Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:38 PM GMT on August 14, 2011

Share this Blog
12
+

Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability and Climate Change (1)

This past week I was at the county fair. There were science exhibits, and a display on climate-wise gardening. There was a lot of attention to garbage; it was a zero-waste event. There was an exhibit and lecture on irrigation, with, of course, some discussion of stressed and contentious water resources. After the fair I took a one-day course on grasslands and the reclamation of prairie land. There are many places where climate and climate policy fit into this mix of small activities.

I want to start with the idea of “sustainability.” When I moved to University of Michigan in 2005, I was introduced, seriously, to the idea of sustainability. I kept asking whether or not there was an accepted, single definition of sustainability. The short answer was, “no.” If you look around you find a couple of notions that are always included in the definition of sustainability. First, there is the idea that the way that we use resources to maintain our standard of living does not preclude the ability of future generations to do the same. Second, there is the idea that all of the pieces fit together into a whole. A popular notion of sustainability is “think globally, act locally”, or conveyed by the company Seventh Generation, which strives, “To inspire a revolution that nurtures the health of the next seven generations.” On a whole different scale is Ceres, which “leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change and water scarcity.” Here are some links to definitions and discussions of sustainability: @ Washington State University, Wikipedia, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is obvious that our climate and climate change fit into the notion of sustainability, but it is not an easy relation to understand, describe and to make actionable. More directly related to our ability to sustain ourselves are population, energy, energy consumption, and standard of living. Historically we have used easy resources, because they are easy. For many centuries we were reliant upon wood for fuel and building. We cleared forests for agriculture. During the 1800s the United States was largely deforested. It became self evident that forests and whale oil were not going to support a growing population, an industrial society, and a growing economy. (A nice history of energy, and interestingly Dolly Sods Wilderness.) These sources of energy were replaced with coal and oil. All of these sources of energy have obvious, direct environmental consequences. There are also some environmental consequences that are not quite as obvious and direct; namely, those consequences due to the release of carbon dioxide.

The wealthy economies and standard of living that followed from industrialization become the priority; hence, easy energy becomes a priority. The obvious and direct environmental consequences, ultimately, become something that we try to deal with – for example, The Clean Air Act. We seek a balance of environmental pollution and industrialization – a contentious balance. Climate change is an environmental problem that is not as obvious and not as direct. It is problem where it takes, compared with a human life, a significant amount of time for the signal of climate change, of global warming, to emerge over the natural variability that we are used to dealing with. In order to mitigate climate change through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions our “easy” choice is to quit burning fossils fuels, but that is not an easy choice to make if we humans exercise our prerogative of pursuit of high standards of living and population growth. To address climate change requires us to look out beyond the length of our lives and to see the value that a sustainable environment will have to those who follow us.

There was a couple of years ago a paper in Nature entitled, “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues. Here is Figure 1 from that paper.



Figure 1: “The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded.” From “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues (Nature, 2009)

This figure conveys the integrated nature of sustainability on the planetary scale. An easy example to point out – climate change is, primarily, a problem of carbon dioxide emission, as is ocean acidification. Hence, from an integrated perspective, the two cannot be looked at in isolation. But looking around the circle, all of these environmental issues are related. They are all related to population, energy, consumption, standards of living and robust economies.

I started this entry, this series, with a very mundane event – being at the fair. At the fair we talked about water, and sure climate change might be important to water, but it does not seem as immediately important as the cities’ thirst for water and the purchase of agricultural water rights (Thirsty Cities, Dry Farms). This interface of climate change on this local level is real, it is contentious, and it is substantive. Yes, I have started another series, and in it I will look at “think globally, act locally.” Yet another problem of many scales that must be addressed as we adapt to global warming.

r




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: 403 - 353

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

Quoting JBastardi:
Watch out! This could happen here if the EPA gets its way:

Link

Even if true, $0.46 a day is far less than it'll cost to take care of things if the EPA doesn't get its way.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626



Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
Watch out! This could happen here if the EPA gets its way:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting JBastardi:
Looks like Jeff Masters still has the need to blame every weather event on "global warming."

Link

Looks like denialists still have the need to screech repeatedly that not a single extreme weather event has a one possible thing to do with "global warming".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Looks like Jeff Masters still has the need to blame every weather event on "global warming."

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting Neapolitan:

Paying attention to only the science link--Nature--one needn't read far to see this quote: "...it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate". Hmmm. It shows just how desperate denialists such as Watts have become when that's what amounts to a "victory" for them. ;-)


I think the warmists have become "denialists." They are all now circling the wagons and denying that true science is now being used to delve into "climate change."

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting nymore:
GreenT- How do I come to my conclusions because you sound like a someone with a beautiful ideology but no real world experience. If I am a traitor as you claim than so is 99.9% of the people you know, we all buy products made that come from mining, farming, manufacturing, and transportation and most drive to work or the store. There is no way to make the world move forward without some sort of pollution, I wish it was a cleaner process but in reality it is not. People that live in cities as I am sure you do, do not live off the land. How big is your garden that you grow your own fruits and vegetables in? (Mine is approx. 5000 sq. ft. in the pasture 3 horses, 2 cows, 2 pigs and a few chickens approx. 30 acres) If you purchase these products you to help contribute to the problem. If these products were grown without using modified crops, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and giant machinery many people would suffer because we could not grow enough and it would be expensive for numerous reasons. Without rural people farming, ranching and mining the cities would not exist as they do today and for these people there is no public transportation, riding your bike or walking to stores. Look out your window how many large farms, large ranches, or mining operations do you see? If we do not grow it or mine it you can not manufacture or consume it. I also do not belong to any political party I think they are are garbage. I am for alternative energy, or anything else if you can make it competitive. Alternative energy has it own problems including pollution and we will have to figure a different way to manufacture many products that require oil. I also think no one should get any tax benefits or subsidies including fossil fuels. The last thing why do I care about AGWT is because people want to take more of my money for a for a issue that I don't believe we are the cause of as of now. I believe there should be a flat or fair tax as they say with no deductions or loopholes where everyone pays the same percentage on the money they made above the poverty line. I believe the U.S. government should be extremely slimmed down most departments could be cut out completely. Examples the IRS the Dept.of Education many social service depts, we don't need 4 agencies looking over salmon, ten weather orgs. also cut military spending and the list goes on and on take some of the money saved for research and give the rest back. I hope I have answered your questions.


Well I have expereince. Not in all fields admittedly and not in farming for sure. However, I have enough expereince to believe that most people whine about how hard something for a variety of reasons... none of which necessarily have anything to do with reality. If someone tells me "it cannot be done for this XXX specific reason", I listen to them. When they throw generalities around and describe mysterious forces and large vague reasons, or 'common sense', I think they are lazy.

The simple rule that should be inforced is that every company or industry has to emit zero pollution. I clean up my mess, you clean up yours. Argue about that if you want (I know that is how cap and trade started, from what I understand - which isn't much), but the ideology of cleaning up your own mess is ideal.

As for being a traitor, from what I read fo your posts, you are lying to yourself. You are too intelligent not to be able to understand the data, yet you keep posting stuff that is way below your intelligence level. To me, this reads as someone who doesn't want to believe. I say "traitor" then because the word got inroduced into the blog but also because you are helping to hurt America through deliberate misinformation. Given that I believe you are lying to yourself, 'deliberate' is a bit strong. I think that you are, like most people, trapped in a system and powerless to change it. In some people's case that leads to denial that there is a problem. If you can look at the data with a clear head and admit there is a problem and admit that there is very little you can do to change it, fine. But to increase the problem by denial on a public blog is traitorous.

Using litter as an example: if you live in a area that is full of litter, in order to clean it up you need a collection and disposal mechanism. It would help also if people didn't litter anymore. However, suppose that the collection and disposal mechanism is too hard for one person to do. The only way to stop the litter is to get everyone to help. However there exist people who say:

... there is no litter problem. ("oh that?, that is not really litter, that is just some stuff ont he ground.")

... no one has time to clean up litter.

... it costs too much to clean up.

... no one else does it.

... "look at you, you litter, so way should I stop?" (because there is no place to put litter so anyone who lives in this environment has to litter to survive.)

... litter is good

... cleaning up litter means that i would have to lower my standard of living (either producing less litter or having to clean it up)

... it is impossible to live without litter

Litter, in this case global warming, is a problem. It is solvable. But it is only solvable with the help of most people. Putting yourself in one of those catagories above doesn't make you smart or show that you are a realist. It only shows you lack the character to acknowledge the situation. While everyone is in this situation, not everyone is seeking to actively promote one of the above lines of 'common sense'.


...
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:


You know 40 trillion liters per day divided by 6 billion humans equals about 1,350 pounds of CO2 per human per day. Here in the USA, given our relative usage, that's probably 5,000 pounds per day. Doesn't sound right, does it?

You're absolutely correct; it doesn't sound right. It's a horrific amount.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting Ossqss:
Another brick in the wall?

CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds from a favorite place.

and here~

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news. 2011.504.html

Go figure eh?






Paying attention to only the science link--Nature--one needn't read far to see this quote: "...it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate". Hmmm. It shows just how desperate denialists such as Watts have become when that's what amounts to a "victory" for them. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting theshepherd:
388. iceagecoming

It's the same ol' prepubescent anarchist's song they sing.
You can't argue with pomposity.

Civil disobedience is always described in lazily derogatory terms like "prepubescent" and "pompous" by those wishing bitterly for the status quo to be maintained. It's no surprise, of course--but it surely is sad; imagine the pitiful world we'd live in if no one ever stood up for what they think is right simply because they were afraid of being called names.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
GreenT- How do I come to my conclusions because you sound like a someone with a beautiful ideology but no real world experience. If I am a traitor as you claim than so is 99.9% of the people you know, we all buy products made that come from mining, farming, manufacturing, and transportation and most drive to work or the store. There is no way to make the world move forward without some sort of pollution, I wish it was a cleaner process but in reality it is not. People that live in cities as I am sure you do, do not live off the land. How big is your garden that you grow your own fruits and vegetables in? (Mine is approx. 5000 sq. ft. in the pasture 3 horses, 2 cows, 2 pigs and a few chickens approx. 30 acres) If you purchase these products you to help contribute to the problem. If these products were grown without using modified crops, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and giant machinery many people would suffer because we could not grow enough and it would be expensive for numerous reasons. Without rural people farming, ranching and mining the cities would not exist as they do today and for these people there is no public transportation, riding your bike or walking to stores. Look out your window how many large farms, large ranches, or mining operations do you see? If we do not grow it or mine it you can not manufacture or consume it. I also do not belong to any political party I think they are are garbage. I am for alternative energy, or anything else if you can make it competitive. Alternative energy has it own problems including pollution and we will have to figure a different way to manufacture many products that require oil. I also think no one should get any tax benefits or subsidies including fossil fuels. The last thing why do I care about AGWT is because people want to take more of my money for a for a issue that I don't believe we are the cause of as of now. I believe there should be a flat or fair tax as they say with no deductions or loopholes where everyone pays the same percentage on the money they made above the poverty line. I believe the U.S. government should be extremely slimmed down most departments could be cut out completely. Examples the IRS the Dept.of Education many social service depts, we don't need 4 agencies looking over salmon, ten weather orgs. also cut military spending and the list goes on and on take some of the money saved for research and give the rest back. I hope I have answered your questions.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
388. iceagecoming

It's the same ol' prepubescent anarchist's song they sing.
You can't argue with pomposity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Staggering cost of CO2 permits revealed

AUSTRALIAN businesses and households will have to send about $650 billion overseas between 2020 and 2050 to buy permission to keep some of our coal-fired power stations and other industries operating.

This staggering cost is indicated in the fine print of the Treasury modelling of the Government's carbon dioxide tax and subsequent emissions trading scheme.

The $650 billion will be to buy "permits" to emit CO2.

The permits will be bought from sellers that don't yet exist, or in markets that have yet to be formed, although the Government expects - hopes - they will develop over the next few years.

But this week it was reported that European police agency Europol had revealed a fraudulent trade in these so-called carbon credits in the only serious market that does operate - for the European Union - was far more widespread than previously thought and could have cost EU taxpayers up to €5 billion ($7 billion) in lost revenue in just 18 months.


It's important to stress, we won't be buying anything tangible with this huge amount of money.

Like wind turbines or solar panels or even licences to use technology. It will just buy "permission" to emit CO2 with every prospect it will be rorted Nigerian-style.

These are the permits that Australian industry and power stations will have to buy under Julia Gillard and Greens leader Bob Brown's scheme. With the costs passed on to consumers.

Even without any rorting, the impact on the economy of this part of the scheme will be exactly like taking $650 billion and shredding it.

That will be throwing away nearly $30,000 for every Australian, about $120,000 for a family of four.


Link

MeanWhile:




A polar blast has brought bitterly cold temperatures across New Zealand and the heaviest snowfall in decades.

MetService says snow will continue to fall in major centres overnight on Monday and the polar blast is set to last until Thursday. Hundreds are without power in the lower North Island and Canterbury.

Highways are closed throughout much of the South Island, as well as the central and lower North Island, including the Desert Road and Rimutaka Hill Road.

Though the South Island bore the brunt of the bad weather, Wellington experienced its heaviest snowfall since 1976, while Auckland has had its first snow since the same year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:






Drakensburg, South Africa, August 15, 2011. It seems this country is awash with metaphors. And so it comes as no surprise that I would awaken to one on this cold morning in the Drakensburg mountains – in the form of three inches of wet, heavy snow. Snow is not unheard of here, especially during this strangely cold and wet winter in South Africa. But in the 10 years I spent growing up outside of Johannesburg, and the eight years I have been coming here since we founded 25:40 (including every winter), not once did I experience snow at any place or elevation. So, as evidenced by the one pair of jeans and five pairs of shorts I packed for this trip, this was unexpected.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Those people being arrested for protesting the Keystone pipe are patriots in the truest sense of the word. If I could afford the time, I'd be there with them...
The Obama Administration continues to play bureaucratic hacky-sack with what could be a key element of our nation’s secure energy future: the Keystone XL pipeline project. The new line would increase the export capacity of the Keystone Pipeline (placed in service 2008) by 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil-sands oil per day. The expansion would also facilitate the domestic movement of crude from the key storage hub at Cushing, OK to the large refinery complexes on the Gulf Coast.

Keystone owner TransCanada is willing to take on this massive construction project on its own dime (or rather, its own $7 billion). It needs permission from the U.S. EPA and the State Department, which has jurisdiction due to the international scope of the project. The pipeline should have been under construction by now, were it not for Administration foot-dragging.

Opponents of the Keystone XL project might think they’re saving the environment by blocking the line. Not so.

Without the line, Canadians will sell the oil to the Chinese, who will export the oil in tankers.
Without the line, American imports will necessarily increase. More tankers.
Unlike tanker spills, pipeline spills are of limited volume and limited environmental impact. Pipelines are the most efficient and cleanest way to move volumes of oil.

BHO will sign off in the end, otherwise he won't even get a chance at returning to the White House.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's the sun stupid:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403

Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
2nd place.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Tied for third place.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting Neapolitan:

There are a couple of major things wrong with your closing sentence. Again:

1) No one (save for a few loons) has talked about "destruction of human life by AGW". Yes, individuals have--and will--die from its effects. But the species as a whole will go on. Uncomfortably, and in ways markedly different from how it is now. But it will go on.

2) AGWT is "just a theory" the way evolution is "just a theory". That is, it's been thoroughly researched over decades using multiple lines of investigation, and independently verified countless times. That's how science works. IOW, it is arithmetic: 40 trillion liters of fossil fuel-based CO2 per day * 365 days per year = far more than enough to make the environment act abnormally.


You know 40 trillion liters per day divided by 6 billion humans equals about 1,350 pounds of CO2 per human per day. Here in the USA, given our relative usage, that's probably 5,000 pounds per day. Doesn't sound right, does it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


This is an amusing post. You acknowledge that global warming is a theory. Then you say"The ONLY downside that comes from taking it seriously is some hypothetical economic slowdown, a slowdown that has much less evidence to support it than global warming does." The reality is that the downside is not a theory. Rather it is arithmetic.

We humans advance our standard of living by increasing productivity. The use of stored energies is one way we do that. Reducing our ability to use those stored energies without replacement at a cost equal to or lower reduces our productivity and therefore our standard of living. This is not a theory. It is arithmetic.

Unless you can prove that subtracting trillions of dollars worth of productivity from the world's economies results in an increased standard of living you cannot deny the arithmetic of the results that are going to be reduced productivity and a lower standard of living for the population.

You or someone else here will now say that survival is the ultimate standard of living, and that would be true. However, destruction of human life by AGW is still just a theory, not arithmetic.


Noper. It is just a theory that global warming isn't happening. Two competing theories... which has more empiracle evidence to back it up? Which has more important consequences?

How does spending money on oil = productivity? Hello McFly? National debt, deficit, terrorists?

Pollution, automobile congestion, health problems, reduced life expectancy, selling our soul to nations that hate us (remember when G Bush went sniveling to Saudi Arabia after 9-11).... this is our current standard of living.

Clean environment, independence, better health... the result of solving the global warming issue.

And that is just today! Wait 10 years when large parts of the world are like Texas this summer. Ask the Texans what their standard of living is like. Ask your religious leader (of whatever religion you are) to justify how we helped kill millions if not billions of people... living on others backs, that is a nice standard of living. Etc., etc.

Going green isn't the big change you think probably. What standard of living are you so concerned about?

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting greentortuloni:
Al Gore, for example, even with his private 747 filled with water beds and Vegas showgirls (or whatever the current rightwing gossip says he is doing)...

Hey, you forgot to mention Gore's 700,000 square foot mansion on a California beach that uses more electricity than a medium-sized town, his leadership in the thriving organization of socialists/communists that's set to take over the world, or his drinking of bat's blood during sacred sacrificial rituals during every full moon. Oh, yeah: it's "algore", because decapitalizing the letters in his names and smashing them together is oh-so-very clever. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting martinitony:
However, destruction of human life by AGW is still just a theory, not arithmetic.

There are a couple of major things wrong with your closing sentence. Again:

1) No one (save for a few loons) has talked about "destruction of human life by AGW". Yes, individuals have--and will--die from its effects. But the species as a whole will go on. Uncomfortably, and in ways markedly different from how it is now. But it will go on.

2) AGWT is "just a theory" the way evolution is "just a theory". That is, it's been thoroughly researched over decades using multiple lines of investigation, and independently verified countless times. That's how science works. IOW, it is arithmetic: 40 trillion liters of fossil fuel-based CO2 per day * 365 days per year = far more than enough to make the environment act abnormally.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting greentortuloni:


Maybe this type of weather has happened before. However, when a theory exists that predicts the destruction of large parts of mankind and civilization and it has a lot of empiracle evidence to back it up, then it should be taken seriously.

The ONLY downside that comes from taking it seriously is some hypothetical economic slowdown, a slowdown that has much less evidence to support it than global warming does.

So what is your problem with global warming? There are lots of theories out there that are weirder than global warming, not to mention a few religions. Why waste your time on global warming?


This is an amusing post. You acknowledge that global warming is a theory. Then you say"The ONLY downside that comes from taking it seriously is some hypothetical economic slowdown, a slowdown that has much less evidence to support it than global warming does." The reality is that the downside is not a theory. Rather it is arithmetic.

We humans advance our standard of living by increasing productivity. The use of stored energies is one way we do that. Reducing our ability to use those stored energies without replacement at a cost equal to or lower reduces our productivity and therefore our standard of living. This is not a theory. It is arithmetic.

Unless you can prove that subtracting trillions of dollars worth of productivity from the world's economies results in an increased standard of living you cannot deny the arithmetic of the results that are going to be reduced productivity and a lower standard of living for the population.

You or someone else here will now say that survival is the ultimate standard of living, and that would be true. However, destruction of human life by AGW is still just a theory, not arithmetic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Rookie- I totally agree with you there is much we don't know. The reason you don't see these studies everywhere is because no one really cares about it anymore it is a page 10 story at best. I have said many times the earth has warmed the problem I have is I do not believe it is all man made although we may have a small hand in it. I mean if you look at temp graphs it has warmed quickly before such as from about 1910 to 1940 but no one screams AGWT about that period. Why? When you look at something at higher resolutions than you could previously you can make sharper lines for the near term that become more gradual over a longer period. Example draw a line from 1980 to 2000 looks steep now draw a line from 1980 to 2010 it becomes less steep. I also think we actually know little about what drives climate on global scales. The scientists seem to find something new all the time. The volcano thing is a good example of this, another is the recently found warm jets of water thousands of feet down in the Atlantic ocean. These jet seem to extend well out in the Atlantic west of Africa and effect the climate there yet we have no idea what causes these or how they function. The large active volcanoes recently found in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as well as the poles. We know less about the bottom of the oceans than we know about the moon. I personally believe the oceans, the sun, volcanism and natural cycles that work on time scales we can not fully comprehend because we compare then to the average human life which is extremely short, have a much greater say than we give them credit for. The reason I believe we think we have much worse weather now is because we have more people in more areas keeping track of it. The Tornado numbers are a good example of this now we chase tornadoes back in the 20's lets say tornadoes may have been more as frequent but nobody was around to report them with no radar, 24 hour news, cell phones or the internet. The drought in Texas and the south this year has been very bad as we see it now but few still alive were around in the 30's to see the drought that effected a much larger area and was extremely harsh. How do we know these extreme types of weather have not happened many times before modern man was there. While 150 or 200 years of records may seem a long time to us it is less than the blink of the eye to the Earth.


Maybe this type of weather has happened before. However, when a theory exists that predicts the destruction of large parts of mankind and civilization and it has a lot of empiracle evidence to back it up, then it should be taken seriously.

The ONLY downside that comes from taking it seriously is some hypothetical economic slowdown, a slowdown that has much less evidence to support it than global warming does.

So what is your problem with global warming? There are lots of theories out there that are weirder than global warming, not to mention a few religions. Why waste your time on global warming?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting nymore:
I'm a traitor really if you say so are you even American or live here. Do you even have a real job. I see by your statement you do not care if AGWT is real or not it seems you just want to use it to further your fantasyland enviromental agenda. Have a nice day airhead and by airhead I mean no common sense in the real world. If you are a true believer that the modern world is so bad go live off the land in the middle of no where so you don't add to the problem.


How do you draw these conclusions from what i said? I am none of the things that you attribute to me.

As far as living off of the land, that isn't the solution to the 'modern world'. First, I don't have a problem with the modern world, just with pollution. Second, the best solution to a problem isn't to run away and not contribute. Al Gore, for example, even with his private 747 filled with water beds and Vegas showgirls (or whatever the current rightwing gossip says he is doing) has done more to solve global warming, eliminate pollution and help America than the top 100 republican or tea party politicians. Third, I am getting closer and closer to living off the land. Not for pollutions sake alone, but because I enjoy eating fresh fruits and vegitables, biking and so on.

Anyway, if you could read my post and explain how you derived your conclusions, it would help me a lot. however, I still maintain that you are a traitor in the same sense that everyone who helps destroy the environment is a traitor. That is not to say that in a war or some other situation where physical courage was called for, that you would be a coward sort of traitor. I didn't mean that at all.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Rookie- I totally agree with you there is much we don't know. The reason you don't see these studies everywhere is because no one really cares about it anymore it is a page 10 story at best. I have said many times the earth has warmed the problem I have is I do not believe it is all man made although we may have a small hand in it. I mean if you look at temp graphs it has warmed quickly before such as from about 1910 to 1940 but no one screams AGWT about that period. Why? When you look at something at higher resolutions than you could previously you can make sharper lines for the near term that become more gradual over a longer period. Example draw a line from 1980 to 2000 looks steep now draw a line from 1980 to 2010 it becomes less steep. I also think we actually know little about what drives climate on global scales. The scientists seem to find something new all the time. The volcano thing is a good example of this, another is the recently found warm jets of water thousands of feet down in the Atlantic ocean. These jet seem to extend well out in the Atlantic west of Africa and effect the climate there yet we have no idea what causes these or how they function. The large active volcanoes recently found in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as well as the poles. We know less about the bottom of the oceans than we know about the moon. I personally believe the oceans, the sun, volcanism and natural cycles that work on time scales we can not fully comprehend because we compare them to the average human life which is extremely short, have a much greater say than we give them credit for. The reason I believe we think we have much worse weather now is because we have more people in more areas keeping track of it. The Tornado numbers are a good example of this now we chase tornadoes back in the 20's lets say tornadoes may have been more as frequent but nobody was around to report them with no radar, 24 hour news, cell phones or the internet. The drought in Texas and the south this year has been very bad as we see it now but few still alive were around in the 30's to see the drought that effected a much larger area and was extremely harsh. How do we know these extreme types of weather have not happened many times before modern man was there. While 150 or 200 years of records may seem a long time to us it is less than the blink of the eye to the Earth.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
Rookie- Abstracts are the conclusions reached from the research paper. Hadley and NOAA are government orgs. the others are private. All links are from well respected organizations so you can believe them. While you may not believe them they are true just from the other side of the debate.


Thank you, nymore. I am aware of what an abstract of a research paper is. I would like to see the full text of these reports. I also stated that I am able to see the Hadley chart and the full NOAA report, both government, and mentioned that I can get to the government data without being charged to do so. Everyone that wants to do so, are able to see the government data without any fees being attached to it. Everyone can review the data, for themselves.

I must ask, why would private agencies charge to see studies that would confirm that AGW is a fraud? One would think that such data would have been on every press, for all to see. Even if it was only through the purchase of rights, to this data, by any entity that wanted to disprove the AGW theory. I am not saying the data is flawed. I am not saying the studies are a farce. I am saying that IF this data brings in any serious challenge, to the AGW theory, then why has no one taken the efforts to produce this data, for free?

Look, nymore, I Fully understand that there are many factors that drive our global climate. I also understand that there are factors that we do not yet understand. There are probably even factors that we have yet thought about. We work with what we do know. What we know has been factored into the models. I am confident that any unknown that can be found and become viable in the climate studies, that these new "knowns" will be factored into the models as well. Will any new data debunk the AGW theory? Unknown, at this time. We work with what we do know. Based on our current knowledge, climatologists believe that we, mankind, through our actions, have contributed to the warming of the Earth that we are now experiencing. I am not being sarcastic when I say to you that you should not ask me look at unknowns and draw a conclusion that the AGW theory has become invalid based on this.

How do you reply my response to post #293; Link #3?

Hello, ossqss.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Neapolitan- I see you did not post the statements made in the NSF paper. You say I took them out of context there is no context to them. They were points made such as point 1 point 2 and so on. I did not cherry pick anything you just don't like the truth as stated in the paper and have chosen to resign from the debate because you had lost that one I know it and you know it. If you had the evidence on your side you would have posted them. I suggest everyone go read the paper for yourselves and you decide. I am still waiting for proof of this continued rapid warming you keep referring to or can't you find any evidence for the last decade. I have told you before just because you claim it is happening does not make it true. I think my batting average just went up. Later Jimmy
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Rookie- Abstracts are the conclusions reached from the research paper. Hadley and NOAA are government orgs. the others are private. All links are from well respected organizations so you can be assured they are honest. While you may not believe them they are true just from the other side of the debate. I would not waste the 75 dollars as it will not change the result of the article.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting greentortuloni:


And the best way to convince America to get off of oil is to encourage alternative energy. If America was convinced that global warming was real, it would try to solve it.

In short, a real patriot wouldn't bother to discredit global warming, whether true or false. If a real patriot didn't believe in it, I wouldn't ask him/her to lie, but just to keep silent.

You are a traitor.
I'm a traitor really if you say so are you even American or live here. Do you even have a real job. I see by your statement you do not care if AGWT is real or not it seems you just want to use it to further your fantasyland enviromental agenda. Have a nice day airhead and by airhead I mean no common sense in the real world. If you are a true believer that the modern world is so bad go live off the land in the middle of no where so you don't add to the problem.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
----------NYMORE----------
I have started the research to answer your posts, #293 and #294.

This is what I have for you, so far:

Post# 293; Link #1
This is a link to the HadCRUT3 Temperature anomaly chart. We are concerned about global temperatures, so this is what I will concentrate on. Looking at the entire timeframe of 1849 through 2010, I see that the temperature anomalies were much cooler before 1979 and the temperature anomalies began to rise after 1979. There are peaks, plateaus and valleys along the entire chart. Since you wish to look at 2000 through 2010, I will do so. Should you remove the highest and lowest anomalies then I see what looks like a plateau or a slight dip. I also see that 2010 is rising again and exceeding the plateau or dip. This really does not tell me anything since it is such a short time frame. I can look at different 10 year periods and see examples of the same thing. My non scientific opinion is that any ten year period is too short of a time frame to see any real trends.

Post# 293; Link #2
This is a link to a Geophysical research letter. I am only allowed to see the abstract of this study and would need to pay $25.00 for the full text. Should this actually be a valid study that would be considered an aid, in the study on climate change, then I would be inclined to believe that they would want this readily available to the public and, for FREE. This would be my way of thinking, in this.

Post# 293; Link #3
This is an observation of nucleation of new particles in a volcanic plume. I believe that the operative word here is, %u201Cobservation%u201D. I also find this to be key, %u201CHowever, large conversational sinks due to preexisting particles within the plume, and unknown nucleation mechanisms under these circumstances make the assumption of new secondary particle formation still uncertain because the phenomenon has never been observed in a volcanic plume.%u201D - Do you wish for me to come to any conclusion based on something that had previously never been observed before? A conclusion that I would have to make based on their assumptions and unknowns? I am good, dude, but, not THAT good!

Post# 293; Link #4
This is the link to the American Meteorological Society where I am allowed view an abstract and not the actually full text. This is true, unless, of course, I desire to pay them $25.00 to do so. I have no such desires. Why would anyone want to hide the text of valid science behind a, %u201Cpay me first%u201D sign?

Post# 293; Link #5
This is a link to a NOAA study concerning global ocean heat content. Man! I must say that NOAA has not caught up with the times! Doesn%u2019t NOAA realize that everyone else is getting $25.00 a pop to see the full text of their studies? What an absolute waste, of government resources, when they are giving this information, for FREE! I have the full text, in front of me, but, I will need time to study and to review it. Since I am not a scientist, I would consider that anything comments I would make it would be an opinion only. Do you value my opinions?

Post# 294
There is only one link here and it would cost me another $25.00 to view the full text. Let me see now, should I have spent the money that you wish that I had, to give you your answers, I would have spent $100.00. I must also state that any discussions, on El Nino, that I have had in the past, seemed to have gotten me into a bit of %u201Chot water%u201D. I think that I will leave this to others. You could send me $200.00, to pay for access to these texts, should you value my opinion, to that degree. %u201CThe check, is in the mail%u201D? I will await your answer, on this.

Edit

Link #3, for post #293. Please substitute the word condensational for the word conversational. Somehow, I must have gotten lost, in that conversation.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting nymore:
Neo- You can go read the report PAGE 3 numbers 3 and 5 you will find it there I used the direct quote word for word notice the parentheses. Why don't you post exactly what 3 and 5 say then tell us what it means, I already did but I would love for you to post it as well. You know I have never used denialist sites for information. I don't have to I can use real studies and reports. I said nothing that is not in the paper issued by the NSF. I don't have to use sites like Real Climate, Climate Progress, Smart Green Help or any other biased sites for info like you have to. I know how spin doctors (Like you) operate it is not what they put in a posting it is what they leave out which is why I don't use alarmist or denialist sites. I know when you get upset it is true and you don't like it ;-) BTW I'm still waiting for proof of this continued rapid warming maybe you should call co2 and tell it to get back to work as it has taken the last ten years or so off. As for your baseball reference while you have struck me out swinging before I have also went yard plenty of times against you. I would say my average is better than .500 FWIW I am all for science just I am for unbiased science with an open peer review process.

Really, Eddy? The report exonerated Mann. Completely. You are pulling two lines out of context and fixating on them, while simultaneously ignoring later sections of the report that explained that even those two lines you cherry-picked showed, proved, and indicated nothing. Mann has been cleared. You may choose to keep playing with that particular mud pie if you wish, but I'm moving on.

BTW, I never said that I struck you out; I was referring to the many thorough and independent investigations into the manufactured "climategate" flap, not a single one which has yet to find the slightest hint of hanky-panky. I think even Salem's witch-hunters would have given up after such a drought.

The climate is warming at an unprecedented rate, with effects that are far-reaching--and increasingly worse than even climate scientists expected. We are in trouble...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Not to mention that if it is true and America does nothing, that will kill millions of people and hurt America's security.

The only reason why to persue a denialist agenda is to some quack concerns about the economy if we stop sucking oil pipe.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting nymore:
A real patriot would be someone who wants to use our own resources or those from a close friend as opposed to nations that dislike us until we have an actual energy solution that works. I am sure you can go to Washington this weekend and I don't think any one will even know your gone. You seem to live on sites like this. You are just another windbag saying oh I would if I could than you find excuses why you can't. If you can't make it is not that important to you as you claim or maybe you are just a gutless coward who is afraid of going to jail. You sound like that crazy Sean Hannity saying he works 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year. BTW what is this big news you had for us, you referred to a few weeks ago concerning the blog or was that just more hot air


And the best way to convince America to get off of oil is to encourage alternative energy. If America was convinced that global warming was real, it would try to solve it.

In short, a real patriot wouldn't bother to discredit global warming, whether true or false. If a real patriot didn't believe in it, I wouldn't ask him/her to lie, but just to keep silent.

You are a traitor.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
I work 7 days a week and 365 days a year. Just not 24 hours a day =)
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
Duh-leeted. Emphasis the duh.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Those people being arrested for protesting the Keystone pipe are patriots in the truest sense of the word. If I could afford the time, I'd be there with them...
A real patriot would be someone who wants to use our own resources or those from a close friend as opposed to nations that dislike us until we have an actual energy solution that works. I am sure you can go to Washington this weekend and I don't think any one will even know your gone. You seem to live on sites like this. You are just another windbag saying oh I would if I could than you find excuses why you can't. If you can't make it is not that important to you as you claim or maybe you are just a gutless coward who is afraid of going to jail. You sound like that crazy Sean Hannity saying he works 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year. BTW what is this big news you had for us, you referred to a few weeks ago concerning the blog or was that just more hot air
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Neo- You can go read the report PAGE 3 numbers 3 and 5 you will find it there I used the direct quote word for word notice the parentheses. Why don't you post exactly what 3 and 5 say then tell us what it means, I already did but I would love for you to post it as well. You know I have never used denialist sites for information. I don't have to I can use real studies and reports. I said nothing that is not in the paper issued by the NSF. I don't have to use sites like Real Climate, Climate Progress, Smart Green Help or any other biased sites for info like you have to. I know how spin doctors (Like you) operate it is not what they put in a posting it is what they leave out which is why I don't use alarmist or denialist sites. I know when you get upset it is true and you don't like it ;-) BTW I'm still waiting for proof of this continued rapid warming maybe you should call co2 and tell it to get back to work as it has taken the last ten years or so off. As for your baseball reference while you have struck me out swinging before I have also went yard plenty of times against you. I would say my average is better than .500 FWIW I am all for science just I am for unbiased science with an open peer review process.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
Neo- I also read over at that site that they are encouraging people to get arrested to try and stop the Keystone pipeline. If these people think that will stop the oil sands they are crazier than I give them credit for, if we don't use the oil someone else will. I have a solution for all you anti-oil lunatics stop using anything made with petroleum products, in this day and age your life will be short if you look into all the things that come from oil. I think you should all just boycott oil and leave more of it for us who like using these products here is a small list artificial limbs, medicine, fertilizers and plastics this could go on a long time so here is a link to just some of the product you use. Link There are many many more including that computer or smartphone you are using to access the internet which I might add also needs oil.

Those people being arrested for protesting the Keystone pipe are patriots in the truest sense of the word. If I could afford the time, I'd be there with them...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting nymore:
Neo- The report does not fully exonerate Mann it says this on page 3, "There are several concerns (problems) raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used in the Subjects (Mann's) research" and this " There was concern (problem) about how extensively the Subjects (Mann's) research had influenced the debate in the overall research field." These were not even the charges being looked into. Also Penn State gave him the glowing review you quoted which is to be expected not the NSF. In conclusion the NSF does not like the way Mann came to his conclusions (By cherry picking data) and how it was used. I assume you did not read the actual report and only got your info from that nutty climate progress web site, from what I can see on there, that place is full of loons. I guess he won't get an apology out of me for using questionable science techniques. BTW I am still waiting for this rapid warming to start again HA HA HA HA see if you can't find a way to blame the earthquake in Virginia on AGWT. Ask yourself where Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth and James Hanson are and why they are not questioning the techniques and analysis used to get these results like they would some skeptic. Answers hiding and bias.

Denilaists are of course free to nitpick all they wish if it makes them feel better about their anti-science stance, but Mann has been proven to be a fine climatologist, his methods sounds, and his results valid. Of course, it's yet another untruth to state "NSF does not like the way Mann came to his conclusions"; I can only assume that line was copied and pasted from WUWT.

All along, the rabid denialosphere--Watts, Bastardi, etc.--have been talking about the Mann investigation while using the words "manipulate" and "falsify" and such. But let's see what the report says:

--"There is no specific evidence that the Subject falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct."

--"...no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results"

--"we examined the elements of each suggested offense and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of violations of any of these statutes to warrant investigation. Thus, we have determined that these other matters are not implicated in this investigation."

--"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed. "

In other words, exonerated. period.

And there you have it: yet another denialist witch hunt comes up completely fruitless. I've not kept score, but it seems the anti-science crowd is batting aboput .000. I almost feel bad for them. But only almost.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Neo- I also read over at that site that they are encouraging people to get arrested to try and stop the Keystone pipeline. If these people think that will stop the oil sands they are crazier than I give them credit for, if we don't use the oil someone else will. I have a solution for all you anti-oil lunatics stop using anything made with petroleum products, in this day and age your life will be short if you look into all the things that come from oil. I think you should all just boycott oil and leave more of it for us who like using these products here is a small list artificial limbs, medicine, fertilizers and plastics this could go on a long time so here is a link to just some of the product you use. Link There are many many more including that computer or smartphone you are using to access the internet which I might add also needs oil.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Neo- The report does not fully exonerate Mann it says this on page 3, "There are several concerns (problems) raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used in the Subjects (Mann's) research" and this " There was concern (problem) about how extensively the Subjects (Mann's) research had influenced the debate in the overall research field." Also Penn State gave him the glowing review you quoted which is to be expected not the NSF as you infer. In conclusion the NSF does not like the way Mann came to his conclusions (By cherry picking data) and how it was used to further the theory of AGWT. I assume you did not read the actual report and only got your info from that nutty Climate Progress web site, from what I can see on there, that place is full of loons. I guess he won't get an apology out of me for using questionable science techniques. BTW I am still waiting for this unprecedented (word of the year in the AGWT lexicon) rapid warming to start again. I ask can you show me this rapid warming in either the ocean or land mass for the last ten years? LOL Here is an idea see if you can't find a way to blame the earthquake in Virginia on AGWT. Ask yourself where Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth and James Hanson are and why they are not questioning the techniques and analysis used to get these results like they would some skeptic. Answers hiding and bias. edit One last thing Penn State should never have been allowed to investigate one of their own who brings in millions of dollars. It does not pass the smell test if they conclude he was guilty there go the millions. In the real world it is called C. Y. A.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
At the fair we talked about water, and sure climate change might be important to water, but it does not seem as immediately important as the cities%u2019 thirst for water and the purchase of agricultural water rights (Thirsty Cities, Dry Farms). This interface of climate change on this local level is real, it is contentious, and it is substantive. Yes, I have started another series, and in it I will look at %u201Cthink globally, act locally.%u201D Yet another problem of many scales that must be addressed as we adapt to global warming.

************************************************* *****************

Dr Rood, that speaks volumes.
But, good luck with that.

Florida would be a great "case in point" for such beginings.

Proposition 4 failed to pass in our last election.
It would have required voters to approve land use changes, etc., which was proven by the State Comptroller as having no significant costs associated with it's passage.

The statewide result of the vote was approx 66% against. However, if you look at Palm Beach, Broward and Dade county results, they voted 66% "for" the ammendment.

This speaks volumes also as they are desperately in need of fresh water due to developers over-building exisitng facillity under the watchfull eye and with the overwhelming approval of local politicians.

If you ever thought that fighting big oil was difficult, wait until you cross paths with the Real Estate lobby.

Global warming is the least of the issues concerning dry cities.

You can only fit just so many people around a watering hole.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PurpleDrank:


Here's a shocker:




And this relates to Mann's exoneration how?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting PurpleDrank:
Updated numbers for the national debt are just out: It's now $14,639,000,000,000.

When Barack Obama took the oath of office twice on Jan. 20, 2009, CBS' amazing number cruncher Mark Knoller reports, the national debt was $10,626,000,000,000.

That means the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That's the fastest increase under any president ever.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/0 8/obama-national-debt.html


Wow, join JB as being officially a scientologist. It is no wonder that you believe all the denialist stuff, look what you present for logic.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
OUCH!

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
What do the national debt and presidential job approval ratings have to do with this blog? Nothing.

Your figures don't even match up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It took G.W. Bush 2,648 days to increase the debt $4.9 trillion.

It took Obama 945 days to reach the same increase.

Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
Quoting PurpleDrank:


Here's a shocker:





That is no shock to me and neither is Congress's approval ratings. 13%, among Independents.

Link

The biggest problem seems to be that any unnamed Republican candidate beats Obama, in the polls. That is, at least, until you start naming them.

The old adage is true. You will reap what you sow.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758

Viewing: 403 - 353

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.