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: 495 - 445

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

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:
494. Skyepony (Mod)
There is several bills & such people can act, protest & sign against this week involving our dwindling rights to none polluting food. Top of the list is the EPA is about to okay another known bee killing pesticide. There is also a petition for kill Monsanto act & to keep farmers from having to id every animal in TX. This animal id thing is another way to kill the small farmer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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)

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Quoting Snowlover123:


Then that could be a negative feedback response to rising temperatures, since more Cloud Cover overall cools the Earth.


Cloud cover stops a 'runaway' greenhouse effect, by intercepting sunlight, but it traps heat at night.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


EPA Strengthens Conflict of Interest Review Process for Science Review Panels

For more Click HERE

WASHINGTON The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that it has improved its conflict of interest review process for contractor-managed peer reviews. EPA has put a new oversight process in place to ensure that contractors follow all existing conflicts of interest guidance and requirements. In addition, EPA will now ensure that the public has the opportunity to review and comment on a peer review panels composition when influential scientific documents are being considered.

We are committed to scientific integrity at EPA, said EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe. Improving the contract-managed peer review process and increasing transparency will lead to stronger science at the agency.

This revised process will apply to all future technical documents designated as Influential Scientific Information or Highly Influential Scientific Assessments where independent peer reviews will be conducted by panels selected and managed by independent contractors. For future peer review panels, EPA will now publish the names, principal affiliations and resumes of candidates being considered for the panel. Members of the public will be able to provide comments on the candidates for a period of at least three weeks.

After selecting the final peer review panel, the contractor will consult with EPA to review whether the contractor followed existing conflicts of interest guidance and requirements, and identify and provide input on any issues. In addition, the names of the final peer review panel members will be posted publicly before the meeting takes place. This process will ensure that existing conflicts of interest guidance and requirements are applied correctly and where a potential conflict of interest is identified, allow EPA to determine whether the contractors plan to address the conflict is acceptable. The new process does not change EPAs existing standards for determining conflicts of interest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Scientists are a little baffled by this, but increased cloud cover has been proposed.


Then that could be a negative feedback response to rising temperatures, since more Cloud Cover overall cools the Earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
#468 & 469 - snowlover:

Have you reviewed the climate change page on the wunderground site concerning the sun's contribution to global warming? Link

It lists "many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades". How does this correlate with your research?


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.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Why should the nighttime minima increase more than the daytime minima in a Greenhouse enhanced world?


Scientists are a little baffled by this, but increased cloud cover has been proposed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:
If the sun is responsible for most of the warming, then why have nighttime minima increased by far more than daytime maxima?


Why should the nighttime minima increase more than the daytime minima in a Greenhouse enhanced world?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Daisyworld:


Snowlover123,

Welcome back. After our spirited debate last summer where you rebuked the scientific peer-review process with regard to several papers that supposedly proved that Anthropogenic Global Warming was caused by Cosmic Rays and not an increase of atmospheric CO2, I had thought you disappeared back into the intarwebs.

However, it seems you're back after a long respite, along with some new material.

The Echer, et. al. 2012 paper that you cite from the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (which has a 1.59 impact factor, I might add), is not a unique paper. It's simply a redress of data from the NASA/GISS data set, and draws a correlation between sunspot activity and global surface temperatures.

This is not new science.

In fact, because some readers here do not have access to the full article you cite, I'll provide a little bit of extra insight:

From the introduction:
"(Of upward global air surface temperature trends) The largest part of this climatic warming is usually attributed to the anthropogenic effects due to the enhanced greenhouse gases concentrations (Parker et al., 1994; Jones et al., 1999; Barnett et al., 2001; IPCC, 2007). Nevertheless, there seems to be evidence that natural phenomena can contribute significantly with the temperature variability (Eddy, 1976; Haigh, 2007; Scafetta and West, 2008). Scafetta (2010) found empirical evidences that the climate oscillations within the secular scale are likely driven by astronomical cycles."

No where else in the paper does it even mention carbon dioxide increases, fossil fuels, or the real cause of global warming.

You'll also note that the authors of the paper are drawing on conclusions from papers that have already been rebuked in the Journal of Geophysical Research via NASA. An excerpt from the abstract: "We also demonstrate that the methodologies used in Scafetta & West [2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008] are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. "

While the Eddy 1976 paper is simply a reference to the discoverer of the Maunder Minimum (a favorite red-herring of climate denialism), of her own work in Haigh 2007, Dr. Haigh states that "We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales%u2026" (Science Daily / Oct 7, 2010). Finally, as for the cited Scafetta 2010 paper, the problems with his approach are discussed in-depth at Skeptical Science.

All these papers, mind you, are well-promoted on the web by WUWT and the Heartland Institute, who each have made it their mission to discredit any and all climate change science that shows attribution to human activity.

Now, on to the issues with the information you are once again putting forth here in Dr. Rood's blog


Hello Daisy World. Sorry that you feel the need to put me on ignore. A lot of what you posted really has nothing to do with what I posted though. Quoting Dr. Haigh's opinion is interesting, but I didn't quote Dr. Haigh, or ever mention Dr. Haigh, so your quotation to somehow refute what I posted is puzzling to say the least. I'm well aware that Dr. Haigh agrees with you. It's also irrelevant where else these papers are cited. Green Environmental Blogs like De Smog Blog, (which I see you quoted without hesitation in one of your previous posts) and the Carbon Brief cite a bunch of the Pro-AGW papers cited on this blog, but that doesn't seem to bother you. The Heartland Institute, like Greenpeace, is an activist group, and I don't think we should be bringing either one of those groups on a science based discussion forum. I'm also not sure how the Eddy 1976 paper bears any relevance with what I posted as well. The Echer et al. 2012 paper supports the Scafetta papers that show a strong solar influence on climate change.

I used to agree with you, DaisyWorld. Watching Al Gore's movie several years ago encouraged me to do some extra research. I wasn't even aware that the sun had been hypothesized to cause Global Warming. When I did some research, I was startled to see that a bunch of articles supported the notion that Solar Activity contributed significantly to the climate changes over the 20th Century. A lot of the papers that do not find a large solar influence seemed to be model studies, or only accounted for Irradiance Variations alone, while not discussing the potential amplification mechanisms, like a possible change in albedo in response to solar activity changes. As I posted, there is evidence from the Sea Surface Temperature data, from Sea Level data, and from Ocean Heat Content data that the sun's influence goes beyond Irradiance variations alone.

To discredit my opinion, you often bring up me being "arrogant" that I think that I would know more than "97% of climate scientists." But the truth is that I agree with the 97%. I believe that humans have contributed significantly to Global Warming. Of course, within the 97%, there will be scientists whom have different opinions on what percentage to Global Warming a "significant contributing factor" is. However, natural factors have contributed significantly as well.

A significant number of scientists agree with this. For example, from the 2012 AMS Survey, which surveyed close to 2000 members, only 52%-53% agreed with your opinion on Anthropogenic Global Warming. While a very large majority (89%) agreed that the planet had warmed, around 59% of that 89% agreed that it had warmed, giving a percentage of around 52-53%. This means that a substantial minority (47-48%) disagrees with you.

I, just like you am looking for the truth. We have come to different conclusions on the role of ths sun on climate change, and likely, most aspects of Climate Change, but that doesn't mean that I'm arrogant, because I agree with most climate scientists that the human role is a significant contributing factor. However, many climate scientists in that 97% would also probably agree that natural factors have contributed significantly to the 20th Century Warming as well. As I've been saying, to ignore the natural factors is as ignorant as to ignore the anthropogenic factors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cuts in other pollutants can help climate

The world has a chance to slow the speed of sea level rise and to buy more time for tackling climate change by reducing emissions of some potent pollutants apart from carbon dioxide.


LONDON, 5 May – Concerted action on a planet-wide scale could slow sea level rise and reduce some of the more damaging effects of global warming – by limiting emissions not of carbon dioxide but of four other pollutants, according to new research published in Nature Climate Change.
Veerabhadran Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the US and colleagues argue that by reducing levels in the atmosphere of the short-lived pollutants ozone, methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons, governments could temporarily reduce the rate of sea level rise by between 25 and 50%.

Since some of the world’s greatest cities – New York, Mumbai, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Miami, Shanghai and so on – are all at sea level, the rewards of reducing emissions would be considerable.

“To avoid potentially dangerous sea level rise, we could cut emissions of short-lived pollutants even if we cannot immediately cut carbon dioxide emissions”, says Aixue Hu of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, a co-author. “This new research shows that society can significantly reduce the threat to coastal cities if it moves quickly on a handful of pollutants.”

Carbon dioxide, once in the atmosphere, tends to stay for centuries. The sinister foursome identified by the researchers are all short-lived pollutants, and released in much smaller quantities, but weight for weight they trap more heat in the lower atmosphere. Reduction would not be simple.

The rest of the story
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Nice blog, Thank you !

On the subject of "we are what we eat", Michael Pollan has written extensively on this.
His book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is perhaps THE expose on this subject.

But take this warning... after reading it, I very nearly stopped eating altogether.
Sometimes, Ignorance is Bliss.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If the sun is responsible for most of the warming, then why have nighttime minima increased by far more than daytime maxima?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Clearly solar activity plays a role in climate. The known mechanisms by which solar activity control climate have been relatively stable, if not slightly cooling, over the last 50 years.


If you look at the Sunspot Number, or at some Total Solar Irradiance composites, perhaps. However, one of the most important solar indicies, since it is a measurement of the number of geomagnetic storms perturbing the Earth's Magnetic Field is the Geomagnetic AA Index. As seen by Georgieva et al. 2012, we can see that while the Sunspot Number was decreasing from around 1960, the Geomagnetic AA Index was increasing, and continuing to increase in the 1990s.



The light dashed line above is the Geomagnetic AA Index, while the darker solid line is the Sunspot Number. Note that they diverge around 1960, indicating that the Sunspot Number is a poor proxy for the sun's impact on climate since then.

Quoting ScottLincoln:


Of course we actually do have a known physical mechanism between concentrations of greenhouse gases and global temperature, and this has been established science for decades. We also have actual known physical mechanisms between total solar irradiance and global temperature (the sun's role in climate change that climate scientists don't deny, but actually discovered).


Right. The role of Greenhouse Gases is fairly well understood. A doubling of CO2 will give a radiative forcing of around 3.7 w/m^2. Given that a zero feedback blackbody radiation rate is 3.3 w/m^2/Degree C, the equilibrium doubling of CO2 is around 1.1 Degrees C without any feedbacks. However, the role of the sun is far less understood, because the sun can impact the climate in so many different ways.

For example, it has been suggested that the sun through geomagnetic activity can significantly influence the North Atlantic Oscillation (Li et al. 2011)

Through the Earth's Cloud Cover with Cosmic Rays (Kitaba et al. 2013)

It has also been observed that the length of the solar cycle correlates very nicely to natural disasters in China throughout the 20th Century, suggesting a very large solar influence during this timeframe (Wang et al. 2010)

The solar magnetic cycle has also been documented in modulating Northern Hemispheric Temperatures over the 22 year cycle (Baranyi et al. 1998)

Yet some still believe that the influence of the sun is confined to just Irradiance variations alone. There is evidence from multiple datasets that the solar influence goes beyond just variations in the sun's output alone.



This image made by Dr. Nir Shaviv, uses data from Shaviv 2008 shows the estimated Indirect Solar Forcing from amplifying factors like Cosmic Rays compared to the Direct Solar Forcing from brightness variations alone. Not including the indirect solar forcing and only including brightness variations alone significantly underestimates the role of the sun. The indirect radiative forcing was estimated from Ocean Heat Content changes, Sea Surface Temperature changes, and Sea Level Rate changes over the course of the 11 year solar cycle. Shaviv calculated that the indirect and direct solar forcing is likely between 1.0-2.0 w/m^2 over the course of the 11 year solar cycle according to his graph below. This is significantly larger than the estimated 0.1-0.2 w/m^2 change in solar brightness variations alone over the course of the 11 year solar cycle.

This is pretty strong evidence for a large solar influence on climate over the 20th Century that goes beyond brightness variations alone.

Quoting ScottLincoln:


The known natural and anthropogenic forcings (and apparent forcings) to climate match observed changes very well. So perhaps we should be very skeptical of these new mechanisms until they start to reach the level of scientific understanding of these other known physical mechanism that match observation so well?


There are observations that indicate that solar activity and carbon dioxide have both contributed to the 20th Century Global Warming, but the percentage in which each variable has contributed is still very hotly debated.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Wow... solar activity has a role in climate? The giant orb of energy-producing fusion reactions that is the source of all heat energy in the climate system actually has a role in climate? Groundbreaking.

Your suggestion that climate scientists, or scientists on this blog, do not understand that solar activity plays an important role in climate is very ignorant, and perhaps borderline arrogant.


It's not ignorant or arrogant at all. There are some who will argue that solar activity only has a minor role in the observed Global Warming. I am well aware that you are a climate scientist, and I am not trying to sound "ignorant" or "arrogant" in any way.

The question that is hotly debated is how much of a role solar activity has had in the 20th Century Warming. I've read studies that only give around a 10% contribution, others near 40%, still others around 50%, others near 70%, and others higher than 70%.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Not at all true. After doing independent research on Google Scholar as well as researching through websites like sciencedirect.com as well as SpringerLink. After doing so, I came to the conclusion that there is a significant solar effect present in the climate record over the last 100-150 years.

For example, according to Reichel et al. 2001, they write:

It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern Hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle. In this paper it is shown that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed solar cycle length and the cycle mean of Northern Hemisphere land air temperature for the twentieth century, at the 99% significance level. This indicates the existence of a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

There is also evidence from Stream Flow data being extremely well correlated with solar activity, that it has been having a profound impact on climate changes over the last 100-150 years. You can't ignore such a beautiful correlation like this:



Data from Mauas et al. 2010.

There's also evidence of a solar effect on atmospheric circulation changes throughout the 20th Century, as documented by Chernavskaya et al. 2006.



Like I said, ignoring natural factors is just as ignorant with ignoring anthropogenic factors.

Wow... solar activity has a role in climate? The giant orb of energy-producing fusion reactions that is the source of all heat energy in the climate system actually has a role in climate? Groundbreaking.

Your suggestion that climate scientists, or scientists on this blog, do not understand that solar activity plays an important role in climate is very ignorant, and perhaps borderline arrogant.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


There are some that claim that the solar effect throughout the 20th century is very small or even negligible. There is a lot of evidence for a significant role for solar variability in the 20th century documented through many papers.


Clearly solar activity plays a role in climate. The known mechanisms by which solar activity control climate have been relatively stable, if not slightly cooling, over the last 50 years. I find it interesting that if a paper suggests a correlation between a different cycle in solar activity and temperature it gets jumped on, but when it comes to CO2 and temperature, heck, we can't say that its related because correlation is not equal to causation!

Of course we actually do have a known physical mechanism between concentrations of greenhouse gases and global temperature, and this has been established science for decades. We also have actual known physical mechanisms between total solar irradiance and global temperature (the sun's role in climate change that climate scientists don't deny, but actually discovered). These forcings have a correlation to temperature, but it's not because of that correlation that scientists know how they affect climate. Compare that to these other cycles like cosmic rays and now a solar magnetic cycle, and suddenly there is "a lot of evidence" for other solar cycles affecting climate even if it is just a statistical correlation and only a hypothetical physical mechanism.

The known natural and anthropogenic forcings (and apparent forcings) to climate match observed changes very well. So perhaps we should be very skeptical of these new mechanisms until they start to reach the level of scientific understanding of these other known physical mechanism that match observation so well?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Atmospheric CO2 for April 2013


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tropical diseases and tick borne diseases spreading into the UK.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:




Yes shows what studying can do. I had an open mind and now see that AGW is not proven.


Don't sell yourself short, in your favorite manner. You are not claiming doubt about GW, you are claiming it is false.

You say you started knowing nothing 2.5 months ago. Now you are an expert, have absorbed all the science and can refute 1000s of papers. yet you don't exhibit any knowledge past the standard oil funded hack papers, of which you are suddenly also an expert (as well as being an expert in criticising people like Gore and Mann).

In short, is it any wonder you have no credibility, or that certain people accuse you of only pretending to be naive and openminded yet with a hidden intent to your posts?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting allahgore:




With a 16 yr flatine line in global temp rise and co2 rising during the same 16 yrs, co2 does not = a global temp rise.

Re-posting this in the hopes that it gets through this time:



The "trend" is slightly higher for the most recent sixteen years (top graph) than it was for the sixteen years in the bottom graph.

Sooo...did GW stop in 1995 or what?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Are you saying that the long term temperature trend upward over the last 150 years is a "clear anthropogenic signal?" The PDO/AMO are superimposed on the long term warming trend, and can significantly modulate that long term warming trend. However, natural factors can easily play a significant role with the long term temperature increase as well. There is a lot of evidence for a solar signature in the 20th Century Warming trend, and the effects from the sun should not be ignored on the basis that Carbon Dioxide is increasing.

The air surface temperature is a basic meteorological parameter and its variation is a primary measure of global, regional and local climate changes. In this work, the global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature time series, obtained from the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the Sunspot Number (Rz) for the interval 1880%u20132005, are decomposed in frequency bands through wavelet multi-resolution analysis. We have found a very low correlation between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature and Rz in the 11 yr solar cycle band (8%u201316 years) from %u223C1880 to %u223C1950. Afterwards the correlation is higher. A very significant correlation (R %u223C0.57 to 0.80) is found in the %u223C22 yr solar Hale cycle band (16%u201332 years) with lags from zero to four years between latitudinal averages air surface temperature and Rz. Therefore it seems that the 22 yr magnetic field solar cycle might have a higher effect on Earth's climate than solar variations related to the 11 yr sunspot cycle.

Of course, there are people that say that the Earth hasn't warmed at all over the last 150 years, and that Carbon Dioxide plays no role in the warming trend. Both are false. However, there are some whom equally deny that the sun has had a role in climate change over the last 100-150 years.


Snowlover123,

Welcome back. After our spirited debate last summer where you rebuked the scientific peer-review process with regard to several papers that supposedly proved that Anthropogenic Global Warming was caused by Cosmic Rays and not an increase of atmospheric CO2, I had thought you disappeared back into the intarwebs.

However, it seems you're back after a long respite, along with some new material.

The Echer, et. al. 2012 paper that you cite from the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (which has a 1.59 impact factor, I might add), is not a unique paper. It's simply a redress of data from the NASA/GISS data set, and draws a correlation between sunspot activity and global surface temperatures.

This is not new science.

In fact, because some readers here do not have access to the full article you cite, I'll provide a little bit of extra insight:

From the introduction:
"(Of upward global air surface temperature trends) The largest part of this climatic warming is usually attributed to the anthropogenic effects due to the enhanced greenhouse gases concentrations (Parker et al., 1994; Jones et al., 1999; Barnett et al., 2001; IPCC, 2007). Nevertheless, there seems to be evidence that natural phenomena can contribute significantly with the temperature variability (Eddy, 1976; Haigh, 2007; Scafetta and West, 2008). Scafetta (2010) found empirical evidences that the climate oscillations within the secular scale are likely driven by astronomical cycles."

No where else in the paper does it even mention carbon dioxide increases, fossil fuels, or the real cause of global warming.

You'll also note that the authors of the paper are drawing on conclusions from papers that have already been rebuked in the Journal of Geophysical Research via NASA. An excerpt from the abstract: "We also demonstrate that the methodologies used in Scafetta & West [2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008] are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. "

While the Eddy 1976 paper is simply a reference to the discoverer of the Maunder Minimum (a favorite red-herring of climate denialism), of her own work in Haigh 2007, Dr. Haigh states that "We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales%u2026" (Science Daily / Oct 7, 2010). Finally, as for the cited Scafetta 2010 paper, the problems with his approach are discussed in-depth at Skeptical Science.

All these papers, mind you, are well-promoted on the web by WUWT and the Heartland Institute, who each have made it their mission to discredit any and all climate change science that shows attribution to human activity.

Now, on to the issues with the information you are once again putting forth here in Dr. Rood's blog:

Quoting Snowlover123 :

Quoting MisterPerfect:


your sources have to be peer reviewed by select scientists for anything to be valid



Not at all true. After doing independent research on Google Scholar as well as researching through websites like sciencedirect.com as well as SpringerLink. After doing so, I came to the conclusion that there is a significant solar effect present in the climate record over the last 100-150 years.



You did this last year, SnowLover123. Same argument, same sources. You can do all the searching you want on Google Scholar, but until you engage in the critical thinking process -- that is, research a problem without a biased assumption of a specific conclusion -- you will not be utilizing dialectic reasoning, nor truly engaging objective scientific research. Additionally, your rejection of -- and failure to utilize -- the standard peer review process provides little to no professional oversight of your methods or analysis, and therefore, you close the door on collaboration with those more knowledgeable than you in the field.

Put simply, you are not practicing science.

You are, in fact using misinformation tactics to discredit climate science by deliberately confusing the argument with long, verbose and technical-sounding comments, insisting that your logic is airtight, and implying that the vast majority of climate scientists who disagree with you as being somehow less knowledgeable than you about the subject. Furthermore, by continuing to cut and paste substantial amounts of material does not make you any more correct on climate science. All you are doing is (1) saturating your audience with a small minority of cherry-picked data that only supports your own view that Cosmic Rays are the cause of the current accelerated climate change, which has been thoroughly refuted; and (2) propagating your message by being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent; repeating it over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense.

Personally, I have no desire to engage you yet again on this subject, so I'm putting you on ignore. Feel free to bring this up again next year if you wish, or even the year after that. It doesn't really matter, as it won't make your opinion the least bit correct.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 852
Florida to Cut Subsidized Coastal Insurance

HuffingtonPost.com


With the stroke of his pen on a piece of insurance reform legislation, Florida governor Rick Scott will soon have the opportunity to begin writing another chapter to a rich and under-appreciated history of small-government environmentalism. The legislation he'll almost certainly sign in the next few weeks -- the "coastal preservation" title of a property insurance reform bill -- will protect millions of undeveloped acres in the State of Florida, shield taxpayers from giant potential liabilities, defend private property, and won't cost a penny of tax money. While it's not the first law or regulation of its type -- several similar measures exist in federal law -- it's an approach that deserves a lot more attention and consideration from conservatives and liberals alike.

The bill that Florida lawmakers just sent to Scott's desk contains language that ends state-subsidized insurance for people who build in high-risk coastal areas seaward of an "Coastal Construction Control Line." Without the subsidies that the state currently provides for property insurance in storm-prone areas, developers and homeowners wanting to build along the coasts will probably have to either self-insure or buy much more expensive "excess and surplus lines" insurance. This will slow the pace of new coastal development overall and assure that projects built right near storm-prone coasts are both safe (private insurers will insist on it) and economically beneficial (they'll need to be for lenders to back them.) The results will protect millions of acres of wetlands from subsidized development and, because these coastal areas serve as key wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and buffers against storm surge, benefit people who live inland too. As sea levels rise as a result of climate change, furthermore, the bill will assure that Florida will have to do less to adjust. And, since Florida will no longer assume liabilities for the insurance, the bill also protects taxpayers. In short, it's something that just about every group concerned (except developers) should love.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
#468 & 469 - snowlover:

Have you reviewed the climate change page on the wunderground site concerning the sun's contribution to global warming? Link

It lists "many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades". How does this correlate with your research?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting cyclonebuster:


No Mann believes this...You think NOAA has it wrong? If so how?

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased



Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Link


....


Solar Activity increased dramatically during the 20th Century. Even assuming that solar activity did not increase during the late-20th Century, there would still be warming due to the fact that equilibrium had not been met yet.



The figure above from Usoskin et al. 2005 demonstrates the remarkable correlation between temperatures and solar activity over the last 1000-2000 or so years. Note the sharp uptick in Solar Activity during the 20th Century that appears to be unprecedented at least over the last 2000 or so years.

This result is supported from proxy data from Scherer et al. 2006, which shows temperatures and Solar Activity showing an incredibly close correlation over the last 2000 or so years, as well as showing an unprecedented sharp rise in solar activity during the 20th Century.



It's pretty likely that solar activity has had a significant influence on regional, hemispheric, and Global Climate Changes during the 20th Century. The question is how much of the warming during this timeframe can be ascribed to solar activity. Is it 33%, 50% or 75%? I'm not sure, but based off of a lot of data, I would conclude that solar activity has significantly contributed to the 20th Century Global Warming. The balance of evidence also suggests that Carbon Dioxide has also significantly influenced temperature changes as well. As I said, to ascribe only a small percentage of warming to the sun is to ignore evidence, and to not be objective.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MisterPerfect:


your sources have to be peer reviewed by select scientists for anything to be valid


Not at all true. After doing independent research on Google Scholar as well as researching through websites like sciencedirect.com as well as SpringerLink. After doing so, I came to the conclusion that there is a significant solar effect present in the climate record over the last 100-150 years.

For example, according to Reichel et al. 2001, they write:

It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern Hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle. In this paper it is shown that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed solar cycle length and the cycle mean of Northern Hemisphere land air temperature for the twentieth century, at the 99% significance level. This indicates the existence of a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

There is also evidence from Stream Flow data being extremely well correlated with solar activity, that it has been having a profound impact on climate changes over the last 100-150 years. You can't ignore such a beautiful correlation like this:



Data from Mauas et al. 2010.

There's also evidence of a solar effect on atmospheric circulation changes throughout the 20th Century, as documented by Chernavskaya et al. 2006.



Like I said, ignoring natural factors is just as ignorant with ignoring anthropogenic factors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:







Former NASA Scientists Conclude: No Evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming

Written by John O'Sullivan
Ummm...I think we've been through this before. However, here's an analysis of this nonsense:

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority. Link

This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting allahgore:


Mann.


No Mann believes this...You think NOAA has it wrong? If so how?

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased



Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Link


....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
From ClimateProgress
NASA Projects Carbon Pollution Impact: ‘Some Regions Outside The Tropics May Have No Rainfall At All’


In September, NOAA put together a video showing how climate change means wet areas get wetter and dry gets drier. Now NASA has a video of their own with similar findings.

Here is a link (NASA didn’t make the video embeddable)


Model simulations spanning 140 years [video here] show that warming from carbon dioxide will change the frequency that regions around the planet receive no rain (brown), moderate rain (tan), and very heavy rain (blue). The occurrence of no rain and heavy rain will increase, while moderate rainfall will decrease. Credit: NASA.

The summer precipitation varies year by year, of course, but as the snapshot above shows, by mid-century there is basically no rain in much of the Southwest and California some years. And the Amazon is not looking too good either (see also “NASA-Led Study Finds Warming-Driven Megadroughts Jeopardizing Amazon Forest“).

NASA’s news release explains


“In response to carbon dioxide-induced warming, the global water cycle undergoes a gigantic competition for moisture resulting in a global pattern of increased heavy rain, decreased moderate rain, and prolonged droughts in certain regions,” said William Lau of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and lead author of the study….

Areas projected to see the most significant increase in heavy rainfall are in the tropical zones around the equator, particularly in the Pacific Ocean and Asian monsoon regions.

Some regions outside the tropics may have no rainfall at all. The models also projected for every degree Fahrenheit of warming, the length of periods with no rain will increase globally by 2.6 percent. In the Northern Hemisphere, areas most likely to be affected include the deserts and arid regions of the southwest United States, Mexico, North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and northwestern China. In the Southern Hemisphere, drought becomes more likely in South Africa, northwestern Australia, coastal Central America and northeastern Brazil.

“Large changes in moderate rainfall, as well as prolonged no-rain events, can have the most impact on society because they occur in regions where most people live,” Lau said.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Quoting MisterPerfect:


This is peer reviewed evidence from 1975:


Land of the Lost!

LOL. So bad! I feel like cheering for the dinosaurs!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting Snowlover123:


There are some that claim that the solar effect throughout the 20th century is very small or even negligible. There is a lot of evidence for a significant role for solar variability in the 20th century documented through multiple lines of evidence.


your sources have to be peer reviewed by select scientists for anything to be valid
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


What? What climate scientists have claimed that there is not a solar impact on climate?


There are some that claim that the solar effect throughout the 20th century is very small or even negligible. There is a lot of evidence for a significant role for solar variability in the 20th century documented through many papers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Of course, there are people that say that the Earth hasn't warmed at all over the last 150 years, and that Carbon Dioxide plays no role in the warming trend. Both are false. However, there are some whom equally deny that the sun has had a role in climate change over the last 100-150 years.


What? What climate scientists have claimed that there is not a solar impact on climate?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Cute. Please produce the evidence.


This is peer reviewed evidence from 1975:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
451. greentortuloni 5:16 PM EDT on May 04, 2013

Ah, yes - no good deed ever goes unpunished.

BTW, did you know you are the only "tortuloni" on google? A toast to your uniqueness!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
It's been a while since I've posted on here.

Quoting AstroHurricane001:


HadCrut global temp (blue) vs. AMO (red). In my inference, when the multi-annual average for the blue rises over the red, that's when a clear anthropogenic signal started appearing in the observable temperatures.


Are you saying that the long term temperature trend upward over the last 150 years is a "clear anthropogenic signal?" The PDO/AMO are superimposed on the long term warming trend, and can significantly modulate that long term warming trend. However, natural factors can easily play a significant role with the long term temperature increase as well. There is a lot of evidence for a solar signature in the 20th Century Warming trend, and the effects from the sun should not be ignored on the basis that Carbon Dioxide is increasing.

The air surface temperature is a basic meteorological parameter and its variation is a primary measure of global, regional and local climate changes. In this work, the global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature time series, obtained from the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the Sunspot Number (Rz) for the interval 1880–2005, are decomposed in frequency bands through wavelet multi-resolution analysis. We have found a very low correlation between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature and Rz in the 11 yr solar cycle band (8–16 years) from ∼1880 to ∼1950. Afterwards the correlation is higher. A very significant correlation (R ∼0.57 to 0.80) is found in the ∼22 yr solar Hale cycle band (16–32 years) with lags from zero to four years between latitudinal averages air surface temperature and Rz. Therefore it seems that the 22 yr magnetic field solar cycle might have a higher effect on Earth's climate than solar variations related to the 11 yr sunspot cycle.

Of course, there are people that say that the Earth hasn't warmed at all over the last 150 years, and that Carbon Dioxide plays no role in the warming trend. Both are false. However, there are some whom equally deny that the sun has had a role in climate change over the last 100-150 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Carbon Bubble: All we have to do is decide to not commit civilizational suicide – and the markets crash!


The first Carbon Bubble report, released a few years, was a very big deal. It told us that the whole “peak oil” trope was just wrong, that the real name of the problem was Unburnable Carbon. And it led Bill McKibben to publish his fabulous Rolling Stone article. And then came the Do the Math project, and the whole carbon divestment movement. Definitely a very big deal.

And now comes the second Carbon Bubble report, Wasted Capital, which was just released. It’s Phase II of the project and, far from being a rehash, it’s proof that the fundamental approach is sound. In fact, it’s huge news. Lord Stern (of the Stern Review) is now fronting. The modeling has been fine tuned, and now shows – among other things – that Carbon Capture and Sequestration is extremely unlikely to save our bacon. There’s an improved geographic analysis which shows just how hard the Carbon Bubble is going to hit the emerging economies of the developing world. There’s a huge amount of evidence that, not just stars like Jeremy Grantham but mainline financial analysts around the world are taking the argument on-board, and in a big way. There’s even a bit of speculation about how this is all going to interact with new round of the climate negotiations, which will reach their (next) crisis in the winter of 2015, six years after Copenhagen.

What’s at stake? Look at it this way. A reasonable person, looking around with open eyes, might well decide that we’re unlikely to free ourselves from the grip of the fossil-fuel cartel. That, to be blunt, we’re likely to commit civilizational suicide. But there’s still a chance that we’ll decide not to. Perhaps not a big chance, but what the hell. If you’re a money manager, you have to take it seriously. You have to take it, in fact, as a risk that you need to hedge your portfolio against. Because you’re probably holding a lot of fossil stocks, and if you’re not doing so consciously, you’re not doing your job. And – this being capitalism – that means that someone else is going to eat your lunch.

Quick background: The Climate Justice movement has been talking forever about the need to “keep the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole.” For maybe 15 years, actually, maybe longer. But until the scientists worked out that the sum of emissions over time (the “carbon budget”) was to a first order the best predictor of global temperature change, they were generally dismissed as naive and ideological. But that was then. Now we know that, literally, we can’t burn all the fossils we have. Not if we intend to stay around. Not even close, actually. And we know it quantitatively. Rigorously even. And we know it while we’re still licking our wounds from the bursting of the last financial bubble.

The Carbon Tracker Initiative doesn’t come off like a climate-justice project, but its logic is just as implacable. And it has been explaining that logic to analysts on Wall Street and in the City of London, in language that they can understand. In short, Carbon Tracker has been arguing that “governments will limit carbon emissions, so if your business model is based on burning it, you are overvalued and at risk – sitting on a bubble. BAD haircut coming.” And they’re clearly right. This is a “systemic” approach that shows that markets fail, and sometimes spectacularly, and that right now they’re leading investors (and, oh yeah, humanity as a whole) to disaster.

The timing couldn’t be better. The science is getting terrifying. The movement is growing fast. The negotiations are rebooting. The challenge of thinking big – with a sense of the global political and economic challenges that are now on our collective plate – is no longer one that can be put off. Think about it. We’ve got to phase out coal – and then oil and gas. And we’ve got to do it while many of the people on the planet are still dirt poor. How’s that going to work?

In the meanwhile, here’s a roundup of the initial press. Most of it is British. Hopefully, the US press will pick up the story, but you never know these days. So far, there’s just a blog that The Times took from The International Herald Tribune.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
451. greentortuloni
9:16 PM GMT on May 04, 2013
So I am totally bored watching Fiorentina outplay and then lose to Roma in overtime. Anyway, I went back surfed some of hte old blogs. Here are some old posts that express what I cannot express or else be banned again. The bold stuff is Allahgore's own words.


137. allahgore 07:37 PM GMT del 19 Febbraio 2013 2
I am doing some research, this site is great.
-------------------------------

140. allahgore 09:07 PM GMT del 19 Febbraio 2013 5
Quoting Neapolitan:
Well, most here will give you the benefit of the doubt, as you just registered today. But you should know that your chosen handle kind of marks you as an anti-science type. That assumption may be wrong, but it'll be up to you to prove it incorrect...

I joined yesterday. I am not anti-science. I work for a fairly large oil company. I am doing some research and I hope to learn certain aspects. I have also joined other websites. I will mostly observe and engage in some topics. thank you for the welcome.

298. allahgore 07:13 PM GMT del 23 Febbraio 2013 0
I am new to this site. I have been reading what everyone is saying. I am really confused with climate change, there seems to be so much contridiction as to what is happening. I see several charts all showing something different. I have a couple of questions.
1.) do we have extremes with both sides of the debate?
2.) is there people here that get paid to spread false information?
3.) what is the goal of this blog?



364. allahgore 03:28 PM GMT del 24 Febbraio 2013 1
Quoting FLwolverine:
Oh, wow, have you punched the hot buttons!

1) As a newbie myself, let me recommend that you go to the top of the page, click on the "Climate" tab, and read the linked materials - they discuss the science behind the statements in Dr. Rood's blog:

"The Earth is warming, sea levels are rising, and the weather is changing. We know that the Earth has warmed and will continue to warm due to the carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels%u2014and the warming is and will be disruptive. Five years ago the talk was %u201Cif%u201D we limited the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius, then we would avoid %u201Cdangerous%u201D climate change. It is now quite obvious that we see large, consequential, and disruptive changes with even less warming%u2014for example in the melting of the Arctic Sea ice. The commitments the world has made have us on a path toward 3.5 degrees of warming or more. If we burn all our fossil fuels, the warming will be much greater."

Then if you follow the posts on this blog, I think you will be able to identify the people who accept those facts and analysis and are concerned about how the world is going to cope with the problem, and on the other hand those people who want to deny that there is a problem - hint: those are the ones with NO SCIENCE to back up their positions.

So, to answer your question, there isn't any legitimate "debate" about whether global warming is happening or that mankind is the cause or that it is a problem now and is going to be a bigger one. I say that because a real debate involves proof on each side, not just "arguments", and there's no proof on the deniers' side.

There are questions about what should be done and what can be done to respond to the problem, and you can find extreme positions on those questions. But those are different issues.

2) It wouldn't surprise me; I don't have any proof.
3) One purpose is to provide a place for people like you and me to educate ourselves about the problem, and to learn to differentiate between fact-based arguments, fantasy-based arguments, and out-and-out b.......baloney.

thanks I do need to study more. I am very new to this topic and have a very open mind



359. allahgore 03:06 PM GMT del 04 Marzo 2013
Quoting greentortuloni:

I'm saying that you have been asking questions naively. Fine, newbies, welcome.

Now though, I'm asking if you have read anything or understood anything? I don't mean understood technically or that you have to have any degree pf proficiency in the subject; I certainly don't anymore.
What I am asking is what you know so far from what you have read. What is your simple 3 or 4 sentence understanding of the issue?

From what i have read so far looks like man is causing the climate to change, also with India and China increasing production, the future looks bad. I am trying to understand is there a point in time when we can't do anything about it. Who is going to lead the charge to try and reduce warming? Most goverments are reactive not proactive. What is the Plan to reduce warming? Is there a mandated timeline to follow? I am sorry for asking basic questions, I am just trying to learn.

------------------------------------------------

For assumed honest newbie to expert in denial in a few short months.....
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
450. Naga5000
9:15 PM GMT on May 04, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


No what I am saying is the amount of co2 rise in the same 16 yrs, the temp should be much higher. It's not not like someone flipped a switch and opened the trap door to trap the heat in the ocean. I don't think we are 100% sure what is causing the warming.


Much higher? According to what? Temps are continuing to increase, the oceans continue to warm, the glacial land ice continues to melt, the natural forcings have been accounted for...the only thing left is green house gases. There is no "trap door"...the warming has continues in land, sea, and air. If you can find another cause to the warming with empirical evidence to support it, go for it. There's plenty of secondary data analysis to be done.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3296
448. overwash12
8:42 PM GMT on May 04, 2013
No problem Wolverine,it's all good! Sure wish it would warm up here,I'm ready to get my garden in full production mode.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
447. Naga5000
8:16 PM GMT on May 04, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


Are you saying global temps have not been near a flatline in the past 16yrs?


Hmm...interesting, you seem to have contradicted your original statement of "With a 16 yr flatine line in global temp rise and co2 rising during the same 16 yrs, co2 does not = a global temp rise.". What is it, a flatline or near faltline? Because the truth is the past 16 years have still shown an increasing trend. Are you saying you just outright deny the data collected showing continued warming? Are you saying you are using the same 16 year "trend line" debunked argument as our infamous climate denying websites? Did you miss this link on Dr. Master's blog or did you just ignore the evidence and make your own? Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3296
445. FLwolverine
8:00 PM GMT on May 04, 2013
Quoting overwash12:
Link I believe this video!
That's what I thought. No science is going to change your mind, so now that we're clear on where you're coming from, there's nothing more to talk about without going into religion and violating the rules. Thanks for giving a straight answer.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331

Viewing: 495 - 445

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.