Simply Uncertain

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:10 AM GMT en Febrero 21, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.



Figure 1: From 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year 2100

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

r

Old Entry on Uncertainty and Definition of Model Types

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: 418 - 368

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

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
It's the sun, stupid. Another study correlating solar activity with temperature and predicting a decrease of 1 degree C in global temps.

Link

From the link you provided:
"This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed." -bold added

Prior to that statement, it specifies, "meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region."

I humbly suggest that Norway and the North Atlantic region -both fine places- are not the Earth.

Better luck next time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:

Yes, but the reality is that the anomaly is the lowest in a couple of years and the Earth's lower atmospheric temperatures are also the lowest in a couple of years. Putting two plus two together would suggest that things might be changing regarding the warming we had a while back. Can you put two and two together?

Thank you very much for the weather report!

Hint: Climate > "a couple of years"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
How is that ice doing at the North Pole?

Thin, sir. Mighty thin.

And it's getting thinner every year.

Thanks for asking. Hope that helps.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


What gives is those types of statements are just not right. It has happened before.

"It" has? When?
Quoting Ossqss:
The terms, unprecedented, never before in history, first time ever, lose credibility by virtue of the statement itself for they are false.

False? Please provide verifiable evidence.

Quoting Ossqss:
It is unbelievable to those who can interpret, and in some instances, interpolate the statements, and rightly so. You can sound the alarm, but some of us know better than you do :)

Aren't you the person who tried to tell me that Earth gets almost all of its energy from the Sun, and that that represented a "gaping hole" in AGW theory? Of course you are!

You'll excuse me if I chuckle at your self-proclaimed authority, won't you?

Actually, it doesn't matter if you'll excuse me or not. I'm LMAO! :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:

It's NOT the sun, stupid.

If you read the study you'll see that Solheim has got a little help from David Archibald.

David Archibald. LOL

From SkS

...As we at SkS have previously noted, Archibald has a history of focusing on data from individual surface temperature stations such as Perth, Australia or Bridgeport, Washington. In his 2009 paper, Archibald similarly focused on temperature data from a single temperature station in Hanover, New Hampshire:

"If the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition is July 2009, this would make Solar Cycle 23 over thirteen years long. This in turn would mean that it would be 3.2 years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and imply that the annual average temperature of Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2° C cooler during Solar Cycle 24 than it had been on average over Solar Cycle 23."

In this quote, Archibald repeats the myth that solar cycle length determines global temperatures - a quite unphysical argument which is based on correlation rather than causation - and specifically focuses on the temperature data from a single station.

The temperature data for Hanover are available via NASA GISS. The average temperature in Hanover over solar cycle 23, which began in May 1996 and ended in December 2008, was 7.9°C. Thus if Archibald is correct, over solar cycle 24, the temperature in Hanover should cool to 5.7°C. In fact, Archibald's prediction is based on the average temperature over the entire solar cycle, so his prediction is actually that the average temperature in Hanover from approximately 2009 through 2020 will be 5.7°C.

Click for larger image:

Uh-oh


GISS temperature record for Hanover, New Hampshire (1895 through 2008, black), GISS Hanover data for solar cycle 24 (2009 through 2011, green), and an example of how Hanover temperatures would have to change for Archibald's prediction to be accurate (blue).

As with John McLean's failed temperature prediction, a simple cursory glance at the data is all that's necessary to conclude that Archibald's prediction has no basis in reality. However, we haven't yet seen the worst of Archibald's predictions...


You are guilty of what I get accused of every time I show data -- cherrypicking. You use one town on the entire earth as an example. Ok, get rid of the magic mushrooms.
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
It's the sun, stupid. Another study correlating solar activity with temperature and predicting a decrease of 1 degree C in global temps.

Link

It's NOT the sun, stupid.

If you read the study you'll see that Solheim has got a little help from David Archibald.

David Archibald. LOL

From SkS

...As we at SkS have previously noted, Archibald has a history of focusing on data from individual surface temperature stations such as Perth, Australia or Bridgeport, Washington. In his 2009 paper, Archibald similarly focused on temperature data from a single temperature station in Hanover, New Hampshire:

"If the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition is July 2009, this would make Solar Cycle 23 over thirteen years long. This in turn would mean that it would be 3.2 years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and imply that the annual average temperature of Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2° C cooler during Solar Cycle 24 than it had been on average over Solar Cycle 23."

In this quote, Archibald repeats the myth that solar cycle length determines global temperatures - a quite unphysical argument which is based on correlation rather than causation - and specifically focuses on the temperature data from a single station.

The temperature data for Hanover are available via NASA GISS. The average temperature in Hanover over solar cycle 23, which began in May 1996 and ended in December 2008, was 7.9°C. Thus if Archibald is correct, over solar cycle 24, the temperature in Hanover should cool to 5.7°C. In fact, Archibald's prediction is based on the average temperature over the entire solar cycle, so his prediction is actually that the average temperature in Hanover from approximately 2009 through 2020 will be 5.7°C.

Click for larger image:

Uh-oh


GISS temperature record for Hanover, New Hampshire (1895 through 2008, black), GISS Hanover data for solar cycle 24 (2009 through 2011, green), and an example of how Hanover temperatures would have to change for Archibald's prediction to be accurate (blue).

As with John McLean's failed temperature prediction, a simple cursory glance at the data is all that's necessary to conclude that Archibald's prediction has no basis in reality. However, we haven't yet seen the worst of Archibald's predictions...
Member Since: Noviembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Neapolitan:
Do you have a single credible shred of data to back up any of those claims?

-In order for Arctic Sea ice to not peak for 2-3 more weeks, it would have to do so between days 80 and 87. There's only been one year in the last ten during which SIA maximum took place on or after day 80; the mean during that span has been 67. And only four times since 1979 has peak day come on or after day 80, and two of those were in the mid-80s. Too, the trend has been towards an earlier peak. On top of that, forecast anomalies for the Arctic are very high over the news few weeks. All in all, there's a very good chance this year's peak has been reached, or will be within the next day or two. (To reach the "zero" anomaly line would be require an additional 400,000 km2 of ice area to be added after day 67, and that has never happened any year since records have been kept.)

-I'm not sure what "cooling trend" you're talking about; none exists, period. The planet continues to warm at an increasing rate, and it shows no signs of slowing down.



That is the peak they will to show what the think is a recovery. LOL!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:


-I'm not sure what "cooling trend" you're talking about; none exists, period. The planet continues to warm at an increasing rate, and it shows no signs of slowing down.
Can you back up this claim? I know the last 18 months or so may be because of La Nina but that does not explain why it has not warmed for the last decade.

Now before you try and back it up with some twisted facts, I will let you know as soon as you do I will post graphs from NOAA, NASA and CRU that will directly refute your claim.

IOW It has not continued to warm and there is no increasing rate. In fact it is basically flat lined or slightly cooled for the last decade, so there can be no increasing rate in fact it would be decreasing. I can back up this statement with actual facts.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting martinitony:


No, not necessarily. It will become even colder over the next several years. The ice in the Arctic won't peak for about 2-3 weeks and will probably come close to touching the zero anomaly line. But you are probably right about things changing. The cooling trend will become more profound.
In a couple years I would like to post an I told you so, but it is likely this blog will disappear with the global warming.
Do you have a single credible shred of data to back up any of those claims?

-In order for Arctic Sea ice to not peak for 2-3 more weeks, it would have to do so between days 80 and 87. There's only been one year in the last ten during which SIA maximum took place on or after day 80; the mean during that span has been 67. And only four times since 1979 has peak day come on or after day 80, and two of those were in the mid-80s. Too, the trend has been towards an earlier peak. On top of that, forecast anomalies for the Arctic are very high over the news few weeks. All in all, there's a very good chance this year's peak has been reached, or will be within the next day or two. (To reach the "zero" anomaly line would be require an additional 400,000 km2 of ice area to be added after day 67, and that has never happened any year since records have been kept.)

-I'm not sure what "cooling trend" you're talking about; none exists, period. The planet continues to warm at an increasing rate, and it shows no signs of slowing down.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
I'm sure glad y'all straightened me out about the veracity of Michael Mann.

Link

WUWT snark forthcoming...
Member Since: Mayo 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
It's the sun, stupid. Another study correlating solar activity with temperature and predicting a decrease of 1 degree C in global temps.

Link
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

No need making the loop current any hotter than it is already. These remove the heat from the loop current:




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
Thank goodness we have Obama to direct those dollars at
Wind Turbines

Matt Ridley - The Man Who Wants to Northern Rock the Planet

Matt Ridley’s irrational theories remain unchanged by his own disastrous experiment.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 1st June 2010

Brass neck doesn’t begin to describe it. Matt Ridley used to make his living partly by writing state-bashing columns in the Daily Telegraph. The government, he complained, is “a self-seeking flea on the backs of the more productive people of this world … governments do not run countries, they parasitise them.”(1) Taxes, bail-outs, regulations, subsidies, intervention of any kind, he argued, are an unwarranted restraint on market freedom.

Then he became chairman of Northern Rock, where he was able to put his free market principles into practice. Under his chairmanship, the bank pursued what the Treasury select committee later described as a “high-risk, reckless business strategy”(2). It was able to do so because the government agency which oversees the banks “systematically failed in its regulatory duty”(3).

On 16th August 2007, Dr Ridley rang an agent of the detested state to explore the possibility of a bail-out. The self-seeking fleas agreed to his request, and in September the government opened a support facility for the floundering bank. The taxpayer eventually bailed out Northern Rock to the tune of £27bn.

When news of the crisis leaked, it caused the first run on a bank in this country since 1878. The parasitic state had to intervene a second time: the run was halted only when the government guaranteed the depositors’ money. Eventually the government was obliged to nationalise the bank. Investors, knowing that their money would now be safe as it was protected by the state, began to return.

While the crisis was made possible by a “substantial failure of regulation”, MPs identified the directors of Northern Rock as “the principal authors of the difficulties that the company has faced”. They singled Ridley out for having failed “to provide against the risks that [Northern Rock] was taking and to act as an effective restraining force on the strategy of the executive members.”(4)

This, you might think, must have been a salutary experience. You would be wrong. Last week Dr Ridley published a new book called The Rational Optimist(5). He uses it as a platform to attack governments which, among other crimes, “bail out big corporations”(6). He lambasts intervention and state regulation, insisting that markets deliver the greatest possible benefits to society when left to their own devices. Has there ever been a clearer case of the triumph of faith over experience?

Free market fundamentalists, apparently unaware of Ridley’s own experiment in market liberation, are currently filling cyberspace and the mainstream media with gasps of enthusiasm about his thesis. Ridley provides what he claims is a scientific justification for unregulated business. He maintains that rising consumption will keep enriching us for “centuries and millennia” to come(7), but only if governments don’t impede innovation. He dismisses or denies the environmental consequences, laments our risk-aversion, and claims that the market system makes self-interest “thoroughly virtuous”(8). All will be well in the best of all possible worlds, as long as the “parasitic bureaucracy” keeps its nose out of our lives(9).

His book is elegantly written and cast in the language of evolution, but it’s the same old cornutopian nonsense we’ve heard one hundred times before (cornutopians are people who envisage a utopia of limitless abundance(10)). In this case, however, it has already been spectacularly disproved by the author’s experience.

The Rational Optimist is riddled with excruciating errors and distortions. Ridley claims, for example, that “every country that tried protectionism” after the Second World War suffered as a result. He cites South Korea and Taiwan as “countries that went the other way”, and experienced miraculous growth(11). In reality, the governments of both nations subsidised key industries, actively promoted exports and used tariffs and laws to shut out competing imports. In both countries the state owned all the major commercial banks, allowing it to make decisions about investment(12,13,14).

He maintains that “Enron funded climate alarmism”(15). The reference he gives demonstrates nothing of the sort, nor can I find evidence for this claim elsewhere(16). He says that “no significant error has come to light” in Bjorn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist(17). In fact it contains so many significant errors that an entire book – The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel – was required to document them(18).

Ridley asserts that average temperature changes over “the last three decades” have been “relatively slow”(19). In reality the rise over this period has been the most rapid since instrumental records began(20). He maintains that “eleven of thirteen populations” of polar bears are “growing or steady”(21). There are in fact 19 populations of polar bears. Of those whose fluctuations have been measured, one is increasing, three are stable and eight are declining(22).

He uses blatant cherry-picking to create the impression that ecosystems are recovering: water snake numbers in Lake Erie, fish populations in the Thames, bird’s eggs in Sweden(23). But as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment shows, of 65 global indicators of human impacts on biodiversity, only one – the extent of temperate forests – is improving. Eighteen are stable, in all the other cases the impacts are increasing(24).

Northern Rock grew rapidly by externalising its costs, pursuing money-making schemes that would eventually be paid for by other people. Ridley encourages us to treat the planet the same way. He either ignores or glosses over the costs of ever-expanding trade and perpetual growth. His timing, as BP fails to contain the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, is unfortunate. Like the collapse of Northern Rock, the Deepwater Horizon disaster was made possible by weak regulation. Ridley would weaken it even further, leaving public protection to the invisible hand of the market.

He might not have been chastened by experience, but it would be wrong to claim that he has learnt nothing. On the contrary, he has developed a fine line in blame-shifting and post-rational justification. He mentions Northern Rock only once in his book, where he blames the crisis on “government housing and monetary policy.”(25) It was the state wot made him do it. He asserts that while he wants to reduce the regulation of markets in goods and services, he has “always supported” the careful regulation of financial markets(26). He provides no evidence for this and I cannot find it in anything he wrote before the crisis.

Other than that, he claims, he can say nothing, due to the terms of his former employment at the bank. I suspect this constraint is overstated: it’s unlikely that it forbids him from accepting his share of the blame.

It is only from the safety of the regulated economy, in which governments pick up the pieces when business screws up, that people like Dr Ridley can pursue their magical thinking. Had the state he despises not bailed out his bank and rescued its depositors’ money, his head would probably be on a pike by now. Instead we see it on our television screens, instructing us to apply his irrational optimism more widely. And no one has yet been rude enough to use the word discredited.

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wan ts-to-northern-rock-the-planet/
Member Since: Noviembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting martinitony:


No, not necessarily. It will become even colder over the next several years. The ice in the Arctic won't peak for about 2-3 weeks and will probably come close to touching the zero anomaly line. But you are probably right about things changing. The cooling trend will become more profound.
In a couple years I would like to post an I told you so, but it is likely this blog will disappear with the global warming.


I hope that you are right about the first part and wrong on the second part. I would gladly stand by your side and help celebrate!
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


For the life of me, Pat, I know that the average third grade student could look at that chart and instantly realize that something is up! (Pardon the pun.) Why is it so difficult for so many "educated" people to not be able to see this? Has their eyesight really become so poor?




The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it’s real. In some ways, it’s nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who’s studied public attitudes towards climate science, we’re in denial.

“Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don’t just take it in and respond in a rational way,” said Norgaard.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun’s heat, they would — depending on human energy habits — heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet’s climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released. “This is the defining moment.”

Studies published since then have only strengthened the IPCC’s predictions, or suggested they underestimate future warming. But as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid catastrophic climate change, barely half the U.S. public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That’s 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.

Wired.com talked to Norgaard about the divide between science and public opinion.

Wired.com: Why don’t people seem to care?

Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.

That’s extremely important, but my work has been in a different area. It’s been about people who believe in science, who aren’t out to question whether science has a place in society.

Wired.com: People who are coming at the issue in good faith, you mean. What’s their response?

Norgaard: Climate change is disturbing. It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.

For relatively privileged people like myself, we don’t have to see the impact in everyday life. I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that’s not my life. We have a vast capacity for this.


Wired.com: How is this bubble maintained?

Norgaard: In order to have a positive sense of self-identity and get through the day, we’re constantly being selective of what we think about and pay attention to. To create a sense of a good, safe world for ourselves, we screen out all kinds of information, from where food comes from to how our clothes our made. When we talk with our friends, we talk about something pleasant.

Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?

Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.

If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.

Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?

Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.

Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.

Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.

That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.

Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?

Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yup! Things, they are a changin'.

Now, the next question is, can you put two plus two together? No, no, no. Not twoplustwo. Add 2 and 2 together. Hint: the answer is not 22.

We have just come off of two years of a strong La Nina and are only recently approaching a neutral. Solar activity is starting to come out of its long lull. I wish that I could be as exciting as you about any apparent cooling, but I think this "cooling" is about to change real soon.


No, not necessarily. It will become even colder over the next several years. The ice in the Arctic won't peak for about 2-3 weeks and will probably come close to touching the zero anomaly line. But you are probably right about things changing. The cooling trend will become more profound.
In a couple years I would like to post an I told you so, but it is likely this blog will disappear with the global warming.
Member Since: Julio 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting Patrap:
co2now.org


393.65ppm


Atmospheric CO2 for February 2012




For the life of me, Pat, I know that the average third grade student could look at that chart and instantly realize that something is up! (Pardon the pun.) Why is it so difficult for so many "educated" people to not be able to see this? Has their eyesight really become so poor?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
co2now.org


393.65ppm


Atmospheric CO2 for February 2012


Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting martinitony:

Yes, but the reality is that the anomaly is the lowest in a couple of years and the Earth's lower atmospheric temperatures are also the lowest in a couple of years. Putting two plus two together would suggest that things might be changing regarding the warming we had a while back. Can you put two and two together?


Yup! Things, they are a changin'.

Now, the next question is, can you put two plus two together? No, no, no. Not twoplustwo. Add 2 and 2 together. Hint: the answer is not 22.

We have just come off of two years of a strong La Nina and are only recently approaching a neutral. Solar activity is starting to come out of its long lull. I wish that I could be as exciting as you about any apparent cooling, but I think this "cooling" is about to change real soon.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting martinitony:

Yes, but the reality is that the anomaly is the lowest in a couple of years and the Earth's lower atmospheric temperatures are also the lowest in a couple of years. Putting two plus two together would suggest that things might be changing regarding the warming we had a while back. Can you put two and two together?
First, notice that the spike at -0.397 is the absolute top of the ice maximum; it will fall from now through September. Also, noe that the top of that spike is lower than the top of spikes in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Note also that the top of the spike is at or lower than the BOTTOM of any year prior to about 2005.

That's called a "trend".

Second, the globe has been in a particularly strong La Nina, a phenomenon which always holds down temps. The globe isn't cooling; it's just that increasing temperatures induced by CO2 are being masked by the La Nina. Once that La Nina is gone and we're back to neutral or El Nino conditons, that mask will be gone, and the true increase will be obvious even to the strongest denialist.

That's called "climate science".

So, to answer your question, yes, I can certainly put two and two together, and here's the answer: the planet continues its warming unabated, and there appears to be nothing that will stop it.

(Of course, when the El Nino gets underway and temperatures skyrocket once again, denialists will be the first to suddenly note that "It's all ENSO"--a phenomenon which the conveniently forget all about when the warming is suppressed by it.)
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Quoting martinitony:
Thank goodness we have Obama to direct those dollars at
Wind Turbines


What does the article have to do with Obama? Has Britain now surrendered to the control of the U.S.? ... Has anyone told the Queen???

Do you ever read or research your links? Ever?

Matt Ridley also offers his own "prize"

Announcing the Matt Ridley Prize for Environmental Heresy

"Matt Ridley has long deplored the wind farm delusion, and was appalled when a family trust was paid by a wind farm company in compensation for mineral rights on land on which it wanted to build a turbine. The trust would be paid £8,500 a year for it, and Matt couldn’t abide the idea of profiting — even in part — from this. So he is donating £8,500 in an annual prize to be given to the best essay exposing environmental fallacies. Entries open today.

The rules are simple. We invite pieces from 1,000 to 2,000 words in length, to gore one of the sacred cows of the environmentalist movement. Matt says more in his cover essay for the new Spectator (which you can also read on Facebook) : ‘There are many to choose from: the idea that wind power is good for the climate, or that biofuels are good for the rain forest or that organic farming is good for the planet or that climate change is a bigger extinction threat than invasive species.’ A shortlist of six will be put to a panel of judges and the winning entry will be published in the magazine in July.

Entries, please, to ridleyprize@spectator.co.uk and they close on 30 June 2012. And will do every year from now on. I’ll leave the final word to Matt: ‘The real enemy is not wind farms per se, but the groupthink and hysteria which allowed such a flawed idea to progress with a minimum of intellectual opposition. I shall donate the money as long as the wind-gelt flows — so the quicker Dave cancels the subsidy altogether, the sooner he will have me and the prizewinners off his back.’"


The rules really are simple. You do not have to have any facts, any knowledge of the subject or have any related knowledge. Heck, you do not have to have any knowledge of anything, except how to write a 1,000 - 2,000 word "piece". ... Oh, yes. There is a qualifier. Your "piece" must show a distaste for any environmentalist movement. ... Have you applied? Here is your opportunity to get £8,500 for nothing more than a 1,000 words of blather. Are you able to do so? I would venture a guess that you could. But, I could be wrong.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Neapolitan:
What ice experts are saying--and simple common sense would validate--is that today, Day 67, is the average maxiumum ice day over the past 30 plus years; any ice that's currently forming in the Arctic Sea is therefore anonymously thin, and thus should disappear at a much faster rather than normal.

Yes, but the reality is that the anomaly is the lowest in a couple of years and the Earth's lower atmospheric temperatures are also the lowest in a couple of years. Putting two plus two together would suggest that things might be changing regarding the warming we had a while back. Can you put two and two together?
Member Since: Julio 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Here is the latest I found: Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis



Added

"Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent in February 2012 averaged 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the fifth-lowest February ice extent in the 1979 to 2012 satellite data record, 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.

Continuing the pattern established in January, conditions differed greatly between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Arctic. On the Atlantic side, especially in the Barents Sea, air temperatures were higher than average and ice extent was unusually low. February ice extent for the Barents Sea was the lowest in the satellite record. Air temperatures over the Laptev, Kara and Barents seas ranged from 4 to 8 degrees Celsius (7 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) above average at the 925 hectopascal (hPa ) level (about 3000 feet above sea level). In contrast, on the Pacific side, February ice extent in the Bering Sea was the second highest in the satellite record, paired with air temperatures that were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) below average at the 925 hPa level."
What ice experts are saying--and simple common sense would validate--is that today, Day 67, is the average maxiumum ice day over the past 30 plus years; any ice that's currently forming in the Arctic Sea is therefore anonymously thin, and thus should disappear at a much faster rather than normal.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Thank goodness we have Obama to direct those dollars at
Wind Turbines
Member Since: Julio 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting overwash12:
How is that ice doing at the North Pole?


Here is the latest I found: Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis



Added

"Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent in February 2012 averaged 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the fifth-lowest February ice extent in the 1979 to 2012 satellite data record, 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.

Continuing the pattern established in January, conditions differed greatly between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Arctic. On the Atlantic side, especially in the Barents Sea, air temperatures were higher than average and ice extent was unusually low. February ice extent for the Barents Sea was the lowest in the satellite record. Air temperatures over the Laptev, Kara and Barents seas ranged from 4 to 8 degrees Celsius (7 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) above average at the 925 hectopascal (hPa ) level (about 3000 feet above sea level). In contrast, on the Pacific side, February ice extent in the Bering Sea was the second highest in the satellite record, paired with air temperatures that were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) below average at the 925 hPa level."
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
How is that ice doing at the North Pole?
Member Since: Junio 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting Patrap:
The cooling should begin in earnest any month now.

JB
That statement would be ever so much more credible if it hadn't been repeated every month for the last, oh, 250 or so. Saying it so often displays an enormous lack of both climate knowledge and common sense.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
The cooling should begin in earnest any month now.

JB
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting nymore:
Goodnight Rookie my bookwork is caught up and I'm off to grab a cold one. I feel like the crowd in this video. I hate paperwork.

For everyone's enjoyment here is Song 2 (live)

img src="">


I certainly hear you on that. Paperwork should be left to the ones that enjoy doing paperwork. I am not one of them. You earned the break, after doing the paperwork. Enjoy the break!
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting nymore:


I am not worried about retirement. Remember the end user always pays the mark up. That is why people who say tax this company or that company more are foolish all they are really doing is raising their own costs in the end.


Yes, the end user does pay the costs. I do not agree with not taxing companies simply because this cost is passed along to the end user. They should not get a free ride when they use the same infrastructures that the tax payers do. Your debate point could very well lead to saying that companies should not have to pay for raw materials,wages or benefits since these costs are just passed on to the end users. There are costs associated with doing business. Taxes are just one of these costs. Lowering these costs should not be used a strong indicator that the end user would end up paying less for the products. ... Just my thoughts.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting nymore:
good evening sir

I don't worry about climate change because I can do nothing to control it. If the technology becomes available and cost effective I have no problem using it, but as of now it is still just a dream and not reality. Look at the Chevy Volt they sold what like 1600 cars in two months, the Chevy Silverado pick-up sells over 1100 per day, the price of the immature technology is not cost effective vs proven technology.


The Chavy Volt, aka Vauxhaul thingamajig, just won car of the year in the UK. That is part of the argument for developing alt energy/efficient vehicles in the US: the technology is exportable to countries that do care about the environment.

As for taxes... it is a big complex network. But the US is no long the Jim Bridger wild west where everyone needs only a gun and a knife (cue Oss with approriate video: Horton, I think). The US is a networked economy. If no taxes were paid, there would be no public services and the economy as a whole would be less efficient. Is the tax rate unfair in some ways: sure, but it is impossible to judge who uses what exactly in what amounts. Taxes are a catchall to increase the networked efficiency of a country of which the businesses depend almost entirely. Look at the request for J and H1 visas: why? Because employers can't find enough educated Americans to do the job. etc. etc. - it is a huge argument and not related to global warming except for how the decision affects investment in alternative energy.

And this is one that, as a conservative, i don't understand. Investing in renewable energy is jsut that: free energy in the years to come. Maybe the technology isn't there yet, but it is coming at a rate directly proportional (if nto linear) to the amount of research that is spent on it. Imagine an America free from Iran, Iraq, Venzuela, etc. instead of having a president fly to Saudi Arabia to kiss buttocks right in the in the Suez canal.

As for driving a truck, I have sympathy. It is hard to find ways to save energy by yourself when your living is networked so tighly with existing infrastructure: how can an individual possibly change infrastructure by themselves? I don't think it is reasonable to ask everyone to be innovative and clever in the face of hwo difficult it is to do either.
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Goodnight Rookie my bookwork is caught up and I'm off to grab a cold one. I feel like the crowd in this video. I hate paperwork.

For everyone's enjoyment here is Song 2 (live)

img src="">
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Ouch! The pain! Ouch! The pain! Ouch!

Diesel is about $4/gal. now. Using that as a base, you have tanks that will hold about 160 gallons. Now, if diesel jumps to $5/gal., and this is not unrealistic, you will be paying $800 to fill the tanks. That is another $160 to fill the tanks. ... Imagine what the long haulers are paying. Let us say they average 6 miles/gal. 160 gallons will get them 960 miles. This means they are probably filling up every 1 1/2 days to 2 days. They will be paying an extra $105 to $80 a day for diesel. $105, if they are getting 1 1/2 days driving and $80, if they are getting 2 days driving. They can absorb some of this cost, for a short period of time, but, ultimately, we will be paying this extra cost at the registers. What happens if diesel goes to $6/gal.? This is not unrealistic either. See how it snowballs? What is even worse, the more the cost of fuel, the higher the cost to transport. A price we all will pay at the pumps. After awhile, this begins to feed on itself.

Should this happen, retirement may be further down the road than you hoped for. I honestly hope not.


I am not worried about retirement. Remember the end user always pays the mark up. That is why people who say tax this company or that company more are foolish all they are really doing is raising their own costs in the end.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
If I have to pay to fill my diesel pick up it already costs me over 225 dollars right now. If I fill my box tank it is over 425 dollars alone. So if I stop and take on all 164 gallons it is approx. 665 dollars as of today. Now you may see why I say it is what it is.

Also my almost 8500 lb truck at 16 miles to the gallon loses on mileage but wins where it is most important an accident with someones 30 plus miles per gallon car or almost anything else.


Ouch! The pain! Ouch! The pain! Ouch!

Diesel is about $4/gal. now. Using that as a base, you have tanks that will hold about 160 gallons. Now, if diesel jumps to $5/gal., and this is not unrealistic, you will be paying $800 to fill the tanks. That is another $160 to fill the tanks. ... Imagine what the long haulers are paying. Let us say they average 6 miles/gal. 160 gallons will get them 960 miles. This means they are probably filling up every 1 1/2 days to 2 days. They will be paying an extra $105 to $80 a day for diesel. $105, if they are getting 1 1/2 days driving and $80, if they are getting 2 days driving. They can absorb some of this cost, for a short period of time, but, ultimately, we will be paying this extra cost at the registers. What happens if diesel goes to $6/gal.? This is not unrealistic either. See how it snowballs? What is even worse, the more the cost of fuel, the higher the cost to transport. A price we all will pay at the pumps. After awhile, this begins to feed on itself.

Should this happen, retirement may be further down the road than you hoped for. I honestly hope not.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Ossqss:


What gives is those types of statements are just not right. It has happened before. The terms, unprecedented, never before in history, first time ever, lose credibility by virtue of the statement itself for they are false. Our ability to see things in today's technologically saturated world provides much more than we had in the past. That is just the fact. Take a look at how many record temps that the Neo* posts that are only a year or so old.

Just sayin!

It is unbelievable to those who can interpret, and in some instances, interpolate the statements, and rightly so. You can sound the alarm, but some of us know better than you do :)



Ossqss, I expect better from you. I read the entire article - "Scientist See Rise in Tornado-Creating Conditions" I never once saw what you seem to believe the article says. Words, such as, "unprecedented", or "never before in history", or "first time ever" never appeared in the article. Did I miss them?

Here are the words that I did read:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When at least 80 tornadoes rampaged across the United States, from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, last Friday, it was more than is typically observed during the entire month of March, tracking firm AccuWeather.com reported on Monday.

According to some climate scientists, such earlier-than-normal outbreaks of tornadoes, which typically peak in the spring, will become the norm as the planet warms.

"As spring moves up a week or two, tornado season will start in February instead of waiting for April," said climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Whether climate change will also affect the frequency or severity of tornadoes, however, remains very much an open question, and one that has received surprisingly little study.

"There are only a handful of papers, even to this day," said atmospheric scientist Robert Trapp of Purdue University, who led a pioneering 2007 study of tornadoes and climate change.

"Some of us think we should be paying more attention to it," said atmospheric physicist Anthony Del Genio of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of NASA.

The scientific challenge is this: the two conditions necessary to spawn a twister are expected to be affected in opposite ways. A warmer climate will likely boost the intensity of thunderstorms but could dampen wind shear, the increase of wind speed at higher altitudes, researchers say.

Tomorrow's thunderstorms will pack a bigger wallop, but may strike less frequently than they have historically, explained Del Genio.

"As we go to a warmer atmosphere, storms - which transfer energy from one region to another - somehow figure out how to do that more efficiently," he said. As a result, thunderstorms transfer more energy per outbreak, and so have to make such transfers less often.

In a 2011 paper, Del Genio calculated that, "especially in the central and eastern United States, we can expect a few more days per month with conditions favorable to severe thunderstorm occurrence" by the latter part of this century if the global climate grows warmer.

Indeed, the world has been experiencing more violent storms since 1970, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent assessment.

EXTENDING TORNADOES' PATH

Purdue's Trapp and colleagues got a similar result in their 2007 study, which they confirmed in research published in 2009 and 2011. "The number of days when conditions exist to form tornadoes is expected to increase" as the world warms, he said.

In addition, they found, regions near the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts not normally associated with tornadoes will experience tornado-making weather more frequently. They projected a doubling in the number of days with such conditions in Atlanta and New York City, for instance.

More powerful thunderstorms would be expected to produce more tornadoes, but wind shear could prove a mitigating factor.

Because climate change is not uniform, Del Genio wrote in the 2011 paper, "in the lower troposphere, the temperature difference between low and high latitudes decreases as the planet warms, creating less wind shear."

Other scientists are not so sure, and they see a surge in tornadoes last year as ominous. April 2011 was the most active tornado month on record, with 753, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), compared to the previous record of 267 in April 1974.

"I have no doubt that there will be many times when wind shear is plenty strong to create a tornado," said Trenberth.

That is what Trapp's team concluded in their 2007 study. "Over most of the United States," they wrote, the increase in the power of thunderstorms will "more than compensate for the relative decreases in shear."

As a result, "the environment would still be considered favorable for severe convection" of the kind that creates tornadoes.

From March to May the projected increase in severe storms is "largest over a 'tornado-alley'-like region extending northward from Texas," Trapp found. From June through August, the eastern half of the country is projected to experience such an increase.

If there are more days in the future when wind shear is too weak to produce a tornado from a thunderstorm, said Trenberth, then "the frequency of tornadoes may decrease but the average intensity might increase. You could have a doozy of an outbreak, and then they could go away for a while."

On average, about 800 tornados are reported annually in the United States. About 70 percent are "weak," finds NOAA, with winds less than 110 mph. Just under 29 percent are "strong," with winds between 110 and 205 mph. Only 2 percent of all tornadoes are what NOAA characterizes as "violent," with winds in excess of 205 mph, but they account for 70 percent of all twister deaths.


Well, that is the entire article. Will you point out the terms that you suggest are there?

What the article actually states is the scientist are not yet sure what to expect, in terms of tornadoes. They even suggest that there may be less wind shear and thus a reduction in the number of tornadoes, in the future.

The records that Neo posts are usually records that have stood for many years, if not decades. You may be correct and the new records may start breaking records that only stood for a year or two. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You say you know better than Birthmark does. Would you mind exposing the evidence of this?



Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Then you are making a difference already. You can probably even find ways to expand on this.

The price of fuel is what it is. You are correct. Unlike other things that we may not buy, simply because it may be too expensive to do so or because we have no desires to do so, we will have to purchase fossil fuels. This will be true no matter how much they decide to charge us for it. Tell me, please. Will it delay your plans for retirement if you had to pay $100 every time you filled your gas tank? How about $150? $200? $250? Who knows how much we will have to pay for fossil fuels, in the not very distant future. Will this delay your plans for retirement, if fuel costs you this much every time you filled your tank?
If I have to pay to fill my diesel pick up it already costs me over 225 dollars right now. If I fill my box tank it is over 425 dollars alone. So if I stop and take on all 164 gallons it is approx. 665 dollars as of today. Now you may see why I say it is what it is.

Also my almost 8500 lb truck at 16 miles to the gallon loses on mileage but wins where it is most important an accident with someones 30 plus miles per gallon car or almost anything else.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Birthmark:

Here's what he said, according to your link:
"As spring moves up a week or two, tornado season will start in February instead of waiting for April," said climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Sounds like a pretty general statement. What gives?


What gives is those types of statements are just not right. It has happened before. The terms, unprecedented, never before in history, first time ever, lose credibility by virtue of the statement itself for they are false. Our ability to see things in today's technologically saturated world provides much more than we had in the past. That is just the fact. Take a look at how many record temps that the Neo* posts that are only a year or so old.

Just sayin!

It is unbelievable to those who can interpret, and in some instances, interpolate the statements, and rightly so. You can sound the alarm, but some of us know better than you do :)

Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting nymore:
The price of fuel is what it is. I've worked my behind off and sacrificed a lot to get where I am and I am comfortable but I don't rest on the past I keep charging forward till retirement, hopefully age 52 to 55. I do recycle, I really don't buy a lot of crap I don't use.


Then you are making a difference already. You can probably even find ways to expand on this.

The price of fuel is what it is. You are correct. Unlike other things that we may not buy, simply because it may be too expensive to do so or because we have no desires to do so, we will have to purchase fossil fuels. This will be true no matter how much they decide to charge us for it. Tell me, please. Will it delay your plans for retirement if you had to pay $100 every time you filled your gas tank? How about $150? $200? $250? Who knows how much we will have to pay for fossil fuels, in the not very distant future. Will this delay your plans for retirement, if fuel costs you this much every time you filled your tank?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I can not completely disagree with what you have said.

You are capable of making a difference, if not on a global scale. There are things that you can do that will make a difference and save you money. You may even have the possibility to profit from it. Consume less, preserve what you consume and recycle what you discard. These three things make a difference.

You did not address what your plans are when the fossil fuels become too expensive to use. We are already seeing strong indications that this time is nearing. Should we not already be well on our way towards alternative energy sources, we will pay dearly. As with the Chevy Volt, had an earlier and a stronger effort been made to refine the technology then we would probably already be well on our way towards mitigating the control fossil fuels have over us all now. This control, by the fossil fuel industries, will only become more pronounced in the future. The not so distant future. What then is your plan for "the good life"?
The price of fuel is what it is. I've worked my behind off and sacrificed a lot to get where I am and I am comfortable but I don't rest on the past I keep charging forward till retirement, hopefully age 52 to 55. I do recycle, I really don't buy a lot of crap I don't use. I have saved plenty and made investments in both public and private companies, I don't plan on lotto.

My employer pays for all my fuel (varies), truck payments (up to 1,000 per month), truck up keep (varies), housing and food (food and housing per diem is 2,200 per month when I am working which is all the damn time). They pay for these things because I work very hard and long hours and make them a ton of cash. It is the quid pro quo.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
good evening sir

I don't worry about climate change because I can do nothing to control it. If the technology becomes available and cost effective I have no problem using it, but as of now it is still just a dream and not reality. Look at the Chevy Volt they sold what like 1600 cars in two months, the Chevy Silverado pick-up sells over 1100 per day, the price of the immature technology is not cost effective vs proven technology.


I can not completely disagree with what you have said.

You are capable of making a difference, if not on a global scale. There are things that you can do that will make a difference and save you money. You may even have the possibility to profit from it. Consume less, preserve what you consume and recycle what you discard. These three things make a difference.

You did not address what your plans are when the fossil fuels become too expensive to use. We are already seeing strong indications that this time is nearing. Should we not already be well on our way towards alternative energy sources, we will pay dearly. As with the Chevy Volt, had an earlier and a stronger effort been made to refine the technology then we would probably already be well on our way towards mitigating the control fossil fuels have over us all now. This control, by the fossil fuel industries, will only become more pronounced in the future. The not so distant future. What then is your plan for "the good life"?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good evening, nymore.

Is that what it is? You seem to show little concern over a warming climate. Is it because you do not expect to be around when things really start to heat up?I can see the thought processes involved with this. We know, to the best of what we know, that the Sun will continue to warm. A billion years from now it may well be too hot on Earth for life to exist on Earth at all. This, however, is an act of nature that no one has any control over. This is also so far into the future that no one alive today will loose any sleep over it.

Climate change, as slow as it may be, will most likely have profound effects on people that are alive today or for those that will soon be born. What about them? Will they also have the chance to be so casual about climate change? Will we leave them the resources to cope with climate change?

Why do exhibit such a desire to cling so doggedly to the use of fossil fuels? We know that fossil fuels are a finite source. Is it again that you will not out live their availability? Are you so certain of this? We also see were minor fluctuations cause a spike in the price of the barrel of oil. Just the threat of a tropical storm entering the GOM will cause a sudden increase in the price of the barrel of oil and the price we pay at the pumps. Why has the price of the barrel of oil continued to increase in price for the past few months? What about the rise in the price we pay at the pumps? What is going to happen to these prices when the world economy really starts gaining again? (Do not worry about that part. As long as the price of the barrel of oil keeps rising and we keep paying more at the pumps, the economy is doomed and there is no danger that the economy will become robust again.) Fossil fuels are simply going to become too expensive too use and in the not so distant future. What are your plans for then?



good evening sir

I don't worry about climate change because I can do nothing to control it. If the technology becomes available and cost effective I have no problem using it, but as of now it is still just a dream and not reality. Look at the Chevy Volt they sold what like 1600 cars in two months, the Chevy Silverado pick-up sells over 1100 per day, the price of the immature technology is not cost effective vs proven technology.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
Trenberth does have a higher degree, to bad it is in incompetence. His claim of March tornadoes being caused by AGWT, he has no evidence to back up that claim. Sounds a lot like desperation and fear mongering. Why let facts get in the way of his bias agenda.

RSS satellite temperature anomaly for February = -0.121C, or -0.218F. I am not sure if this will be the warmest year on record for global temps as some have claimed.

The decade trend is 0.135K, My god with the temps rising this rapidly, we are all sure to die in ten years. Start making arrangements now for your demise.


Good evening, nymore.

Is that what it is? You seem to show little concern over a warming climate. Is it because you do not expect to be around when things really start to heat up?I can see the thought processes involved with this. We know, to the best of what we know, that the Sun will continue to warm. A billion years from now it may well be too hot on Earth for life to exist on Earth at all. This, however, is an act of nature that no one has any control over. This is also so far into the future that no one alive today will loose any sleep over it.

Climate change, as slow as it may be, will most likely have profound effects on people that are alive today or for those that will soon be born. What about them? Will they also have the chance to be so casual about climate change? Will we leave them the resources to cope with climate change?

Why do exhibit such a desire to cling so doggedly to the use of fossil fuels? We know that fossil fuels are a finite source. Is it again that you will not out live their availability? Are you so certain of this? We also see were minor fluctuations cause a spike in the price of the barrel of oil. Just the threat of a tropical storm entering the GOM will cause a sudden increase in the price of the barrel of oil and the price we pay at the pumps. Why has the price of the barrel of oil continued to increase in price for the past few months? What about the rise in the price we pay at the pumps? What is going to happen to these prices when the world economy really starts gaining again? (Do not worry about that part. As long as the price of the barrel of oil keeps rising and we keep paying more at the pumps, the economy is doomed and there is no danger that the economy will become robust again.) Fossil fuels are simply going to become too expensive too use and in the not so distant future. What are your plans for then?



Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Trenberth is at it again. Blaming global warming for tornadoes without any data whatsoever. Don't these guys have any shame?

Link

Here's what he said, according to your link:
"As spring moves up a week or two, tornado season will start in February instead of waiting for April," said climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Sounds like a pretty general statement. What gives?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
Perhaps or perhaps not! I think I'll stick with valid.

Remember that just because you like something, that doesn't *really* make it "valid."

Valid has an actual meaning.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Trenberth does have a higher degree, to bad it is in incompetence. His claim of March tornadoes being caused by AGWT, he has no evidence to back up that claim. Sounds a lot like desperation and fear mongering. Why let facts get in the way of his bias agenda.

RSS satellite temperature anomaly for February = -0.121C, or -0.218F. I am not sure if this will be the warmest year on record for global temps as some have claimed.

The decade trend is 0.135K, My god with the temps rising this rapidly, we are all sure to die in ten years. Start making arrangements now for your demise.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Trenberth is at it again. Blaming global warming for tornadoes without any data whatsoever. Don't these guys have any shame?

Link
What Trenberth has is a higher degree--which is more than can be said of either Anthony Watts or, provably, Steve Goddard.

So there's that...
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13629
Trenberth is at it again. Blaming global warming for tornadoes without any data whatsoever. Don't these guys have any shame?

Link
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Xandra:
Medusa Institute

by Professor Scott Mandia

Dr. Judith Curry during a recent radio interview and subsequently in one of her blog posts claimed that Heartland is a small player. She also believes that Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have more influence over the climate discussion than Heartland and its personnel. Look at the next picture and decide who you think has more influence over the really important people - policy makers and business leaders. (Hint: Heartland’s President agrees with me. See Dr. Curry’s post to read his chest-puffing message to her.)

Click for larger image:

Uh-oh


http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/medusa -institute/


This reminds me of the Murdock's saying they are not the only ones that are hacking phone accounts. HI is suppose to be a PR company and this is the best they can come up with to protect their own image? How laughable is that?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Medusa Institute

by Professor Scott Mandia

Dr. Judith Curry during a recent radio interview and subsequently in one of her blog posts claimed that Heartland is a small player. She also believes that Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have more influence over the climate discussion than Heartland and its personnel. Look at the next picture and decide who you think has more influence over the really important people - policy makers and business leaders. (Hint: Heartland’s President agrees with me. See Dr. Curry’s post to read his chest-puffing message to her.)

Click for larger image:

Uh-oh


http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/medusa -institute/
Member Since: Noviembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Birthmark:

You appear to not understand the meaning of the word "valid." Or perhaps your personal definition of that word is so liberal as to make it meaningless.
Perhaps or perhaps not! I think I'll stick with valid.
Member Since: Junio 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting Xandra:
A DANGEROUS MIX:

• Earthquakes and Nuclear Power Plants
• Terrorism and Nuclear Power Plants

Global earthquake activity since 1973 and nuclear power plant locations



Earthquake readiness of U.S. nuclear power plants is unclear
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)




This prevents that problem:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 418 - 368

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

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
46 ° F
Muy nublado