“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 1:30 AM GMT on December 14, 2009

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

Yesterday I got into an exchange with a person who posted a comment wishing the curse of a pox to the students writing on the UoMichigan COP15 Blog . It reminded me of Joseph Welch’s question to Senator Joe McCarthy, “You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (Welch-McCarthy Exchange from American Rhetoric)

In the United States we devolve into something that is more like tribalism with sides taken based on the color of your uniform or who pays you the most. Discussion is based not on ideas and solutions, but on who makes a statement. Issues are advocated, and ideas are placed into extremes that take on attributes such as good and evil, for and against. The other side is wrong, and their intentions are of hidden control or hidden profit. This threatens our credibility and our viability.

US Senators pursue an investigation of climate science based upon the stolen and published correspondence of a small clutch of prominent scientists. Here at the Conference of Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen the news says that we should anticipate a visit by Congressman Sensenbrenner to call for the end of “climate fascism.” This will place this US political tribe in solid alliance with, perhaps, Saudi Arabia.

For the conference as a whole, I, my students, my colleagues, new people I meet, the discussion in the plenary sessions – from all of these sources, I hear no serious discussion about any challenge the CRU emails present to the basic conclusions that the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. I have had a small number of interviews, and the question is asked almost as a curiosity. It’s more like the scandal of the emails is really a scandalous aspect of the US culture, like displays of disfigured animals in the back lot of a traveling freak show.

Some of my American colleagues, those closest to the IPCC, these people spend time developing rational responses to calls for investigations, allegations of lies, searches for conspiracies, and efforts to control the participation of individual US scientists in IPCC assessments. They work to craft rational responses to the irrational. Members of the Congress form and dissolve COP delegations. The rationalist’s response to a process that is being managed to be irrational is, itself, irrational. As the rationalist counters the irrational, their irrationality becomes more and more damaging.

It took me several years of management at NASA to realize that there were some people who thrived on the fight. There were those who were disruptive and sometimes deliberately hostile. Others, who benignly fueled chaos. These efforts to cause organizational dis-structure, to increase organizational entropy – these efforts were their strategy for success. Or if not a strategy for success, it was a strategy to keep others from succeeding, of using the distraction to outlast efforts they viewed to their disadvantage.

I spent some time as a manager of scientists trying to find the rational arguments that would help people see the intent and advantage of what I was trying to do and to develop buy in. I had some success, but there was always a group that worked, deliberately or subconsciously, to sabotage. Their strategy was often to create disorder. Their tactic was often to isolate facts or conjecture that in their isolation suggested rationality, compelled a rational response. The rational response was, ultimately, parried with the next isolated fact or conjecture. This is a tactic to build selective doubt.

While at NASA I had the experience of being on a long camping trip with a person who had a psychotic episode. My companion started to hear voices in the radio background, and transmissions through rusted cans lying on the side of the trail. There were always perceived people with weapons in groups of people near us. My first response was to discuss the inability of people speaking through rusted cans. Then I proceeded to showing that nothing bad did occur following the perceived threat. I tried to use a rational description of reality to prove a point that was motivated and fueled by extreme irrationality. Irrationality ultimately anchored in fear.

As a manager, I became more aware of fear and the fear of change. I tried to make my contribution as organizing disorganized systems. I hired a sociologist to work with me at NASA. What I learned is that this tactic of developing the rational response to the isolated assertion, conjecture, or fact was, fundamentally, ill posed. I learned that irrationality and sabotage were a natural part of getting the job down. I learned that if you allow the isolated assertions, conjectures, and facts to grow to dominate the job, then progress will be slowed, perhaps stopped. I learned that if you want to make progress then the leader has to differentiate her/his self from the turmoil, objectify the irrationality and sabotage as part of the whole – and manage it. Place the disruption in its place – the place of the disruptors.

I also learned that it is important to listen to the disruptors, to truly understand the motivation of the disruption. Almost always a sound foundation of the disruption is offered. It was my job to determine if the stated foundation was the real foundation – what is the subtext? It was my job to determine if I needed to accommodate the concerns of the disruptors into the direction the project or organization needed to take. The reason people disrupted ranged from a true conviction that a certain path was wrong to strong emotional attachments to particular ideas and, even, pieces of software. There were always some who where, often by their own admission, contrarian. And, if one is contrarian, it is usually because being contrarian has been a successful strategy in their lives. There are a host of reasons to disrupt, to resist, and to sabotage change.

As long as the community of climate scientists engages in the disruption and the creation of selective doubt, the disruptors will garner attention and an exaggerated amount of success. The march forward will be slowed. The behavior of all will be reduced to one where it makes sense to question decency. The disruptors cannot be convinced by the exposition of the rational totality; they are not looking to be convinced. Their motivations are elsewhere.

The person who made the original comment on the blog responded to me that their comments represented civility in 2009 and suggested that I would be intimidated by and unwelcoming of the language of Shakespeare. I do not, however, accept that participating in this game of personal attacks, repeated slogans, and outrageous assertions is the form of how we must now carry out deliberations of serious issues. I find no relevance of the curses of MacBeth’s witches. If I behave like a character in a tragedy, then it is likely the results will be tragic.

This behavior of disruption is an old and common tactic. It is always in present in politics and management - really throughout life. It is something one imagines as absent in the purity of science, but it is not absent in the best of worlds; it is a community peopled by scientists. We in the US have allowed it to grow to a way of doing business that threatens our relevance and our viability.

I sit here in Copenhagen, not far from Hamlet’s castle of tragedy. I hear quiet men developing community-based climate adaptation plans to link to development activities in their countries. I see interesting technology in transportation and energy from countries eager for wealth. I see policy and practices developing in other countries that promote efficiency and environmental trade. I see the US distracted and wasting its intellect and time on disruptions designed to play to people at home, and which will assure to hasten our marginalization as a great culture. We don’t even look smart to our own children.

r

Other relevant blogs

Paul Edwards: IPCC Press Briefing

Paul Edwards: "Climategate," Not IPCC

Jeff Masters: Manufactured Doubt

Jeff Masters: Don't Shoot the Messenger

Rood: Climategate Copenhagen Impacts

Rood: Update from Copenhagen


And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 133 - 83

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

CO2 does not drive temperature trend



Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
For some teaching an idea they don't like is indoctrination.

I do not teach anything that is not supported by all the major science academies in the US and most of those in the world. I spend hours every week reading the peer-reviewed literature in climate science. I seek clarification and advice from climate scientists I know.

Propagandist?

Here's a condensed version of one idea I teach.

1) Multiple modeling studies have predicted that climate change over the next 100 years could cause the extinction of 30% to 40% of all species.

2) These studies are modeled at fairly low levels of spatial resolution.

(I describe the methods in some detail)

3) A recent model at a higher spatial resolution which accounted for the particulars of topography and geography predicted far lower rates of extinction (7% to 15%).

4) These higher resolution models will help us focus our attention on species and systems that may be at highest risk for impacts.

I communicate the uncertainty of the science. Had I spoke in absolutes, had I not mentioned this new study, then I could be accused of practicing indoctrination.

And here is a bit of the mix that I cover when I talk about hurricanes and global warming and how the level of uncertainty about this is fairly high:

Natural Climate Changes Can Intensify Hurricanes More Efficiently Than Global Warming (December 13, 2007) %u2014 Natural climate variations, which tend to involve localized changes in sea surface temperature, may have a larger effect on hurricane activity than the more uniform patterns of global warming. In the ... > read more
Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number Of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls (January 25, 2008) %u2014 A warming global ocean -- influencing the winds that shear off the tops of developing storms -- could mean fewer Atlantic hurricanes striking the United States according to new findings by NOAA ... > read more
Establishing A Connection Between Global Warming And Hurricane Intensity (August 15, 2006) %u2014 Climate change is affecting the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes, and hurricane damage will likely continue to increase because of greenhouse warming, according to a new study. "The large increases ... > read more
Global Warming Will Do Little To Change Hurricane Activity, According To New Model (August 13, 2008) %u2014 Scientists have described a new method for evaluating the frequency of hurricane formation in present and future tropical climates. Compared to other global models currently in use, the new approach ... > read more

What I don't include is information that is not supported by the peer-reviewed literature. You know like the unsubstantiated crap you can find on some blogs and websites.

At this point all someone can accuse me of is teaching the peer-reviewed literature.

When somebody can show 30 years of research, 1000's of peer-reviewed papers, representing multiple lines of evidence have been refuted and I keep teaching as if that were not true, then they can call me a propagandist.

I am very proud of what I do and how I do it.

And finally -
I spend way too much time dealing with hate.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Wow that's some mature language in 125 martinitony. Flagged.
I flaged it also!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
And likewise mart your qualifications? Certainly polite conversation is not one of them.


JFLORIDA, I was just trying to stop your world. Polite conversation just doesn't get that done.

The teacher wasn't teaching. He was indoctrinating non science majors with a bunch of nonsense. (Nonsense is a euphemism. I held back.)

My credentials have been spelled out here numerous times. I am not a scientist. I am a non practicing CPA, real estate broker, developer and businessman.

I have 5 quarters of calculus including advanced calculus. So I learned how to think and be logical. I have 3 quarters of statistics and probability. So I know something of correlation and regression.

I am 63. So I know something of wrong, right, BS and street sense.

If you don't want me to post here, you can just put me on ignore or get the good doctor to throw me off.

FWIW, I am not here to just give you a hard time. I am honestly looking for the truth about AGW. So far I have seen nothing convincing and I have seen many questions avoided and I wonder why.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


Can you fit the size of my prostrate gland on your exhibit? I'm wondering if CO2 is the culprit or just too much sex.

Streamtracker, I really think you're incompetent as a teacher.

Guys, I'm sorry for throwing a stinker as your ongoing Kumbaya, but I was about to throw up.


Hey all you did was show your hand and how weak it is. Thanks for that, you did me nothing but a favor.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
This could be a good communication tool.



Link to explanation here.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting Patrap:
Sources in Hades continue to report the thermometer falling as as shown by the HADES model suite.

Follows the Saints "Win" Graph exactly.

It was discussed at Copenhagen today for one hour by a Mr. Thibodaux, and a Mr. Boudreaux.


Who dat?!?!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sources in Hades continue to report the thermometer falling as as shown by the HADES model suite.

Follows the Saints "Win" Graph exactly.

It was discussed at Copenhagen today for one hour by a Mr. Thibodaux, and a Mr. Boudreaux.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 449 Comments: 140058
Wow. Great Blog. I also manage people, 99% with at least a bachelor degree. There is one in about every 25 who is unhappy, points fingers, doesn't do their job well, and then says I am to blame. They have risen by doing this, based upon the good opinion they have of themselves. They will badmouth me and the program.

What happens to these people in my organization is they either quit or they quiet down; they either get with the program or leave it. I do not spend a lot of time convincing them I am worthy because that is a waste of my time and feeds their purpose. Rather, I remind them how they were hired in the first place and then show them what other people are doing. This is when they either quit or shut up. These people were that way before they came on board and will be that way when they leave.

America, unfortunately, has become a nation lead by liars for the benefit of thieves. And we as a people pay the penalty for this. It is time to sit down, shut up, listen, and get with the program.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Funny how someone would think you need a degree in climatology to teach non-majors a two week module on climate change.

I also understand that I am not qualified to teach an upper-level course in climate science. That I will leave to the climate scientists.

Not Boston College - yes, New England.

Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
It amazes me that streamtracker who has no background on climatology or anything related to climate, teach 250 students on the subject. Based on the questionary he gives the students the first and last day of class, assures that the indoctrination was successful.

Boston college needs to go under review.
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
Quoting wbr2ff:


My point was/is that "first freeze" data is not useful in determining climate/weather trends, and that your comment #75 that two or three late first freezes was a sign of "long-lived abnormal warmth" was a case in point as we had a cool fall in the Midwest, and actually the last two years.

Whosonfirst, you are fine and correct to say that officially STL had its latest freeze since 1958, or even the late 1800's when observations started in STL. But I just don't believe that tells us anything useful with site moves, land changes, etc. It's a waste of time to try to think if a 34 degree reading in October 2009 would have actually been a 32 degree reading in October 1925. I'll stick with annual mean graphs for temp trends.


Actually if you have lots of observations, many locations, and many years, date of first freeze is a perfectly good measure of one aspect of climate.

Date of first freeze is also ecologically important. It marks the end of most primary productivity in an ecosystem until the spring thaw in northern hemisphere northern ecosystems.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Well the old station was in downtown St. Louis, which has been built up a long time. The population of St. Louis was over 560,000 in 1900, compared to 330,000 today. It's hard for me to imagine that the Lambert airport site 15 miles NW of downtown is more built up than downtown was in 1900. Nashville also tied its record for the latest freeze.

New York @ Central Park had their third latest first freeze, behind 1948, and 1998, when astonishingly the first freeze was not till after the winter solstice.


My point was/is that "first freeze" data is not useful in determining climate/weather trends, and that your comment #75 that two or three late first freezes was a sign of "long-lived abnormal warmth" was a case in point as we had a cool fall in the Midwest, and actually the last two years.

Whosonfirst, you are fine and correct to say that officially STL had its latest freeze since 1958, or even the late 1800's when observations started in STL. But I just don't believe that tells us anything useful with site moves, land changes, etc. It's a waste of time to try to think if a 34 degree reading in October 2009 would have actually been a 32 degree reading in October 1925. I'll stick with annual mean graphs for temp trends.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting abrahambenjudea:
I would not call the American Geographical Society a useless ignorant bunch. Any way I expected that you of all people would read more than met the eye in the post.


Interesting response. I did not call anybody a "useless ignorant bunch".

I simply said it is hard to comment on a map without a report on methods, analyses, etc.

I also would not call NOAA and NASA an ignorant bunch. Yet, I also would not trust their analyzes on global temperature trends unless they had published reports on their methods and analyzes and provided their raw data. They do all three things.



Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
I would not call the American Geographical Society a useless ignorant bunch. Any way I expected that you of all people would read more than met the eye in the post.
Quoting abrahambenjudea:
To Streamtracker;
New guy here. i read with interest that you teach. So I got to wonder if you know about this 1943 ocean current map that is currently being rediscovered by some people in the scientific community. Here is the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_currents_1943_(borderless)3.png
Note. The original map shown in the link had the borders, these borders have since been removed. Don't have an idea why they removed the borders. The borders had the following information. American Geographical Society for the Dept of State A Moen & Co Inc.
What I really like about this map is the fact that is was based on years of readings and soundings. It also shows the location of the permanent ice cap as of 1943 and it clearly shows the location of the famous Atlantic THC convertion point that has since moved due to Artic cap melt off. If any thing i'tll make a great teaching tool.
Stream your comments on this map will be most welcomed by this new guy.


Hard to say much about it unless there is a report that accompanies the map and has information about methods, analyses, and production.

Is this the map that supposedly shows that the NW passage was open in the 1940's?

Heavy hulled vessels have been able to push through there for quite a long time. That doesn't mean it was completely open and free of ice.

Funny too that you call station data useless scientifically and yet here is a map without information about methodology, etc.




Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting abrahambenjudea:
New guy again...I see a lot of references to Temp reading from different places and such. About how much cooler or hotter. Those reading are worthless from a scientific point of view. Why? There are no set standards as to the placement of the instruments. Some are placed near heat sources, or in enclosed areas. you can see what I mean, Need I remind you someone did an exposee about just such a discrepancy. Wasn't it featured here some place? they even showed pictures of the contraptions badly placed.


Hey that's why the data is not used in its raw state! That is why the data is analyzed to deal with those issues.

This is not a case of a few bad stations, ruins the whole dataset.

The scientists who work on this stuff are fully aware of the issues and have come up with ways to deal with them years ago.

Plus a study was done to see what kind of effect the including bad stations would have on the temperature trend.

And NOAA did an analysis to deal with that critique.

You can download the report here -


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf




On page 2 and 3 you will find the graph above that shows an analysis with the best stations (no serious issues) and all stations (including poorly cited stations). Net result on trend of including suboptimal stations - zip!
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
To Streamtracker;
New guy here. i read with interest that you teach. So I got to wonder if you know about this 1943 ocean current map that is currently being rediscovered by some people in the scientific community. Here is the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_currents_1943_(borderless)3.png
Note. The original map shown in the link had the borders, these borders have since been removed. Don't have an idea why they removed the borders. The borders had the following information. American Geographical Society for the Dept of State A Moen & Co Inc.
What I really like about this map is the fact that is was based on years of readings and soundings. It also shows the location of the permanent ice cap as of 1943 and it clearly shows the location of the famous Atlantic THC convertion point that has since moved due to Artic cap melt off. If any thing i'tll make a great teaching tool.
Stream your comments on this map will be most welcomed by this new guy.
Quoting whosonfirst:


What station is used for the official St. Louis temperature records?



The official STL station is at Lambert International Airport, the main airport in STL, located about 15 miles NW of downtown. It moved to this location (from downtown) in 1958. The surrounding area was fairly rural back then, but definitely is not so anymore.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New guy again...I see a lot of references to Temp reading from different places and such. About how much cooler or hotter. Those reading are worthless from a scientific point of view. Why? There are no set standards as to the placement of the instruments. Some are placed near heat sources, or in enclosed areas. you can see what I mean, Need I remind you someone did an exposee about just such a discrepancy. Wasn't it featured here some place? they even showed pictures of the contraptions badly placed.
The St. Louis late freeze really doesn't tell us anything climatewise, other than a UHI impact or station siting issue. Most the stations that surround St. Louis had a relatively early freeze in mid-October. Same reason it was silly a certain STL poster used to go on and on about STL not having reached 0 degrees in several years; while that's true at the airport all other stations in the STL area have gone below zero. STL still had a below average fall temperature-wise; the lows at the airport are just usually several degress higher than surrounding stations.

I can't speak for Boston.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
And, Streamtracker, to what you say in #95, thank you for teaching others that way. That, along with your comments on nature programs, show that you are someone who is still believes in people.

That post alone is enough to make someone like me listen to you.

That is all I am asking of the general scientific community.

I must quit writing before I become maudlin.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#96

But we stand in the eye of the Hurricane and attempt to investigate it...

We should have a manned team on Mars, learning how its climate changed. What we could learn!

I am a skeptic, not a person who completely denies it. A skeptic will change with the evidence; the person in denial will never change their mind.

I am confused over it all, and my first post was an emotional (for me) cry for the scientific community to make the science clear to me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#93 "Observational data kept us believing the sun circled the earth for many, many years, though."

Here's the thing about climate science - they don't just rely on one set of observations. There are multiple independent lines of evidence that the earth is warming and we are the cause.

If we only had one indication the planet was warming, then the evidence would be fairly weak. But, we have dozens.

The presence of multiple independent lines of evidence is very powerful evidence in any science.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting vcastle61:
Streamtracker, I agree that in many cases the data seemed to prove the direction before hand.

Observational data kept us believing the sun circled the earth for many, many years, though.

My point here is that, we, the common person, with little of no scientific background, have become jaded, and don't know who or what to believe, so we become skeptical, from an emotional response.

We feel that, rather than present valid data in a newspaper or magazine, the scientific community attemps to play our emotions to get us to cast our lot with them.

We want to learn, and know that what we believe is the truth; we cannot do that when National Geographic and the Science Channel give us pictures of drowning baby seals, instead of graphs that prove their points.

I only have time for about an hour of TV a day, so maybe I am just watching at the wrong time... :-)


I also get tired of a reliance on extreme imagery. Each year I teach 250 non-major college students about climate change. I believe they can understand the subtleties and complexities of the science. I do not rely on extreme imagery. I teach them about what we have high and low levels of confidence in. Even though they have little science background, most of them can understand the science quite well.

I think part of the problem is that people who are trained to present media and those that are trained to do science don't really know how to talk to each other.

And I think those trained in media think they need to be flashy and extreme to make a point. I think it is a trend in popular science to do this. I used to watch nature documentaries and learn some really interesting stuff - now I mostly tune out to the latest show on the world's most dangerous this or that.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Streamtracker, I agree that in many cases the data seemed to prove the direction before hand.

Observational data kept us believing the sun circled the earth for many, many years, though.

My point here is that, we, the common person, with little of no scientific background, have become jaded, and don't know who or what to believe, so we become skeptical, from an emotional response.

We feel that, rather than present valid data in a newspaper or magazine, the scientific community attemps to play our emotions to get us to cast our lot with them.

We want to learn, and know that what we believe is the truth; we cannot do that when National Geographic and the Science Channel give us pictures of drowning baby seals, instead of graphs that prove their points.

I only have time for about an hour of TV a day, so maybe I am just watching at the wrong time... :-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
82...I am of your vintage...and in agreement with some of your assertions regarding how we've been betrayed by science policy...most disappointing to me has been the failed potential of our space program...we should have colonized the Moon by now and, in so doing, reaped great benefit from the scientific and technological development attendent thereto...instead, we have the boondogle of the ISS which, while cool as all hell, has not really produced any meaningful science...I often wonder: "Where the hell is my jetpack?!?!?!?!"

But the climate change question, to me, is more one of morality than science...cause is irrelevant, in many ways...the question for us mortals is more rightly: What can we do to prevent and alleviate human suffering? and the answer to that is less about science than about will...
I can tell you why. Google the Orion Program. Project members felt we could have sent manned spacecraft to jupiter and saturn by 1970. It was nuclear pulsed-propulsion. Essentially, it used small hydrogen bombs that were rapidly ejected behind the spacecraft. They would explode against the pusher plate, propelling the spacecraft forward. This took advantage of the increasing efficiency of the fission/fusion nuclear chain reaction as it goes beyond our current limits to contain it inside a reactor. Spacecraft that used this method from ground level could carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of cargo space. In fact, the more massive the spacecraft the more cost effective it would be. The project was shutdown because of fears that the nuclear detonations would spoil our environment, that the small nuclear bombs would proliferate in rogue nations, and that it would be militarized (a cold war in space). Fears about nuclear things were much greater back then (cold war abomb fears). The military supposedly envisioned massive battleships in earth orbit using this technology. When kennedy asked nasa to land on the moon before 1970, the quickest most acceptable method was via chemical propellant.

Later proposals have refined the original orion concept. A lot of them having to do with confining it to a reactor - which is much less efficient (but safer to environment and less chance to proliferate in unstable countries). That and we can't effectively contain fusion reactions in a reactor yet (maybe in 50 years?). This all could have been expanded on 50 years ago, and the project leader said "...this is the first time in modern history that a major expansion of human technology has been suppressed for political reasons."

If there was a crash program to send humans to the stars and we only had 5 years to do it, it would use this technology.

So you see, your jetpack exists, but it sits in the shed because it's not ready for this world.

Some videos to introduce you to this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22iv_g7u6IQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eipFtj76IZc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywGMPZYh3tE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-7wpQNN3ug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmnwcTE5qHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx4tSauh3H8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMJtVpFdJmM
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:




Ah yes my silly reliance on the peer-reviewed literature versus other's reliance on analyzes found on somebody's website.

When we start doing science on blogs we are really in trouble.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Vcastle61,

"Now we are told that, even though a computer simulation cannot accurately forecast the weather 30 days out, it can forcast the climate change in 100 years. We are skeptical.

We skeptics feel that climate science has failed us. It has done so by deciding in the IPCC that man is responsible for global warming, and then setting out to prove this theory. We prefered our scientists of the type that would not have a preformed opinion, but would gather facts and see where the research led."

I am a 61'er too.

On your first point. The models have been very good at predicting climate change to date and are very good at hind-casting. And weather is far less predictable then climate - I can tell you that it will certainly be warmer this summer, then it is this December - but I can't tell you which days will have summer storms or what the temperature will be on any given day.

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf et al. Science, Published Online February 1, 2007.

We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean air temperature and sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarised in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol in which almost all industrialised nations have committed to binding reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.


Here's a key graph from the paper. The first tic on the bottom is 1975 the last is 2005. The solid lines are smoothed observations from two different data analyses and the dotted are model projections under different scenarios of increases in Co2 levels. The interesting thing is not only that the models very closely track average global temps, but that they also underestimate them a bit.





On your 2nd point. You got the process wrong. The work in climate science has progressed as any good science should. A theory was proposed and for nearly three decades scientists have been busy working on it. When it was first proposed, there were a lot of mainstream climate scientists who were very skeptical. There questions were then incorporated into years of research.

Even though almost all of the skeptical arguments first presented nearly 30 years ago have been answered by intensive research, many still hold on to their view in spite of evidence from numerous independent lines of research.

This website does a very good job of presenting the History of the Science of Global Warming.




Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Adapt the world to us, or adapt ourselves to the world...

...the latter, in my opinion...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
82...I am of your vintage...and in agreement with some of your assertions regarding how we've been betrayed by science policy...most disappointing to me has been the failed potential of our space program...we should have colonized the Moon by now and, in so doing, reaped great benefit from the scientific and technological development attendent thereto...instead, we have the boondogle of the ISS which, while cool as all hell, has not really produced any meaningful science...I often wonder: "Where the hell is my jetpack?!?!?!?!"

But the climate change question, to me, is more one of morality than science...cause is irrelevant, in many ways...the question for us mortals is more rightly: What can we do to prevent and alleviate human suffering? and the answer to that is less about science than about will...


True, but which should we do? Adapt the world to us, or adapt ourselves to the world...If the world warms to what it was 400,000 years ago, and Greenland has no ice, or we have a major ice age, where glaciers cover down to Tennessee, should we try to prevent that, or should we spend our efforts adapting ourselves to the new environment. I believe that attempting to change the world to fit us will fail, and lead to our extinction.

By the same token, if we go extinct from our own stupidity, then we did not deserve to survive...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
82...I am of your vintage...and in agreement with some of your assertions regarding how we've been betrayed by science policy...most disappointing to me has been the failed potential of our space program...we should have colonized the Moon by now and, in so doing, reaped great benefit from the scientific and technological development attendent thereto...instead, we have the boondogle of the ISS which, while cool as all hell, has not really produced any meaningful science...I often wonder: "Where the hell is my jetpack?!?!?!?!"

But the climate change question, to me, is more one of morality than science...cause is irrelevant, in many ways...the question for us mortals is more rightly: What can we do to prevent and alleviate human suffering? and the answer to that is less about science than about will...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
streamtracker and his limited data.

the full record here.



Bruce Hall did an analysis and follow-up. He extended the time period back to the start of the century and found the 1930 had a much higher frequency of maximum temperature extremes than the 1990s or 2000s or the combination of the last two decades

Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

Viewing: 133 - 83

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.