More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:32 AM GMT on July 12, 2013

Share this Blog
20
+

More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)

In the entry before President Obama’s speech, I wrote about farmers and climate change. I referred to a survey of farmer’s opinions on climate change performed by Iowa State University professor, J. Gordon Arbuckle and colleagues. In a 2013 paper in Climatic Change, Arbuckle and colleagues reported that 68% of farmers he surveyed in Iowa believed that the climate was changing. 28% were uncertain and only 5% believed that the climate was not changing. With regard to attribution, 10% felt that climate change was caused by humans, 23% felt it was natural, and about 35% felt it was caused by both human and natural causes. (Summary Article and Press Coverage )

In this blog I want to explore the results of the poll of the farmer’s some more.

Arbuckle’s work is in the standard protocol of social science studies focused on the acceptance and use of science-based knowledge by society. It utilizes the basic framework of how the responses to climate change are organized, specifically, mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps, coupled with enhancement of processes that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as storage of carbon dioxide in forests and soils. Adaptation is modification of how we do and build things in response to climate change.

First a little about social science research – In the past 5 years I have worked with several social scientists. The practice of social science has strict protocols. Interview-based research, such as discussed here, poses questions to be explored and answered by input from a set of interviewees. As in natural science, it is required that the research questions can be tested and evaluated. Not only does this require careful design of the research questions, but it also requires design, review and testing of the questions to be asked in the interview. The design of a robust experiment to disentangle questions where there is a strong element of human preference and decision is exceedingly difficult. This includes picking the group of people who are asked to respond to the interview.

The design of Arbuckle’s research had two research questions: “(1) do Iowa farmers support actions aimed at climate change adaptation and mitigation; and, (2) are beliefs and concerns about climate change associated with support for or opposition to those activities."

The interview questions that were designed to unravel the issues of the two research questions focused first on precipitation. As I wrote in the earlier blog, there is already a perceived change in precipitation, especially in the springtime during planting. There is too much water. It is worth noting that this part of the country is a part of the country that has seen less warming than the regions surrounding it – the Midwest warming hole (excellent paper by Kunkel et al. and Rood blog with unfilled promises). Therefore climate change is felt more in this region by changes in precipitation than by warming.

The interview questions were anchored around protecting the land, draining the land, and whether or not there should be mitigation to counter the climate change that is causing the increased precipitation. There was strong support for protecting the land through conservation practices. The support for draining the land was less strong, with more people uncertain about this option. An interesting aside, much of the Midwest corn land has extensive drainage infrastructure, which made what was historically a too wet environment into viable and excellent corn and soybean land. There was far less support for mitigation. However, looking at the mitigation numbers it was about equally split between opposing mitigation, uncertain about mitigation and supporting mitigation. Those opposing was about 3 percentage points higher than those supporting. This suggests that many recognize the changing climate and believe that more resiliency should be built into their land and practices – that is, they are interested in adaptation. They are less convinced of mitigation, which makes sense from many perspectives – but I assert because it is far less easy to see the benefit of mitigation whether or not there is acceptance that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of the warming planet.

Arbuckle’s research then uses a set of questions to investigate farmer’s perception of vulnerability to farming due to climate change and extreme weather. As in the mitigation question those unsure, concerned and unconcerned were split, but in this case the largest group was always in the concerned group with numbers of about 40 percent to 20 percent. About a third of the farmers were uncertain in each category. The largest difference was in the group concerned about the impact of more extreme weather, with 45 percent expressing concern. The farmers were split on whether or not we would find technological or other methods to address climate change.

When all of these questions were put together and analyzed a set of conclusions, some surprising, emerge. Farmers interested in more protection of the land in anticipation of climate change had a high level of concern of increased risk and were older. Farmers interested in improved drainage had a high level of concern, large farms, higher education and felt that climate change was not a major issue because farmers would develop innovative solutions. Interestingly, support for taking adaptive measures did not correlate with whether or not the farmers perceived climate change was attributable to humans. Finally farmers interested in mitigation felt that the climate change was real and had an important contribution from humans, a high level of concern and did not feel that we would innovate our way to solutions.

One of the more robust conclusions from this research is that perceptions of vulnerability due to weather and increased vulnerability due to changes in precipitation and severe weather were a major motivation to take steps to prepare for climate change. This was true whether or not farmers “believed” in climate change. This recognition of vulnerability and increased risk is consistent with my (our) experience in the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Applications Center – people engage when they perceive vulnerability. Surprisingly, older farmers were more concerned than younger farmers about adaptation. With regard to mitigation, those who accepted a human contribution to the changing climate were more supportive of mitigation – makes sense. And worth a mention the combination of those who think that climate change has a human component or is primarily caused by humans is almost 45 percent, and that’s not as low as one might take away from the political and public record.

r

Some good references:

One Gardner’s Struggle

Gardeners Expect Warmer Nights

Climate and Farming

Farming Success in an Uncertain Future (Cornell)

USDA Warns Farmers about Climate Change (and announces plans to set up climate change centers)

Reinventing Farming for a Changing Climate (NPR)

Farm Level Adjustments to Climate Change (USDA)

Climate Change More Expensive to Farmers than Climate Bill

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: 143 - 93

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

Quoting 138. ILwthrfan:


Excellent response Some1Has2BtheRookie,

I wish for every new individual introduced to the topic of Climate Change read the breakdown you gave. It illustrates the flaws of the con side of the argument nicely.

The website pretty much sums up the roster of both the Pro and Con sides and what they constitute of. It is at that point further down in which you hammered home my point. It's The Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists VERSUS The US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

I have seen the debates on here involving Roy Spencer and Rush Limbaugh. lol. When I pointed out creditable, I was only referring to the fact that he was actually a Climatologist. His main ideas are religiously tied to the fact that God created this world, and its a stable one at that, and that our physics are not fully understood and we have nothing to worry about. He was literally the only source on the con side that had any Climatological or Atmospheric Science background whatsoever, which was a point I was trying to emphasis without stating it. I thought it would be a good opportunity for anyone neutral on the subject to see the differences in the logic on both sides as the site sourced both sides ideas without someone screaming in their ear. When you get down to the footnotes, it becomes a very clear picture as to which side is accurate and which is not.

Appreciate the response!

Jared


I was very pleased that you offered the website to us. The site does very much show the differences between the science and the psuedo-science. I was going to include the footnotes, for they tell the real story, but I thought it better to conserve the blog space. - Thank you!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Listening to the relentless noise of the planes above me which are going to land on the newly built runway at Frankfurt International Airport, I fullheartedly agree:

Aviation is a rogue industry on a runway to nowhere
New runway proposals at Heathrow and beyond are the right answers - to the wrong question. The right question is how many flights can the climate withstand?
The Guardian Posted by Damian Carrington Wednesday 17 July 2013 13.13 BST
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Food & Water Watch:

If You Thought What ALEC and the Koch Brothers Are Doing Was Bad...

By Mitch Jones

We’ve all seen the results in states across the country of the influence that ALEC and the Koch Brothers have amassed. And if you think the results of their agenda to hand more and more power to corporations at your expense are bad, you should really hate the new “trade” deals being negotiated to hand even more power to corporations at our expense.

The Transpacific Partnership (TPP) is being secretly negotiated by 12 countries, including the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and Brunei. The Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) includes the 27 nations of the European Union. Both of these proposed trade agreements threaten U.S. food safety rules, infringe upon public and private land with an increased push for fracking, undermine efforts to develop local food systems and increase the privatization of water systems.

While its supporters talk about them as “trade” deals, in reality the TPP and TAFTA would be a permanent power grab by corporations and their financers that would make it impossible for future generations to choose what laws and rules they want to live under. They would permanently enshrine the very economic system that has lead to greater imbalances in income and wealth and increasing economic crises. These deals would also allow foreign corporations to sue the federal, state and local governments over laws and policies that violate the “trade” deal, but protect us from unsafe food, dirty water and dangerous fracking. It’s outrageous!

How do we know that these deals will give more power to corporations and leave our children, our air and water, and our food safety at greater risk? Because while the American people aren’t being told what’s in the deal, and while members of Congress are being shut out of the negotiations, representatives from more than 600 corporations and corporate interests are able not only to see the text of the agreement, but also are able to help influence what goes into it.

We need to stop these trade deals before they give even more power to corporations!

Read our new fact sheet: Don’t Fast Track Fracking and Unsafe Food

And tell your senator and representatives to oppose these corporate give-aways.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting 59. iceagecoming:



Excellent, by far the gulf stream is the most consistent
unlike wind, solar, and hydro.
Thats correct 24/7/365......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Quoting 82. Birthmark:

And even he's not credible. Want evidential support for that? Fair enough. Go read anything, *anything* he's written on his blog. Then go and read any, *any* peer-reviewed paper Spencer has written.

Compare the two.

Can you spot the differences?


I agree, Birthmark.

I probably have not dug through near the amount of articles as you or others have on here, but I am fully aware of the flaws the man has. Like I stated to Some 1ha2BeTheRookie, my intention was to be a ploy for some of our neutral viewers to be able to easily distinguish good sourced data from other data. To see the main ideas and then to use the footnotes as to where the data/idea was extracted from and to top it all off that website has no bias IMO, which was the point.

Jared
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 92. Some1Has2BtheRookie:






Excellent response Some1Has2BtheRookie,

I wish for every new individual introduced to the topic of Climate Change read the breakdown you gave. It illustrates the flaws of the con side of the argument nicely.

The website pretty much sums up the roster of both the Pro and Con sides and what they constitute of. It is at that point further down in which you hammered home my point. It's The Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists VERSUS The US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

I have seen the debates on here involving Roy Spencer and Rush Limbaugh. lol. When I pointed out creditable, I was only referring to the fact that he was actually a Climatologist. His main ideas are religiously tied to the fact that God created this world, and its a stable one at that, and that our physics are not fully understood and we have nothing to worry about. He was literally the only source on the con side that had any Climatological or Atmospheric Science background whatsoever, which was a point I was trying to emphasis without stating it. I thought it would be a good opportunity for anyone neutral on the subject to see the differences in the logic on both sides as the site sourced both sides ideas without someone screaming in their ear. When you get down to the footnotes, it becomes a very clear picture as to which side is accurate and which is not.

Appreciate the response!

Jared
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Like butter: Study explains surprising acceleration of Greenland’s inland ice

Press Release

WASHINGTON, DC — Surface meltwater draining through cracks in an ice sheet can warm the sheet from the inside, softening the ice and letting it flow faster, a new study finds.

During the last decade, researchers have captured compelling evidence of accelerating ice flow at terminal regions, or "snouts," of Greenland glaciers as they flow into the ocean along the western coast. Now, the new research shows that the interior regions are also flowing much faster than they were in the winter of 2000-2001, and the study authors propose a reason for the speedup.

"Through satellite observations, we determined that an inland region of the Sermeq Avannarleq Glacier, 40 to 60 miles from the coast, is flowing about 1.5 times faster than it was about a decade ago," said Thomas Phillips, lead author of the new paper and a research associate at the time of the study with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

In 2000-2001, the inland segment was flowing at about 40 meters (130 feet) per year; in 2007-2008, that speed was closer to 60 meters (200 feet) per year.

"At first, we couldn't explain this rapid interior acceleration," Phillips said. "We knew it wasn't related to what was going on at the glacier's terminus. The speedup had to be due to changes within the ice itself."

To shed light on the observed acceleration, Phillips and his team developed a new model to investigate the effects of meltwater on the ice sheet's physical properties. The team found that meltwater warms the ice sheet, which then—like a warm stick of butter—softens, deforms, and flows faster.

Previous studies estimated that it would take centuries to millennia for new climates to increase the temperature deep within ice sheets. But when the influence of meltwater is considered, warming can occur within decades and, thus, produce rapid accelerations. The paper has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

The researchers were tipped off to this mechanism by the massive amount of meltwater they observed on the ice sheet's surface during their summer field campaigns, and they wondered if it was affecting the ice sheet. During the last several decades, atmospheric warming above the Greenland Ice Sheet has caused an expanding area of the surface to melt during the summer, creating pools of water that gush down cracks in the ice. The meltwater eventually funnels to the interior and bed of the ice sheet.

As the meltwater drains through the ice, it carries with it heat from the sun.

"The sun melts ice into water at the surface, and that water then flows into the ice sheet carrying a tremendous amount of latent energy," said William Colgan, a coauthor and CIRES adjunct research associate. "The latent energy then heats the ice."

The new model shows that this speeds up ice flow in two major ways: One, the retained meltwater warms the bed of the ice sheet and preconditions it to accommodate a basal water layer, making it easier for the ice sheet to slide by lubrication. Two, warmer ice is also softer (less viscous), which makes it flow more readily.

"Basically, the gravitational force driving the ice sheet flow hasn't changed over time, but with the ice sheet becoming warmer and softer, that same gravitational force now makes the ice flow faster," Colgan said.

This transformation from stiff to soft only requires a little bit of extra heat from meltwater. "The model shows that a slight warming of the ice near the ice sheet bed—only a couple of degrees Celsius—is sufficient to explain the widespread acceleration," Colgan said.

The findings have important ramifications for ice sheets and glaciers everywhere. "It could imply that ice sheets can discharge ice into the ocean far more rapidly than currently estimated," Phillips said. "It also means that the glaciers are not finished accelerating and may continue to accelerate for a while. As the area experiencing melt expands inland, the acceleration may be observed farther inland."

The study's results suggest that to understand future sea-level rise, scientists need to account for a previously overlooked factor—meltwater's latent energy—and its potential role in making glaciers and ice sheets flow faster into the world's oceans. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote that one of the most significant challenges in predicting sea-level rise was "limited" understanding of the processes controlling ice flow. The IPCC's next assessment is due out in 2014.

"Traditionally, latent energy has been considered a relatively unimportant factor, but most glaciers are now receiving far more meltwater than they used to and are increasing in temperature faster than previously imagined," Colgan said. "The chunk of butter known as the Greenland Ice Sheet may be softening a lot faster than we previously thought possible."


Link to abstract of the paper
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From uknowispeaksense:
Denial in a nutshell


Wilful ignorance %u2013 yes, it is childish...



...
%u201C%u2026it%u2019s impossible to reason someone out of a position that they didn%u2019t reason themselves into.%u201D


Just think about that one. Many of us spend hours online arguing with idiots who, because of a lack of critical thinking skills, have come to choose wilful ignorance over evidence when it comes to climate change. Like young children with their fingers in their ears, it is impossible to reason with people who don%u2019t want to know the truth. I can%u2019t wait for someone to explain why we persist.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here's a little cheerful morning reading from RobertScribbler. Be sure to check out the Apocalypso Song (Armaggedon Nervous) in the comment section.

James Hansen and the Three Categories of the Runaway Greenhouse: Earth Uninhabitable for Humans at ~5,000 Gigatons Fossil Fuel Burned

Link
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting 132. bappit:

Misleading headlines again. I don't think the Flat Earth Society has an official position on global warming. Quoting from the news story:

"In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming."
Spoilsport!

But unfortunately you may be on to something. President Daniel hasn't posted to his blog since 2010, but the forums seem to be alive and well and mostly populated by deniers - when anyone bothers to talk about global warming or climate change at all. Sigh.
Link
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting 126. barbamz:


Nice one! Now, will this applause contribute to credibility of CC/AGW for the skeptics, I wonder, lol?

Misleading headlines again. I don't think the Flat Earth Society has an official position on global warming. Quoting from the news story:

"In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming."
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5961
All Natural Disasters Are Really Cultural Ones - or Why Oklahomans Don't Have Basements

Moore, Okla., has plenty of exposure to big tornadoes. On May 20, 2013, a mile-wide twister ripped through the town, following a similar track to that of an infamous tornado that devastated Moore back in 1999. Just 11 days later, on May 31, the widest tornado ever measured in the U.S. gouged a path less than 40 miles away.

What Moore doesn’t have plenty of is basements. In the wake of this year’s storms, a local homebuilder told CNN that 15 percent or fewer of residents had any kind of underground shelter. Though central Oklahoma is one of the most tornado-prone places on Earth, basements are a rarity across the entire region. This discrepancy can’t be explained by technical issues such as soil quality or groundwater. According to geologists and engineers, it’s primarily a cultural phenomenon. Experts know why basements can save lives in a tornado, and they know how to build them. But all that information is next to useless if nobody wants a basement to begin with.

Culture has a big impact on disasters — how we prepare for them, how we respond to them and even how we could prevent them. In fact, some social scientists who study disasters say they are the result of culture — what happens when natural forces or human error come crashing into existing social systems. “Nothing is a disaster until it intersects with a specific society that has vulnerabilities that are the result of decisions made over decades … often, decisions that were made without really thinking,” says Joseph Trainor, assistant professor at the University of Delaware’s Disaster Research Center.

In Oklahoma, the tornadoes intersected with decades-old expectations about what a nice house looks like and how valuable different features are when it comes time to sell.

Most people will never experience a twister careening through their living room. It’s what Trainor calls a “low-probability, high-consequence event.” When faced with such events, we tend to focus on the low-probability part.



more at ensia.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Climate Change VS Evolution - Who Wins

If you live near water in the American Southeast, you may have run across the green tree frog—or at least heard the species as it croaks (in a sound that kind of resembles rapid fire quacking). It's a small frog that's often found in pet stores. It's the state amphibian of Louisiana and Georgia. And it's one of many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and even mammals that may be incapable of evolving fast enough to keep up with what global warming has in store.

That's the upshot of a new study in the journal Ecology Letters, whose authors used a vast body of data on 540 separate species' current climatic "niches," and their evolutionary histories of adapting to different conditions, to determine whether they can evolve fast enough to keep up with the changing climate. More specifically, the study examined "climatic niche evolution," or how fast organisms have adapted to changing temperature and precipitation conditions in their habitats over time.

Under normal circumstances, the answer is very slowly. On average, the study found that animals adapted to temperature changes at a rate of less than 1 degree Celsius (or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) per million years. By contrast, global warming is expected to raise temperatures on the order of 4 degrees Celsius (or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in the next 100 years.



article at MotherJones.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
One thing for certain is that the atmosphere of Today, is not the atmosphere of 1901..nor 1936.

We have changed it in a most detrimental way by adding a Century plus of CO2 en masse into it.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127695
Beneath the Arctic, a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirs

The NASA-sponsored mission, called CARVE -- an acronym for "Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment" -- uses a specially-outfitted plane that flies low and slow above the pristine wilderness of Alaska's North Slope and the Yukon River Valley, allowing it to measure the interaction of greenhouse gases between Earth's surface and the atmosphere.

After its first three flights for 2013 (of a planned seven) concluded in June, the study already had its members re-thinking how quickly the Arctic's permafrost is melting and what that might mean for the carbon stored deep in its frozen soil and sediments.

"Permafrost soils are warming even faster than Arctic air temperatures -- as much as 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit in just the past 30 years," the mission's principal investigator, Charles Miller of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in an interview.

"As heat from Earth's surface penetrates into permafrost, it threatens to mobilize these organic carbon reservoirs and release them into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane, upsetting the Arctic's carbon balance and greatly exacerbating global warming," he added.

What has these scientists alarmed isn't just current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which reached an all-time high of 400 ppm in May, breaking through a threshold long considered the benchmark for "a new danger zone."

Melting permafrost potentially poses a much greater danger because it could release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is much more potent as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, with more than 20 times the global warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period.

Vast reserves of carbon are stored deep within the Arctic permafrost throughout the Northern Hemisphere, an area of frozen soils that covers some 9 million square miles across countries including Canada, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.


more at weather.com

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 120. FLwolverine:
Sorry for the late followup on this - sometimes life gets in the way:

Actually, Even the Flat Earth Society Believes in Climate Change


Nice one! Now, will this applause contribute to credibility of CC/AGW for the skeptics, I wonder, lol?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
News flash of the day... Global warming hasn't stopped.

More heat has gone to the deep oceans recently because of the negative phase of the IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) which intensifies the wind-driven ocean circulation.

Scientists Predict Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back To Haunt Us Once Again?

Read more at Think Progress.

Despite a large increase in heat being absorbed by the Earth's climate system (oceans, land & ice), the first decade of the 21st century saw a slowdown in the rate of global surface warming (surface air temperatures).

A climate model-based study, Meehl (2011), predicted that this was largely due to anomalous heat removed from the surface ocean and instead transported down into the deep ocean. This anomalous deep ocean warming was later confirmed by observations.

This deep ocean warming in the model occurred during negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), an index of the mean state of the north and south Pacific Ocean, and was most likely in response to intensification of the wind-driven ocean circulation.

Meehl (2013) is an update to their previous work, and the authors show that accelerated warming decades are associated with the positive phase of the IPO. This is a result of a weaker wind-driven ocean circulation, when a large decrease in heat transported to the deep ocean allows the surface ocean to warm quickly, and this in turn raises global surface temperatures.

This modelling work, combined with current understanding of the wind-driven ocean circulation, implies that global surface temperaures will rise quickly when the IPO switches from the current negative phase to a positive phase.

Even with Global Dimming, Still Lots of Warming Down Below

The way that global warming has progressed in the 21st century has probably been a great surprise to many people, no doubt a few climate scientists among them. Despite a strong increase in planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, warming of global surface temperatures has been rather muted. Surface temperatures have warmed, but at a slower rate than the last two decades of the 20th century.

Of course, the 2000's doesn't strictly qualify as a hiatus decade as defined in Meehl (2013) --where hiatus decades are described as negative global surface temperature trends -- but it is, nevertheless, a suitable analogue.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
Quoting 122. zampaz:

I believe we can evolve a new sustainable paradigm. We'll have to do this in order to survive as a species.
It's an opportunity. We have to evolve to meet the challenges and threats our own technology creates. In a funny way technology will drive the evolution of our social paradigms.

That'll work fine...if we can do it before the food runs low or out. I'm doubtful that we can (or will) pull it off.

Personally, I anticipate a few decades, perhaps centuries, of barbarism. We're terribly good at it and old habits die hard.

I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 121. FLwolverine:
Maybe the legislature should talk to the politicians in North Carolina about forbidding the sea level to rise.

That was funny, and scary. After late night comedians got hold of it the NC Senate had to back down...
Whereas the biggest industry, the US Navy, is fully cognizant of AGW and Sea Level rise and making plans for political upheavals and wars due to climate change and dwindling fresh water resources and famine due to regional flooding and drought.
We live in interesting times.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting 117. Birthmark:

Well, isn't that happy news.

I wonder at what point Nature finally decides to give her experiment with "intelligence?"

I believe we can evolve a new sustainable paradigm. We'll have to do this in order to survive as a species.
It's an opportunity. We have to evolve to meet the challenges and threats our own technology creates. In a funny way technology will drive the evolution of our social paradigms.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting 113. barbamz:
Maryland at Risk: New CNS Report Details Sea Level Challenges
By David Ottalini | Published: July 10, 2013

This site was recommended by another post from Dan Satterfield (14 July 2013: Stormy Weather, Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay)
Maybe the legislature should talk to the politicians in North Carolina about forbidding the sea level to rise.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Sorry for the late followup on this - sometimes life gets in the way:

Actually, Even the Flat Earth Society Believes in Climate Change

As it turns out, there is a real Flat Earth Society and its president thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real. In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming.

“I accept that climate change is a process which has been ongoing since beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in world-wide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age,” he said. “If it’s a coincidence, it’s quite a remarkable one. We may have experienced a temperature increase even without our use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, but I doubt it would be as dramatic as what we’re seeing now.”

As for Obama’s dig at his group, which indeed thinks the world is flat, Shenton said he’s not surprised and doesn’t take it personally. “I don’t take things like that personally, though. I know the Society’s views are quite unorthodox,” he said.

Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting 115. Birthmark:
And since we're on a new page, I'll post this again:



This will automatically update daily, so I won't re-post until sometime after post #200 in this thread. If that's too often for the blog, let me know. It's not my intent to spam.


Not for me. I'm shocked at the lack of near-100 percent cover.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
Quoting 115. Birthmark:
And since we're on a new page, I'll post this again:



This will automatically update daily, so I won't re-post until sometime after post #200 in this thread. If that's too often for the blog, let me know. It's not my intent to spam.

Important for skeptics to see this frequently IMO Birthmark.
It's not thermometers located in heat islands, it's not a conspiracy for scientists to get rich quick.
The arctic is really melting and reality can't give a sh*t about political ideologies, god or money because in reality these things do not exist in nature.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting 116. Patrap:



Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

Well, isn't that happy news.

I wonder at what point Nature finally decides to give her experiment with "intelligence?"
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469



Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

By William Boardman (about the author)

July 11, 2013 at 17:05:05

Fukushima Situation Normal, in The SNAFU Sense of "Normal"



Bad as the situation is at Fukushima, it's gotten worse.



Perhaps you've heard that radiation levels of the water leaving the Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power plane and flowing into the Pacific Ocean have risen by roughly 9,000 per cent. Turns out, that's probably putting a good face on it.



By official measurement, the water coming out of Fukushima is currently 90,000 times more radioactive than officially "safe" drinking water.



These are the highest radiation levels measured at Fukusmima since March 2011, when an earthquake-triggered tsunami destroyed the plant's four nuclear reactors, three of which melted down.



As with all nuclear reporting, precise and reliable details are hard to come by, but the current picture as of July 10 seems to be something like this:



" On July 5, radiation levels at Fukushima were what passes for "normal," which means elevated and dangerous, but stable, according to measurements by the owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).



" On July 8, radiation levels had jumped about 90 times higher, as typically reported. TEPCO had no explanation for the increase.



" On July 9, radiation levels were up again from the previous day, but at a slower rate, about 22 per cent. TEPCO still had no explanation.



" On July 10, Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) issued a statement saying that the NRA strongly suspects the radioactive water is coming from Fukushima's Reactor #1 and is going into the Pacific.



We Must Do Something About This Thing With No Impact



"We must find the cause of the contamination . . . and put the highest priority on implementing countermeasures," NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka told an NRA meeting, according to Japan Times.



As for TEPCO, the paper reported, "The utility has claimed it has detected "no significant impact' on the environment."

"in the SNAFU sense of "Normal'"

Neither the NRA nor TEPCO has determined why the level of radioactivity has been increasing. Both characterize the increase as a "spike," but so far this is a "spike" that has not yet started to come down.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127695
And since we're on a new page, I'll post this again:



This will automatically update daily, so I won't re-post until sometime after post #200 in this thread. If that's too often for the blog, let me know. It's not my intent to spam.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
It has been the hope for many years that DOE would support research into funding alternate safe methods of nuclear fission using for example; liquid flouride salt thorium reactor technology research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
Initially the first goals of Nuclear fission energy reactors were to build breeder reactors for plutonium production...post cold war, there was little interest in changing the reactor design.
Obviously this research is very expensive and poses certain security risks and threats to companies such as GE and Hitachi not to mention Exxon...
There is no technical reason that we are not using sustainable and renewable energy sources. None.



Quoting 111. LowerCal:
Breakthrough: Newfangled reactors will slash costs of nuclear power | SmartPlanet
....

Now, the Breakthrough Institute - a youthful group dedicated to “an ecologically vibrant planet” - has given those holdouts a good reason to drop their final objections and join the nuclear cause.

In their new report, How to Make Nuclear Cheap, Breakthrough notes that a number of alternative reactor types - the sort that regular SmartPlanet readers will recognize - auger affordable nuclear power.

Breakthrough explains that the reactors are inherently safer and operate more efficiently than the fleet of inferior conventional reactors that occupy the world’s nuclear power landscape today. Many of the alternatives can burn nuclear “waste” as fuel, thus answering the vexing the question of what to do with waste, the study says. And they lend themselves to assembly-line construction.

Combine all those factors, and the cost of nuclear tumbles. The inherent safety is a big cost advantage because a lot of nuclear’s costs today relate to the extra engineering required to meet safety regulations, note the report’s authors who include Breakthrough’s Michael Shellenberger, one of the environmental stars of the new pro-nuclear feature film Pandora’s Promise.

....
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Maryland at Risk: New CNS Report Details Sea Level Challenges
By David Ottalini | Published: July 10, 2013

This site was recommended by another post from Dan Satterfield (14 July 2013: Stormy Weather, Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hmm, as the text below is from last week, I guess it was already posted in here and I've missed it, but in case not ...

Baltimore Weathercaster Under Fire For Incorrect Statements on Climate Change
Posted by Dan Satterfield / 10 July 2013

Quote from that post:
... There used to be considerable skepticism of the IPCC reports among forecasters, but I%u2019ve noticed a significant change over the last two years. That is especially true of those with a college degree in atmospheric science who qualify as a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist, under AMS rules. I suspect there are multiple reasons for the change, and the primary one is that forecasters are taking the time to really educate themselves on climate science. Bud Ward, at the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, has put together several excellent seminars where forecasters get a chance to get answers to their questions from top scientists in the field. When this happens, preconceived ideas that they may have read or heard outside of the peer-reviewed journals begin to disappear. ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Breakthrough: Newfangled reactors will slash costs of nuclear power | SmartPlanet
....

Now, the Breakthrough Institute - a youthful group dedicated to “an ecologically vibrant planet” - has given those holdouts a good reason to drop their final objections and join the nuclear cause.

In their new report, How to Make Nuclear Cheap, Breakthrough notes that a number of alternative reactor types - the sort that regular SmartPlanet readers will recognize - auger affordable nuclear power.

Breakthrough explains that the reactors are inherently safer and operate more efficiently than the fleet of inferior conventional reactors that occupy the world’s nuclear power landscape today. Many of the alternatives can burn nuclear “waste” as fuel, thus answering the vexing the question of what to do with waste, the study says. And they lend themselves to assembly-line construction.

Combine all those factors, and the cost of nuclear tumbles. The inherent safety is a big cost advantage because a lot of nuclear’s costs today relate to the extra engineering required to meet safety regulations, note the report’s authors who include Breakthrough’s Michael Shellenberger, one of the environmental stars of the new pro-nuclear feature film Pandora’s Promise.

....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The ice is melting at the North Pole CEastwood.



From:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Baaad news!

No deal on huge Antarctic marine reserves
BBC, 16 July 2013 Last updated at 12:44 GMT

International talks on establishing huge marine reserves in Antarctica have failed to reach a consensus.

Russia blocked attempts by western countries to set up the protected areas in the Ross Sea and Eastern Antarctica.

The Russian representative challenged the legal basis that would allow for the creation of such reserves, according to organisations at the talks in Germany.

The proposal was previously scuppered when governments met in 2012. ...



Quoting 100. barbamz:
Decision due on massive Antarctic marine sanctuaries
BBC, 16 July 2013 Last updated at 08:58 GMT

Negotiators meeting in Germany are set to decide on the establishment of the world's biggest marine reserves in Antarctica.

Scientists are hoping the plans for protected areas in the Ross Sea and in Eastern Antarctica will be supported.

But a previous attempt failed to get the necessary backing of all 25 members involved.

And there are worries that countries including Russia could again scupper the proposal. ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Scientists warn global warming, rise in sea levels could lead to devastating losses
Rising seas could result in some heavy losses.



Tuesday, July 16, 2013

A new study finds that, for each degree Celsius that global temperatures increase, sea levels could rise by 2.3 meters, and will remain high for centuries to come.

The study from the leading climate institute, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, was the first to pair data from climate history with computer simulations of contributing factors associated with long-term sea-level rise. This included ocean thermal expansion, glacier melting, and melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Researchers contribute the melting ice to global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the burning of fossil fuels has released heat-trapping gases, which are nudging up temperatures..

Anders Levermann, lead researcher of the study, is confident the research has led to a robust benchmark estimate, having used a combination of physics and data.

Last century, sea levels rose by 17 cm, a rate which, according to the IPCC, has accelerated to more than 3 mm a year. Of the current rise, a third has been attributed to the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets. Previous studies have predicted sea levels will increase by up to 2 meters by 2100.

Nearly 200 governments have agreed to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. By the end of 2015, a deal to curb emissions should be in place. Since the Industrial Revolution, global average surface temperatures have risen by 0.8°C. Within the next two decades, temperatures will likely increase another 0.4°C to 1.0°C, up from the previous two decades.

To narrow down uncertainties about the impact of melting ice on ocean levels, head of the Ice-2-Sea project, David Vaughan, has predicted that in this century sea levels will rise by 16.5 to 69 cm under a scenario of moderate global warming. The biggest impact this will have is the effect on storm numbers and intensity.

The results indicate that major adaptation along coastlines is necessary. It’s likely that some currently populated regions will not be protected in the long run

Still, a small number of scientists deny any sort of human influence on global warming, believing natural climate fluctuations are responsible. These so called climate skeptics find the current evidence unconvincing, and say changing temperature measurements are unreliable, contradictory and are not backed up by solid historic data.

They continue to question the accuracy of computer climate forecasts, pointing to historic, cyclical changes in global temperatures as evidence that these changes are natural. Others think the evidence indicates temperature rise has stopped, and that the effect of human activities shadows in comparison to the role of the sun.


Did we miss something? Send us tips, press releases, or ideas for stories: tips@sciencerecorder.com


Read more: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/scientists-war n-long-term-rise-in-sea-level-could-lead-to-devast ating-losses/#ixzz2ZDwRyuby
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127695
Quoting 101. CEastwood:
Prove me wrong.

It's not other persons' job to prove you wrong if you are the one coming in making a claim.
You are on the one making absolutely no effort whatsoever to educate yourself, and as a scientist, that saddens me deeply. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it, scientific literacy is the antidote to the charlatans of the world that basically feed on one's gullibility. I wholeheartedly agree. Sadly, you are a perfect example of what he is talking about.

Oh, and by the way, you are completely wrong.

This took mere moments to find the answer to the question you refused to ask. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3172
Quoting 101. CEastwood:


Typical warmist ad-hominem attack (also plagiarized from Obama). Dig this stuff up? It was "dug-up" from NOAA's own falsified temperature records. Prove me wrong.


Well considering there is tons of papers and data regarding the methodology NOAA uses, and instead of actually looking at that you go to WUWT, I really don't think I have to prove much to you. But, if you insist. Link Go past the Steven Goddard nonsense and click the link from the NOAA that explains what's happening in very clear language. Do some research, and don't just blindly follow idiots with blogs on the internet.

But, those idiots are unfortunately where you get your science from. I swear I will give you fools some credit if you ever once link to a real paper, and I mean the paper itself without an WUWT spin on the abstract. His (and the other conspiracy bloggers) reading comprehension skills aren't so good. You should really start to question guys who get it wrong so often with bad math and poor reading. Or not...whatever.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3316
Quoting 101. CEastwood:


Typical warmist ad-hominem attack (also plagiarized from Obama). Dig this stuff up? It was "dug-up" from NOAA's own falsified temperature records. Prove me wrong.
If you seriously wanted to discuss this issue, you could start by reading this Link - the explanation by SkepticalScience of why the temperature records are reliable.

On the other hand, if you seriously want to discuss whether the earth is warming, we can give you links to information on arctic ice melting, paleoclimate research, changes in planting zones, observations of earlier spring growth in Canada, etc.

But since these things have been posted extensively on this blog, I'm guessing that's not what you want to discuss. As I recall, you are the one who (in your previous incarnation) shrieked at us that climate change research "isn't even science". Maybe you would like to talk about that?

Why do you reject the idea of climate change/AGW?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting 101. CEastwood:


Typical warmist ad-hominem attack (also plagiarized from Obama). Dig this stuff up? It was "dug-up" from NOAA's own falsified temperature records. Prove me wrong.


Ah! But SouthernIllinois did not plagiarize Obama. What Obama said was the flat Earth society.

Prove you wrong? Prove you wrong??? You come here and make your invalid and pointless claims and then ask us to prove you wrong? Try this on for size. The Arctic sea ice is in serious decline because NOAA falsified temperature records. I will leave it with that. You may have an IQ of 190, but you have yet to show that you are capable of using any appreciable segment of it. ... Are you CAT5Hurricane????
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting 96. Xandra:
From The Shovel:

Invisible Things Are Ridiculous, Says Man Who Lives His Life According To Invisible Thing



A Sydney man who believes an invisible spiritual being created the earth, impregnated a woman and devised intricate views on what constitutes a family, says the Emissions Trading Scheme is flawed because carbon emissions are not visible to the human eye.

The man, who also hopes to become Australia’s next Prime Minister, is the same man who once described the Clean Energy Regulator as a “police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance”.

“This idea that you’d set up entire institutions dedicated to something you can’t even see, well, that’s just madness,” he told The Shovel today.

The Shovel is Australia’s satire website. Follow The Shovel on Facebook and Twitter.


Using his logic one would have to assume that atoms do not exist either. CO2 is made up of atoms. Bacterium are not real and are only the plan devised by scientists to sell drugs to combat the bacterium? I am once again forced to ask the question. Where is the critical thinking here? Heck, where is the common sense here? Nothing is real unless you can see it, smell it or taste it? I am floored by the self induced ignorance of this man!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting 101. CEastwood:


Typical warmist ad-hominem attack (also plagiarized from Obama). Dig this stuff up? It was "dug-up" from NOAA's own falsified temperature records. Prove me wrong.

The arguments you have presented have been proven wrong Multiple times CEastwood. Does your ideology interfere with your ability to see the "Truth" and do the right things morally?
I am not questioning your ethics, I am asking you to question your own ethics.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting 98. SouthernIllinois:

Where do you dig this stuff up from? The Flat Earth Society?

Natalie.


Typical warmist ad-hominem attack (also plagiarized from Obama). Dig this stuff up? It was "dug-up" from NOAA's own falsified temperature records. Prove me wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Decision due on massive Antarctic marine sanctuaries
BBC, 16 July 2013 Last updated at 08:58 GMT

Negotiators meeting in Germany are set to decide on the establishment of the world's biggest marine reserves in Antarctica.

Scientists are hoping the plans for protected areas in the Ross Sea and in Eastern Antarctica will be supported.

But a previous attempt failed to get the necessary backing of all 25 members involved.

And there are worries that countries including Russia could again scupper the proposal. ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 98. SouthernIllinois:

Where do you dig this stuff up from? The Flat Earth Society?

Natalie.

Har har har, Nat, you cracked me up.
Don't have to be scientist to see what is happening.
People of good conscience who "want to do what is right" are taking what action they can.
Even the "Church of Christ" and other religious organizations are divesting from fossil fuel companies.
"Divestment isn't primarily an economic strategy, but a moral and political one. The aim is to "revoke the social license of Exxon," says Antal. Just like in the struggle for civil rights or the fight to end Apartheid in South Africa, the more climate change is seen as a deeply moral issue, the more society moves towards action."
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/11/fossil -fuel-divestment-churches-jesus-christ
But the doubt mongers will persist...as they rebuild the flat earth in their own two-dimensional thinking which supports their business model.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
"Watch the second spacewalk of Luca Parmitano and Chris Cassidy on 16 July. Streaming (courtesy NASA) starts at 11:00 GMT (13:00 CEST)"
The fun probably won't start until 7-8am EDT.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html# .UeUZVW1twaM

I prefer the UStream feeds in HD and watch both the Media Channel Stream and "Space Station Channel Views" as sometimes the content varies, the latter many times having only station traffic without the Nasa Commentator overdub stomping on astronaut chatter. That just depends on the volunteer that runs the Ustream Space Station Channel that day.

Science isn't a boondoggle or a conspiracy to tear down religion.
Please support American (US) space science and American science in general. The rest of the world will gladly take the leadership role; creating better jobs and opportunities for their young citizens and leave the US behind in our ignorance -as in the case of the Large Hadron Collider. The US could have been there first with the SCC.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
From The Shovel:

Invisible Things Are Ridiculous, Says Man Who Lives His Life According To Invisible Thing



A Sydney man who believes an invisible spiritual being created the earth, impregnated a woman and devised intricate views on what constitutes a family, says the Emissions Trading Scheme is flawed because carbon emissions are not visible to the human eye.

The man, who also hopes to become Australia’s next Prime Minister, is the same man who once described the Clean Energy Regulator as a “police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance”.

“This idea that you’d set up entire institutions dedicated to something you can’t even see, well, that’s just madness,” he told The Shovel today.

The Shovel is Australia’s satire website. Follow The Shovel on Facebook and Twitter.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
92. Some1Has2BtheRookie
Simply marvelous refutation. It's unfortunate that those such as Spencer and Watts will never debate in open forum as those who cite their works cannot be held accountable for the bad science they believe in.
It's really wonderful to see the critical thinkers on Dr. Rood's blog express themselves so eloquently and politely.
Since most denialists cannot distinguish between a theorem and postulate, it seems the only common ground we have to work with is a sense of "doing what is right."
I'm afraid we'll have little success using rational scientific argument against those that have an ideology such that they just don't "believe in science."
In this case I believe a strictly emotional appeal to the sense of "doing what is right" will work using pictures instead of graphs that cannot be read or understood by the recipient. Showing pictures of a melting arctic and getting a denialist to see and acknowledge with their own eyes what is happening in the Arctic may be a key to unlocking the door of reason.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting 76. CEastwood:
NOAA has made an absolute fraud of the temperature records. Don't they have any shame? I'd like someone to explain just exactly how they changed the past temperature records.

Link

Do you actually believe the contents of the links you post or are you just here to "stir the pot?"
Either way, you provide an opportunity to do research and for that you contribute to the "collective."
I've created a "safe haven" for those opposed to the scientific consensus where folks can express their opinions without the distraction of rational arguments based in science.
Skeptics Safe Haven- Free Speech
So come on over and share your ideas as to why the Arctic is melting and scientists are lying.
Or just continue with the drive by links to bad science in Dr. Rood's blog.
It would be fun to see a complete explanation of a rational alternate hypothesis, even if it goes against consensus.
Regardless of skeptical opinions time will tell, no?
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
For those that enjoy SCI-FI, a good movie is "The Day The Earth Caught Fire (1961). Bad science, but great for historical context of the cold-war in the UK, this movie also gives a taste of a warming planet.
http://lemuploads.com/cndn90s5c8s0
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904

Viewing: 143 - 93

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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.