Enjoying the Cold

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:22 AM GMT on March 04, 2014

Share this Blog
27
+







Enjoying the Cold

In the last couple of weeks several people have sent me this comic, Cold, from xkcd. The cartoon draws from the work at Climate Central, an organization that is doing excellent work with data and communication about climate, weather and climate change. The point of the cartoon is that if you look back at the weather of not so long along ago, we saw cold temperatures like we have seen in the U.S. this winter. The planet was warmed up enough that we are not used to it being cold.




Every month the National Climatic Data Center releases an update on its Climate Monitoring page. In the February update, the graph of the differences (anomalies) from the 1981-2010 average shows that the eastern half of the continental U.S. was 4 – 5 degrees Celsius colder than average. Northern Siberia was also very cold. Look at Alaska (part of the U.S.), Greenland and China - downright toasty.



Figure 1: January 2014 temperature differences from a 1981-2010 average. From the National Climatic Data Center.

When the cold of the eastern U.S. is put into a global perspective, January 2014 was the 4th warmest global average since 1880. The U.S. was 53rd coolest, near the middle. If you go back to my blog on the behavior of the Arctic Oscillation, I show maps of 2010 and 2011 which were so cold that they motivated congressional hearings about climate change. In that blog, I also show figures from 1979, which was the coldest winter in the continental U.S.

As I started to put this into context, the first thing that I noticed was that those hearings-motivating winters of 2010 and 2011 were about 8 degrees Celsius warmer than 1979. This winter, 2013 – 2014, is objectively cold, but it is not colder than 1979. If you examine the figure above, the anomaly was calculated from the average 1981-2010, which includes the warmest decade we have measured since 1880. Therefore, the anomaly looks larger than it would if calculated against an earlier 30 year period or a 20th century average.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. If I count correctly, then it has been 29 years, or 348 months, since we, globally, have experienced a month colder than the 20th century average. If we look at years, rather than individual months, then this span of time extends back to 1976. I remember the fall and winter of 1976 - 1977 very well. I had moved to Tallahassee. It snowed. People raked it under the trees to take pictures. People left their sprinklers on to see ice. They destroyed their trees.



Figure 2: Annual average temperature differences from a 20th average. Calculated using tools from National Climatic Data Center.


The extraordinary string of months and years above the 20th century average will continue. In a year, we will have gone 30 years, the official averaging time of climate, since we will have experienced a “cool” month. This locally cold winter in the eastern U.S. is more like the late 1970s than the nineties in the comic above. A big difference is that this locally cold winter still does not affect the average enough to keep January 2014, globally, from being one of the warmest on record. The cartoon is right, not only are we not used to it being cold, many of residents of the U.S. have never actually experienced such cold. Same is true for the stink bugs of Virginia.

r

Just Temperature

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: 826 - 776

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

826. Naga5000
12:17 PM GMT on March 15, 2014
Quoting 822. tramp96:

From Krauthammer's article

"Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery."

My comment was on the mammogram's not the diagnosis.


This is why you should start to read journals and not what a political hack says about the study.

"During the screening period, a total of 666 cancers were found in the mammogram group versus 524 found in the control group. Most (484), but not all, of the cancers found in the mammogram group were found by the screening. Overall during the 25-year study period, about the same number of women – 3,250 in the mammogram group and 3,133 in the control group – were diagnosed with breast cancer. About the same number in each group – 500 in the mammogram group and 505 in the control group – died of breast cancer. Because more cancers were diagnosed by mammogram, but essentially the same number of women died of breast cancer, the study authors concluded that there had been over-diagnosis. They found that 22% of breast cancer cases detected through screening were over-diagnosed. They conclude that recommendations for annual breast cancer screening through mammograms be re-evaluated.

Although this study did not find an advantage for mammogram screening, a number of other studies have. Experts in the field, including those at the American Cancer Society, say the findings of this study may be due to differences in the quality of the mammograms themselves, or problems with the study design. For instance, although mammograms are meant to find cancers that are too small to be felt, most (68%) of the cancers found in the mammogram group were big enough to be felt. The study design also may have influenced the results, as women who had signs and symptoms of breast cancer (such as a breast lump) were still allowed in the study, even though screening is only meant to be used in women who don’t have signs or symptoms of the disease."

"Otis Brawley, MD, MPH, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, said the Canadian study is one piece of information in a large volume of evidence that adds to the body of knowledge about breast cancer screening. For now, he said this new study will not change any recommendations."

Link

Context, Tramp. If you let Krauthammer lead you down the no context path, then you have been duped, and that is exactly a tactic for spreading untruths and disinformation.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3321
825. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
4:38 AM GMT on March 15, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
824. goosegirl1
4:04 AM GMT on March 15, 2014
Quoting 823. tramp96:

What guidelines are you suggesting?





I would strongly suggest follow no guidelines I suggest- ask your doctor or a climate scientist.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
821. overwash12
2:29 AM GMT on March 15, 2014
Maybe next winter will be warmer.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
820. FLwolverine
12:20 AM GMT on March 15, 2014
Quoting 809. ScottLincoln:

It seems like you may have missed the point he was trying to make. It was suggested that the better analogy was doctors analyzing mammogram data and telling you the correct course of action because that is closer to our current situations: the phenomena has already occurred, scientists have analyzed it for decades, and the vast majority of active climate scientists (and climate-related professional organizations) agree on the cause of the phenomenon. They aren't just recommending what actions to take to check for the phenomena......
Thanks for that response to Tramp, Scott. That's my point exactly.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
819. ScottLincoln
12:00 AM GMT on March 15, 2014
Oh my... it's the sockpuppet himself!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=631681013 569706&set=a.196866527051159.50654.136372109767268 &
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3172
818. BaltimoreBrian
11:17 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.



Teslas in California Help Bring Dirty Rain to China

* Face to Face With Blog Contributors: Can Familiarity Breed Conviviality?

GM crops: UK scientists call for new trials

Stem cell 'breakthrough data inappropriately handled'

*** Climate scientists 3 Economists 0

*** Little Foot is oldest complete Australopithecus, new stratigraphic research shows



*** Atomically thick metal membranes

!!! Nanoscale optical switch breaks miniaturization barrier

*** Autism, intellectual disability incidence linked with environmental factors

!!! Performing cardio, resistance training during same session: Does order matter? Research says no

*** Number of days without rain to dramatically increase in some world region


*** Impacts of climate change in Switzerland: Adaptation and climate change mitigation must go hand in hand

Better way to make unnatural amino acids devised

An experiment recreates the crust of Jupiter's moon Europa There is a spectacular error in the article. Can you find it?

Polluted Paris chokes in the springtime sun



!!! Global powers sign declaration on sustainable fishing

Attorneys plan lawsuit over Indian River Lagoon

!!! Lab results raise question: Do we need oil if we have natural gas?

*** Take a Breath and Thank a Sponge



!!! Emails Link Duke Energy and North Carolina: Environmental regulators in North Carolina consulted Duke Energy last year before seeking to exclude citizen activists from talks
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
817. goosegirl1
8:26 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 798. tramp96:

hmmm So if five years ago 98 out of 100 doctors told you to
get a mammogram would they be wrong in today's science?


I feel I'm really off my game today- I didn't point out that science is never completely wrong or right. As knowledge progresses, the science becomes less wrong, or more right, but we will never know everything. There will always be research to do, and things to learn. As science progresses, policies change, just as the recommendations did for mammograms in 2009. In your example, policies changed in a fashion that put young women at risk. Fortunately for women, even the insurance companies have followed the strict policies of the American Cancer Society.

So the question becomes: as the science of climate change progresses, how should policies surrounding it change? Should we stick to a strict guideline that saves lives, or follow a policy that protects profits and corporations?
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
816. ARiot
7:59 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 804. Xulonn:
Interesting statement at that link.


I may go a little OT here, and this isn't directed at anyone.

But, we never fail to overestimate military-related threats or foriegn policy threats or "terror" threats. All the while, we ignore the real problems.

We have not had a real energy policy for a long time. That is a significant threat.
Guys shooting transformers is not.

Fixing energy policy is hard.

Up armoring transformers, increasing patrols, sending drones or cameras is not. In fact, it's cool and we can paint eagles on the side of them or maybe skulls and crossbones or paint them military camo or maybe, just maybe, make looking at them sideways an act of treason.

We need to have a big group conversation around the kitchen table, all 300+ million of us. :-)
Member Since: June 24, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 366
815. goosegirl1
7:39 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 811. tramp96:

So if you are saying AGW is unsettled science then I agree and my work here is done.


Oh, a huge mistake on my part there. I meant policy, not science. The science is solid, but what to do with it is all over the map and people will be hurt over it, same as climate change science and policy. I apologize for the error.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
814. Naga5000
7:38 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 813. tramp96:

Sometime this weekend. Time is precious


Fair enough. It's a good read I hope you find it interesting.

There is a reason why every single major scientific organization in the world has accepted AGW. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3321
812. Naga5000
7:21 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 811. tramp96:

So if you are saying AGW is unsettled science then I agree and my work here is done.


Did you even look at the AIP link? Link It is hardly unsettled.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3321
809. ScottLincoln
7:06 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 805. tramp96:

Negative counselor. Women were told to get mammograms every year because that is what the science at the time was saying.

It seems like you may have missed the point he was trying to make. It was suggested that the better analogy was doctors analyzing mammogram data and telling you the correct course of action because that is closer to our current situations: the phenomena has already occurred, scientists have analyzed it for decades, and the vast majority of active climate scientists (and climate-related professional organizations) agree on the cause of the phenomenon. They aren't just recommending what actions to take to check for the phenomena.
Quoting 808. goosegirl1:


Interesting choice of analogy, since the science is unsettled on this issue too. The USPSTF and the American Cancer Society do not agree on frequency and age for mammograms. Insurance companies still generally allow them to begin at age 40, but if doctors and insurers decide to change that policy that means that there will be 40-somethings who slip through the screening cracks and die of breast cancer.

Right, and some research has even suggested that there could be more harm than good if we over screen.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3172
808. goosegirl1
6:56 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 798. tramp96:

hmmm So if five years ago 98 out of 100 doctors told you to
get a mammogram would they be wrong in today's science?


Interesting choice of analogy, since the science is unsettled on this issue too. The USPSTF and the American Cancer Society do not agree on frequency and age for mammograms. Insurance companies still generally allow them to begin at age 40, but if doctors and insurers decide to change that policy that means that there will be 40-somethings who slip through the screening cracks and die of breast cancer.

So to answer your question- no, that statement would not be wrong, but research changes policy all the time as knowledge increases.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
804. Xulonn
4:45 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 803. etxwx:
...Power-grid attack fuels debate over threat of snipers vs. hackers
Interesting statement at that link.
Disabling as few as nine electricity substations and destroying a transformer manufacturer could plunge the nation into a blackout that would last for 18 months, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, citing an internal FERC report.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1422
803. etxwx
4:18 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
A little lunch time reading...

Green push blows away German coal-power profits

Norway’s oil stimulus nears tipping point as growth fades

Power-grid attack fuels debate over threat of snipers vs. hackers

Senator: Energy technology needed to combat climate change
March 14, 2014 by Bloomberg via Fuel Fix by Anthony Adragna
Excerpt: "Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska,said Republicans held “differing views” on what should be done to address emissions. For instance, some have said it is a waste of money for the U.S. to invest in new technologies when developing nations like China and India are responsible for large segments of greenhouse gas emissions.

“I take a different approach,” Murkowski said. “I’m one that is big into self-responsibility. We are a country that consumes a lot. I think that we should be more efficient. I think that we should conserve more. I think that we should lead in that way. I think that we should use the ingenuity and the smarts that we have as an amazing country and use that to develop technologies that not only help the United States but help the world.”
Member Since: September 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1458
802. Naga5000
4:18 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 801. ARiot:


There are also communication challenges, casually labeled as

"Headline Redux" and or "Single Study Fixation"

It's so rampant it's often used as parody.

Headline writers reduce single studies or a minority of evidence into catch headlines that spread like wildfire, often becoming viral.

The best example of Headline Redux is the Time Magazine cover from the 1970s that cited the minority opinion on global cooling and was missing the larger climate and aerosol context. Yet it was so strong (and was given a second life by deniers) that people swear it was in their school textbooks.

Single study fixation can be part of headline redux, but is most common in the medical field. One study is given legs, and it runs. The larger context of work on the topic is ignored.


One of the things I think is missing as well is the context of the discourse of research which is why I like the AIP source so much. Chronologically, you seen see how the research began, was verified, added to, and continued over time.

When something new comes out, such as Nucitelli's work on ocean warming it isn't just a shot in the dark, but a continuation of past research that has been built off the research of others, which then begets new confirming research via models like Meehl which provides plausible mechanisms for deep ocean heating, which leads to Trenberth's work, and now England's.

I've said it once, I will say it again. I think reasonable "skeptics" are missing the context of the discourse of published research, the ability to read high level journal publications, and believe the media interpretation of the information which is where the real bias creeps in. If we can solve the first two issues, public opinion will follow (unless those people are not real skeptics and following irrational behavior patterns like vaccine deniers).
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3321
801. ARiot
3:55 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 799. Naga5000:


I would highly suggest a complete read from The American Institute of Physics Link This may clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding in your five year argument.


There are also communication challenges, casually labeled as

"Headline Redux" and or "Single Study Fixation"

It's so rampant it's often used as parody.

Headline writers reduce single studies or a minority of evidence into catch headlines that spread like wildfire, often becoming viral.

The best example of Headline Redux is the Time Magazine cover from the 1970s that cited the minority opinion on global cooling and was missing the larger climate and aerosol context. Yet it was so strong (and was given a second life by deniers) that people swear it was in their school textbooks.

Single study fixation can be part of headline redux, but is most common in the medical field. One study is given legs, and it runs. The larger context of work on the topic is ignored.
Member Since: June 24, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 366
800. FLwolverine
3:52 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 798. tramp96:

hmmm So if five years ago 98 out of 100 doctors told you to
get a mammogram would they be wrong in today's science?
wrong analogy. Try this: if 98 doctors read your mammogram and say you need a biopsy, but 2 docs say don't worry, who do you go with?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
799. Naga5000
3:21 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 798. tramp96:

hmmm So if five years ago 98 out of 100 doctors told you to
get a mammogram would they be wrong in today's science?


I would highly suggest a complete read from The American Institute of Physics Link This may clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding in your five year argument.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3321
797. pintada
2:52 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 789. FLwolverine:
What 's this? Some new spin on trolling? You don't even do this well!

Hey, Skye! Time for a little help here!


So, weatheringpoints:

Now you must understand what I was saying in WU mail. Frac the rules. If you want to post something; insults, trolling, on topic, off topic, personal disputes, insult the site, the users, the moderation (such as it is) it doesn't matter. You want to foment genocide? Go ahead! It's OK.

I prefer a site that has no moderation, here, you may get dinged even if you obey the rules, so it makes the game more complex ...

Anyway, weatheringpoints, knock yourself out! :-)

Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
796. ARiot
2:15 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 795. Xulonn:
If your medical reasoning is like your AGW/CC reasoning, you would absolutely believe the two that tell you that you are not sick!


There's a significant communication problem in the U.S., and I attribute that, in part, to the for-profit nature of our communications environment.

While Risk Management and Risk Analysis are science, Risk Communication is art.

Those three things must support each other, but that is a difficult feat to pull off.

The best risk communication method, assuming the sender is being honest and has the truth on his side, is to state the conclusion first, then a few supporting facts. Sadly examples like this one fall into the numbers trap. Surely a person would want to put their trust in the doctors who told them they were well. AGW communicators also fall into the numbers trap becuase people, generally speaking, to not understand the scale of large numbers or the exponential function.

If I worked for the Senator, I would suggest he retool his delivery.

Man's activity is a significant contributor to observed climate change.
- This is a threat to our way of life if it continues.
- If we work together, we can change our habits for the better and lower our risk
- We must take steps to prepare for the worst now.


That way, when his opponents cut it up, they can't twist it into something else.

Problem is, they get going and drop analogies that don't work or mis-speak (everyone does) and that gets parodied or used against them.

The major problem is, the sender of the message has to be honest and trustworthy and credible. Few people in the spotlight enjoy that status these days.
Member Since: June 24, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 366
795. Xulonn
1:59 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 792. tramp96:
I was walking by the TV last night and I think I heard Charles Schumer say that if 98 doctors tell you that you are sick and 2 tell you that you are ok who are you going to believe.
Did I get that right?
If your medical reasoning is like your AGW/CC reasoning, you would absolutely believe the two that tell you that you are not sick!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1422
794. Xulonn
1:53 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 777. Patrap:
See, This is why we can’t have nice things.

Haboob-Hating Texans Have Racist Facebook MELTDOWN Over Routine Weather Update (Screenshots)

Posted by: John Prager in Environmental Education, Humor, Image Gallery, Racism in America March 12, 2014
Hadn't seen the anti-tea-party website before - great website.

Thanks for the link, Pat. (And did you see the smackdown there of the conservative, pro-insurance industry U.S> Senator who was disparaging the Canadian single-payer health-care system?)
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1422
793. Physicistretired
1:48 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Eurostat reports that three EU countries have already met their 2020 goal of producing 20% or more of their total energy from renewable sources.

Sweden comes in first - with Bulgaria and Estonia not far behind. Norway has made even more progress, but isn't a part of the EU.



Full Eurostat report here.
Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 230
790. Xulonn
1:29 PM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 767. BaltimoreBrian:
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.
Thanks Brian, for another excellent science news link set.

Note to resident climate "skeptics" Yoboi, IceAgeComing, Tramp96, Overwash, et al.: This is how science works and how science news is best reported. You can trust websites like ScienceDaily to be objective and not cherry pickers. They excerpt from, and link to, the papers behind their news reporting. In this instance, they link to a peer-reviewed Nature Geoscience paper. And they do not have a comments section where anyone in the public can post either reasoned comments (or made-up of cherry-picked b.s. like a lot of the posts here in Dr Roods blogs.) If our resident "skeptics" ever quote and discuss science from a site like ScienceDaily, they will gain a bit credibility and respectability.

Many of the commenters here, often people who have done graduate work in the sciences - and have the knowledge and vocabulary like to read the actual papers themselves. Unfortunately many good papers are behind pay-walls.

Quoting ScienceDaily:
Using a cutting-edge research technique, UCLA researchers have reconstructed the temperature history of a region that plays a major role in determining climate around the world.

The findings, published online Feb. 27 in the journal Nature Geoscience, will help inform scientists about the processes influencing global warming in the western tropical Pacific Ocean.

The study analyzes how much temperatures have increased in the region near Indonesia, and how ocean temperatures affect nearby tropical glaciers in Papua New Guinea and Borneo. Researchers also evaluated the accuracy of existing climate model predictions for that region. The findings illustrate that the region is very sensitive to climate change and that it has warmed considerably over the last 20,000 years, since the last ice age.

The team chose the specific area examined in the study because it is Earth's warmest open ocean region and a primary source of heat and water vapor to the atmosphere. As a result, temperature changes there can influence climate not just regionally, but globally.

"The tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere system has been called a sleeping dragon because of how it can influence climate elsewhere," said lead author Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the departments of Earth, planetary and space sciences, and atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Tripati and her team used a technique known as clumped isotope thermometry, which examines the calcium carbonate shells of marine plankton for subtle differences in the amounts of carbon-13 and oxygen-18 they contain. The researchers analyzed extensive modern and geological datasets, conducted theoretical calculations and examined climate model output. The group discovered that temperatures have changed by about 8 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 5 degrees Celsius) over that span -- more than scientists had previously thought, and more than most models have estimated.

"Most global climate models underestimate the average temperature variations that the region has experienced," Tripati said, adding that the other models' simulations may be incomplete or the models are not sensitive enough.

The UCLA team's conclusions about temperature changes in the region also imply that there have been major fluctuations in the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere there.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1422
789. FLwolverine
10:29 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 788. yoboi:
788. yoboi 12:32 AM EDT on March 14, 2014 +0
Quoting 782. Neapolitan:
Think someone should tell them that Texas' isn't an English word? Or that 'America' is the corrupted name of an Italian mapmaker? Or that 'dust' is from an old Latin word? Or that 'storm' is from an old British word? Or that ...

Ah, what's the use. Stupid can't be cured with facts and logic...
Quoting 610. FLwolverine:
Thanks for the update. That's a pretty clear illustration of what the lack of bees is going to mean for food supplies.

What's the water situation there?

I saved the web address you posted, but I haven't had time to read it or follow up on thclaptrape presentation yet. But I intend to. Thanks.
What 's this? Some new spin on trolling? You don't even do this well!

Hey, Skye! Time for a little help here!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
788. yoboi
4:32 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 782. Neapolitan:
Think someone should tell them that Texas' isn't an English word? Or that 'America' is the corrupted name of an Italian mapmaker? Or that 'dust' is from an old Latin word? Or that 'storm' is from an old British word? Or that ...

Ah, what's the use. Stupid can't be cured with facts and logic...
Quoting 610. FLwolverine:
Thanks for the update. That's a pretty clear illustration of what the lack of bees is going to mean for food supplies.

What's the water situation there?

I saved the web address you posted, but I haven't had time to read it or follow up on thclaptrape presentation yet. But I intend to. Thanks.
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
787. BaltimoreBrian
3:12 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Don't forget Del Rio = of river
Matagorda = dead fat lady
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
786. BaltimoreBrian
3:11 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
ColoradoBob, thanks for linking the tropical grassy ecosystems article. I put it in my lists on Master's blog and my own.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
785. Birthmark
2:48 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 782. Neapolitan:
Think someone should tell them that Texas' isn't an English word? Or that 'America' is the corrupted name of an Italian mapmaker? Or that 'dust' is from an old Latin word? Or that 'storm' is from an old British word? Or that ...

Ah, what's the use. Stupid can't be cured with facts and logic...

We'd also have to re-name a pretty fair proportion of star names. Personally, I prefer "Betelgeuse" to "Armpit."
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
784. FLwolverine
2:36 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 762. pintada:


So, I got sucked in again, and spent some time. Who could resist someone that you have grown to respect asking your opinion? Thanks, wolverine and birthmark.

But, the forum is the same, disgusting.

Look at comment #747 and #761, skyepony and explain how that is not a continuation of a personal dispute. How is it on topic?

The evil, the stupid, etc. lie with impunity making it appear that the existence of climate change is in question. The BS that you fed me about a discernible cure rate is just that. How many cures have you seen since the last time? Yeah, I know, zero.

Meanwhile, the weather channel gets to use the content provided by BaltimoreBrian and etxwx and others for free. It is a brilliant corporate strategy made most famous by the Huffington Post. Use your users as chumps to feed the corporate coffers.

I consider the extinction of our species serious as should the weatherunderground. WUG should do the decent thing and get rid of the deniers. Or, at a minimum, just get rid of the links to lies. That will never happen of course. The site exists to generate clicks, and the lies generate clicks.

As long as the decent people that post here keep feeding the real troll - weatherunderground - nothing will change. If the users wanted a change, they would stop posting for a while. Imagine if ONLY the trolls posted for a week.

Go ahead, delete all my posts and ban me. This note is to you anyway. When you ban me though delete my entire record including the e-mail address. Thank you.
My apologies for any part I had in this.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
782. Neapolitan
2:19 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 778. Birthmark:

The intellectual worth of such people ironically can be described from another Arabic word (and concept) that has made its way into English: zero.
Think someone should tell them that Texas' isn't an English word? Or that 'America' is the corrupted name of an Italian mapmaker? Or that 'dust' is from an old Latin word? Or that 'storm' is from an old British word? Or that ...

Ah, what's the use. Stupid can't be cured with facts and logic...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
780. ScottLincoln
2:10 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 764. Barefootontherocks:
...Thanks for the response. I truly appreciate that you explained more about your point of view and how your own life experience affects it. Most humans have doubts. You will note my comment at 739 has been removed for the odd ten flags or by a moderator, even though it was a thoughtful, "reasoned response." Proving once again, no one reads. they go along with the crowd...

Honestly, I'm starting to think that the "10 flags" doesn't really work as it is claimed to. Others have thought the same before I got there. If it did work that way, many many many more posts would disappear, and they would disappear much more quickly than your write-up on D-K.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3172
779. Patrap
2:09 AM GMT on March 14, 2014


Global Warming More Severe Than Estimated: Study

By Cody Chan, March 13th, 2014 | Science | 1 Comment

In a new research it is said faster and steeper emissions cuts are needed to keep the global warming below dangerous levels. The study is published in the Nature Climate Change journal and contradicts with most of the earlier findings.

Over the next few decades the Earth may experience about 20 percent more warming than what was projected earlier as the studies prior to this were based on recent surface temperature trends mostly.

One of the authors of the study, Drew Shindell, said it is like a yardstick for how much climate change is to be experienced if we push the system a certain amount.

Shindell is from Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA.

He said the amount of greenhouse gases have skyrocketed to unprecedented levels in the history of human beings. In 2013 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has hit 400 parts per million. In last 800,000 years this level has been the highest.

Shindell used more sophisticated computer models in his study. Other climate scientists earlier had used relatively simple computer models.

Professor Reto Knutti from Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich said the new study is significant and also bridges the gap between their earlier understandings.

Knutti was not involved in the new research.

Climate researcher Myles Allen said the new study does not support lower-end projections of warming and matches with other recent estimates but with the use of different scientific approach.

Allen is from Oxford University.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127701
778. Birthmark
2:06 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 777. Patrap:
See, This is why we can’t have nice things.

Haboob-Hating Texans Have Racist Facebook MELTDOWN Over Routine Weather Update (Screenshots)

Posted by: John Prager in Environmental Education, Humor, Image Gallery, Racism in America March 12, 2014

The intellectual worth of such people ironically can be described from another Arabic word (and concept) that has made its way into English: zero.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
777. Patrap
1:50 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
See, This is why we can’t have nice things.

Haboob-Hating Texans Have Racist Facebook MELTDOWN Over Routine Weather Update (Screenshots)

Posted by: John Prager in Environmental Education, Humor, Image Gallery, Racism in America March 12, 2014
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127701
776. Barefootontherocks
1:47 AM GMT on March 14, 2014
Quoting 766. Patrap:
No one reads ?

Bwaah, ha, ha'


I read a LOT, everyday,(snip)

I did exaggerate - an exaggeration that's kind of funny when you think about it.
Quoting 765. Neapolitan:
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Of course, I'm part of that crowd, and I've yet to receive a single Bat signal requesting/commanding that I vote down a specific comment, and I imagine no one else here has either. So the only thing members of 'the crowd' appear to have done is read the comment in question, and independently decide for themselves that it was worthy of a down vote.

Anyway: interesting forum today, no?
Already admitted I exaggerated by saying "no one." Anyone can read the quote in Xulonn's response, and see if someone did not like it, the appropriate response would be a down vote in the form of a "-" not a flag. Flags are for comments that violate community rules. I don't see how that one does, in which case admin will probably restore it. And I intend to ask them to do so.

The most interesting thing I found here was discussion of the Russia/Croatia trouble and its oil and gas link. Not surprised the link exists - read about critical Eastern Europe gas distribution routes at least a year ago, then maybe it was Azerbaijan or nearby. Interesting to me, the extrapolations (I must like that word today) being made about about its significance. The China manufacturing discussion is kind of interesting in one aspect. I did not see mention of Richard Nixon. Into the future, as written history tends to do, his administration may be remembered more for the single act of recognizing "Red China" than for Watergate.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 151 Comments: 18415

Viewing: 826 - 776

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