Earthquakes and Climate Change:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:52 PM GMT on October 13, 2011

Share this Blog
12
+

Earthquakes and Climate Change: Risks (1)

On March 11, 2011 there was a great earthquake in Tohoku, Japan. This earthquake caused large loss of life and property, and for the focus of this article large parts of the Fukushima nuclear power plant were destroyed. Therein is the link to climate change.



Figure 1: Poster describing 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake. (link to a LARGE version of this poster)


Global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is caused primarily by emissions from burning fossil fuels. Hence, there is the, now familiar, link of carbon dioxide to energy use to prosperity to population. Hence, our path to addressing climate change is finding sources of energy that do not emit carbon.

Nuclear power is a controversial issue, which I will discuss more below. But in the minds of many people, nuclear power is part of the paths to solution of the climate change problem. There is no doubt that nuclear power is low carbon, and it is a proven source of energy at societal scale. Below is a comparison of carbon emissions from different sources of energy.




Figure 2: Emissions of carbon dioxide from different sources of energy. This is from The World Nuclear Association.

The World Nuclear Association is an organization that supports the nuclear industry, and they make prominent points about the importance of nuclear energy in addressing climate change. The figure above is from a report that they generated, and it is based on a review of literature. I have looked through the report, and as a non expert, they have done a credible accumulation and reporting of information. The story that is definitive is that carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power plants is far smaller than from fossil fuel burning, and comparable to the emissions from renewable sources of energy. Given that carbon dioxide, once emitted, is around for many thousands of years, there is an urgency to address our emission levels, and increased use of nuclear energy would benefit the reduction of global warming.

In Japan, the loss of the Fukushima power plant was a loss of a major source of electrical generation. This led to a reduction of manufacturing that had direct effects on the world’s industries and economies. It also fueled and refueled opposition to the development of nuclear power plants. In Japan there have been massive protests opposing building nuclear power plants as well as calling for closing existing plants. There was a time not long ago where Japan, a country dependent on imports for most fossil fuels, was on a path to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels with the use of nuclear power. Japan has subsequently developed a policy to deemphasize nuclear power with a gradual fade out. Even with a focus on renewable energy, this decision in Japan will inevitably lead to more carbon dioxide emissions in the short term.

What I have thought was most interesting was the response in Germany. Germany decided to close its nuclear power plants by 2022. The Washington Post’s Editorial Board called this reaction to Fukushima a blunder, and there were wide spread comments that Germany’s demand for energy would inevitably lead to more coal use and an increase in both carbon dioxide emissions and public health risks. Germany’s position, however, is that they would accelerate their already aggressive programs in renewable energy. This is an interesting gamble. The challenges of meeting Germany’s energy demands with renewable energy are formidable, but if that challenge is met, then it is likely to provide Germany with technological developments and energy security that gives it huge economic advantage. Here is a nice summary story of Germany’s decision in the Christian Science Monitor.

In the earlier part of the Obama administration there was a renewed interest on nuclear energy in the U.S. Immediately after the 2011 earthquake there was significant decline in the U.S. public interest in nuclear power. This decrease came at a time when public support was at a near peak. Now a few months out, polling by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is a “policy organization” for the nuclear energy industry, shows modest declines, but with a majority in the U.S. still supporting more nuclear energy.

Looking worldwide, there is no doubt that there will be some countries developing more nuclear energy and there will be some countries where the political environment will reduce the use of nuclear power. With regard to climate, most energy decisions are made with regard to energy needs, energy security and cost. All energy systems have their proponents. All energy systems have environmental impact; therefore, they all have opponents. The net result of this is that we continue to rely on fossil fuels, with increasing stress on energy systems and the environment. There is no doubt that the earthquake in March 2011 in Japan has influenced how we think about nuclear power. Therefore, the earthquake has an influence on how we address the energy issues that are at the root of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.

There are two points I want to bring forward to carry to the next blog. The first is to reiterate that our world exists in many systems with fragile balance. Our energy systems are vulnerable to relatively small disruptions. Our economy is fragile. Our climate is in a balance where carbon dioxide emissions can drastically alter the balance of water between liquid and ice. The second is that all of these systems are connected. Global risks follow from an earthquake that is localized on the coast of a single island in Japan. It is this sort of systems impacts where the great risks are exposed, where climate change can have near-term impacts.

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: 400 - 350

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

399. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:59 PM GMT on October 25, 2011
Quoting Xandra:
Big Companies, Big Investors Say It's Time to Deal With Climate Change


A short time back I posted where insurance companies and financial managers where looking at making adjustments to account for a warming climate. I had asked if we should not be doing the same thing.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
398. Xandra
10:24 AM GMT on October 25, 2011
Big Companies, Big Investors Say It's Time to Deal With Climate Change
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
397. Birthmark
4:59 AM GMT on October 25, 2011
Quoting nymore:
Kevin Trenbeth All events and said it more than once

A. That is not a direct quote. That is a naked assertion.

B. The word "experts" --a plural-- was used. Unless I am very much mistaken, Trenbeth is one individual.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
396. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:13 AM GMT on October 25, 2011
Quoting nymore:
This will be my last night posting here this place has become to PC and over the top Bravo Sierra for me. A couple of thin skinned people have made it sickening to come to any more moving to the bunker seems more fun and not so PC. Rookie will miss talking to you, Birthmark had fun, I even had fun pwning Neo, Patrap was always petty and still is but I don't see that changing. The removing of several of my posts is the last straw there was no cussing,threats, or anything else against the rules.All I did was offend some peoples childish feeling bunch of sissies just a microcosm of what is wrecking America. Don't try and win or toughen up and pick yourself up but sit around play the victim and whine and cry about it is someone else at fault because your a loser or victim. Any way peace out after to night.

BTW If anyone wants to throw a few shots now is your chance.


I seriously thought about not saying anything and allow you make a less than graceful exit. However, that is not how you like "to play the game". So, in fairness to your style of "play", let me thank you by using your "sports" analogy. You have come clean and allowed us all to know that you are the Mike Tyson and Michael Vick of debates. Any tactic "to win" and morals are left out of the equation.

May I get you your adornments?

Your hat, sir -



Your cane, sir -



Your coat, sir - Yes, this looks like the right size



And you may use this exit, sir -



Come on, nymore. Surely you can see the humor in this?

Seriously, I will miss our conversations. Now that I know your preferred method to communicate, I will miss it less. I believe that the art of conversation has been lost on you. .... There! Do you feel better now that I have honored your preferred style of debate? You are also able to say that everyone does it.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
395. nymore
12:28 AM GMT on October 25, 2011
This will be my last night posting here this place has become to PC and over the top Bravo Sierra for me. A couple of thin skinned people have made it sickening to come to any more moving to the bunker seems more fun and not so PC. Rookie will miss talking to you, Birthmark had fun, I even had fun pwning Neo, Patrap was always petty and still is but I don't see that changing. The removing of several of my posts is the last straw there was no cussing,threats, or anything else against the rules.All I did was offend some peoples childish feeling bunch of sissies just a microcosm of what is wrecking America. Don't try and win or toughen up and pick yourself up but sit around play the victim and whine and cry about it is someone else at fault because your a loser or victim. Any way peace out after to night.

BTW If anyone wants to throw a few shots now is your chance.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
394. nymore
12:22 AM GMT on October 25, 2011
Quoting Birthmark:

I think that the term you are looking for is "more unstable." Don't worry, that instability probably won't last very long --a few decades.

That said, natural variability stills rules the roost weather-wise. That's particularly over such a small area --the US. It is only over the course of 25 or 30 years that the signal of AGW can be separated from the noise of weather with confidence. Therefore, yes, winter will be cold.

(Of course, it will be summer in the other hemisphere. ;) )

Oh, and what experts say "GW is the cause of everything these days?" Direct quotes, please.
Kevin Trenbeth All events and said it more than once
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
393. nymore
12:21 AM GMT on October 25, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The truth be known, even if it was a self inflicted wound, you should never see this as an opportunity to open a new salt container. Should you not understand this, concerning personal information, then you become a danger to everyone on the blog. The correct and honorable approach would be to privately warn the person that they have left themself exposed. This is not the approach that you, Ossqss and nymore took. All I am asking is that you place some serious thought on your combined efforts and realize that not only is that person put at risk but, also, that person's family. I fully believe that no one that posts here is a direct threat to any of the other posters here. What we do not know is who lurks here and what their intents may be. ... Is this too difficult for you to understand? Do you not see the risks involved??? This is not fun and games.
If you self inflict your self I will use it any way I can. If I know you have a tell in poker I will not tell you but exploit it to my advantage. That goes for when I used to play competitive sports if I knew you had an injury I would try and exploit it. Anyone who tells you different is a liar.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
392. nymore
12:16 AM GMT on October 25, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
I see that none of the offenders have bothered to tell us yet why they've felt the need to repeatedly post my full name, or the name of a client, or the type of work I do, etc. And simply claiming, "Because it's on the internet" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid; there are lots of things that can be found out about anyone if one is obsessed enough to look, but that doesn't mean that publicly broadcasting what is discovered is perfectly fine and dandy.

Here's a question for the, "if it's on the internet, it's public knowledge" set: if I were to conduct a web search and find, say, the name of your daughter and what grade school she attended, would you be okay with me posting that info here?

If not, you're nuts.

If so, you're a hypocrite.

Which is it?
I posted your name because it irritated you and that is fun cause your an easy mark a rube even. You freely gave it up, you told us all in posts what you do author, blogger, writer, computer programmer, data base something or another, even claiming computer scientist and if you want to post something about anyone in my family easily available on the web go ahead. I believe my kids have there schools attended, year they graduate, town, on their pages so that is no secret. I think you have a very high opinion of yourself, you are not that important. To be honest if I wanted to find out about you I would spend a few bucks and by Friday morning would have your whole miserable life on my desk.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
391. Birthmark
10:10 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:


But warming is supposed to make the climate cooler (and warmer, and more unstable, and drier, etc). In fact, AGW is the cause of everything these days according to the "experts."

I think that the term you are looking for is "more unstable." Don't worry, that instability probably won't last very long --a few decades.

That said, natural variability stills rules the roost weather-wise. That's particularly over such a small area --the US. It is only over the course of 25 or 30 years that the signal of AGW can be separated from the noise of weather with confidence. Therefore, yes, winter will be cold.

(Of course, it will be summer in the other hemisphere. ;) )

Oh, and what experts say "GW is the cause of everything these days?" Direct quotes, please.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
390. JBastardi
10:05 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Birthmark:

What makes you say that? There isn't a word about AGW in that weather story.


But warming is supposed to make the climate cooler (and warmer, and more unstable, and drier, etc). In fact, AGW is the cause of everything these days according to the "experts."
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
389. Birthmark
9:34 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Global warming is cooling the winters now.

Link

What makes you say that? There isn't a word about AGW in that weather story.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
388. JBastardi
9:18 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Global warming is cooling the winters now.

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
387. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:14 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting misanthrope:


Actually, it was none of your business until you decided that it was a great opportunity to take a unprovoked shot at another commenter here.

I'd suggest you follow the advice of a wise man - when you find yourself in a hole, your first step should be to stop digging.




+10^10

Thank you.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
386. JupiterKen
9:09 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

This is one of those red herring questions that Watts/D'Aleo like to bring up every so often. Here's a short but excellent explanation of the issue.


Thanks Nea. I doubt there would be any significant change to the results but it is odd that the majority of the stations are now excluded.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 305
385. misanthrope
9:03 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting theshepherd:


Please stop your personal attacks on me.
Truth be known, none of this is any of your business.

Suddenly you wish to appear as the peacekeeper...
When you have well stirred the stew as much as anyone.

I'll address you directly when I want your opinion.
Thanx in advance.


Actually, it was none of your business until you decided that it was a great opportunity to take a unprovoked shot at another commenter here.

I'd suggest you follow the advice of a wise man - when you find yourself in a hole, your first step should be to stop digging.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 532
384. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:58 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting theshepherd:


Please stop your personal attacks on me.
Truth be known, none of this is any of your business.

Suddenly you wish to appear as the peacekeeper...
When you have well stirred the stew as much as anyone.

I'll address you directly when I want your opinion.
Thanx in advance.


Peacekeeper?????!! Try an obviously futile attempt to try to return some bloggers here towards a visit with sanity!

I am not attacking anyone. I am attempting to let everyone know that there are serious risks involved with releasing personal information on a blog.

And, YES!, it is my business when I cannot trust fellow bloggers to keep personal information out of their comments!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
383. Neapolitan
8:41 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
I see that none of the offenders have bothered to tell us yet why they've felt the need to repeatedly post my full name, or the name of a client, or the type of work I do, etc. And simply claiming, "Because it's on the internet" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid; there are lots of things that can be found out about anyone if one is obsessed enough to look, but that doesn't mean that publicly broadcasting what is discovered is perfectly fine and dandy.

Here's a question for the, "if it's on the internet, it's public knowledge" set: if I were to conduct a web search and find, say, the name of your daughter and what grade school she attended, would you be okay with me posting that info here?

If not, you're nuts.

If so, you're a hypocrite.

Which is it?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
382. theshepherd
8:41 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The truth be known, even if it was a self inflicted wound, you should never see this as an opportunity to open a new salt container. Should you not understand this, concerning personal information, then you become a danger to everyone on the blog. The correct and honorable approach would be to privately warn the person that they have left themself exposed. This is not the approach that you, Ossqss and nymore took. All I am asking is that you place some serious thought on your combined efforts and realize that not only is that person put at risk but, also, that person's family. I fully believe that no one that posts here is a direct threat to any of the other posters here. What we do not know is who lurks here and what their intents may be. ... Is this too difficult for you to understand? Do you not see the risks involved??? This is not fun and games.


Please stop your personal attacks on me.
Truth be known, none of this is any of your business.

Suddenly you wish to appear as the peacekeeper...
When you have well stirred the stew as much as anyone.

I'll address you directly when I want your opinion.
Thanx in advance.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
381. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:22 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting theshepherd:


Truth be known, if you'll read post 317, he is the one who actually identified his own employer with any certainty.

My how things get spun...


The truth be known, even if it was a self inflicted wound, you should never see this as an opportunity to open a new salt container. Should you not understand this, concerning personal information, then you become a danger to everyone on the blog. The correct and honorable approach would be to privately warn the person that they have left themself exposed. This is not the approach that you, Ossqss and nymore took. All I am asking is that you place some serious thought on your combined efforts and realize that not only is that person put at risk but, also, that person's family. I fully believe that no one that posts here is a direct threat to any of the other posters here. What we do not know is who lurks here and what their intents may be. ... Is this too difficult for you to understand? Do you not see the risks involved??? This is not fun and games.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
380. theshepherd
7:52 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting nymore:
I posted no private info on you ever. you linked Iwantsomeproof with your name on it. I am not the one hunched over my keyboard all day sir that is you.

Will be dealt with appropriately is that a threat if it is you better hope your mouth isn't writing checks your back side can't cash.

BTW if i never talk to you again big deal life goes on tough guy.


Truth be known, if you'll read post 317, he is the one who actually identified his own employer with any certainty.

My how things get spun...
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
379. Xandra
7:48 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
An excellent article from MediaMatters about the worst forecaster on earth and Faux.

Why Is Fox Going To Joe Bastardi For Climate Change Analysis?

Fox News and Fox Business Network frequently host Joe Bastardi to comment on climate change. But Bastardi, who is a weather forecaster, not a climate researcher, has made inaccurate claims about climate science on multiple occasions and is not seen by experts as a credible source of climate information.

Bastardi Has Discussed Climate Change On Fox At Least 18 Times Over Past 2 Years. Bastardi often appears on Fox to report on weather events but he has also commented on the issue of longer-term global climate change at least 7 times on Fox News and at least 11 times on the Fox Business Network since September 2009...

Bastardi Has Repeatedly Misinformed Fox's Audience

Scientists: Bastardi's Claims Are "Completely Wrong," "Scientifically Incorrect," "Nonsense"

Kerry Emanuel: "Bastardi's Background Is In Weather Forecasting, Not Climate Science." Kerry Emanuel, atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated via email: I might point out that Bastardi's background is in weather forecasting, not climate science. Asking him to comment on the science of climate change is rather like asking a country doctor to comment on the latest developments in biomedical research. The media really ought to know better. [Email to Media Matters, 8/16/11]

Gavin Schmidt: Statements Made On Fox By Bastardi Are "Nonsense," And "Simply Ignorant." In a point-by-point rebuttal to multiple statements made in the past by Bastardi, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt used the words "nonsense," "simply ignorant," "completely wrong," "handwaving," "very odd," and "based on nothing." Schmidt concluded that presenting Bastardi as an expert on climate change is "about as credible as someone claiming to be an expert on the Greenland ice sheet because they eat ice cream." [Email to Media Matters, 8/16/11]




Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
378. Birthmark
6:19 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

This is one of those red herring questions that Watts/D'Aleo like to bring up every so often. Here's a short but excellent explanation of the issue.

Yeah, I knew that. I didn't think that it deserved (yet another) real answer.

But thanks. SkS is a great site. Do you ever read Tamino's blog? I highly recommend it.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
377. Neapolitan
6:14 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting iceagecoming:
Volcanoes and global cooling?


Rapidly Inflating Volcano Creates Growing Mystery


Uber-Uturuncu?

Uturuncu is surrounded by one of the most dense concentrations of supervolcanoes on the planet, all of which fell silent some 1 million years ago.

Supervolcanoes get their name because they erupt with such power that they typically spew out 1,000 times more material, in sheer volume, than a volcano like Mount St. Helens. Modern human civilization has never witnessed such an event. The planet's most recent supervolcanic eruption happened about 74,000 years ago in Indonesia. [Related: The 10 Biggest Volcanic Eruptions in History]

"These eruptions are thought to have not only a local and regional impact, but potentially a global impact," de Silva said.

Uturuncu itself is in the same class as Mount St. Helens in Washington state, but its aggressive rise could indicate that a new supervolcano is on the way. Or not.

De Silva said it appears that local volcanoes hoard magma for about 300,000 years before they blow %u2014 and Uturuncu last erupted about 300,000 years ago.

"So that's why it's important to know how long this has been going on," he said.

To find an answer, scientists needed data that stretch back thousands of years %u2014 but they had only 20 years of satellite data.

Link


The volcano isn't expected to blow anytime soon, but if/when this (or any other) supervolcano erupts, yes, the climate will cool in a hurry for a number of years. But such a "cure" for rapid warming won't be any fun for the living; massive disruptions to the biosphere from either rapid warming or rapid cooling never are. (That's why some of us are trying to prevent the preventable former.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
376. Neapolitan
6:09 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen:
Why did the number of thermometers die off?

This is one of those red herring questions that Watts/D'Aleo like to bring up every so often. Here's a short but excellent explanation of the issue.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
375. iceagecoming
6:08 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Volcanoes and global cooling?


Rapidly Inflating Volcano Creates Growing Mystery


Uber-Uturuncu?

Uturuncu is surrounded by one of the most dense concentrations of supervolcanoes on the planet, all of which fell silent some 1 million years ago.

Supervolcanoes get their name because they erupt with such power that they typically spew out 1,000 times more material, in sheer volume, than a volcano like Mount St. Helens. Modern human civilization has never witnessed such an event. The planet's most recent supervolcanic eruption happened about 74,000 years ago in Indonesia. [Related: The 10 Biggest Volcanic Eruptions in History]

"These eruptions are thought to have not only a local and regional impact, but potentially a global impact," de Silva said.

Uturuncu itself is in the same class as Mount St. Helens in Washington state, but its aggressive rise could indicate that a new supervolcano is on the way. Or not.

De Silva said it appears that local volcanoes hoard magma for about 300,000 years before they blow %u2014 and Uturuncu last erupted about 300,000 years ago.

"So that's why it's important to know how long this has been going on," he said.

To find an answer, scientists needed data that stretch back thousands of years %u2014 but they had only 20 years of satellite data.


Always shy on the data, seems to be a theme, no other data except sat. data. Hmmm?


Link

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
374. Birthmark
5:18 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen:
Why did the number of thermometers die off?

Thermometers aren't alive, therefore, they can't die.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
373. Birthmark
4:28 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Unsmoothed data shows little or no increase in temperatures across the US in the last century:

Link

Maybe if you analyze it jussst so...and leave out the stuff you don't like.

Oh, and to actually believe that there's no warming, one would have to ignore the effects of the current warming on the behavior of plants and animals.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
372. JupiterKen
4:23 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Why did the number of thermometers die off?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 305
371. Neapolitan
3:49 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Unsmoothed data shows little or no increase in temperatures across the US in the last century:

Link

I read the entire piece, and believe the author could have rephrased his thesis statement this way:

"I have found that by 'lopping off' time periods that show the greatest warming, then cherry-picking temperature data from roughly 1% of all temperature stations, warming becomes negligible. I call this 'hiding the incline'."

Small wonder that WUWT picked it up and ran with it...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
370. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:10 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Unsmoothed data shows little or no increase in temperatures across the US in the last century:

Link


Hi, J. I believe your link came with a disclaimer:

"Disclaimer
I am not a climate scientist and claim no expertise relevant to this subject other than
basic arithmetics. In case I have overlooked equivalent previous work, this is due to my ignorance of the field, is not deliberate and will be amended upon request."


I respect his honesty, in this regards.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
369. JBastardi
2:38 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
Unsmoothed data shows little or no increase in temperatures across the US in the last century:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
368. Xandra
2:31 PM GMT on October 24, 2011
"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."

~ Cree Indian Proverb

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
367. Neapolitan
8:54 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
# 365

Wrong blog. Try Popular Mechanics' blog.

Or Spammer's Weekly...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
366. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:40 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
# 365

Wrong blog. Try Popular Mechanics' blog.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
364. Birthmark
3:31 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Major criticisms of the BEST "analysis." I thought the people involved were professionals.

Link

Fake Skeptic Criticism of “Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures”
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
363. Birthmark
3:29 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting nymore:
I don't disagree that it has warmed globally. The question is not that it has warmed but why has it warmed and how much.

Well, according to an author of the BEST paper you cite in this thread, ""Global warming in my evaluation is real and much of it, if not most of it, is caused by humans,” he said."
Link

From the same source: "How much has the earth warmed? Not so much. Between 1956 and the present, he said, the earth has warmed about .5 degrees Celsius.

That doesn’t sound like much, he said, but it is just about where scientists thought we’d be at this point in time.

"I’m deeply worried,” he said. "The reason I’m worried is that the theory is about right.”

If the trend continues, he said, in the next 50 years or so "it will be the warmest it has ever been in 20 million years.”

"Humans have never lived in such an environment.”"
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
362. Birthmark
3:12 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting nymore:
Amazingly it was a fish guy who found the PDO not long ago and surprisingly the AMO seems to have a much broader effect than ENSO. I don't recall anyone mentioning this earlier. Why does the AMO and temp move in lockstep CO2

Uhhh...they're part of the same planet...which is warming?

Just sayin'.

Of course, that's assuming that BEST is correct and that AMO and land temperatures *do* move together. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
361. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:24 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting nymore:
Recycling is a huge business for the likes of Waste Mgmt, Republic and others. Just because people do not recycle does not mean it is not expanding rapidly. If there is money to be made companies will do it capitalism at its finest.


I believe that you miss my point.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
360. nymore
2:20 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I fully understand that there is no magic bullet. I also understand that there are those that wish to keep the status quo, even if it meant that our future survival was at stake.

I have often said that we need to conserve what we use and recycle what we discard. These two things, when done using a serious approach, helps us to get to where we need to be. ... Consume less. Conserve what we use. Recycle what we discard. The sooner we start doing this is the longer we give ourselves to reach a long term solution for our energy needs. I suggest that we quit looking for the magic bullet and realize it is time to bite the bullet. Discard our throw away mentality and take a close at the reality we will face in the future.
Recycling is a huge business for the likes of Waste Mgmt, Republic and others. Just because people do not recycle does not mean it is not expanding rapidly. If there is money to be made companies will do it capitalism at its finest.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
359. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:04 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting nymore:
What would your changes be? I am all for a better way. Build more nuke plants but many left wing nuts and tree huggers won't let that happen. Build more electric cars and solar and expand mining and refining for the materials and then figure out what we are going to do with all the toxic materials in batteries and panels. You see most ideas are easy to say and dream but bring on their own set of problems.


I fully understand that there is no magic bullet. I also understand that there are those that wish to keep the status quo, even if it meant that our future survival was at stake.

I have often said that we need to conserve what we use and recycle what we discard. These two things, when done using a serious approach, helps us to get to where we need to be. ... Consume less. Conserve what we use. Recycle what we discard. The sooner we start doing this is the longer we give ourselves to reach a long term solution for our energy needs. I suggest that we quit looking for the magic bullet and realize it is time to bite the bullet. Discard our throw away mentality and take a close at the reality we will face in the future.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
358. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:41 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
I just ran across this piece of swill. I need say no more; it pretty much, er, stands on its own:
I won't even link to the article (it's in some conservative fish-wrapper), but I'm sure anyone so inclined could find it on their own if they wish; all they need to do is look for the circling buzzards...


I have actually read these same words, on several sites. Many of them are using exactly the same words.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
357. nymore
1:17 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I do not understand. Should you agree, for the most part, with what we know to be true, then why do you seem to be so resistant towards the changes we could take? Changes that will show a difference towards our future generations?
What would your changes be? I am all for a better way. Build more nuke plants but many left wing nuts and tree huggers won't let that happen. Build more electric cars and solar and expand mining and refining for the materials and then figure out what we are going to do with all the toxic materials in batteries and panels. You see most ideas are easy to say and dream but bring on their own set of problems.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
356. Neapolitan
12:21 AM GMT on October 24, 2011
I just ran across this piece of swill. I need say no more; it pretty much, er, stands on its own:
Quoting some fantasy-living denialist:


The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.

Consider these facts:

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; cholera and malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; Mount Kilimanjaro-melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover; global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more as many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead; deaths because of extreme weather are radically declining; global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows; the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined; the oceans are missing their predicted heat content; big tornadoes have dramatically declined since the 1970s; droughts are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind; there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather; scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement; the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists; and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace.

I won't even link to the article (it's in some conservative fish-wrapper), but I'm sure anyone so inclined could find it on their own if they wish; all they need to do is look for the circling buzzards...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
355. Some1Has2BtheRookie
10:57 PM GMT on October 23, 2011
Quoting nymore:
I don't actually disagree much


I do not understand. Should you agree, for the most part, with what we know to be true, then why do you seem to be so resistant towards the changes we could take? Changes that will show a difference towards our future generations?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
354. nymore
10:03 PM GMT on October 23, 2011
Quoting Xandra:

Natural cycles is something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was.
Amazingly it was a fish guy who found the PDO not long ago and surprisingly the AMO seems to have a much broader effect than ENSO. I don't recall anyone mentioning this earlier. Why does the AMO and temp move in lockstep CO2
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
353. nymore
9:59 PM GMT on October 23, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I doubt that any credible or reasonable person would come to the conclusion that all of the warming is due strictly to AGW.

There are many natural factors that contribute towards a warming/cooling/neutral global climate. However, we cannot account for all of the more recent global warming based purely on natural causes. The only way we have been able to account for the degree and speed of the warming is when we factor our own contributions beyond the natural influences. There are, by far, too many examples of our own contributions to determine that our activities have not had a neutral or positive effect on our global climate. This is, of course, unless you subscribe to the theory that a rapidly, geologically speaking, warming is good for our continued survival.

We must proceed based on our current knowledge:

1. CO2 is a GHG - We emit huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. Trees are one of natures natural carbon sinks. - We destroy vast quantities of trees annually. This can be done through deforestation, harvesting, strip mining, mountain top removal and arson.

3. The oceans are a huge natural carbon sink - Warming oceans will release CO2 as opposed to sequestering CO2.

4. Methane is trapped on the cold ocean bottoms and in frozen tundras - Our landfills produce methane. As the ocean currents warm they will also warm the ocean bottom and begin to release the frozen methane stored there. The same applies to our frozen tundras.

5. Once the methane begins hitting the atmosphere there is no turning back. Methane is a by far more potent GHG than is CO2. The effects would be irreversible, by any attempts would should make.

We, today, control the fate of the survivability of our future generations. How we respond today will have a direct impact on our future generations. We cannot escape this reality.
I don't actually disagree much
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
352. Xandra
9:58 PM GMT on October 23, 2011
Quoting nymore:
But I have always said nature may be a bigger player than we have thought.

Natural cycles is something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
351. nymore
9:55 PM GMT on October 23, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

This conversation is tiring. You're clearly not getting it, so this will be my last correspondence with you. Period.

First, your knowledge of the law is severely lacking. Simply posting in a public internet forum does not make one a "public figure"; if that were the case, everyone who commented on facebook, twitter, or any web forum anywhere would be considered a "public figure", and that's clearly not the case. So there's that.

Second, posting my real name is bad enough; if I wanted to do that, I would have made that my handle, just as you would have. But it's the posting of personal information that can only be gleaned from doing an obsessive search of the internet that gets me, and strikes me as intentionally threatening. If you and your friends care to sit hunched over your keyboards web-stalking people with whom you disagree so you have data on them, I suppose you're entitled. But posting the stuff you find in this forum serves no purpose whatsoever other than, as I've been saying, to let your target(s) know that you know things about them. That's creepy, it's sociopathic, and it needs to stop.

Now, I don't care whether you understand this, or whether you're even capable of understanding it. What I do care about is that I have to make a living, and I have a family, and anyone threatening either will be dealt with appropriately.

For the good of the blog, I'll respond no further here to you, Ossqss, or Shepherd. No, scat...
I posted no private info on you ever. you linked Iwantsomeproof with your name on it. I am not the one hunched over my keyboard all day sir that is you.

Will be dealt with appropriately is that a threat if it is you better hope your mouth isn't writing checks your back side can't cash.

BTW if i never talk to you again big deal life goes on tough guy.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
350. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:45 PM GMT on October 23, 2011
Quoting nymore:
I don't disagree that it has warmed globally. The question is not that it has warmed but why has it warmed.


I doubt that any credible or reasonable person would come to the conclusion that all of the warming is due strictly to AGW.

There are many natural factors that contribute towards a warming/cooling/neutral global climate. However, we cannot account for all of the more recent global warming based purely on natural causes. The only way we have been able to account for the degree and speed of the warming is when we factor our own contributions beyond the natural influences. There are, by far, too many examples of our own contributions to determine that our activities have not had a neutral or positive effect on our global climate. This is, of course, unless you subscribe to the theory that a rapidly, geologically speaking, warming is good for our continued survival.

We must proceed based on our current knowledge:

1. CO2 is a GHG - We emit huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. Trees are one of natures natural carbon sinks. - We destroy vast quantities of trees annually. This can be done through deforestation, harvesting, strip mining, mountain top removal and arson.

3. The oceans are a huge natural carbon sink - Warming oceans will release CO2 as opposed to sequestering CO2.

4. Methane is trapped on the cold ocean bottoms and in frozen tundras - Our landfills produce methane. As the ocean currents warm they will also warm the ocean bottom and begin to release the frozen methane stored there. The same applies to our frozen tundras.

5. Once the methane begins hitting the atmosphere there is no turning back. Methane is a by far more potent GHG than is CO2. The effects would be irreversible, by any attempts would should make.

We, today, control the fate of the survivability of our future generations. How we respond today will have a direct impact on our future generations. We cannot escape this reality.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728

Viewing: 400 - 350

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