Just News and Muses

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:08 AM GMT on March 01, 2010

Just News and Muses :

It’s been very busy, and I have had some issues of keeping up, not to mention upkeep. In the climate world there has been a lot going on.

It was two weeks ago, Valentines, when there was a curious BBC interview of Phil Jones. The interview advertised that it featured questions gathered from “climate skeptics.” Of course, the interview is part of the continuing waterfall from the published emails from the Climate Research Unit. The questions in the interview read like a setup, and even in the best of cases, an interview with Dr. Jones on climate change and the credibility of the science of climate change is a no-win situation. In the situation where there is a persistent effort to discredit climate science, the scientists at the center of the email discussion are fundamentally powerless to advance their case. They are more than able to fuel the enemy. In the world of blog, Jones' interview was immediately all over the blogs (for example), with some of the headlines screaming that he had admitted that all climate science was flawed. (Untrue, of course). This is a prime example of the ability to use uncertainties as expressed and nuanced by a scientist to support any position, including disruption.

Jones' interview was all over the blogosphere. I asked my class on the Tuesday after the interview if they had paid attention to the interview and the response, and the answer was “no.” By the standards of the world this is a group of climate-interested people and this whole flash in the blogosphere went unnoted.

A little before Jones' interview I was a guest lecturer in a journalism class on environmental journalism. I shared the podium with Nolan Finley who is the Editorial Page Editor of the Detroit News. The Detroit News is the conservative leaning newspaper in Detroit. The discussion with Mr. Finley and the students focused around the decline of the outlets for rigorous journalism, and the rise of “point of view” journalism. One of the interesting facts of point of view journalism is that people read or listen only to the point of view they are predisposed to agree with. Hence, it contributes more and more to polarization and tribalism. Hence, it seems that all of the blogs about Jones' interview only fuel the rant, but does not reach out beyond their particular group of believers. (Yes, I am smart enough to know the same is true for this blog.)

This all raises big questions not only about the evolution of climate policy and the like, but the future of journalism and the free press - one of the corner stones of a functional democracy. But keeping it focused, there is an interesting discussion on Science Friday on where to get information about science. This is a take not only on the decline of rigorous journalism, but in particular the disappearance of the coverage of science in the general press. (And now the blog becomes important.)

And the real world goes on. NOAA announced its intention to develop a National Climate Service, in the spirit of the National Weather Service. This is envisioned to be an organization that provides climate information, and potentially its existence will be a step in de-politicization of climate science. More on the National Climate Service: Climate Service on Science Friday and from NOAA.

In the absence of comprehensive policy to address change in the U.S. the 2007 Supreme Court Decision that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide becomes more important. As the EPA moves forward with the foundation to address climate change, some legislators are moving to block the EPA. ( see also) The prospect of regulation is an intense motivator for policy; companies and states don’t like the uncertain environment of regulation and litigation.

So the world moves on, some things that make a difference are happening. President Obama has announced a program to guarantee loans for building new nuclear power plants. (more details). And a group of Senators are looking to propose something different from a cap and trade market (more). These seem like good things to me.



r

And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org







The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In 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: 100 - 50

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

CycloneBuster,

Check out this link...

Freeze Cost Florida Growers 7.4 Mil. Boxes, Agency Says

Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Thats because it is raining in Greenland in the middle of the winter in the middle of the night.



Do I have to go get link to the live cam in the middle of Greenland again? That is a patent misinterpretation of the facts at hand.



Here is a good scientist for ya!!

Link
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124178690


New Research Sheds Light On Antarctic Ice Melting

She says that the melting is the size of Texas. AHHH.


Too bad she's off by a factor of 35X.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
"The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth," he acknowledged.

"Yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans," he wrote. And that puts "significantly more moisture into the atmosphere - thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow.Even though it feels like we've been freezing, too, January was the second-warmest - globally - in the 130 years since records have been kept, records show."


Link

That may be true...
But we will never know. It's getting colder. :p




But explain how warming makes for a higher snow cover extent. Not depth. Which is the record. Sorry my friend. AGW theory says the opposite. It's supposed to snow more in the cold and nasty far north. Not Texas. ;-)

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
"The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth," he acknowledged.

If it had rained instead of snow, we might buy into the BS. The fact is, at this point, we don't know what [or who] to believe because the people we entrust to govern and stand watch over us all LIE!

Al, it is true that Bill didn't admit to f*cking Monica in the White House, but that doesn't make him truthful or honorable does it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Stan, I listened to the first two parts and will listen to more later.
What is apparent is that Jones doesn't want to really answer the question as to why the raw data was withheld. The answer is fairly obvious. They didn't want anyone to disprove their conclusions. This doesn't mean their conclusions were wrong. However, if one has great confidence in their work, I'd think they would want it displayed far and wide.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Here's a question for you Rick.

As ocean levels rise the water displaces more atmosphere. Wouldn't this tend to lower atmospheric pressure thus creating lower pressure (stronger) storms? Storms like hurricane Gilbert and Wilma with < 890 millibars.


I can answer that for you... It would mean almost nothing. 60 miles v/s a few inches. The other thing is you didn't really change the amount of atmosphere. For instance does a 1 pound rock weigh more when put up on the kitchen counter v/s the floor?

Now one could get into a purely theoretical argument... The one pound rock would actually weigh "less" on the counter due to the fact that it is farther from the center of gravity.... But this is really a pointless mental exercise.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting misanthrope:


Reminds me of a game we used to play called telephone. This stuff gets passed from blog to blog with a little distortion added each time until it bears no resemblance to the original quote.

Any chance you could up with what Phil Jones really said, Stan? I think a comparison to the original could be quite enlightening.




I watched the hearing on Youtube... He says how he has never been asked for the data for a peer review.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ClimateMadness#p/u/4/cAj_lZv4Gxc

This is the link to video 1 of 5.
Link


Enjoy!!!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Depends if the ice is on water or land. This is a different question than that and the answer may not be the same..


No, you're just plain wrong. Wherever ice is, on glaciers or even under water, it displaces more volume of the atmosphere as ice than as a liquid. So, if it melts, it displaces less atmosphere than it did as ice.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Another question. If the greenhouse effect traps heat as radiant energy bounces off the Earth, what if we trap the heat in vegetation thereby removing it from the atmosphere?

If growing more vegetation and algae traps the heat before it goes to atmosphere, doesn't it make sense to have major programs to plant vegetation and grow algae? Wouldn't this have a double whammy on warming by trapping heat and removing CO2 from atmosphere? Wouldn't it also create wealth for all as opposed to reducing wealth for all?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Here's a question for you Rick.

As ocean levels rise the water displaces more atmosphere. Wouldn't this tend to lower atmospheric pressure thus creating lower pressure (stronger) storms? Storms like hurricane Gilbert and Wilma with < 890 millibars.


Please think. Where does the water come from? Does ice take up more or less space when it becomes water?

I bet your kid knew this one.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Negative. If the Oceans were 1.5 degrees F cooler like at the start of the industrial revolution this would not of happened!


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

I got a question for you Mr. Buster. How come the icebergs off Antarctica are happening at a time when there is so much ice in the southern hemisphere? Is it possible that more ice means more and bigger icebergs?

I assume you think big chunks are breaking away because of warming, but that's just not true because if it were, the anomaly down there would be negative, but it's positive. How do you rationalize what you believe?

Another question,are we getting record setting icebergs in the Arctic areas? I haven't heard about it if it's so. If we're not, how come we're not given that the Arctic had so much melting the last decade?

I've noticed in my life that sometimes if you let something get really big it sort of takes care of itself. Take ear wax for example. Maybe ice bergs are like ear wax. What do you think?



Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 100 - 50

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog 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.

Recent Posts

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.