Cancun and News - Again:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 10:57 PM GMT on December 09, 2010

Share this Blog
4
+

Cancun and News - Again:

Cancun, Conference of the Parties - 16: The Conference of the Parties (COP) are the annual meetings that are part of the governing body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We went into the Cancun meeting with far lower expectations than the 2009 meeting in Copenhagen . Much of the talk preceding the meeting was focused on small good things (A Small Good Thing, this is just a good short story.) This is, perhaps, an implicit statement that a comprehensive global agreement on climate change and reduction of emissions are just beyond our ability of collective action. Some would argue that this has been evident for some time, and it is finally emerging that we need to piece together, more effectively, bottoms-up solutions.

Like last year, there is a group of University Michigan and Alma College students at the conference. They are going and coming, and they are writing their own blogs, which appear on ClimateBlue. There are a few students and members of the Michigan Delegation who were also at last year’s meeting, providing a perspective of the two meetings. (We thank Wunderground.com for helping to sponsor the students.)



Figure 1. Cancun Climate Conference. (Photo from Kevin Reed)


In my entries from the 2009 COP meeting, I recall talking about the quiet work of the people sitting at coffee-shop tables talking about their community-based approaches to adaptation (Rood). That is, in the big storm of international politics, people dismiss their political leader’s relevance to the real world and take on the opportunities to anticipate and to prepare based on information provided by climate simulations. In short, adaptation to the consequences of climate change rises to the forefront.

The January 13, 2011 issue of The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society explores the world of four degrees warming. This issue implicitly and explicitly recognizes that we are not likely to limit warming to a global average of two degrees, and that it is critical to describe this new warmer world and to plan for this new world. Here are links to the preface and the editorial accompanying this issue. At the start of the Cancun meeting there was a flurry of press coverage of reports coming from the International Livestock Research Institute. These reports fed off of looking at a world that is closer to a four degree warming, as opposed to the increasingly unrealistic world where “dangerous” climate change has been avoided. What struck me about the people looking at these adaptation problems was the thorough, serious approach, and their ability to cut a rational path through all of the political, economic, and scientific uncertainty to develop convincing strategies for problems such as – can we still grow corn in Africa? Here are a set of reports and press coverage over the past few weeks and years:

Climate variability and climate change: Impacts on Kenyan agriculture

A wonderful collection of stories on agriculture and climate change in Africa

Climate change as opportunity in Africa

Voice of America Coverage of African Climate Adaptation

Africa’s Growing Water Crisis

I respond to efforts such as the one outlined above on many levels. It is gratifying to see the use of the climate projection information in systematic and rational ways. Further, to me, this response and knowledge is being developed in Africa, and these efforts serve as examples of the increasingly deep and distributed intellectual base vested in addressing climate change. These efforts proceed while the international political clamor imagines moving towards a problem more tractable than reducing emissions – namely, who will pay, setting up international funds and ways to hand off technology (as a poor writer, I note a tone of the incredulous).


It also makes me wonder about us, here, in the United States. At last year’s meeting, in the exhibits it was not the U.S. exhibitors who had the leading technology. As I look around the world the self-organization that is taking place is not in the U.S. Here, on the national scale we argue about prosecuting climate scientists, and shoot, literally, cap and trade in political ads. I see European firms building U.S. wind technology. I sit in meetings where U.S. scientists argue about the same data provision issues they argued about in 1995, probably 1985, while Canada already has a facility to provide climate data for applications. In short, the political argument and the cultural inertia places the U.S. further and further behind in both science and technology – an issue of basic economic and societal success. (Does this only seem relevant to me? Molybdenum and test scores)

Going back to the students and the University of Michigan Delegation in Cancun – it is these students and their peers who are starting to address these problems. It is this generation who will live with the warming planet, and who will take advantage – or not – of the opportunity that is provided by climate projections. I point out some of their entries from Cancun: Climate Action Network Canada Press Conference, Moving Beyond Coors Light Solutions, Top Three Warmest Year.



Figure 2. Cancun Climate Conference – UoM Students, Sarah Katherine Pethan (SNRE) and Marisol Ramos (Ford School), point at a white square that says “United States.” (Photo from Kevin Reed)

Book of the Year: A Vast Machine I have mentioned Paul Edwards’ book A Vast Machine many times. The Economist has selected it as a Book of the Year. A quote. “Not enough intelligent, scholarly and critically minded history of contemporary science gets published, but this work, by a professor at the University of Michigan, is a nice exception on an important area.”

A Couple of Updates: Johannes Feddema sent me a note on focusing of targeted studies of land use changes in response to some of my recent blogs. (White Roofs in the Cities).

And my blog got a great write up in the Cody Enterprise.

Pakistani Flood Relief Links

Doctors Without Borders

The International Red Cross

MERLIN medical relief charity

U.S. State Department Recommended Charities

The mobile giving service mGive allows one to text the word "SWAT" to 50555. The text will result in a $10 donation to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Pakistan Flood Relief Effort.

Portlight Disaster Relief at Wunderground.com

An impressive list of organizations

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: 134 - 84

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

134. MichaelSTL
11:12 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
This is exactly the kind of event I was referring to in comment 124:

Flood warning follows deluge

A flood warning has been issued for parts of the State after more than a year's rain fell in Carnarvon in just 24 hours.

A monsoonal low hovering over the Gascoyne dumped a 24-hour record 204.8mm, smashing the previous record set 83 years ago.

The previous record of 119.4mm was set on March 24, 1923.

Carnarvon also looks set to break its monthly rainfall record of 212.2mm set in June 1895.

The town's average monthly rainfall for December is 1.8mm.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
133. cyclonebuster
8:21 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:


They deny it of course!


Oh yeah that's right it doesn't exist to them. Thanks for NOAA though keeping tabs on it.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
132. DoverWxwatchter
8:15 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Great NOAA graph Michael. It really shows how bad the heat is. I have heard of "Heat Stroke" but have you ever heard of "Cold Stroke"? LOL!
Anyways what do the deniers say about that graph?


They deny it of course!
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
131. MichaelSTL
7:44 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
The positive height anomalies have expanded even more on the latest daily map (I think this is actually for yesterday and the date is as of 00z today; i.e 18 hours ago), although the heights over Greenland have reduced somewhat (not really, when they are still off the scale):



Also here is the sea level pressure, which shows pressures near 1050 mb over most of the Arctic, consistent with the warm Arctic-cold continents pattern:



Parts of the Arctic have temperature anomalies in excess of 20°C, much higher than any of the cold anomalies elsewhere (note that I think this shows Antarctica as too cold, at least, it was last month since it was similar to this most of the month):

Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
130. cyclonebuster
7:33 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:


I wonder how much melting is going on in the coastal margins of the Greenland Ice Sheet. I notice that some places in Greenland are in the low 40s now.

Greenland
Scroll down to view a list of all cities.
Cities

Place

Temperature Humidity Pressure Conditions Wind Updated
Aasiaat 32 F 75% 30.69 in Scattered Clouds NE at 15 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Angisoq 36 F 99% 30.37 in East at 4 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Aputiteeq 32 F 29% 30.42 in North at 22 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Cape Harald Moltke Add to My Favorites
Cape Tobin 28 F 59% 30.57 in Overcast NNW at 29 mph 5:50 PM EGT Add to My Favorites
Carey Island 10 F 83% 31.08 in NW at 13 mph 2:00 PM AST Add to My Favorites
Daneborg 22 F 43% 30.73 in NNE at 41 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Danmarkshavn 16 F 41% 30.88 in Heavy Snow SW at 20 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Hall Land -8 F 71% 28.32 in Light Snow ENE at 4 mph 11:00 AM MST Add to My Favorites
Henrik Kroeyer Holme Add to My Favorites
Ikermiit 31 F 69% 30.58 in NNE at 18 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Ikermiuarsuk 41 F 40% 30.49 in NNW at 24 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Illoqqortoormiut 28 F 59% 30.57 in Overcast NNW at 29 mph 5:50 PM EGT Add to My Favorites
Ilulissat 27 F 69% 30.69 in Blowing Snow East at 29 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Kangerlussuaq 23 F 93% 30.63 in Scattered Clouds ENE at 8 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Kangilinnguit Add to My Favorites
Kap Morris Jesup 3 F 74% 31.02 in Calm 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Kitsissorsuit 30 F 56% 30.83 in NNE at 9 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Kitsissut 34 F 81% 30.57 in Mostly Cloudy Variable at 1 mph 4:20 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Kulusuk 30 F 60% 30.54 in Partly Cloudy Variable at 4 mph 2:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Maniitsoq 45 F 57% 30.45 in N/A Variable at 1 mph 4:20 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Mittarfik Nuuk 34 F 87% 30.39 in Partly Cloudy NE at 18 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Narsarsuaq 30 F 93% 30.39 in N/A ENE at 6 mph 4:20 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Navy Operated Add to My Favorites
Nerlerit Inaat 28 F 59% 30.57 in Overcast NNW at 29 mph 5:50 PM EGT Add to My Favorites
Nunarsuit 33 F 100% 30.33 in SE at 6 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Nuuk 34 F 87% 30.39 in Partly Cloudy NE at 18 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Nuussuaataa 28 F 59% 30.77 in Partly Cloudy ESE at 25 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Paamiut 34 F 76% 30.32 in South at 2 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Pituffik -2 F 68% 31.00 in Clear East at 13 mph 2:55 PM AST Add to My Favorites
Prins Christian Sund 41 F 52% 30.41 in Mostly Cloudy NNE at 24 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Qaanaaq Add to My Favorites
Qaarsut 28 F 59% 30.77 in Partly Cloudy ESE at 25 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Qaqortoq 35 F 97% 30.37 in Clear Calm 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Sioralik 45 F 57% 30.45 in N/A Variable at 1 mph 4:20 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Sisimiut 34 F 81% 30.57 in Mostly Cloudy Variable at 1 mph 4:20 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Sisimiut Mittarfia 34 F 81% 30.57 in Mostly Cloudy Variable at 1 mph 4:20 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Station Nord Add to My Favorites
Station Nord 0 F 40% 30.93 in WSW at 4 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Summit -43 F 71% in Calm 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Tasiilaq 29.5 F 60% 30.48 in Partly Cloudy Calm 4:31 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Ukiivik 37 F 91% 30.33 in WSW at 2 mph 3:00 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Upernavik 25 F 80% 30.80 in Scattered Clouds NE at 5 mph 3:50 PM WGT Add to My Favorites
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
129. cyclonebuster
7:30 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Plus all of the lies about cold being worse than warming, because far more people die from excessive heat than die from excessive cold. Well, except for countries that don't normally get that hot - but that is of course cherry picking. How about the U.S., located in a temperate zone? Here is what NOAA says:

Heat is the number one weather-related killer. On average, more than 1,500 people in the U.S. die each year from excessive heat. This number is greater than the 30-year mean annual number of deaths due to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined.



In fact, deaths from cold are the lowest of any causes shown here. Yes, this probably only includes deaths from actually freezing to death, not say, having an accident on ice or a heart attack from shoveling snow (but of course the cold didn't actually kill them, and note that when including winter storm it is still much lower than heat; meanwhile, lightning is mainly a summertime hazard because thunderstorms are a warm-weather phenomenon, and warmer air can hold more moisture, thus more flooding potential). Also, it is easier to stay warm than it is to cool off; you can dress warmer but if you are already naked and still hot...

Also, I would definitely say that deaths from unprecedented events have climate change as a contributor, because such events are extremely unlikely to have ever happened otherwise (I am talking about events that go far beyond anything ever recorded for the area and more than several standard deviations away from the mean).


Great NOAA graph Michael. It really shows how bad the heat is. I have heard of "Heat Stroke" but have you ever heard of "Cold Stroke"? LOL!
Anyways what do the deniers say about that graph?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
128. DoverWxwatchter
7:29 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
I'm glad MichaelSTL has finally convinced you. Glad you are on board!

Quoting martinitony:


Michael, you missed drownings and shark attacks which are, no doubt, caused by the heat causing people to jump in the ocean. Yeah, thanks for that info, you really got me convinced. Those heart attacks and auto accidents on the ice and viruses don't really count.
I hope those heat strokes include all those young football players and marathoners who die every year from heat stroke. That never happened 40 years ago when I was young.
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
127. martinitony
7:25 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Plus all of the lies about cold being worse than warming, because far more people die from excessive heat than die from excessive cold. Well, except for countries that don't normally get that hot - but that is of course cherry picking. How about the U.S., located in a temperate zone? Here is what NOAA says:

Heat is the number one weather-related killer. On average, more than 1,500 people in the U.S. die each year from excessive heat. This number is greater than the 30-year mean annual number of deaths due to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined.



In fact, deaths from cold are the lowest of any causes shown here. Yes, this probably only includes deaths from actually freezing to death, not say, having an accident on ice or a heart attack from shoveling snow (but of course the cold didn't actually kill them, and note that when including winter storm it is still much lower than heat; meanwhile, lightning is mainly a summertime hazard because thunderstorms are a warm-weather phenomenon, and warmer air can hold more moisture, thus more flooding potential). Also, it is easier to stay warm than it is to cool off; you can dress warmer but if you are already naked and still hot...

Also, I would definitely say that deaths from unprecedented events have climate change as a contributor, because such events are extremely unlikely to have ever happened otherwise (I am talking about events that go far beyond anything ever recorded for the area and more than several standard deviations away from the mean).


Michael, you missed drownings and shark attacks which are, no doubt, caused by the heat causing people to jump in the ocean. Yeah, thanks for that info, you really got me convinced. Those heart attacks and auto accidents on the ice and viruses don't really count.
I hope those heat strokes include all those young football players and marathoners who die every year from heat stroke. That never happened 40 years ago when I was young.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
126. DoverWxwatchter
6:53 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Check out the massive ridge over Greenland - which has higher heights that any place in the U.S. except Hawaii!



I wonder how much melting is going on in the coastal margins of the Greenland Ice Sheet. I notice that some places in Greenland are in the low 40s now.
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
125. MichaelSTL
6:24 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Check out the massive ridge over Greenland - which has higher heights that any place in the U.S. except Hawaii!

Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
124. MichaelSTL
5:54 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Once again the Goldilocks zone is where we should be not to hot or to cold.


Plus all of the lies about cold being worse than warming, because far more people die from excessive heat than die from excessive cold. Well, except for countries that don't normally get that hot - but that is of course cherry picking. How about the U.S., located in a temperate zone? Here is what NOAA says:

Heat is the number one weather-related killer. On average, more than 1,500 people in the U.S. die each year from excessive heat. This number is greater than the 30-year mean annual number of deaths due to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined.



In fact, deaths from cold are the lowest of any causes shown here. Yes, this probably only includes deaths from actually freezing to death, not say, having an accident on ice or a heart attack from shoveling snow (but of course the cold didn't actually kill them, and note that when including winter storm it is still much lower than heat; meanwhile, lightning is mainly a summertime hazard because thunderstorms are a warm-weather phenomenon, and warmer air can hold more moisture, thus more flooding potential). Also, it is easier to stay warm than it is to cool off; you can dress warmer but if you are already naked and still hot...

Also, I would definitely say that deaths from unprecedented events have climate change as a contributor, because such events are extremely unlikely to have ever happened otherwise (I am talking about events that go far beyond anything ever recorded for the area and more than several standard deviations away from the mean).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
123. MichaelSTL
4:46 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting WeatherWx:
Here's a question, what percentage of the overall climate is controlled by the sun?


If it was 100%, then the climate would be cooling right now. In fact, it would have been cooling for the past few decades - just when the fastest warming has occurred! You can clearly see here that each of the last few solar cycles has been weaker than the previous one (and each minimum deeper and longer) - the strongest solar cycle in recent times was in the 1950s.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
122. martinitony
4:08 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:



Check this out you might like this.




I was looking at your graph and thinking about two things. The first is that no one has sad to you that it looks phony. Like whose graph...?

But the second thing is more interesting. There is nothing about the graph that doesn't indicate that the sun is the major factor. Let me explain.
I used to be in the restaurant business and at one restaurant that we built the HVAC engineers screwed up. On hot days the A/c was adequate to handle the equipment load and the people load until we reached a certain level of business at which time the heat began to build up and temperatures rose from 72 to 85.
Now here's what's interesting. The tonage put in initially was about 35 tons. Now you'd think they would need to add like another ten to handle the load, but they only needed to add like 2 or 3 tons, just enough to stop the build up of heat from getting out of control and surging to 85.
I think the Earth works the same way because, you know, the green house effect.
So when I see your graph I think that maybe what's missing is the levels that preceded the past 30 years because if there was just a little bump in sun heat during the last 30 years the build up, like my restaurant, might be much more significant than just that little bit of extra radiation. Whatdya think?
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
121. cyclonebuster
12:57 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting martinitony:


Actually, Cyclone, the question should be easy to answer. However, it's not really necessary because the author is trying to make a point that all of us surely know.Warming is not nearly as dangerous as cold. Far more people have died, gone bankrupt or just become really miserable because of extreme cold. We all know that. Yet, where is all the money to deal with cold?
I know what you're thinking. What's the point? The cold is just part of mother nature, right? You'd be right about that.


Once again the Goldilocks zone is where we should be not to hot or to cold.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
120. cyclonebuster
12:56 PM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting WeatherWx:
Here's a question, what percentage of the overall climate is controlled by the sun?



Check this out you might like this.


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
119. martinitony
2:17 AM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
Global warming kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. As malaria and other diseases expand their range. Thousands dead in Pakistan from flooding driven by global warming. And many thousands dead in Russia due to the unprecedented heat wave there.


Global warming kills! No one with intelligence doubts or questions that.


No one? I"m wondering why most of the human race chooses to live in warmer climates. Do you wonder why the Eskimos are having so much trouble keeping all those immigrants from over running their territory? Hell, I do.
Your remarks are so foolish. How many humans die each year from complications from cold related illnesses? How many old people pass during the coldest months of the year?
How many die worldwide from accidents related to snow storms, heart attacks shoveling snow?.. the list goes on. Truth is only a fool blinded by the global warming religion could actually believe our lives are imperiled by a warmer world.
God help us if Columbus Ohio gets as warm as Atlanta Georgia over the next couple of hundred years.

Nothing above suggests that we should do nothing about man kinds influence on nature, but get real about the issue and the dangers.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
118. WeatherWx
2:13 AM GMT on December 17, 2010
And how would you know that I went to Anthony Watt's site Dover? Did he actually call people to post such questions about the sun on other sites? So anyone on the blogosphere who makes a question about the sun in regards to climate must have been to Watt's site?

1)Your comment has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand

2)Your response is assumption with nothing to back yourself up and is illogical

3)You wont answer my question because there probably isn't ANY peer reviewed literature to quantify your assertion: "So it's pretty obvious that mankind's influence on climate is way more important than the sun."

You want people to take you seriously? How about actually proving your assertions like a mature scientist and stop playing word games. I frequently hear AGW supporters demanding that the skeptics provide peer reviewed literature to back up their own assertions. You should provide literature too!



Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 287
117. DoverWxwatchter
1:58 AM GMT on December 17, 2010
Look, wxweather, Anthony Watts posted not too far back that people should go from his site and post the question "how much of the climate is determined by the sun?" to other weather sites. So it's pretty obvious what's going on here.
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
116. WeatherWx
1:33 AM GMT on December 17, 2010
Dover perhaps you could quantify this quote that you made earlier in Jeff Master's blog:

So it's pretty obvious that mankind's influence on climate is way more important than the sun.

Specifically:

"Way more important"? Like what does that mean? 70%, 99%...etc? And can you list a peer reviewed study to back up this figure you come up with? If you are so well informed, it will be easy to answer this question.
Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 287
115. WeatherWx
12:33 AM GMT on December 17, 2010
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
Global warming kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. As malaria and other diseases expand their range. Thousands dead in Pakistan from flooding driven by global warming. And many thousands dead in Russia due to the unprecedented heat wave there.


Global warming kills! No one with intelligence doubts or questions that.


So, how much worse/better is a cooler climate? Over a number of decades, wouldn't a whole bunch of people die of hypothermia? Wouldn't a number of plants not be able to survive and die in hard freezes? Like where's the other side to this debate?

Both extremes in my opinion are bad.
Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 287
114. DoverWxwatchter
12:25 AM GMT on December 17, 2010
Patrap those Antarctica articles are very good.
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
113. DoverWxwatchter
12:24 AM GMT on December 17, 2010
Global warming kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. As malaria and other diseases expand their range. Thousands dead in Pakistan from flooding driven by global warming. And many thousands dead in Russia due to the unprecedented heat wave there.


Global warming kills! No one with intelligence doubts or questions that.
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
112. martinitony
11:44 PM GMT on December 16, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


"How many people has global warming killed?"


Jack Wagon makes it sound like it is zero. Very uninformed writer trying to spread untruths about global warming. Where do they find such ignorant people to write these articles?


Actually, Cyclone, the question should be easy to answer. However, it's not really necessary because the author is trying to make a point that all of us surely know.Warming is not nearly as dangerous as cold. Far more people have died, gone bankrupt or just become really miserable because of extreme cold. We all know that. Yet, where is all the money to deal with cold?
I know what you're thinking. What's the point? The cold is just part of mother nature, right? You'd be right about that.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
111. WeatherWx
11:37 PM GMT on December 16, 2010
Here's a question, what percentage of the overall climate is controlled by the sun?
Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 287
110. Patrap
10:50 PM GMT on December 16, 2010
Unstable Antarctica: What's Driving Ice Loss?
12.15.10


When surface winds are strong, they stir the Southern Ocean and lift the warm water (red) onto the continental shelf where the additional heat contributes to melt of the ice shelf.

When surface winds are strong, they stir the Southern Ocean and lift the warm water (red) onto the continental shelf where the additional heat contributes to melt of the ice shelf. Credit: Frank Ippolito Scientists have previously shown that West Antarctica is losing ice, but how that ice is lost remained unclear. Now, using data from Earth observing satellites and airborne science missions, scientists are closing in on ice loss culprits above and below the ice.

The findings, presented Dec. 15 at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, Calif., are expected to improve predictions of sea level rise.

Time Not Healing Glacial Wounds

A new analysis by Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder Colo., and colleagues found that more than a decade after two major Antarctic ice shelves collapsed, glaciers once buttressed by the shelves continue to lose ice.

Changes are most evident in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and along the Antarctic Peninsula. A spine of mountains forces passing winds to give up their moisture as snow, feeding glaciers that in turn feed the ice shelves that jut out into the Southern Ocean. More than a decade ago, dramatic changes started affecting a series of ice shelves, collectively called Larsen, along the Peninsula's northeast coast. In 1995, Larsen A was the first to collapse followed by a larger loss of Larsen B in 2002. Today, a small piece of the Larsen B and the entirety of the vast Larsen C hang on.

Investigating how the glaciers have responded to the loss of these ice shelf "dams," Scambos and colleagues tracked elevation information using data from satellites such as NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) and previous airborne missions. They show that between 2001 and 2006, glaciers feeding Larsen A and Larsen B lost 12 gigatons of ice loss per year, or 30 percent of all ice lost throughout the Peninsula.

Moreover, the continued draw down of glaciers, such as Drygalski Glacier, fifteen years after the loss of Larsen A, have set precedent for what to expect elsewhere. Losses by glaciers that fed the Larsen B, such as Crane Glacier, are likely to continue.

Scambos and a team of colleagues have now placed instruments on glaciers just south of the area where the shelves disintegrated, anticipating that further warming will lead to further glacier speed-ups. The instruments and new aircraft overflights will provide further insight into shelf break-up and the onset of ice acceleration.


When surface winds are strong, they stir the Southern Ocean and lift the warm water (red) onto the continental shelf where the additional heat contributes to melt of the ice shelf. Credit: Frank Ippolito

Wind Matters

Further south is West Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier, another site of major ice loss presently draining more than 19 cubic miles of ice per year from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. It continues to deteriorate rapidly and scientists want to know why.

By combining satellite and airborne data, Bob Bindschadler, a glaciologist with the Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., has successfully gained more insight into interactions between the atmosphere, ocean and ice even though the data cant reveal these connections directly.

Bindschadler and colleagues looked at images from the Landsat satellite and spotted a series of large surface undulations on the ice shelf. Next they matched the undulations with the timing of warm water pulses in the waters adjacent to the ice shelf. When surface winds are strong, they stir the Southern Ocean and lift the warm water onto the continental shelf where the additional heat contributes to melt.

Airborne data showed the ice shelf was up to 150 meters (492 feet) thinner when the warmer water was present, allowing Bindschadler's team to establish a direct link between the rate of ice shelf melting and atmospheric wind speed. When the team accounted for the heat coming in and the ice lost, they concluded that only 22 percent of the heat is used in melting. Whether the remaining heat might melt additional ice is unknown, but it is clear that the atmospheric circulation has a strong role on the future of the ice shelf and the fate of the ice sheet inland. Stronger winds would lead to an acceleration of ice loss; weaker winds would have a stabilizing effect.

"In short, ice shelves are affected by what winds are doing," Bindschadler said. "As Antarctic Circumpolar winds continue to increase, ice shelves are at increasing risk."


West Antarctica is seeing dramatic ice loss particularly the Antarctic Peninsula and Pine Island regions. Ice loss culprits include the loss off buttressing ice shelves, wind, and a sub-shelf channel that allows warm water to intrude below the ice. Credit: NASA/NSIDC


Underwater Channel Promoting Melt?


A gravity instrument, flown during NASA's Operation IceBridge campaign in 2009, revealed the presence of a sinuous channel (blue) below West Antarctica's Pine Island ice shelf. The channel allows warm ocean water to reach the grounding line, leading to melting of the ice shelf from below. Credit NASA

Taking a closer look at Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier is Michael Studinger, a glaciologist with the Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center at NASA Goddard.

Studinger is project scientist for NASA's Operation IceBridge mission -- an airborne science campaign that makes annual surveys of polar snow and ice -- that is helping researchers understand changes to Pine Island and other critical regions along West Antarctica and the Peninsula.

After analyzing data from the mission's first Antarctic deployment in 2009, the team revealed for the first time a curious feature below the Pine Island shelf: a sinuous channel that allows warm ocean water to reach the grounding line, leading to melting of the ice shelf from below.

More information will become available throughout Operation IceBridge, which sustains watch over Earth's poles until the launch of ICESat-2, scheduled for January 2016. In November 2010, teams concluded the second Antarctic campaign during which they flew over sea ice and key glaciers including a return mission over Pine Island Glacier. These data will be incorporated into the tools scientists use to refine estimates of future sea level rise.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
109. cyclonebuster
1:09 PM GMT on December 16, 2010
Quoting idontknowforsure:
They are talking about Dr. Rood and his students


"How many people has global warming killed?"


Jack Wagon makes it sound like it is zero. Very uninformed writer trying to spread untruths about global warming. Where do they find such ignorant people to write these articles?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
108. idontknowforsure
11:40 AM GMT on December 16, 2010
They are talking about Dr. Rood and his students
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
107. meatballa720
2:14 AM GMT on December 16, 2010
A Modest Proposal
For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being A burden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public
By Jonathan Swift (1729)
Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
106. DoverWxwatchter
11:34 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
cyclonebuster I think not responding and flagging their sick posts instead is the best thing. I'm copy/pasting the sick posts and those agreeing with him to admin, and see what they do.


I'm just flagging and then pretending they are not there from now on.
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
105. martinitony
11:28 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


This guy is sick suggesting us to eat aborted fetuses! You need jail time!


I was trying to decide whether or not to click on his link when I read your post, Cyclone. Now that was really funny. I knew you could do it if you tried.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
104. McBill
11:18 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


This guy is sick suggesting us to eat aborted fetuses! You need jail time!


Hey CB, lighten up a little bit. Mr. Martini thinks this stuff is a hoot. You don't want to get in the way of his fun, do you?

Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 422
103. cyclonebuster
11:05 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting meatballa720:
Here is a recipe that is doubly green because you can rid the Earth of another homosapien which are by far the species most responsible for the pollutant C02, imagine how many cubic tons less C02 will be emitted during those 75- 80 years vs. if that creature were born and then multiplied every generation. Not to mention all the fossil fuels saved by having to raise less livestock and transport cross-country plus growing the feed.

This dish is beyond carbon neutral. Eat this meal often enough and you could actually have a negative carbon footprint!


This guy is sick suggesting us to eat aborted fetuses! You need jail time!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
101. martinitony
9:54 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
Flagging that post too Michael, that was sick.


i think that both you and Michael demonstrate conclusive proof that liberals lack a sense of humor. His posts were funny and on a cold icy day out here in the midwest it's a nice break from the monotony of short days and scraping frost, ice and snow off the windshield.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
100. DoverWxwatchter
9:39 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Flagging that post too Michael, that was sick.
Member Since: October 30, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 707
99. MichaelSTL
9:38 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting meatballa720:
Berlin 'cannibal' restaurant calls for diners to donate body parts for menu

We will see more green restaurants like this popping up around the world soon and will even probably get government subsidies because what is more environmentally friendly than feasting on those responsible for putting out all this poisonous C02?


I have flagged this comment (and suggest that everybody else do the same) - you are nothing more than a deservedly banned troll, talking about eating people! And likely already banned several times; let's see... BreadandCircuses, who said similar things?
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
98. meatballa720
8:23 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I can't do that but Fossil fuels can. We seek the Goldilocks zone.


Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
97. cyclonebuster
8:12 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
The Warming of Antarctica: A Citadel of Ice Begins to Melt

by Fen Montaigne

The fringes of the coldest continent are starting to feel the heat, with the northern Antarctic Peninsula warming faster than virtually any place on Earth. These rapidly rising temperatures represent the first breach in the enormous frozen dome that holds 90 percent of the world's ice.

In 1978, when few researchers were paying attention to global warming, a prominent geologist at Ohio State University was already focused on the prospect of fossil fuel emissions trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. His name was John H. Mercer, and when he contemplated what might be in store for the planet, his thoughts naturally gravitated to the biggest chunk of ice on Earth - Antarctica.

"If present trends in fossil fuel consumption continue..." he wrote in Nature, "a critical level of warmth will have been passed in high southern latitudes 50 years from now, and deglaciation of West Antarctica will be imminent or in progress... One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is under way in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward."

Mercer's prediction has come true, and a couple of decades before he anticipated. Since he wrote those words, eight ice shelves have fully or partially collapsed along the Antarctic Peninsula, and the northwestern Antarctic Peninsula has warmed faster than virtually any place on Earth.

Much attention has rightly been paid to the precipitous warming of the Arctic, where Arctic Ocean ice is rapidly shrinking and thinning, Greenland's large ice sheets are steadily melting, and permafrost is thawing from Alaska, to Scandinavia, to Siberia.

But none of the earth's ice zones, or cryosphere, can compare with Antarctica, which is 1.5 times the size of the United States - including Alaska - and is almost entirely covered in ice, in places to a depth of three miles. The Antarctic accumulated this unfathomable volume of ice because it is a continent surrounded by ocean - the Southern Ocean - which acts like a great, insulating moat around the South Pole. The Arctic, by contrast, is an ocean surrounded by continents, whose landmasses moderate the polar climate.

How cold is the Antarctic? How about -128.6 degrees F cold, which is the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth, as measured at the Soviet Antarctic base, Vostok, on July 21, 1983. The polar plateau, where legendary explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott perished, routinely records temperatures of -70 or -80 degrees F in winter. So it will be quite some time before the heart of Antarctica's vast ice dome begins to melt.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
95. martinitony
7:52 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting meatballa720:
Also we did call corporate too. All they said is they would forward this on to the franchisded owners who we have already talked too. So that is usless, as for the ordering it is not done in a weird way, the workers are just too stupid to understand the order. While we were there wensday the manager told them to fix the 2 double cheeseburgers plain with no cheese. the cook kept trying to put cheese on them. The manager finally told the cook look I need a bun with 2 pieces of meat and nothing else. Even after that he still said not to come back. Their idiots


I think you should teach your family and yourselves to like cheese and pickles. A lot worse could happen. The greenies might start taxing you if you want to eat toast or for that matter even plain white bread instead of whole grains. Then whatcha gonna do?
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
94. cyclonebuster
7:15 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting martinitony:


Yes, "We need to ..hold it there." That would be the natural thing to do.

PS. I'm in favor of keeping the northern hemisphere in summer year around, Cyclone. Maybe you could build a tunnel to get that done.


I can't do that but Fossil fuels can. We seek the Goldilocks zone.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
93. meatballa720
6:27 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Also we did call corporate too. All they said is they would forward this on to the franchisded owners who we have already talked too. So that is usless, as for the ordering it is not done in a weird way, the workers are just too stupid to understand the order. While we were there wensday the manager told them to fix the 2 double cheeseburgers plain with no cheese. the cook kept trying to put cheese on them. The manager finally told the cook look I need a bun with 2 pieces of meat and nothing else. Even after that he still said not to come back. Their idiots
Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
92. meatballa720
6:08 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
I would have sent this to teh paper as a jeer-no,not a cheer but they don't post names of places on jeers. I see y'all talk about food here but what about this? We used to go to McDonald's on jacksboro hwy. Just about everytime we ordered, our order was wrong. They would replace the items that was wrong.

Last tuesday we ordered supper there and took it home. When we got home we found our order was wrong again, so we called them. They said they would replace it and for us to save our ticket to bring in when we came. So wensday we went to get lunch, we were going to get what they owed us plus buy more. The manager said since they had trouble with our order several times for us to not come back there to eat. I ask him what are we suppose to do when our order is wrong, not call, he said no go eat somewhere else. I told him the problem is not us it is with his workers not doing their job right.

Here is what we ordered: a kids cheeseburger pickles only, not hard to make but they can't seem to understand to put the cheese on it. Next a kids cheesburger plain, meat, bread and cheese, another hard order uh but it comes back with everything on it. Then there is also 2 double cheeseburgers plain and no cheese, [you have to order it that way because they don't have double hamburgers on the menu] but they still put the cheese on it. Then we have a hamburger, ketsup only, hard to make, so they put everything on it.

So they ask us to go somewhere else to eat, fine there is Burger King and I can have it my way! You don't run your customers off because your workers can't do their job right.
Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
91. martinitony
5:45 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Extremes in either direction would harm life. We need to find the sweet spot and hold it there.


Yes, "We need to ..hold it there." That would be the natural thing to do.

PS. I'm in favor of keeping the northern hemisphere in summer year around, Cyclone. Maybe you could build a tunnel to get that done.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
90. cyclonebuster
1:23 PM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting WeatherWx:
Wouldn't "global cooling" harm life as well if it happened? Is there any research that compares the damage potential of colder or hotter climates?

What percentage of "qualified" scientists in the world agree about AGW? And what constitutes as a "qualified" scientist to have an opinion on AGW?


Extremes in either direction would harm life. We need to find the sweet spot and hold it there.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20402
89. martinitony
10:39 AM GMT on December 15, 2010
Consensus ?
I think this is important. In the survey, about 2/3 didn't respond. The author doesn't address why they don't. I have a theory about that. I believe that many of these didn't agree at all, but because of the potential stigma of being branded a denier, they just avoided the issue.
I would also note that some people are easy to fool.
I anticipate that the response to this post will simply be to bring out an assortment of supportive articles about warming as opposed to attempt to discuss what this author has posted, but let's see. The arithmetic is rather simple and should be easy for all to deal with.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
88. MichaelSTL
4:08 AM GMT on December 15, 2010
Quoting WeatherWx:
I'm trying to see where you people stand on the issues. Which is why I'm asking these questions. For example, I have heard and seen in much literature that there is a scientific "consensus" on AGW but I haven't seen hardly any statistical figures supporting it(ie: 95%?, etc). About the only figure I have found says 97% qualified scientists believe in AGW.

Also, there is debate on what constitutes as a "qualified scientist" to make an opinion on AGW. So what is your take on it?


As for the last, there are a lot of people (those who claim to have some alternative theory of warming) who claim to know what they are talking about - but are not scientists - yet many people fall for their claims. Like Anthony Watts - don't let his being a meteorologist fool you since most of them don't have degrees in climatology (many people believe that being a meteorologist says otherwise, and many of them deny climate science).

Or in one of those cases where they are actually a scientist, and one that works in climate related field (here also; many people think that being a scientist makes them a climate scientist, which isn't true), like Roy Spencer, they either are a minority as explained in previous comments or believe in nonsense like creationism, which should immediately invalidate Spencer's claims (nobody who believes in stuff like creationism deserves to be called a scientist, climate or not).

Also, as an example of a claim against global warming that some (Spencer and Lindzen, among others) propose that isn't valid, one claim is that the cloud feedback is negative, thus reducing or preventing warming - actual observations suggest otherwise, and increasingly so - clouds aren't just a feedback, they are a positive feedback. Another problem with their explanations is that they fail to account for the roughly 6 degrees of warming between glacials and interglacials, which needs a big feedback to amplify small changes in insolation (Milankovitch cycles, which can't possibly explain the recent warming).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
87. JFLORIDA
1:51 AM GMT on December 15, 2010
Much of the stuff put forward by those not in the consensus just questions rates and is pretty much disproved or drastically diminished by other indicators, proxies and inconsistencies elsewhere in the observational record.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
86. JFLORIDA
1:46 AM GMT on December 15, 2010
Publishing in atmospheric science. Its actually well over 97 percent as qualifications and contributions of the remaining 3 percent falls off rather drastically.

Everything Ive seen these days involves the degree of contribution to warming form CO2 and effects of natural sources and sinks.

I haven't seen anyone question the actual mechanism itself or the contribution of man made CO2 to the atmosphere. But you would think that is the case from the blogs.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
85. WeatherWx
1:24 AM GMT on December 15, 2010
I'm trying to see where you people stand on the issues. Which is why I'm asking these questions. For example, I have heard and seen in much literature that there is a scientific "consensus" on AGW but I haven't seen hardly any statistical figures supporting it(ie: 95%?, etc). About the only figure I have found says 97% qualified scientists believe in AGW.

Also, there is debate on what constitutes as a "qualified scientist" to make an opinion on AGW. So what is your take on it?
Member Since: December 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 287
84. JFLORIDA
1:19 AM GMT on December 15, 2010
Just about everything around us evolved to this state during the thaw from the last glacial period. At a very slow rate of change. We could go a considerable distance cooler with the same diversity being expressed, but warmer is bad for many species. Also the rate is too fast drastic and varied to be biologically beneficial.

Then there is associated heavy metal pollution and ocean acidification not to mention rising sea levels and storm intensification to worry about.

And also with climate destabilization associated with warming we are getting very cold temperatures where they should not be.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743

Viewing: 134 - 84

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog 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.