Nominations are open
The envious green nenner Stoat marks the festive beginning of the end at Climate Feedback and tosses a friendly brick Eli's way. So we here by declare name that blogger season open. Send in your cards, letters and emails with those folk you would enjoy seeing contribute to Climate Feedback if it ever makes it back. Remember Nature is a big noise, so aim high. Rules of the game are if they blog they are out.
Eli's list would start with Mario Molina and Paul Cruitzen who are still very active. The Rabett would enjoy hearing from a bunch of atmospheric chemists like Susan Solomon, Guy Brasseur, Maggie Tolbert on aerosols, Pat Hatcher on biogeochemistry, some english wildmen like Richard Wayne (whose textbook I particularly like) and Tony Hynes on gas phase chemistry, and a US one, Mike Kurylo, and on and on.
Posts
26 comments:
I would like to see prominent people with big ideas blogging on the solutions and policy issues.
I'm tired of seeing Pielke with his hurricanes are not....blah, blah, blah, crap.
It's time for some legitimate people with real ideas and creative solutions.
Mus musculus anonymouse
Whoa....Um, I just read the Stoat's post. He's basically giving you the credit for scalping Pielke and bringing down the blog.
Can I offer a suggestion? Take that Pielke scalp and salt it down. Then tack it onto the side of barn, somewhere in the sun, so it cures nicely.
Otherwise it may set up with some mold and start to smell.
Mus musculus anonymouse
Eli is just an numble Rabett. Tim Lambert is a geometric shape with sharp points.
Though Rabett and Lambert acted as amplifiers, it was Pielke himself who actually initiated the positive negative feedback process in this case.
Um, things seem to be getting out of hand. CF isn't down, and neither is Pielke, as far as I can see.
Belette is right. I went a bit over the top. At second glance, it does appear that Pielke Jr. has retained most of his hair.
This is probably just a partial scalping which Roger will patch up nicely with a bit of cosmetic surgery.
Unfortunately, Eli, your small piece of Pielke's hide will probably not amount to much once it dries and cures. Little more than an item you can hang off your keychain.
Mus musculus anonymouse
Perhaps it can be exchanged for a lucky rabbit's foot?
It's a peculiar thing, that blog. It's MO is quite clever, in theory, but highly dangerous, in practice. Have any mice started to prepare their essays yet? Homework is due in soon...
"Um, things seem to be getting out of hand. CF isn't down, and neither is Pielke, as far as I can see."
While that is strictly true, I think the real measure of success/failure is to be had by looking at the challenges to Pielke's posts throughout the blogosphere (and even in the comments on Climate Feedback).
When every Tom Dick and Harry with a blog can readily poke holes in your arguments -- and does -- you end up with a black eye, and so does the blog you are posting on.
So, from that standpoint, it is a failure. I'd say that Nature has a reputation to live up to and they have not done so with the posts so far -- no even close.
Given all the possibilities for posts to a climate blog, it is simply ridiculous that Nature would even allow a post devoted to criticizing a NY Times article that talked about the update of the "plant hardiness" maps -- which almost certainly correctly reflect a warming trend throughout most of the US in recent decades.
That is particularly true when that criticism was based on what happened in one small section of a single IPCC map (out of many) -- a map that actually showed temperature increases over most of the US (most of the planet, in fact!) for the period in question.
To say nothing of the fact that the one map that was picked in this case referred to temperature change from the beginning of the last century to the present -- not to the recent time period that is most relevant to the "hardiness map" update.
That simply is not up to the standard that Nature has established for itself over the years.
Exactly the point. They can and should have done better....Even the house mice are disappointed and you know what kind and accepting characters they are.
Semi-OT, but RP Sr. seems to have gone throughly off the rails.
Mice, please don't get started on Pielke Sr.
There's only so much Pielkiness I can handle in one day.
Mus musculus anonymouse
How old is he? Maybe he's getting ready to "go emeritus".
I find if you don't bother with the Jr/Sr, you can cover both bases effortlessly.
"Even the house mice are disappointed and you know what kind and accepting characters they are."
Perhaps you meant "kind of excepting"
...as in "except, you can't really be saying that, can you?"
I think the real topic is too much hard core science blogging.
We need more metastasizing. Or just more meta. How about a blog that blogs abouth eth bloggers who blog about the blogs that discuss the people involves in climate blogging. Maybe science will host it.
As long as we continue to talk about the people who avoid posting actual content by describing what other people attributed to their opinions on science commentary, the less substantial issues will remain unaddressed.
How about a blog that blogs abouth eth bloggers who blog about the blogs that discuss the people involves in climate blogging"
I thought we had already had one of those -- Prometheus.
My mistake. Thats a blog that blogs abouth eth bloggers who blog about the blogs that discuss the people involves in blogging about climate blogging"
So, you're right. We still need one of those -- what you said.
NASA Study Suggests Extreme Summer Warming in the Future
"A new study by NASA scientists suggests that greenhouse-gas warming may raise average summer temperatures in the eastern United States nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2080s."
-- Horatio Algeranon
By the way. There is a good animation showing how temperatures changed over the past century throughout the world on the above NASA page.
It's pretty clear why the southeastern US (the small region that Pielke focused on in in his criticism of the NY times "plant hardiness" map piece) showed slight cooling over the entire period from 1901 - 2005.
It stared out relatively warm in that region at the beginning of the century and showed cooling later on (mostly in the 70's).
Most telling -- and supporting of the Times claims (ie, contra-Pielke) -- is what happened in the SE over the last quarter century: warming.
That was precisely the period for which the the IPCC has attributed most of the warming over the globe to human casues.
-- Horatio Algeranon
Ya' know, if Mr. Algernon keeps picking on Pielke, then we might not get our friends from Boulder to come over here and comment.
Mus musculus anonymouse
P.S. By the way, it's been weeks since Pielke has been quoted in the press. He must be getting jumpy. Probably having difficulties sleeping at night.
What I think we, the public, also need to learn more about is the effects of global warming. The denialists have been reduced to mindless bleating, and enough of the public accept the science in some way or another. Now we need more information on the effects of warming, on plants, animals, insects, weather, sea level, etc.
With that, we can make better decisions about what needs to be done.
guthrie: there's a stack of useful stuff on this, from the UK perspective, on the UKCIP website - even down to regionalising forecasts and applying climate models to your own business. I've no idea if there is an equivalent in the USA; or maybe my memory is going.
Regards,
Ahhh, so there is.
But I find it poorly laid out and they seem to want me to join (for free) to login. Which is a step too far.
What we need is someone who knows what they are talking about making blog posts on the subjects. Ordinary scientifically aware people like myself can only absorb and regurgitate so much at a time, and may miss some of the key points of the data.
Guthrie
I'd have to say that the people at Rocky Mountain Institute know far more about addressing issues of emissions and sustainability in general than the people running the vast majority of blogs.
The primary difference is that anyone can start a blog and speculate about this that and the other. One need not have any training or expertise in the area one is talking about. Hence, you end up with nonsense in most cases.
RMI has been studying these issues and working on solutions for a very long time -- and the people are actually experts on resource and sustainability issues.
Blogs are great for opinion, but I'd have to say that with the exception of Eli's and a few others, most are not particularly good when it comes to providing useful information about how to address issues like global warming -- at least not the ones I have seen.
-- Horatio Algeranon
Exactly Horatio. (Do you have one arm and one eye?) Blogs are a useful means of communication to the public, and also offer a resource for the use of those of us engaged in debate with denialists and uninformed members of the public. We can for example point to many posts on Real climate saying "This explains it so much better than I can", or quote people or scientific papers on it. Then if, for example, they still insist that the global temperature has been decreasing since 1998, you write them off as a denialist.
No, I have the other arm and the other eye.
-HA
Post a Comment