't rhetorical. The leading members of your movement agree that temperature isn't increasing. Even Revkin is bailing. Doesn't that speak volumes? When "scientists" can't even agree on input data for flawed models, it ain't science. The movement behind supposed AGW don't have the interest of mankind at heart. They have more taxes, more restrictions, and more control as their ideal. Just investigate Maurice Strong. Sorry you're so gullible as to believe all of this nonsense.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A sobering thought for any one who says man will adapt to any thing.

ABSTRACT

An Adaptability Limit to Climate Change Due to Heat Stress

Steven C. Sherwood, Matthew Huber

Despite the uncertainty in future climate change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature Tw, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. Tw never exceeds 31�C. Any exceedence of 35�C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7�C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11-12�C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12�C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.

Researchers find future temperatures could exceed livable limits
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
From Quark Soup: I saw this post concerning a scientist's obligation to speak out, I found it interesting.

"I made it up after reading a quote in Eli Kintisch's article about the retirement of James Hansen in this week's Science magazine, which includes this quote:

"It's disheartening that he has to [now] remove himself from a federal position to advocate on climate change. Government exists, in theory at least, to serve the public's best interests," says Emmy Burns, a student activist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison."


"I recently found these letters (below) from Science of 20 years ago, written by Carl Sagan and E.O. Wilson, about being "blacklisted" by a science journalist named Christopher Anderson because of their "advocacy" on the threat of nuclear winter and species extinction, respectively.

Sagan wrote:

"Suppose you had found that the global consequences of nuclear war were much worse than had been generally understood and that military establishments worldwide had overlooked those consequences, especially in a time of a swiftly proliferating strategic arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union and when allegedly responsible officials were talking about nuclear war being "survivable" and "winnable." Wouldn't you be concerned? Would you think it your responsibility to keep quiet about this because the results were not absolutely certain, or because the full-scale experimental verification had not yet been obtained?

"Or would you consider it your obligation to your children and the children of everyone else to speak up? Keeping quiet under such circumstances seems bizarre and reprehensible to me.

"Because our technology has achieved formidable powers, and because we sometimes can be careless in its application, this issue is of broad importance. If scientists will not speak out when they see such a danger to the human species, who will?
Or, as E.O. Wilson put it succinctly:

"It is reasonable then to ask what scientists are expected to do when they hit upon a serious environmental problem. Whisper in the ear of a journalist? Entirely and chastely refrain from publishing outside technical journals, hoping the results will be discovered by nonscientists?""




Edit link to more legible version of Sagan letter
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675


Sound familiar?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
533. Skyepony (Mod)
Sea ice news update. There is some info of earlier satellite sea ice pics that isn't included in the continuous modern record.

A part on Ice Bridge Greenland flights. & at the bottom...

In memoriam

We dedicate this post to Dr. Katharine Giles, who was tragically killed cycling to work on 8 April 2013. Together with Dr. Laxon, Katherine Giles worked to retrieve sea ice thickness from satellite radar altimeter data. In 2007 she was the first to show that this data could also be used to show how winds affect the newly exposed Arctic Ocean. Since Dr. Laxon’s death earlier this year, Katharine worked hard to continue his legacy and supervise his students. We have lost yet another talented scientist and a great friend.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:


Who is that? Obama? It's pretty laughable that the warmists' own collaborators show no warming and even the warmists are ignoring their own idols. Personally, I don't believe we currently have the technology to calculate a true "global temperature average", but your own numbers show a decline or no increase. Why are you ignoring your own data? It's gone from "global warming" to "climate change" to "climate disruption". Your "science" can't predict the past weather, the current weather, or the future weather. Do you people realize how laughable you are among real scientists?


Keep trying, your rhetoric does not work here. When you only get your "science" from not scientific, conspiracy websites you don't need evidence. Your countless links have been debunked, shown as inaccurate, and shown to be flat out lies at times. Maybe you should stick to their blogs, where you can sit in the echo chamber and feel "correct", because it doesn't fly here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:


Who is that? Obama? It's pretty laughable that the warmists' own collaborators show no warming and even the warmists are ignoring their own idols. Personally, I don't believe we currently have the technology to calculate a true "global temperature average", but your own numbers show a decline or no increase. Why are you ignoring your own data? It's gone from "global warming" to "climate change" to "climate disruption". Your "science" can't predict the past weather, the current weather, or the future weather. Do you people realize how laughable you are among real scientists?
Real scientists, as in ........ who?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
Quoting cyclonebuster:



Talk to this guy maybe he's listening...


You might as well,you might get better results!LOL
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 178 Comments: 56141
Quoting CEastwood:


No evidence? Just the temperature. Every source of global temperature shows no warming, yet you continue to ignore it. Even the head of the IPCC admitted there was no measurable warming in the past fifteen years. Get your head out of the sand.



Talk to this guy maybe he's listening...


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


There is no "missing warming" only another conspiracy for you to believe. This blog needs a scrubbing, there's a lot of crap sticking to the walls.


I recomend this as a detergent:

Desmogblog Global Warming Disinformation Database
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Quoting allahgore:


Is ALL science settled to what causes warming?



For Earth pretty much...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 178 Comments: 56141
Quoting CEastwood:


No evidence? Just the temperature. Every source of global temperature shows no warming, yet you continue to ignore it. Even the head of the IPCC admitted there was no measurable warming in the past fifteen years. Get your head out of the sand.



Hah...no warming in 15 years now? Link Wrong. Read some science instead of Anthony Watts, you may just learn something.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:


You have no evidence the Earth in general isn't warming. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary. You post regional instances of below average temperatures, ignoring the rest of the world that doesn't fit into your narrative. Once again, WUWT is not a science website, it is a conspiracy site. The Earth as a whole is warming, despite what your conspiracy websites would have you believe. You can't show cooling on a global scale, because oh guess what, it doesn't exist. SO I would suggest you "get over it".


No evidence? Just the temperature. Every source of global temperature shows no warming, yet you continue to ignore it. Even the head of the IPCC admitted there was no measurable warming in the past fifteen years. Get your head out of the sand.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:


Still looking for that missing warming,huh? Probably won't ever find it.


There is no "missing warming" only another conspiracy for you to believe. This blog needs a scrubbing, there's a lot of crap sticking to the walls.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Blowing In The Wind: Is Global Warming Over?

"There has recently been much huffing and puffing about an apparent slowdown in the rate of global warming, with a recent article in The Economist on the matter getting lots of attention, http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technolo gy/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-respons e-greenhouse-gas-emissions . The supposed "reduced climate sensitivity" (to CO2 concentration changes) has gotten all the usual suspects very excited, from longtime more or less respectable scientific "skeptics" (most of whom accept that there is warming but just say it is not as great as most others say) through literate innumerates such as George Will who recently asserted that there had not been a year warmer than 1998 since then (2010 was and is currently the record-holder), on through to the completely irresponsible political hacks ranting about hoaxes such as Sen. Inhofe (Lunatic-OK) and Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli, now running for Governor of my state, who sued the University of Virginia to get ahold of the emails of climatologist Michael Mann where surely he would find the smoking gun to show the hoaxing conspiracy (!!!). In any case, there does appear to have been some slowing of the rate of increase in average global temperature in the last few years, with this spring being the coldest in the US since 1975 punctuating the point, even though "weather is not climate." So, what is up?"

According to recent research by Balmaseda et al appearing in Geophysical Research Letters and some other outlets, as linked to at Real Climate, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013 /04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming- went-into-the-deep-end/ , indeed the answer is blowing in ocean winds that have reduced the warming effect in the atmosphere in the near term. However, while the air may not have gotten as much warmer as the main models predicted, the planet is still warming. The main recent locus of this warming has been in the ocean at depths greater than 700 meters, "the deep end." This fulfills a warning made by many that indeed the global climate is very hard to model, with lots of nonlinear dynamics and complexities and sub-parts that react and interact with all kinds of thresholds. A piece of this is that at some point down the road the warming will again move towards the surface and back into the atmosphere, so we could get a rather sharp and sudden increase down the road at some point (and also El Nino and some other such phenomena are playing roles). I have a few further observations.[...]

In any case, it does look like global warming is still proceeding, but at somewhat deep levels in the oceans (yes, there is data supporting this, not just modeling), which at some point will surface to become more clearly manifest. The hacks and innumerates should be more careful about their spoutings, although I have no doubt that this will not slow them down or quiet them.

Barkley Rosser





Still looking for that missing warming,huh? Probably won't ever find it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:


Trolling, by your definition is anyone who disagrees with your fallacious AGW theory. BTW, it gets a little ridiculous that a few years back we were going to see the end of snow and now it doesn't want to stop. Everything in weather is now blamed on AGW. Non-scientists are also claiming that the "warming" in the Arctic is to be blamed for the snow we are seeing in the US currently. Too bad the Arctic isn't warming. You warmists also continue to ignore the fact that the earth in general isn't warming. I guess you will finally admit it when we are seeing snow in August. I changed "handles" as a courtesy to the administrator. Get over it.

Link


You have no evidence the Earth in general isn't warming. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary. You post regional instances of below average temperatures, ignoring the rest of the world that doesn't fit into your narrative. Once again, WUWT is not a science website, it is a conspiracy site. The Earth as a whole is warming, despite what your conspiracy websites would have you believe. You can't show cooling on a global scale, because oh guess what, it doesn't exist. SO I would suggest you "get over it".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Blowing In The Wind: Is Global Warming Over?

"There has recently been much huffing and puffing about an apparent slowdown in the rate of global warming, with a recent article in The Economist on the matter getting lots of attention, http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technolo gy/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-respons e-greenhouse-gas-emissions . The supposed "reduced climate sensitivity" (to CO2 concentration changes) has gotten all the usual suspects very excited, from longtime more or less respectable scientific "skeptics" (most of whom accept that there is warming but just say it is not as great as most others say) through literate innumerates such as George Will who recently asserted that there had not been a year warmer than 1998 since then (2010 was and is currently the record-holder), on through to the completely irresponsible political hacks ranting about hoaxes such as Sen. Inhofe (Lunatic-OK) and Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli, now running for Governor of my state, who sued the University of Virginia to get ahold of the emails of climatologist Michael Mann where surely he would find the smoking gun to show the hoaxing conspiracy (!!!). In any case, there does appear to have been some slowing of the rate of increase in average global temperature in the last few years, with this spring being the coldest in the US since 1975 punctuating the point, even though "weather is not climate." So, what is up?"

According to recent research by Balmaseda et al appearing in Geophysical Research Letters and some other outlets, as linked to at Real Climate, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013 /04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming- went-into-the-deep-end/ , indeed the answer is blowing in ocean winds that have reduced the warming effect in the atmosphere in the near term. However, while the air may not have gotten as much warmer as the main models predicted, the planet is still warming. The main recent locus of this warming has been in the ocean at depths greater than 700 meters, "the deep end." This fulfills a warning made by many that indeed the global climate is very hard to model, with lots of nonlinear dynamics and complexities and sub-parts that react and interact with all kinds of thresholds. A piece of this is that at some point down the road the warming will again move towards the surface and back into the atmosphere, so we could get a rather sharp and sudden increase down the road at some point (and also El Nino and some other such phenomena are playing roles). I have a few further observations.[...]

In any case, it does look like global warming is still proceeding, but at somewhat deep levels in the oceans (yes, there is data supporting this, not just modeling), which at some point will surface to become more clearly manifest. The hacks and innumerates should be more careful about their spoutings, although I have no doubt that this will not slow them down or quiet them.
Barkley Rosser



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675




May blight shall take to alter throne,
To seek the will and darken clone.
Enter gates that planet descend,
The moon, the statues, the stones of friend.
Into trail of black and coldly grasp,
To emerge at last, with relieving rasp,
For heart was filled with void and not,
To serve the call that tied your knot.
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 178 Comments: 56141
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Thanks for another weather report. You know, you aren't any better at this trolling stuff under your new handle than you were under your old.


Trolling, by your definition is anyone who disagrees with your fallacious AGW theory. BTW, it gets a little ridiculous that a few years back we were going to see the end of snow and now it doesn't want to stop. Everything in weather is now blamed on AGW. Non-scientists are also claiming that the "warming" in the Arctic is to be blamed for the snow we are seeing in the US currently. Too bad the Arctic isn't warming. You warmists also continue to ignore the fact that the earth in general isn't warming. I guess you will finally admit it when we are seeing snow in August. I changed "handles" as a courtesy to the administrator. Get over it.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
And so is William Shatner!


Off topic, I know, but very funny.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Plussed 1000 times.

A separate blog for "debating" (using the term VERRRRRY loosely) has been suggested but it doesn't seem to interest anyone who has enough authority to make it happen. I guess there are some people -- admin, mods, whoever -- who really think there are two sides to the issue of the issue of CC/AGW. Otherwise why would they give space and a hearing to people who deny the science and misrepresent the facts?



In the interest of scientific discourse, I would recommend that a statement similar to this be added to the comment policy:



"Cite your statements appropriately - peer-reviewed sources for scientific claims, primary sources for quotes/current events/etc."



Hat tip to Kate at ClimateSight.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3675
Quoting CEastwood:
This AGW is freezing us to death: I won't "deny" that the world is getting colder.

Link
Thanks for another weather report. You know, you aren't any better at this trolling stuff under your new handle than you were under your old.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
This AGW is freezing us to death: I won't "deny" that the world is getting colder.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TheDevilsAdvocate:


Bu-bu-bu-but Al Gore is fat!

And so is William Shatner!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
Quoting schistkicker:


Denialist Zombie Claptrap (it never truly dies, it resurrects itself and keeps on trudging, immune to critical analysis or thought) Alarm has gone off again.
snip......
I don't have years of presence here, and I don't have an established "place" in this community (i.e. I'm not "friends" with anyone on this board), but I find it frustrating that the style of moderation on wunderground allows trolls equal footing with science. One is entitled to their own opinion, and reasonable people may disagree, but we're not entitled to our own set of facts-- and the vast majority of what seems to go on here is poking holes in troll-produced claptrap rather than a productive discussion of the big-picture issues discussed in Dr. Rood's posts. And that's a serious shame.
Plussed 1000 times.

A separate blog for "debating" (using the term VERRRRRY loosely) has been suggested but it doesn't seem to interest anyone who has enough authority to make it happen. I guess there are some people -- admin, mods, whoever -- who really think there are two sides to the issue of the issue of CC/AGW. Otherwise why would they give space and a hearing to people who deny the science and misrepresent the facts?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
Top 10 Techniques Internet Trolls Use

You may be dealing with an Internet Troll if:

1. They attack the person not the argument.

2. Trolls post a short statement designed to bait their victims into an argument. (These statements will be non-qualified and they will be juvenile.)

3. They will insist in having the last word, even if they are words of conciliation.

4. They will introduce tangential inflammatory content in the form of quotes, images, websites, or youtube videos.

5. They will take your arguments out of context as a means to weaken your statement.

6. They will put "words in your mouth". Point five and six are closely related and applied.

7. Trolls often claim years of experience, inside information, sometimes even cite having the acquaintance of someone who "would know", yet their argument will fly in the face of facts and good common sense.

8. If it is possible they are more likely than not to post their comments anonymously.

9. If you ask an Internet Troll a sincere question, they will not directly answer your question.

10. Repetition, they may spam in a very literal manner, but often times they will repeat step one and two until the desired reaction is reached.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 963
Quoting Snowlover123:


These studies above are legitimate and peer reviewed. However, a few things to note. The support of aless significant solar influence appears to be on the basis of two points.

1) The solar brightness changes are far too small to cause Global Warming.

2) The sun's activity has remained flat from 1975-2000, so it's unlikely that it has caused warming in the late-20th Century.

1) There are multiple ways that the sun can impact climate than just through irradiance variations. These amplification mechanisms, if sufficient, can explain a large part of the 20th Century Global Warming as noted in the Introduction of (Tiwari et al. 2000)

2) Some solar variables have been flat, while others increased some during the late-20th Century. The Geomagnetic AA Index for one, increased. While the Geomagnetic AA Index as a whole increased during the late-20th Century, the AA Index values above 60 increased dramatically as well. Solar Activity reached an all time in the 1990s according to this chart from NOAA.


Thank you for the response, but I still have questions. Please bear with me, since I do not have much of a science background.

1). I read the introduction to the Tiwari paper, and the rest of the paper as well as I could. The beginning par. says: "Solar forcing is proposed to be a major governing factor for the southwest monsoon (SWM) strength during the Holocene. The southeastern Arabian Sea is significantly affected by monsoon run-off and is an ideal testing ground." How do you get from that localized statement to the statement "These amplification mechanisms, if sufficient, can explain a large part of the 20th Century Global Warming"?

2). What is the significance of an increase on the Geomagnetic AA Index? What does that mean?

3). Where are you going with this analysis? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that, although CO2 is an important factor in global warming, we should not address it until we understand the extent to which natural causes (ie the sun) affect GW? To take this further, would you say that IF up to 70% of GW is caused by natural forces, then there is nothing we can do to slow down or stop or reverse GW? What is your point beyond saying natural forces may be more important than we think?

Thanks for your patience.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
I see we are bringing up Al Gore quotes, even though what Gore has said or done has little to do with our current knowledge of peer reviewed climate science and is only being used as some backwards attempt as anti global warming evidence. I also see we keep bringing up the same, tired, debunked arguments over and over.

Pro Tip: If your argument can be refuted by Dr. Rood's "Recommended Links" section, don't post it. Instead maybe a refresher course from Professor Rood's list may be your best course of action.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


Denialist Zombie Claptrap (it never truly dies, it resurrects itself and keeps on trudging, immune to critical analysis or thought) Alarm has gone off again.

"but with temps at near a flatline for the past 16 yrs"
BZZZZZZZZ!!!

"Well just in the 1970's ;not really that long ago science was saying we were headed to an ice age"
BZZZZZZ!!!!!!



I just want to say, there's a fine line between giving the trolls enough rope to hang themselves with and letting them run rampant, but the signal-to-noise ratio in here has gotten ridiculous. If the powers-that-be want this to be a place where you can discuss the issues on a scientific basis, then it's going to need a completely different style of moderation. This denialist "shooting-gallery" that's been afforded here via the laissez-faire community moderation has let this place devolve; Dr. Rood's entries are good reading, but the comments sections have become less and less so for anyone that actually appreciates scientific writing and critical thought.

-snip-


Bu-bu-bu-but Al Gore is fat!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:



Well just in the 1970's ;not really that long ago science was saying we were headed to an ice age, they sure missed that one. IDK maybe they got it right this time but with temps at near a flatline for the past 16 yrs, things that make you go hmmmm.


Denialist Zombie Claptrap (it never truly dies, it resurrects itself and keeps on trudging, immune to critical analysis or thought) Alarm has gone off again.

"but with temps at near a flatline for the past 16 yrs"
BZZZZZZZZ!!!

"Well just in the 1970's ;not really that long ago science was saying we were headed to an ice age"
BZZZZZZ!!!!!!



I just want to say, there's a fine line between giving the trolls enough rope to hang themselves with and letting them run rampant, but the signal-to-noise ratio in here has gotten ridiculous. If the powers-that-be want this to be a place where you can discuss the issues on a scientific basis, then it's going to need a completely different style of moderation. This denialist "shooting-gallery" that's been afforded here via the laissez-faire community moderation has let this place devolve; Dr. Rood's entries are good reading, but the comments sections have become less and less so for anyone that actually appreciates scientific writing and critical thought.

Many of the same "argument" (based solely in non-science truthiness, concern-trolling, or the occasional Poe) styles rear their heads on other scientific blogs that discuss "controversial" topics, but they're dealt with aggressively and preserve a high-level of discussion within them. As an example, I regularly read "The Panda's Thumb" for discussion of evolutionary biology. I'm not a biologist, but I appreciate the very high signal-to-noise ratio in the number of constructive posts and productive discussions that happen among members. That happens because the trolls are banished to a "Bathroom Wall"; if you can't stay on topic or are clearly there just to disrupt or deflect or deny, the mods remove your comments to a "free-for-all" space.

I don't have years of presence here, and I don't have an established "place" in this community (i.e. I'm not "friends" with anyone on this board), but I find it frustrating that the style of moderation on wunderground allows trolls equal footing with science. One is entitled to their own opinion, and reasonable people may disagree, but we're not entitled to our own set of facts-- and the vast majority of what seems to go on here is poking holes in troll-produced claptrap rather than a productive discussion of the big-picture issues discussed in Dr. Rood's posts. And that's a serious shame.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:



Well just in the 1970's ;not really that long ago science was saying we were headed to an ice age, they sure missed that one. IDK maybe they got it right this time but with temps at near a flatline for the past 16 yrs, things that make you go hmmmm.


No they don't. Not if you UNDERSTAND science.

Even if you don't understand the sceince, there are too many indications to take the simple minded stance that you propose.

Arctic ice
Changing weather patterns
North moving climate zones
Record setting heat
etc
etc

None of those were published by scientists in main stream media. They were and are being published daily by God as a warning.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot.."

--NOBEL LAUREATE AL GORE, November 12, 2009



Contrary to what Gore may believe, according to NASA, it is actually the sun which at its core, has a temperature of several million degrees (approximately 27,000,000 degrees F).

The earth's core on the other hand, is slightly cooler with an estimated temperature of about 9,000 degrees F.
Member Since: November 1, 2006 Posts: 71 Comments: 20140
Hmmm..maybe? Nah, its man. For sure. Case closed.

Earth's Core Temperature 1,000 Degrees Hotter Than Previously Measured, Study Shows
Member Since: November 1, 2006 Posts: 71 Comments: 20140
Quoting allahgore:


So you are saying ALL science is settled with what causes warming?


Nope, but enough is settled that to deny global warming is to be a tool.

Other things that are not proven and/or known in every detail:

how electricity/gravity/biology works - yet we base our decisions everyday on those sciences.

how aids works - yet most of use practice safe sex.

how heart attacks happen....

etc,
etc,

No one says they know it all.

Except you.

Because the opposite side of your spam 'we don't know it all' ideas, is that we don't what makes the earth stay stable either.

We are dealing with unknowns the only way that works, science, statistics and decision theory. All of which apply to your claims as well. The difference is the outcomes and the results of inaction.

So sit on your hands, or do the verbal equivilent as you are doing here on the blog, but it is the action of an idiot.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In other words snowlover123 look up radiation cooling... Even that heat can't escape to space as efficiently due to fossil fuel GHG's...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
@ Snowlover123

Neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

"That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."

Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming , as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Cloud cover stops a 'runaway' greenhouse effect, by intercepting sunlight, but it traps heat at night.


The net effect of clouds has been estimated to have a radiative forcing of -21 w/m^2 according to (Allan 2011). Low Clouds primarily cool the climate by reflecting more shortwave radiation than slowing outgoing longwave radiation, whereas high clouds warm the climate through the reverse process. Thus, while Clouds overall reduce the Diurnal Temperature Range, the cooling effect from clouds in the daytime is larger than the warming effect from clouds during the nighttime.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 545 - 495

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog 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.

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.