Nell, Dudley and Snidely: Uncertainty

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:07 AM GMT on February 17, 2015

Nell, Dudley and Snidely: Uncertainty

In last week’s article I wrote:

Probability and likelihood are notoriously difficult ways to communicate in quiet consultation, and even more difficult in newspapers, on the radio, television and online. Probability and risk are just made for conflicting headlines. The conclusions are, therefore, by definition, uncertain, and uncertainty can always fuel both sides of a rhetorical or a political argument.

I got a very nice comment from Scott Sabol of WJW FOX 8 about the “uphill battle attempting to communicate uncertainty both in day-to-day weather forecasts and the describing of the components of extreme weather events/climate change influence without alienating the audience.” I have seen several blogs since the blizzard forecasts of January 23 – 26 that focus on the need to better quantify and describe the uncertainty associated with winter storms. Uncertainty is subject of this article.

Here’s a still growing record of the Northeast blizzard news cycle on my Tumblr site. This record includes some of the blogs referenced in the previous paragraph that discuss the need for better communication of uncertainty.

In the fall of 2014, I taught a small course on uncertainty, and specifically, on placing uncertainty of climate change in context with other sources of uncertainty in applying climate knowledge to planning and policy. My starting point in many uncertainty discussions is from the uncertainty fallacy; namely, that the quantification and reduction of uncertainty is the primary barrier that hinders the use of scientific knowledge in decision making. During the 1990s, many proposals and measurement missions were sold on the promise of “reducing uncertainty.” If you consider all of the complex processes that make up the climate system and their simplified representation in models, then casual statements that uncertainty will be reduced by any one investigation are not likely to hold up. Uncertainty might be better understood and be better described, but reduction is unlikely. Further, reduction does not assure better usability of knowledge, and in most cases it is not required.

One of my favorite classroom experiences is when the business students in class describe to the scientists and engineers that they are always making decisions in the face of great uncertainty. They want to know how climate uncertainty stacks up against other sources of uncertainty. They also what evidence that changes in the uncertainty descriptions will be incremental; that is, for example, from one assessment to the next, the description is largely the same.

If you listen to the NPR series on Risk and Reason, you will get a feeling of the difficulty of communicating uncertainty and the difficulty that people have in using information about uncertainty. In that series, there are those who advocate never using numbers describing uncertainty in policy contexts, and then there are those thinking of clever and effective ways to communicate numbers to individuals making important decisions. One take away is that how people use information about uncertainty is highly personal. There are often strong elements of fear and want.

Also, in many cases people have an agenda of how they want to use uncertainty – to make something happen or to keep something from happening ( a Rood blog, an ancient Rood blog, and yet another Rood blog, enough).

The quest for uncertainty quantification and highly quantified descriptions of uncertainty to assist in decision making is a mistake often made by scientists. In the cohort of clients I work with, the vast majority is simply not prepared to work with highly quantitative descriptions of uncertainty. Even more to the point, when climate uncertainty is placed into context with other sources of uncertainty, the quantification is overkill. There are studies that suggest, for instance Tang and Dessai (2012), that highly quantified descriptions of uncertainty can, on average, reduce the usability of climate information.

All of these factors together lead to at least one robust conclusion, there is no way to communicate uncertainty in a usable way to everyone. Therefore, you need have several strategies for communicating uncertainty, and you need to frame those strategies for different audiences. In the work that I have done with experts in public health, there is always the discussion about how to communicate a risk, for example, heat waves to the public. There is also the discussion of how to communicate information to first responders and to emergency health providers so that they will be on the lookout for heat-related afflictions. I am not aware that there is any discussion to communicate to anyone the numbers from epidemiological statisticians that one type of heat index has some fractional advantage in predicting heat-related afflictions.

An important point is the need to make a special effort to communicate to those who are trained professionals and have a framework in which to interpret and use uncertainty information. In the case of a weather emergency, one imagines that large cities might have such professionals. One of the most interesting responses that I saw in the Northeast blizzard news cycle was one where funding for experts, interpreters, in providing guidance on the use of forecasts had been eliminated. I don’t know the complete knowledge chain from weather forecast to shutting down a city, but this type of expertise is critical at some place in that knowledge chain.

My whole raison d’être these days is training interpreters on how to use climate knowledge in problem solving. Many of the same principles apply in how to use weather forecasts and how to use science-based knowledge in general. The Northeast blizzard news cycle has been and continues to be a real-world example for both climate and weather. The continued snow storms in Boston, for example, are a wonderful example of relentless patterns of weather that demonstrate that weather is not “random.” However, the biggest lessons are on uncertainty, communication and exaggeration for the benefit of telling a story.

I stated, above, that how we use uncertainty is highly personal. I have used climate knowledge and weather uncertainty to choose the location of a house on the Chesapeake Bay as well as to decide whether of not to take a kayak out into a hurricane. In neither case did I feel I was taking on large risk. This weekend, I (over)heard what seemed to be a discussion of two people deciding not to vaccinate their son because they had determined that their son had exceptional natural immunity. A relevant weather-related example of personal choice and, perhaps, the subconscious is the evidence that people take hurricanes named after women less seriously than hurricanes named after men. It made me think of naming winter storms and what Venus or Vesta might suggest compared to Jupiter or Mars. That, of course, led to Nell, Dudley and Snidely.

One thing that I count on from scientific organizations is a dispassionate description of events and uncertainty. Winter storms, especially if we are going to personify them, need a dispassionate, standard scale to describe them. The weather service has several scales that are effective for hurricanes, tornadoes and storms at sea. Winter storms offer a difficult detail, namely, the rain-ice-snow line, whose boundaries are tricky and important. Climate change offers the additional difficulty that characteristics of storms are changing and expected to change more. Therefore, placing storms within recent and historic context seems like a potentially usable piece of information. We need qualifiers, not number-heavy quantifiers. We don’t need to explain numerical dispersion errors in models to the masses. We don’t need to break down all of the pieces – to speak loudly and more slowly.

From the point of view of the climate scientist and the roles that climate change plays in a particular storm – it is always true that public communication is walking into a maelstrom where people have many agendas of how they want to use uncertainty – to make something happen or to keep something from happening. I have had colleagues tell me that there is an imperative to participate in ever loudening ways to convey the knowledge of climate change. This does not appeal or seem effective to me. Those conversations of deliberate disruption and doubt need to be identified for what they are and left in their stewing pool. We need to persistently differentiate the important aspects of climate change, isolate the deliberate disruption, and more effectively expose that which is important about climate change in the many conversations that are emerging.

r


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

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 164 - 114

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

Quoting 163. Cochise111:

Another inconvenient study: Natural phenomena wiped out coral reefs 4100 years ago and it lasted for 2000 years. I wonder how the warmists will blame man for this. I'm sure AGW can be figured into the mix:

Link


Is it a prerequisite for science denialists to not be able to understand scientific journal articles? Do you guys all sit around and find the most agreed upon misinterpretation, followed by the most agreed upon leap of logic to then pester people with? Or do you really just not understand the words in front of your faces?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:


Raw: Fuel Tanker Explodes on Busy New Jersey Highway
Gasoline tanker overturns on Route 90 in Pennsauken

Published Monday, February 23, 2015

PENNSAUKEN, N.J. (NBC Philadelphia) - A tanker truck carrying nearly 10,000 gallons of fuel overturned and ignited on a busy Camden County, New Jersey, roadway Monday morning.

The truck was carrying 8,900 gallons of gasoline when it exploded on the Route 90 eastbound on-ramp to US 130 in Pennsauken, according to Pennsauken Police Lt. Michael Probasco.

The tanker's driver was rescued from the burning vehicle, said Lt. Probasco. He was not injured in the fiery crash.

Nearby homes are being evacuated as smoke billows from the tanker.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Taps run dry in Brazil's biggest city as drought bites
It may have the world's biggest water supply and the seventh biggest economy, but that's not enough to keep water running during the country's worst dry stretch since the 1930s


Some new amazing images with this article
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
U.S. Shellfish Industry Threatened as Oceans Become More Acidic

(Bloomberg) -- Increasingly acidic ocean conditions are threatening U.S. shellfish populations, with the Pacific Northwest and Alaska expected to be affected first, and the Northeast likely to be hit the hardest, researchers said.

More acidic waters have already cost the oyster industry almost $110 million in the Pacific Northwest, and conditions in the Northeast will cut into the $300 million annual mollusk harvest in southern Massachusetts, according to an article published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The results are further examples that climate change is having a significant impact on both the planet and the global economy, and will continue to threaten the environment even if greenhouse-gas emissions are significantly curtailed.


Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 157. RevElvis:

What If We Lost the Sky? LINK to NYTimes (OpEd)

Anna North writes in the NYT that a report released last week by the National Research Council calls for research into reversing climate change through a process called albedo modification: reflecting sunlight away from earth by, for instance, spraying aerosols into the atmosphere. But such a process could, some say, change the appearance of the sky — and that in turn could affect everything from our physical health to the way we see ourselves.


Short-term fixes for long-term climate problems? Not so fast, experts say. LINK to WashingtonPost.com

One thing that ought to be looked in to before proceeding with something like this is how much it will affect photosynthesis and the yield of agricultural crops.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
What If We Lost the Sky? LINK to NYTimes (OpEd)

Anna North writes in the NYT that a report released last week by the National Research Council calls for research into reversing climate change through a process called albedo modification: reflecting sunlight away from earth by, for instance, spraying aerosols into the atmosphere. But such a process could, some say, change the appearance of the sky — and that in turn could affect everything from our physical health to the way we see ourselves.


Short-term fixes for long-term climate problems? Not so fast, experts say. LINK to WashingtonPost.com
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Greg Laden:

I asked climate scientist Michael Mann what he thought of this news. He told me, “Willie Soon (as amply documented in my book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”) was instrumental in the early attacks on the Hockey Stick by James Inhofe and other fossil fuel industry-funded politicians. Now we know for certain that his efforts were a quid pro quo with special interests looking to discredit my work as a means of calling into question the reality and threat of climate change.” (Mann’s book is here.)

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Get your free #WillieSoonGate meme!



Remember earlier this year when Senator James Inhofe stood on the floor of the United States Senate and displayed a list of supposed climate scientists who question the reality of global warming? That list was produced by the Heartland Institute, who now use the list and it’s infamy to raise money. One of the “climate scientists” on that list was Willie Soon. We’ve talked about Willie Soon before (see: Science Denialists Make Fake Journal, Get Shut Down, Willie Soon Gate, and Willie Soon, will he soon be fired?) and he is now been exposed by the New York Times for ethical violations. I understand that he has testified before Congress before. I wonder if his testimony can now be re-examined.

Anyway, just thought you’d like to know. And that you might enjoy the above meme.

Oh, and there has been some interest in who is on the list. This is the list of “those who can not be challenged!”…
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Peddlers of climate change deceit have significant advantages over climate realists

Climate realists are fighting an uphill battle against professional climate disruption deniers who have media bias, time, money, and an apathetic public on their side.

Read more at Scholars and Rogues ...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting 151. RevElvis:

slightly OT - but then again - Not Really !

Tobacco Giants Battle New Ads Painting Them As Liars

Bloodied but unbeaten, the tobacco companies have plunged into another courtroom battle in an effort to stave off the humiliation of having to underwrite an ad campaign in which they brand themselves as liars. Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The companies say they stand ready and willing to disseminate factual public health information about cigarettes. But they argue that these ads are designed to ensure that the public "does not believe anything the companies say on any topic."

The preamble to the ads says a "federal court has ruled that Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA deliberately deceived the American public."

HuffingtonPost.com

in an alternate universe - another group of LIARS would be subjected to the same treatment


Poor, poor, pitiful tobacco industry, as much as I'm in favor of this ruling,it should have happened sooner. Frankly, environmental groups should start class action suits against big fossil and big polluters.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
151. RevElvis
1:24 AM GMT on February 23, 2015
slightly OT - but then again - Not Really !

Tobacco Giants Battle New Ads Painting Them As Liars

Bloodied but unbeaten, the tobacco companies have plunged into another courtroom battle in an effort to stave off the humiliation of having to underwrite an ad campaign in which they brand themselves as liars. Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The companies say they stand ready and willing to disseminate factual public health information about cigarettes. But they argue that these ads are designed to ensure that the public "does not believe anything the companies say on any topic."

The preamble to the ads says a "federal court has ruled that Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA deliberately deceived the American public."

HuffingtonPost.com

in an alternate universe - another group of LIARS would be subjected to the same treatment
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
150. RevElvis
1:15 AM GMT on February 23, 2015
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
- Upton Sinclair
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
149. Xyrus2000
11:31 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Quoting 145. Cochise111:

The lead author at the IPCC...


There is no "lead author" of the IPCC. There are groups of authors that are leads of their respective sections. The IPCC report is an international effort involving thousands of scientists and organizations. It's a cooperative effort, not an authoritarian dictatorship.

Moreover, they don't hide their affiliations. There right there in the report, or worse case there references where you can find out more information.

So your sad attempt at deflection falls flat on it's face. Swirly Soon has had a history of questionable science in regards to climate change. It's not really a surprise that he's on the take. However, lying before congress and failing to disclose his funding sources in his publications are the stake through the heart of his scientific career. Not just in regards to climate, but now ALL of his previous work will come under scrutiny. If he was willing to take money to create false studies on climate, what other money did he take?

No respectable institute will touch him with a ten meter cattle prod. I doubt "I Do Believe In Fairies" Inhofe will haul him before congress for any legal measures, but you can be sure he won't be working in academia much longer. And if the heads of clown organizations like the Heartland Institue have half a brain, they're already half-way through throwing him under the bus.

Soon got used. Like toilet paper. And now that he's been found out he'll be flushed. Soon will most likely become Spencer 2.0, or maybe Watts II if he's tech savvy enough to set up his own site. It doesn't really matter as he will have about as much scientific credibility as you do.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
147. JohnLonergan
10:05 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Quoting 146. Naga5000:

#145

Being a member of organizations that support environmentalism is not the same as not disclosing sources of funding from groups engaged in the purposeful creation of scientific misinformation for your work in that specific field. I don't really think you understand what's happening here, that's okay. Deniers gonna deny, right?






Or lying about lying about it before a Senate committee.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
146. Naga5000
9:46 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
#145

Being a member of organizations that support environmentalism is not the same as not disclosing sources of funding from groups engaged in the purposeful creation of scientific misinformation for your work in that specific field. I don't really think you understand what's happening here, that's okay. Deniers gonna deny, right?



Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
144. Patrap
7:45 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
We have bloggers beaucoup' more qualified dan dat "Slick Willie".

,see what I did dere?

: )
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
143. JohnLonergan
7:01 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
142. Xandra
6:57 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
141. JohnLonergan
5:26 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
At least this won't hurt Willie's scientific credibility since he had none left:

Soon and Baliunas controversy

The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication of a paper written by astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which prompted concerns about the peer review process of the paper. This resulted in the resignation of several editors of the journal and the agreement by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.



Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
140. Patrap
5:23 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Neil Tyson kinda covered all dat me tinks
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
139. wartsttocs
5:18 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Is this "denier-gate"? Does it prove that the deniers are involved in a conspiracy? Does every thought about the "skeptics" now have to start with: "After denier-gate"? Just sayin......
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
138. JohnLonergan
3:53 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Quoting 135. Neapolitan:

It certainly looks that way. And I expect that the Boehner-led House will delay either its 57th attempt to repeal the ACA or its 117th investigation into Benghazi for a few hours to look into Soon's false testim...

Oh, who am I kidding? Soon will be promoted to GOP sainthood this week. And the second he's fired from the Smithsonian, he'll be hired by Fox as a "climate expert", where he'll make millions whining about how he was targeted by liberals and railroaded by "the lamestream media". Remember, in Foxland, being scientifically discredited magically and paradoxically makes you an even more important authority...


Martyrdom is the quickest path to sainthood.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
137. JohnLonergan
3:51 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Senator Markey questions climate studies
Calls for review of links to energy companies


WASHINGTON — Senator Edward J. Markey is calling on coal and oil companies to reveal whether they are funding scientific climate change studies after his staff reviewed newly obtained documents illuminating the relationship between a researcher for a Cambridge-based institution and energy interests.

The Massachusetts Democrat will send letters to fossil fuel companies, trade organizations, and others with a stake in carbon fuels, aiming to reveal other climate-change-skeptical scientists whose work has been subsidized by those parties, a Markey spokesman said via e-mail.

“For years, fossil fuel interests and front groups have attacked climate scientists and legislation to cut carbon pollution using junk science and debunked arguments,” Markey said in a statement. “The American public deserve an honest debate that isn’t polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests can buy. That’s why I will be launching this investigation to see how widespread this denial-for-hire scheme stretches within the anti-climate action cabal.”

The documents reviewed by Markey’s staff were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, through the Freedom of Information Act. They show a relationship between Dr. Willie Soon, a solar researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and several fossil fuel companies who’ve funded his research on climate change. The Cambridge-based center is a joint project of Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution, though Soon is employed by the Smithsonian side. The center has previously said that Soon’s views are his alone and not reflective of the institution.

In 2013, the Boston Globe profiled Soon, who has spent much of the past decade studying the sun’s effect on climate change and downplaying the role of carbon emissions. Some climate scientists and environmental groups have questioned the scientific basis of his work.

More ...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
136. no1der
3:50 PM GMT on February 22, 2015

Quoting 135. Neapolitan:

It certainly looks that way. And I expect that the Boehner-led House will delay either its 57th attempt to repeal the ACA or its 117th investigation into Benghazi for a few hours to look into Soon's false testim...

Oh, who am I kidding? Soon will be promoted to GOP sainthood this week. And the second he's fired from the Smithsonian, he'll be hired by Fox as a "climate expert", where he'll make millions whining about how he was targeted by liberals and railroaded by "the lamestream media". Remember, in Foxland, being scientifically discredited magically and paradoxically makes you an even more important authority...

He might persist a while as a 'Greenpeace Victim' on Fox as you say, but his Koch funding will be over as soon as the Smithsonian finishes the paperwork and pulls the handle. The Smithsonian/Harvard affiliation was Soon's main value to them, just see the overawed use of Lindzen's MIT credentials.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
135. Neapolitan
2:57 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Did Willie Soon Lie to Congress?
It certainly looks that way. And I expect that the Boehner-led House will delay either its 57th attempt to repeal the ACA or its 117th investigation into Benghazi for a few hours to look into Soon's false testim...

Oh, who am I kidding? Soon will be promoted to GOP sainthood this week. And the second he's fired from the Smithsonian, he'll be hired by Fox as a "climate expert", where he'll make millions whining about how he was targeted by liberals and railroaded by "the lamestream media". Remember, in Foxland, being scientifically discredited magically and paradoxically makes you an even more important authority...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
134. JohnLonergan
2:15 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Did Willie Soon Lie to Congress?

Part of the background for today's NY Times article on the corporate money received by Willie Soon is this case study by Greenpeace. It shows Soon received $58,380 in 2001-2002 from the American Petroleum Institute for a study on the sun's influence on climate over the last 1000 years, and $60,053 in 2003 to study "1000 years of solar variability," which apparently was the funding for his and Baliunas's infamous Climate Research article that led to several journal editors resigning.

In the CR article they acknowledge the American Petroleum Institute as one of their funders:



That paper was published January 31, 2003, and I reported on it for Scientific American in June 2003. I asked them how much money they had received from the various funders, including the API, but they wouldn't tell me. (In fact, they would only answer questions in a list I emailed to them, with no followups.) Soon was receiving grants from the API as early as 1994.

But on July 29, 2003 Soon testified before the Environment and Public Works committee of the U.S. Senate. Here's his initial testimony, which doesn't seem to include any questions he was asked:



Hmmm ...


Read more at Quark Soup ...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
133. Neapolitan
1:45 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
Quoting Creideiki:


Maybe, uber-environmentalist "New Kind of Republican" Senator Corey Gardner will get behind that divestment effort. Maybe uber-environmentalist "New Kind of Republican" Senator Corey Gardner will start telling people that instead, we should be investing in solar and wind, which are both very plentiful resources in Colorado.

I know, I know. Sometimes the sarcasmotron just moves past the "red-line" to "flat-out-broken".
Yeah, nothing new about Gardner. He opposes emergency contraception, even in cases of rape; wants most of them illegals tarred and feathered and sent back over the border; hates taxes on anything for any reason (and even signed Norquist's infamous pledge); supports most anti-gay discrimination; is against Obamacare, and wants it repealed no matter the consequences; wants fewer EPA regulations; has pushed for drilling off of Alaska; and while he accepts that climate change is occurring, he's "not a scientist", so can't really say what's causing it.

So, is Gardner truly a "New Kind of Republican"? Sure--just like Fox is "Fair and Balanced".

Sarcasmotron. ;)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
132. JohnLonergan
1:43 PM GMT on February 22, 2015
THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM AT THE BOTTOM !
Good minions are hard to find, but Singer, Spencer and Soon's failure to recruit a new A-Team of artful dodgers doesn't mean the game is up
Now that K Street has discovered nanotech& molecular bio, ingenious PR firms are creating energy industry ad campaigns too small to fail:

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
131. Creideiki
1:20 AM GMT on February 22, 2015
Quoting 111. etxwx:

Saturday reading:

Fossil fuel divestment effort comes to energy-rich Colorado



Maybe, uber-environmentalist "New Kind of Republican" Senator Corey Gardner will get behind that divestment effort. Maybe uber-environmentalist "New Kind of Republican" Senator Corey Gardner will start telling people that instead, we should be investing in solar and wind, which are both very plentiful resources in Colorado.

I know, I know. Sometimes the sarcasmotron just moves past the "red-line" to "flat-out-broken".
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
130. Creideiki
1:15 AM GMT on February 22, 2015
Quoting 113. Neapolitan:




Sort of reminds you of this, doesn't it?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
129. ColoradoBob1
1:09 AM GMT on February 22, 2015
I am deeply worried that the oceans are about to fight back . And they have bigger muscles than us.

They hold 90 percent of the heat we trapped.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
128. ColoradoBob1
12:50 AM GMT on February 22, 2015
Believe me , nothing in past ever stripped all the life from the oceans as fast as we are doing it, and dumped cigarette butts and Bic lighters into the oceans . Nothing , the dinosaurs did not smoke. .
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
127. Patrap
12:33 AM GMT on February 22, 2015
126. ColoradoBob1
12:06 AM GMT on February 22, 2015
This goes back to the sea star collapse. The ocean on the west coast is entering a new state, God help us all .

And no one with a grant is watching the entire system . And yet we have raped the Pacific Ocean . and after we left, we gave it, cigarette butts and Bic lighters.

The deniers think we have always dumped cigarette butts and Bic lighters into the oceans . That this is a "natural" march of the Earth . Believe me , nothing in past ever stripped all the life as fast as we are doing it, and dumped cigarette butts and Bic lighters into the oceans .

Ever.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
125. ColoradoBob1
11:34 PM GMT on February 21, 2015


Why Hundreds of Starving Sea Lion Pups Are Washing Up in California

Feb. 18, 2015
Starving Baby Sea Lions Washing Up On California Beaches Justin Sullivan—Getty Images A sick California sea lion pup sits in an enclosure at the Marine Mammal Center on Feb. 12, 2015 in Sausalito, California.
It’s getting so bad that many rescue networks are at capacity

There are now so many young sea lions being stranded on the West Coast that federal officials say they can’t keep up. As a result, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued some brutal advice Wednesday: If you see a beached sea lion pup, call the authorities, but be prepared for them not to come—at least for a while.

Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
124. ColoradoBob1
11:17 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
ECOSYSTEM IN CRISIS is the award-winning short documentary of Greenpeace’s 2007 scientific expedition to research the underwater canyons of the Bering Sea in Alaska. Using deep water submersibles to dive into the canyons, Greenpeace recorded never-before-seen, high-definition footage of the vibrant ecosystem that lives just underneath the waves. Along their journey, Greenpeace interviewed indigenous populations that have subsisted off the resources of the Bering Sea for thousands of years, as they fight against industrial fishing operations that threaten their cultural heritage

Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
123. ColoradoBob1
11:02 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
Quoting 117. no1der:

As a can of worms goes, this the first hole in the top , every denier needs to state where their money is coming from . Each and everyone needs to come clean. And it should be pushed hard, on many fronts. Over the entire world .

They always said money was corrupting science let's have a look.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
122. JohnLonergan
10:56 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
Quoting 117. no1der:


Ahem... So where did the $1.2M go?






Cayman Islands
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
121. BaltimoreBrian
10:54 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
Quoting 74. RevElvis:
Can't embed youtube video (I've tried the old / new embed codes several different ways - used to work - doesn't anymore?)


I found this site and it works well for me.
I see others have provided you sites.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
120. ColoradoBob1
10:52 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
Quoting 117. no1der:


Ahem... So where did the $1.2M go?
He's not running an expensive field research program in some remote corner of the world, I doubt he's supporting any students or post-docs, he doesn't actually analyze anything but numbers so there's no lab time anywhere.
His home institution might have taken 40-60% of the grants, in overhead, but the remainder, being private money, likely didn't come with any of the usage restrictions that NSF funds carry...





I'm sure congress will look into this.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
119. ColoradoBob1
10:44 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
Personal observation: what a sniveling little weasel...

Or a baby sucking on a corporate tit. But not a "greedy grant groupie" looking at gettin' eaten by black flies on the tundra.

Because nothing pays as well as studying the march of woody plants into the tundra, there's your big money.

I had a helicopter pilot explain black flies to me once, you can't place the bug spray on our crouch , it's too strong for those tissues. So every morning they feast on you, in your most tender parts .

But you get rich beyond your wildest dreams counting musk ox.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
118. Patrap
10:25 PM GMT on February 21, 2015


I was born Jan 15th 1960

The CO2 ppm then was 315ppm

Thats a 85 ppm increase since then.

Thats a bad trend anyway anyone slices it.

CO2 Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
117. no1der
10:24 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
Quoting 113. Neapolitan:

Another Big Oil shill masquerading as a "climate expert" has bitten the dust: Willie "It's only the sun" Soon looks to be well on his way to going down for the count:

[...]
"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as 'deliverables' that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."


Read the whole piece here.

Ahem... So where did the $1.2M go?
He's not running an expensive field research program in some remote corner of the world, I doubt he's supporting any students or post-docs, he doesn't actually analyze anything but numbers so there's no lab time anywhere.
His home institution might have taken 40-60% of the grants, in overhead, but the remainder, being private money, likely didn't come with any of the usage restrictions that NSF funds carry...


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
116. BaltimoreBrian
10:19 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
My guess is that the last time the Keeling daily average C02 reading is below 400 ppm will be November 8, 2016. And the first daily average of 500 ppm or more will be April 23, 2049.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
115. ColoradoBob1
9:23 PM GMT on February 21, 2015

113. Neapolitan -

Joe Romm posted yesterday about the fact that heat records are still out running cold records, His stuff goes out to Yahoo science feed ( There's oxymoron for ya ) , and he was swamped with the usual stuff that yahoos write.

2 memes as always -

"Real Science" is being perverted.
Money is the real reason they are seeing news they don't accept. The "greedy grant group" sucking at the big government tit.

Ironic that "Little Willie" proves both points. Except "Little Willie" has rather large corporate nipple.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
114. ColoradoBob1
9:08 PM GMT on February 21, 2015
Quoting 83. Xandra:

NWS Salt Lake City:

We're running out of adjectives, but it's worth repeating: February has been incredible!



(Click for larger image)




SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The National Weather Service says the summer of 2013 was the hottest on record in Salt Lake City.

The average temperature of 80.7 breaks the previous record of 79.3 sent in 2007. The National Weather Service considers June to August as summer. Temperatures come from a gauge at the Salt Lake City International Airport.

This is the latest record to fall during the searing summer in Utah's largest city. Salt Lake City has recorded the most days ever of 95 degrees or higher, and the second-most days of triple digit heat.

July was the hottest month on record in Salt Lake City.

The three hottest summers in Salt Lake City have come in the past six years; and the five hottest within the past two decades.

Link

2013 was the hottest summer from Salt Lake all the way to Reno, the entire northern Great Basin all the way up to Boise, Idaho . I suspect the same region is now recording the hottest winter, or very near to it.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 164 - 114

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

Top of Page

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.